Category: Uncategorized

The barbarians are within the gates:

Since the riots of November 2005, we know that the French government is not able to protect the French citizens. Instead of taking legal action against criminals, the government rewarded rioters.

Today (march 22, 2006) we learn that this government has let 1,000 years of cultural and religious legacy to become smoke and ashes.

Barbarians and savages entered in the library of “l’Ecole des Chartes” (100,000 books) in the Sorbonne, and destroyed writings of abbeys of Île-de-France containing all the official documents since the middle age.

This is absolutely nauseating. But in addition to demonstrating the barbarism of those the diversity crowd considers the equal of Western Culture, it serves as an indication of why the elite, with their dreams of a boot in the face forever, need barbarians to do their dirty work. In order to build a static future, it is necessary to wipe out the memory of the dynamic past. What the rulers do not dare legislate, they can arrange for by proxy. Then, when the situation is completely out of control, they can step in and offer order.

And the fools will embrace those responsible as saviors.

UPDATE – some commenters on the site linked are saying that this is a fake and there was no burning of books at the library. I’ve just sent an email to a friend of mine who happens to be in Paris, so we should be able to discover the truth within a day or so. One reason for skepticism: the name of the library is “L’Ecole nationale des chartes” not “l’Ecole des Chartes”.

As long as we’re considering how migration changes the culture:

Thousands of immigration advocates marched through downtown Los Angeles in one of the largest demonstrations for any cause in recent U.S. history. More than 500,000 protesters – demanding that Congress abandon attempts to make illegal immigration a felony and to build more walls along the border – surprised police who estimated the crowd size using aerial photographs and other techniques, police Cmdr. Louis Gray Jr. said.

Wearing white T-shirts to symbolize peace, the demonstrators chanted “Mexico!” “USA!” and “Si se puede,” an old Mexican-American civil rights shout that means “Yes, we can.”

If they’re all right there, why not round them up and march them back home? The complete idiocy of the Bush administration can be summed up thusly: the American people can’t build a wall or expel 12 million illegal aliens from a country where they have complete authority, but they can forcibly change the culture and religion of 1,000 million Muslims. That sounds convincing to me, how about you?

The truth is that Jorge Bush is aiding and abetting a mass invasion of the United States. He is a traitor to his country and will eminently the deserve the impeachment he will face, (which will almost certainly be on different, less deserving grounds), should Republicans receive the electoral beating they have been begging for in November.

The amusing thing is that Republicans are in danger of losing Congress primarily because of their pursuit of so-called pragamatism. Leaders who attempt to lead by following the crowd never get anywhere.

Discuss, as always, amongst yourselves:

MIGRAZIONI
Umberto Eco
La Bustina Di Minerva, 1990

Martedi scorso, mentre tutti i giornali dedicavano numerosi articoli alle tensioni fiorentine, su La Repubblica appariva una vignetta di Bucchi: rappresentava due silhouette, un’Africa enorme e incombente, un’Italia minuscola: accanto, una Firenze che non era rappresentabile neppure con un puntino (e sotta c’era scritto “Dove vogliono piu polizia”). Sul Corriere della Sera si riassumeva la storia delle mutazioni climatiche sul nostro pianeta dal 4000 a.C. a oggi. E da questa rassegna emergeva che a mano a mano la fertilità o l’aridità di un continente provocavano immense migrazioni che hanno cambiato il volto del pianeta e creato le civiltà che oggi conosciamo o per esperienza diretto o per recostruzione storica.

Oggi, di fronte al cosiddetto problemi degli extracomunitari (grazioso eufemismo che, come è stato già notato, dovrebbe compredere anche gli svizzeri e i turisti texani), problema che interessa tutte le nazioni europee, continuiamo a ragionare come se ci trovassimo di fronte a un fenomeno di immigrazione. Si ha immigrazione quando alcune centinaia di migliaia di cittadini di un paese sovrappopolato vogliano andare a vivere in un altro paese (per esempio gli italiani in Australia). Ed è naturale che il paese ospitante debba regolare il flusso di immigrazione secondo le proprio capacità di accoglienza, come va da sè che abbia il diritto di arrestare o espellere gli immigrati che delinquono – così come d’altra parte ha il dovere di arrestare, se delinquono, sia i propri cittadini che i turisti ricchi che portano valuta pregiata.

Ma oggi, in Europa, non ci troviamo di fronte a un fenomeno di immigrazione. Ci troviamo di fronte a un fenomeno migratorio. Certo non ha l’aspetto violento e travolgente delle invasioni dei popoli germanici in Italia, Francia e Spagna, non ha la virulenza dell’espansione araba dopo l’Egira, non ha la lentezza di quei flussi imprecisi che hanno portato popoli scuri dall’Asia all’Oceania e forse alle Americhe, muovendosi sopra lingua di terra ormai sommerse. Ma è un altro capitolo della storia del pianeta che ha visto le civiltà formarsi e dissolversi sull’onda di grandi flussi migratori, prima dall’Ovest verso l’Est (ma ne sappiamo pochissimo), poi dall’Est verso l’Ovest iniziando con un movimento millenario dalle sorgenti dell’Indo alle Colonne d’Ercole, e poi in quattro secoli dalle Colonne d’Ercole alle California e alla Terra del Fuoco.

Ora la migrazione, inavvertibile perche assume l’aspetto di un viaggio in aereo e di una sosta all’ufficio stranieri della questura, o dello sbarco clandestino, avviene da un Sud sempre più arido e affamato verso il Nord. Sembra una immigrazione, ma è una migrazione, è un evento storico di portata incalcolabile, non avviene per transito di orde che non lasciano più crescer l’erba dove sono passati i loro cavali, ma a grappoli discreti e sottomessi, e pero non prenderà secoli o millenni, ma decenni. È come tutte le grandi migrazioni avrà come risultato finale un riassetto etnico delle terre di destinazione, un inesorabile cambiamento dei costumi, una inarrestabile ibridazione che mutera statisticamente il colore della pelle, dei capelli, degli occhi delle poplazioni, cosi come non molti normanni hanno installato in Sicilia dei tipi umani biondi e con gli occhi azzurri.

Le grandi migrazioni, almeno in periodo storico, sono temute: dapprincipio si tenta di evitarle, gli imperatori romani erigono un vallum qua e uno là, mandano le quadrate legioni in avanti per sottomettere gli intrusi che avanzano; poi vengono a patti e disciplinano le prime installazioni, quindi allargano la cittadinanza romana a tutti i sudditi dell’impero, ma alla fine sulle rovine della romanita si formano i cosiddetti regni romano-barbarici che sono l’orgine dei nostri paesi europei, delle lingue che oggi orgogliosamente parliamo, delle nostre istituzioni politiche e sociali. Quando sulle autostrade lombarde troviamo località che si chiamano italianamente Usmate, Biandrate, abbiamo dimenticato che sono desinenze longobarde. D’altra parte, da dove venivano quei sorrisi etruschi che ritroviamo ancora su tanti volti dell’Italia centrale?

Le grande migrazioni non si arrestano. Ci si prepara semplicimente a vivere una nuova stagione della cultura afroeuropea.

Last Tuesday, while all the newspapers were dedicating numerous articles to the tense events in Florence, there appeared in La Repubblica a cartoon by Bucchi: it showed two silhouettes, an enormous Africa looming over a miniscule Italy; next to it was a Florence that was represented only by a small dot. The caption was: “Where do we want more police?” Meanwhile, the Corriere della Sera summed up the story of the climactic changes on our planet over the last six thousand years. From this review it emerged that the fertility or the aridity of a continent inspired vast migrations that changed the face of the planet and created the civilizations that today we know, experience directly or study through history.

Today, with regards to the so-called problems of the “foreigners” (a gracious euphemism that, as has already been noted, must also include the Swiss and the tourists from Texas), an issue that is of interest to all of the nations of Europe, we continue to reason as if we find ourself facing a phenomenon of immigration. One has immigration when some hundreds of thousands of citizens of one overpopulated country want to go to live in another country, (for example, the Italians in Australia). And it is natural that the hosting country must regulate the flow of immigration according to its ability to incorporate them, which is why it has the right to arrest or expel those immigrants that prove criminal, just as it has to arrest its own criminal citizens who rob the rich tourists carrying their precious valuables.

But today, in Europe, we do not find ourselves facing a phenomenon of immigration. We find ourselves facing a phenomenon of migration. To be sure, it does not have the violent and sweeping aspect of the Germanic invasions in Italy, France and Spain, it does not have the virulence of the Arab expansions following the Hegira, nor the slowness of the imprecise flows that carried the dark peoples from Asia to Polynesia and perhaps to America. But it is another chapter in the story of the planet that has seen civilizations form and dissolve on the waves of the great migratory flows, first from the West to the East (but we know very little about that), after from the East to the West beginning with the millennial movement of the surge from the Indus to the Pillars of Hercules, (the straights of Gibraltar), and afterwards in the fourth century from the Pillars of Hercules to California and Tierra del Fuego, (Argentina and Patagonia).

Now the migration, unnoticed because it comes in the guise of an airplane trip and a stop at the immigration office at the police headquarters, or perhaps by a clandestine boat, comes to the North from an arid and hungry South. It feels like an immigration, but it is a migration, a historic event of incalcuable scope. They do not travel in such a horde that the grass will no longer grow where their horses have trampled, but in discrete clusters that attract little notice, nevertheless, the process will not take centuries or millenia but decades. And like all the great migrations, it will finally result in a rearrangement of the ethnicity of the land of their destination, an inexorable change of costumes, an unarrestable hybridization that noticeably mutates the color of the skin, the hair and the eyes of the population, as even a small number of Normans left behind their blond hair and blue eyes in Sicily.

The great migrations, at least in historic periods, were feared: at first they tried to avoid them, the Roman emperors erected one rampart here and another on
e there, they sent the legions ahead to defeat the advancing intruders, after they came to bargain and discipline the first settlements, therefore offering Roman citizenship to all the subjects of the Empire, but in the end, the ruin of the Romans formed the so-called romano-barbarian kingdoms that were the origins of our European countries, of the languages that we jealously speak today, of our political and social institutions. When on the Lombardian highway, we find places that we call, in Italian fashion names like Usmate or Biandrate, we have forgotten that they were descendants of the Longobards. On the other hand, from where do we get those Etruscan Smiles we find so often in central Italy?

The great migrations cannot be stopped. We simply must prepare ourselves to live in a new season of Afro-European culture.

Tpaine summarizes Plato in an attempt to disprove the Divine Command theory of morality:

(1) If divine command theory is true then either (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, or (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God.
(2) If (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, then they are morally good independent of God’s will.
(3) It is not the case that morally good acts are morally good independent of God’s will.
Therefore:
(4) It is not the case that (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good.
(5) If (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God, then there is no reason either to care about God’s moral goodness or to worship him.
(6) There are reasons both to care about God’s moral goodness and to worship him.
Therefore:
(7) It is not the case that (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God.
Therefore:
(8) Divine command theory is false.

The Bible clearly states on numerous occasions that (ii) is the Christian viewpoint. However, point (5) “If (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God, then there is no reason either to care about God’s moral goodness or to worship him” is half false.

It is true that there is no reason for the Christian to concern himself with the question of God’s moral goodness, as God makes clear when speaking from the whirlwind to Job, and as both Jesus Christ and Paul teach, Man is incapable of understanding, much less judging, God. However, there are a plethora of reasons to worship God nevertheless, thus demonstrating the flaw in Plato’s argument, (or at least Tpaine’s summary of it):

1. Gratitude for His gift of free will. He created us and set us free to reject Him if we so choose.
2. Fear of His almighty power.
3. Respect for His awesome majesty.
4. Desire for the eternal life He promises those who follow His Son.
5. Protection against the powers and authorities of a fallen world.
6. Understanding that following His commands are of material benefit to us now.
7. Love for the love – insofar as we understand it within our limits – He has shown us in our lives.

Ergo, there is no conflict between (5) and (6) and the conclusions in (7) and (8) fall apart. Care to attempt a counter-refutation or would you prefer to try a different tact?

Morgan wonders about spousal abuse:

But would your Voxinian utopia have any legal protections for victims of legitimate spousal abuse? In case you haven’t noticed, there are evil men and women out there who do find their way into a relationship. If everytime Ted has a bad day at work he comes home and beats Sally black and blue in front of the kids, what recourse should she have. Should a woman like that not be able to take her children and expect some support from the father?

And for the sake of argument we’re going to assume this is *true* abuse.

A reasonable question deserves a thoughtful response, and that last qualifier indicates that it is a reasonable question instead of the usual attempt to change the subject. Most divorce-related “abuse” is fake, but we merely acknowledge that point, mark it as irrelevant to the question and move on….

If the abuse is both physical and genuine, which is to say proven in a criminal court of law, and if there is no history of the purported victim either a) engaging in similar physically abusive behavior or b) engaging in adultery, then it is quite reasonable to consider allowing for some degree of child support and punitive “alimony”. Child support should be based on average financial requirements for the historical area of residence, not the ludicrous “manner to which the spoiled brats are accustomed”, and the “alimony” should be considered a species of fine that is paid directly to the victim over a period of five years and would depend entirely on the egregiousness of the offense(s).

If a woman – or a man, for that matter – wants a divorce over getting slapped once without sustaining any injury, that’s fine, but will have to make do with whatever fine a minor assault misdemeanor commands. And regardless of the precise level of financial penalty, the law should go both ways. If a woman slaps a man, she’ll be due for precisely the same damages that a man would owe for doing the same thing. The more serious the injury inflicted, the steeper the damages, of course.

As others have pointed out, self-defense is always an option, but lethal self-defense is not a justifiable response to most of what is now considered “abuse”. The reason a high, criminal standard of proof is necessary is that women are already being coached to produce false “evidence” of their abuse for the benefit of the fake family “courts”, including action videos and fraudulent witnesses.

MM is hung up on fairness:

I’ve still yet to hear any good reason I should subsidize someone else’s reproductive choices. And this is from someone that would like to have kids!

How about: because your society will die and your nation will disappear in your grandchildren’s lifetimes if you don’t?

Actually, the only “subsidy” needed is to refrain from taxing married parents. That alone would likely do the trick. Four kids and a wife, no income or property taxes until the youngest turns 18. And no inheritance tax period.

With a deal like that, men would be proposing to their parking lot attendants about 15 minutes after receiving their first paycheck. It would also solve 20 percent of the divorce problem. Banning alimony and child support would eliminate most of the remaining 80 percent.

Mark Steyn, despite his neocon sympathies, is perhaps the finest commentator writing today:

In a more culturally confident age, the British in India were faced with the practice of “suttee” – the tradition of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. Gen. Sir Charles Napier was impeccably multicultural:

“You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: When men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks, and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”

In the administration’s response to the Abdul Rahman outrage, we see that Secular America is as hapless as it is sterile. It is past time for Christian America to stop worrying about what others think and exert its spiritual, intellectual and financial muscle.

If the law bans the Law, then the law is invalid. Mightier empires than Secular America have fallen before the name of Jesus Christ. This is not a call to set up a theocracy and command people to worship God, it is written that will happen eventually in its own time. Secular America cannot survive without the tacit support of Christian America. It is time to withdraw that support, to refuse to be complicit and to refuse to cooperate in the death spiral.

Do not participate in the public schools. Do not spend money on culturally poisonous entertainment. Encourage your sons to be men and your daughters to be women… if they want to make their own choices, inform them that they will do so without your financial support. How many women would be headed for a barren life as a professional cube-dweller without a complicit Mommy and Daddy paying for the degree that made it possible? How many men would have married a girl if a complicit Mommy and Daddy hadn’t told him that he was too young to even think about it and needed to play the field?

The irony is that while Secular America has little to fear from Christian America, (except in its ability to commit cultural suicide), it has much to fear from the inevitable consequences of its own actions. Its fate is already sealed; the question that remains is if it will drag Christian America down with it.

Americans don’t like atheists so much:

American’s increasing acceptance of religious diversity doesn’t extend to those who don’t believe in a god, according to a national survey by researchers in the University of Minnesota’s department of sociology.

From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.

Well, let’s see, they want to ban Christmas, are constantly trying to tell everyone else what to do, always assume that they are more intelligent and educated than everyone else on the mere basis of their beliefs and have a historically murderous track record that is second only to Genghis Khan.

There are some delightful exceptions, of course but I’ve found that American atheists tend to have social skills that hover around the Chess Club level, just above the hairier man-hating feminists. Unlike European atheists, who couldn’t care less whether you believe in Jesus Christ, Allah or Mighty Cthulhu, American atheists will bring up either a) the Spanish Inquisition, b) the Crusades, c) the purported Christianity of Adolf Hitler, or d) the Thirty-Years War within five minutes of hearing that incindiary word, “hello”.

No one minds agnostics, partly because they’re perfectly willing to admit that they have no idea and partly because they tend to keep their suspicion that you don’t either to themselves. Atheists, on the other hand, seem to have nearly as strong a propensity for proselytizing as Jehovah’s Witnesses,

And, of course, they SAY their disbelief in a god doesn’t mean that they have no morals or character, (although they can never explain what their carefully thought-out morality is based upon), but then, it’s not as if they believe they’re ever going to be held to account for lying about it either.

There was an article today in the Sueddeutsche Zeitung that discussed the recent statistic that 40% or more female college graduates here in Germany are still childless by age 40. And the thinking is that the fault lies in lack of a suitable mate. Male college grads want spouses young and pretty (not that hard to find) and the female college grads want men even better educated and more successful than themselves (apparently harder to find).

The author of the article posited that childlessness leads to unhappiness and I agree with her. What will you advise your own daughters?

If I had a daughter, I’d tell her to go to college, get a degree and then pursue an advanced degree and a career. That should leave her a whole three years, between 27 and 30, to quickly get married and start having children. Of course, if she makes a bad dating choice or two during that time frame, those three years will flash quickly by and she’ll either have to settle or find herself entirely SOL.

But then, writing memos, making Powerpoint presentations, attending speed-dating events and feeding cats is entirely satisfying and is really okay and while maybe it’s not what she wanted she’s still in a really good place right now and her therapist thinks she’s doing fine now that they’ve got the dosages straight… or so I’ve been told.

This should get very interesting in the next ten years, when most men figure it out and start scrapping the liberal arts scam altogether in favor of technical education and Internet degrees that cost less and take less time. Women, of course, will continue to go for those sociology and poly-sci degrees because college is “so important” in much the same way that Hillary Clinton “has done so much”.

By the way, here’s one feminist’s solution to the problem. One guess as to where she finds the answer… (hint, it begins with a G):

If politicians want babies to kiss on the campaign trail, they’re going to have to ante up, starting with part-time jobs with full benefits, tax equity, paid maternity leave, Social Security benefits for stay-at-home parents, and subsidized child-care centers—with well-paid teachers. Even more important, they’ll have to finally admit that the minivan does not qualify as a child-care center, and make the school day match the work day—complete with PE, music, sports, and other enriching activities on site. (Think of the traffic jams that could be eliminated!) Men must sign binding contracts to start doing laundry, mastering the vacuum cleaner, and driving the carpool a few times a week. Then—and only then—should women agree to fire up the oven. After a few years without new life to inspire, project their expectations upon, and inherit their empires, men just might come around. And if they don’t, childfree women will have plenty of time to take over the world and do the job for them.

Actually, that Japanese politician’s idea of banning women from higher education would cost far less and achieve much better results faster, but our ever-brilliant feminists will be wearing burqahs and living under sharia before they’d admit that. After all, if it’s obvious and based on historical reality, it’s probably too simple a solution. It makes much more since to attempt drastically changing society by force, especially since their previous attempts have been working out so well for them.