By Audrey Kauffmann Audrey Kauffmann – Sun Oct 17, 11:50 am ET
BERLIN (AFP) – Germany's attempt to create a multi-cultural society has failed completely, Chancellor Angela Merkel said at the weekend, calling on the country's immigrants to learn German and adopt Christian values.
Merkel weighed in for the first time in a blistering debate sparked by a central bank board member saying the country was being made "more stupid" by poorly educated and unproductive Muslim migrants.
"Multikulti", the concept that "we are now living side by side and are happy about it," does not work, Merkel told a meeting of younger members of her conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party at Potsdam near Berlin.
"This approach has failed, totally," she said, adding that immigrants should integrate and adopt Germany's culture and values.
"We feel tied to Christian values. Those who don't accept them don't have a place here," said the chancellor.
"Subsidizing immigrants" isn't sufficient, Germany has the right to "make demands" on them, she added, such as mastering the language of Goethe and abandoning practices such as forced marriages.
Merkel spoke a week after talks with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in which they pledged to do more to improve the often poor integration record of Germany's 2.5-million-strong Turkish community.
Turkish President Abdullah Gul, in a weekend interview, also urged the Turkish community living in Germany to master the language of their adopted country.
"When one doesn't speak the language of the country in which one lives that doesn't serve anyone, neither the person concerned, the country, nor the society," the Turkish president told the Suedeutsche Zeitung.
"That is why I tell them at every opportunity that they should learn German, and speak it fluently and without an accent. That should start at nurseries."
German President Christian Wulff was due for a five-day visit to Turkey and talks with the country's leaders on Monday.
The immigration debate has at times threatened to split Merkel's conservative party, and she made noises to both wings of the debate.
While saying that the government needed to encourage the training of Muslim clerics in Germany, Merkel said "Islam is part of Germany", echoing the recent comments of Wulff, a liberal voice in the party.
Horst Seehofer, the leader of the CDU's Bavarian sister party, CSU, who represents the right-wing, recently said Germany did not "need more immigrants from different cultures like the Turks and Arabs" who are "more difficult" to integrate.
While warning against "immigration that weighs down on our social system", Merkel said Germany needed specialists from overseas to keep the pace of its economic development.
According to the head of the German chamber of commerce and industry, Hans Heinrich Driftmann, Germany is in urgent need of about 400,000 engineers and qualified workers, whose lack is knocking about one percent off the country's growth rate.
The integration of Muslims has been a hot button issue since August when a member of Germany's central bank sparked outrage by saying the country was being made "more stupid" by poorly educated and unproductive Muslim migrants with headscarves.
The banker, Thilo Sarrazin, has since resigned but his book on the subject -- "Germany Does Itself In" -- has flown off the shelves, and polls showed considerable sympathy for some of his views.
A recent study by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation think tank showed around one-third of Germans feel the country is being "over-run by foreigners" and the same percentage feel foreigners should be sent home when jobs are scarce.
Nearly 60 percent of the 2,411 people polled thought the around four million Muslims in Germany should have their religious practices "significantly curbed."
Far-right attitudes are found not only at the extremes of German society, but "to a worrying degree at the centre of society," the think tank said in its report.
"Hardly eight weeks have passed since publication of Sarrazin's theory of decline, and the longer the debate continues to a lower level it falls," the weekly Der Spiegel commented Sunday.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Good Reading
Professor and author Victor Davis Hanson is one of my favorite commentators on our society and politics. Here’s the link to his website "private papers" on which he posts some very good essays. Enjoy
http://www.victorhanson.com
http://www.victorhanson.com
Thinking Aloud
My father (who I believe voted for BHO) and I had a conversation the other week which started out with discussion of the oil spill in the Gulf and rambled thru a number of hot button topics. I had at some point likened the BHO regime to the Carter presidency in that I believe BHO to be an abject failure as President, perhaps even more so than Carter. While Pop thought that indeed BHO was a failure and probably destined to be a one term President he said that Carter & BHO were failures for two different reasons and in a sentence distilled not only the reason for BHO’s inevitable failure but the reason that so many cannot stand the man. Carter failed because while a bright man, he appeared weak and incapable of making a firm decision. On the other hand BHO fails because he (and his wife) thinks that they’re the two smartest people on earth and that if you disagree with them you’re an ignorant backwoods racist.
That to me is the heart of the matter. BHO (and his cronies Reid, Pelosi, etc) are so smug, so condescending, have so little respect for the American people or the Constitution that they have alienated, enraged, motivated the American people into a frenzy of anti-incumbent, anti-government, anti-administration furor such as has not been seen in this country since Nixon.
I had lunch with an old friend the other day. She’s young, urban, college student and as you can imagine a leftist. Not one of those actively radical jerk-offs who bristles and blusters whenever anyone expresses a thought outside of approved Party dogma, but one who has accepted as gospel the Party line on abortion, separation of Church & State, global warming, etc. While our conversation didn’t set out to be a debate of politics it did eventually wind itself to that subject. This provided epiphanies for both of us. Mine was when I realized during a discussion of the Supreme Court and Separation of Church & State that my friend had never read the Constitution! Hers came when I handed a copy to her, opened to the Bill of Rights. She had no idea that the 1st Amendment, which though unread she regarded as inviolate contained the only mention of the Federal Government’s powers or rather lack thereof regarding religion. Nor did she know that the 10th Amendment gave to us and to the States all the powers and rights not specifically granted to the Federal government!
This ladies & gents is my 2nd epiphany that our educational system has failed, possibly by design to teach children about their Rights, about our Constitution and about how the Founding Fathers envisioned that this great nation would function. We cannot win support; reverse the destruction, save our Republic as long as so many people don’t know the truth. Many of the Left’s supporters are simply ignorant of the facts. We need to educate ourselves and fight the myths and lies by educating others, friends, family, whomever.
That to me is the heart of the matter. BHO (and his cronies Reid, Pelosi, etc) are so smug, so condescending, have so little respect for the American people or the Constitution that they have alienated, enraged, motivated the American people into a frenzy of anti-incumbent, anti-government, anti-administration furor such as has not been seen in this country since Nixon.
I had lunch with an old friend the other day. She’s young, urban, college student and as you can imagine a leftist. Not one of those actively radical jerk-offs who bristles and blusters whenever anyone expresses a thought outside of approved Party dogma, but one who has accepted as gospel the Party line on abortion, separation of Church & State, global warming, etc. While our conversation didn’t set out to be a debate of politics it did eventually wind itself to that subject. This provided epiphanies for both of us. Mine was when I realized during a discussion of the Supreme Court and Separation of Church & State that my friend had never read the Constitution! Hers came when I handed a copy to her, opened to the Bill of Rights. She had no idea that the 1st Amendment, which though unread she regarded as inviolate contained the only mention of the Federal Government’s powers or rather lack thereof regarding religion. Nor did she know that the 10th Amendment gave to us and to the States all the powers and rights not specifically granted to the Federal government!
This ladies & gents is my 2nd epiphany that our educational system has failed, possibly by design to teach children about their Rights, about our Constitution and about how the Founding Fathers envisioned that this great nation would function. We cannot win support; reverse the destruction, save our Republic as long as so many people don’t know the truth. Many of the Left’s supporters are simply ignorant of the facts. We need to educate ourselves and fight the myths and lies by educating others, friends, family, whomever.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
How the Feminists’ “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Islam
This is from the Brussels Journal, forwarded to me by a friend, who is doing research for an essay on the failures of feminism, the betrayal of that movement and its role in the downfall of western culture.
How the Feminists’ “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Islam
From the desk of Fjordman on Mon, 2006-09-04 15:39
Some commentators like to point out that many of the most passionate and bravest defenders of the West are women, citing Italian writer Oriana Fallaci and others as examples. But women like Ms. Fallaci, brave as they might be, are not representative of all Western women. If you look closely, you will notice that, on average, Western women are actually more supportive of Multiculturalism and massive immigration than are Western men.
I got many comments on my posts about Muslim anti-female violence in Scandinavia. Several of my readers asked what Scandinavian men are doing about this. What happened to those Vikings, anyway? Did they drink too much mead in Valhalla? Despite the romantic mystique surrounding them today, the Vikings were for the most part savage barbarians. However, I doubt they would have looked the other way while their daughters were harassed by Muslims. In some ways, this makes present-day Scandinavians worse barbarians than the Vikings ever were.
One of the reasons for this lack of response is a deliberate and pervasive censorship in the mainstream media, to conceal the full scale of the problem from the general public. However, I suspect that the most important reason has to do with the extreme anti-masculine strand of feminism that has permeated Scandinavia for decades. The male protective instinct doesn’t take action because Scandinavian women have worked tirelessly to eradicate it, together with everything else that smacks of traditional masculinity. Because of this, feminism has greatly weakened Scandinavia, and perhaps Western civilization as whole.
The only major political party in Norway that has voiced any serious opposition to the madness of Muslim immigration is the rightwing Progress Party. This is a party which receives about two thirds or even 70% male votes. At the opposite end of the scale we have the Socialist Left party, with two thirds or 70% female votes. The parties most critical of the current immigration are typically male parties, while those who praise the Multicultural society are dominated by feminists. And across the Atlantic, if only American women voted, the US President during 9/11 would be called Al Gore, not George Bush.
The standard explanation in my country for this gender gap in voting patterns is that men are more “xenophobic and selfish” than women, who are more open-minded and possess a greater ability to show solidarity with outsiders. That’s one possibility. Another one is that men traditionally have had the responsibility for protecting the “tribe” and spotting an enemy, a necessity in a dog-eat-dog world. Women are more naïve, and less willing to rationally think through the long-term consequences of avoiding confrontation or dealing with unpleasant realities now.
Didn’t feminists always claim that the world would be a better place with women in the driver’s seat, because they wouldn’t sacrifice their own children? Well, isn’t that exactly what they are doing now? Smiling and voting for parties that keep the doors open to Muslim immigration, the same Muslims who will be attacking their children tomorrow?
Another possibility is that Western feminists fail to confront Muslim immigration for ideological reasons. Many of them are silent on Islamic oppression of women because they have also embraced “Third-Worldism” and anti-Western sentiments. I see some evidence in support of this thesis.
American writer Phyllis Chesler has sharply criticized her sisters in books such as The Death of Feminism. She feels that too many feminists have abandoned their commitment to freedom and “become cowardly herd animals and grim totalitarian thinkers,” thus failing to confront Islamic terrorism. She paints a portrait of current U.S. University campuses as steeped in “a new and diabolical McCarthyism” spearheaded by leftist rhetoric.
Chesler has a point. Judging from the rhetoric of many feminists, all the oppression in the world comes from Western men, who are oppressing both women and non-Western men. Muslim immigrants are “fellow victims” of this bias. At best, they may be patriarchal pigs, but no worse than Western men. Many Western universities have courses filled with hate against men that would be unthinkable the other way around. That’s why Scandinavian feminists don’t call for Scandinavian men to show a more traditional masculinity and protect them against aggression from Muslim men. Most Norwegian feminists are also passionate anti-racists who will oppose any steps to limit Muslim immigration as “racism and xenophobia.”
Totalitarian feminists in Norway are threatening to shut down private companies that refuse to recruit at least 40 percent women to their boards by 2007, a Soviet-style regulation of the economy in the name of gender equality. I have read comments from Socialist politicians and leftist commentators in certain newspapers, such as the pro-Multicultural and feminist — critics would say Female Supremacist — newspaper Dagbladet, arguing that we should have quotas for Muslim immigrants, too.
What started out as radical feminism has thus gradually become egalitarianism, the fight against “discrimination” of any kind, the idea that all groups of people should have an equal share of everything and that it is the state’s responsibility to ensure that this takes place. A prime example of this is Norway’s Ombud for Gender Equality, which in 2006 became The Equality and Anti-discrimination Ombud. The Ombud’s duties are “to promote equality and combat discrimination on the basis of gender, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability and age.”
Western feminists have cultivated a culture of victimhood in the West, where you gain political power through your status in the victim hierarchy. In many ways, this is what Political Correctness is all about. They have also demanded, and largely got, a re-writing of the history books to address an alleged historic bias; their world view has entered the school curriculum, gained a virtual hegemony in the media and managed to portray their critics as “bigots.” They have even succeeded in changing the very language we use, to make it less offensive. Radical feminists are the vanguard of PC.
When Muslims, who above all else like to present themselves as victims, enter Western nations, they find that much of their work has already been done for them. They can use a pre-established tradition of claiming to be victims, demanding state intervention and maybe quotas to address this, as well as a complete re-writing of history and public campaigns against bigotry and hate speech. Western feminists have thus paved the way for the forces that will dismantle Western feminism, and end up in bed, sometimes quite literally, with the people who want to enslave them.
Swedish Marxist politician Gudrun Schyman has suggested a bill that would collectively tax Swedish men for violence against women. In a 2002 speech, the same Schyman famously posited that Swedish men were just like the Taliban. A male columnist in newspaper Aftonbladet responded by saying that Schyman was right: All men are like the Taliban.
The irony is that in an Islamic state similar to the one the Taliban established in Afghanistan, certain groups of people, in this case non-Muslims, pay a special punishment tax simply because of who they are, not because of what they earn. Radical feminists such as Ms. Schyman are thus closer to the Taliban than Western men, although I’m pretty sure that irony would be completely missed on them.
Schyman’s battle cry is “Death to the nuclear family!” I have heard the same slogan repeated by young Norwegian feminists in recent years. Schyman seethed that today’s family unit is “built on a foundation of traditional gender roles in which women are subordinate to men. The hierarchy of gender, for which violence against women is the ultimate expression, has been cemented.” “Conservatives want to strengthen the family. I find this of grave concern.”
In the year 2000, Swedish feminist Joanna Rytel and the action group Unf**ked Pussy entered the stage during the live broadcast of the Miss Sweden contest. She also wrote an article called “I Will Never Give Birth to a White Man,” for a major Swedish daily, Aftonbladet, in 2004. Rytel explained why she hates white men — they are selfish, exploitative, vain, and sex-crazed — and just to make things clear, she added, “no white men, please… I just puke on them, thank you very much.”
Misandry, the hatred of men, isn’t necessarily less prevalent than misogyny, the hatred of women. The difference is that the former is much more socially acceptable.
If all oppression comes from Western men, it becomes logical to try weakening them as much as possible. If you do, a paradise of peace and equality awaits us at the other side of the rainbow. Well congratulations to Western European women. You’ve succeeded in harassing and ridiculing your own sons into suppressing many of their masculine instincts. To your surprise, you didn’t enter a feminist Nirvana, but paved the way for an unfolding Islamic hell.
It is correct, as feminists claim, that a hyper-feminine society is not as destructive as a hyper-masculine society. The catch with a too soft society is that it is unsustainable. It will get squashed as soon as it is confronted by more traditional, aggressive ones. Instead of “having it all,” Western women risk losing everything. What are liberal feminists going to do when faced with aggressive gang of Muslim youngsters? Burn their bras and throw the pocket edition of the Vagina Monologues at them?
Perhaps women can succeed in turning their men into doormats, but it will be on the cost of doing so to their nation and to their civilization as well. According to Italian American feminist Camille Paglia, “If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.” That may be an exaggeration, but male energy is definitely a driving force in any dynamic culture.
Muslim anti-female violence in the West is a symptom of the breakdown of the feminist Utopia. Freedoms need to be enforced by violence or the credible threat of violence, or they are meaningless. Even though women can take steps to protect themselves, the primary responsibility for protection will probably always belong to men. Women will thus only have as much freedom as their men are willing and capable of guaranteeing them. It is a major flaw in many feminist theories that they fail to acknowledge this.
The difference between women’s rights and women’s illusions is defined by a Smith and Wesson, not by a Betty Friedan or a Virginia Wolf.
Writer Lars Hedegaard in Denmark does not buy into the theory that women approve of Muslim immigration out of irrational naivety or ideological conviction. He thinks they simply want it, as he writes in a column entitled “The dream of submission.” He does notice, as I do, that women are more likely than men to support parties that are open for more Muslim immigration.
Why is this, considering that there is hardly a single Muslim majority area in the world where women enjoy the same rights as men? And Hedegaard asks a provocative question: Are women more stupid and less enlightened than men, since they in such great numbers are paving the way for their own submission? He comes up with an equally provocative answer: “When women are paving the way for sharia, this is presumably because women want sharia.” They don’t want freedom because they feel attracted to subservience and subjugation.
The English author Fay Weldon has noted that “For women, there is something sexually very alluring about submission.” And as Hedegaard dryly notes, if submission is what many women seek, the feminized Danish men are boring compared to desert sheikhs who won’t allow you to go outside without permission. Muslims like to point out that there are more women than men in the West who convert to Islam, and this is in fact partly true. Islam means “submission.” Is there something about submission that is more appealing to some women than it is to most men? Do women yield more easily to power?
In a newspaper article about Swedish women converting to Islam, the attraction of the Islamic family life seems to be a common feature among women converts. Several of them state that in Islam, the man is more rational and logical, while the woman is more emotional and caring. This means that the woman should be the one to take care of the children and do the housekeeping, while the man should be the one to work and provide for the family. Many of the women feel that their lives lack a sense of purpose, but Christianity does not seem like a relevant alternative to them.
The fixation with looks in our modern society and the tougher living conditions for women, who are supposed to both have a career and do the housekeeping, play a part, too. Which is curious, considering the fact that it was women themselves, encouraged by modern talk show hostesses such as Oprah Winfrey, who talked about “having it all”; it wasn’t the men. Men know that nobody can “have it all,” you have to give up something to get something. Maybe women have discovered that working life wasn’t all that it was cracked up to be? Men do, after all, universally die years before women all over the world.
The plot of novelist Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code is that the modern history of Christianity was a big, patriarchal plot to deprive women of the rights they supposedly enjoyed before this, during the age of “the sacred feminine” and the fertility goddesses who were always barefoot and pregnant. But if that’s the case, why is it that women make up the majority of Europe’s churchgoers? Why do women, out of their own free will, seek out these oppressive, patriarchal religions? Maybe French philosopher Ernest Renan was onto something when he called women “the devout sex.” Do women need religion more than men?
Are some feminists simply testing out men’s limits in the hope of finding some new balance between the sexes, or are they testing men to find our which men are strong enough to stand up to their demands, and thus which men can stand up to other men on their behalf? I heard one woman who was an ardent feminist in the 1970s later lament how many families they broke up and destroyed. She was surprised at the reaction, or lack of reaction, from men: “We were horrible. Why didn’t you stop us?”
In psychiatry, female patients are seen more frequently with self-inflicted wounds or self-destructive behaviour than men, who tend to direct their aggression outwards. It is also a well-known fact that many women blame themselves for abusive husbands, and make excuses for their abusers’ behavior. Has the West adopted some of the negative traits of the female psyche? The newly feminized West gets attacked and assaulted by the Arab and Islamic world, and continues to blame itself, while at the same time be fascinated by its abusers. It is thus behaving in the same way as a self-loathing woman towards an abusive man.
Virginia Woolf in her book A Room of One’s Own praises the genius of William Shakespeare: “If ever a human being got his work expressed completely, it was Shakespeare. If ever a mind was incandescent, unimpeded, I thought, turning again to the bookcase, it was Shakespeare’s mind.” “Let me imagine, since facts are so hard to come by, what would have happened had Shakespeare had a wonderfully gifted sister, called Judith, let us say.” “His extraordinarily gifted sister, let us suppose, remained at home. She was as adventurous, as imaginative, as agog to see the world as he was. But she was not sent to school. She had no chance of learning grammar and logic, let alone of reading Horace and Virgil.” She “killed herself one winter’s night and lies buried at some cross–roads where the omnibuses now stop outside the Elephant and Castle.”
Feminists claim that the reason why women haven’t been as numerous in politics and science as men is due to male oppression of women. Some of this is true. But it is not the whole story. Being male means having to prove something, to achieve something, in a greater way than it does for women. In addition to this, the responsibility for child rearing will always fall more heavily on women than on men. A modern society may lessen these restraints, but it will never remove them completely. For these practical reasons, it is unlikely that women will ever be as numerous as men in politics or in the highest level in business.
Christina Hoff Sommers, the author of The War Against Boys, points out that “after almost 40 years of feminist agitation and gender-neutral pronouns, it is still men who are far more likely than women to run for political office, start companies, file for patents, and blow things up. Men continue to tell most of the jokes and write the vast majority of editorials and letters to editors. And — fatal to the dreams of feminists who long for social androgyny — men have hardly budged from their unwillingness to do an equal share of housework or childcare. Moreover, women seem to like manly men.”
She also notes that “One of the least visited memorials in Washington is a waterfront statue commemorating the men who died on the Titanic. Seventy-four percent of the women passengers survived the April 15, 1912, calamity, while 80 percent of the men perished. Why? Because the men followed the principle ‘women and children first.’ “The monument, an 18-foot granite male figure with arms outstretched to the side, was erected by ‘the women of America’ in 1931 to show their gratitude. The inscription reads: “To the brave men who perished in the wreck of the Titanic. [...] They gave their lives that women and children might be saved.”
Simone de Beauvoir famously said, “One is not born, but becomes a woman.” She meant that they should reject all the inducements of nature, society, and conventional morality. Beauvoir condemned marriage and family as a “tragedy” for women, and compared childbearing and nurturing to slavery.
Strangely enough, after decades of feminism, many Western women are now lamenting the fact that Western men hesitate to get married. Here is columnist Molly Watson:
We’re also pretty clued up about why our generation is delaying having children — and it has nothing to do with being failed by employers or health planners. Nor, despite endless newspaper features on the subject, does it have much to do with business women putting careers before babies. In my experience, the root cause of the epidemic lies with a collective failure of nerve among men our age. […] I don’t know a woman of my age whose version of living happily ever after fundamentally hinges on becoming editor, or senior partner, or surgeon, or leading counsel. But faced with a generation of emotionally immature men who seem to view marriage as the last thing they’ll do before they die, we have little option but to wait.
What happened to the slogan “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”? I’d just like to remind Ms. Watson that it was in fact the women who started this whole “single is best” culture that now permeates much of the West. Since women initiate most divorces and a divorce can potentially mean financial ruin for a man, it shouldn’t really be too surprising that many men hesitate to get involved at all. As one man put it: “I don’t think I’ll get married again. I’ll just find a woman I don’t like and give her a house.” At the same time, women during the past few decades have made it a lot easier to have a girlfriend without getting married. So women make it riskier to get married and easier to stay unmarried, and then they wonder why men “won’t commit?” Maybe too many women didn’t think all this feminism stuff quite through before jumping on the bandwagon?
The latest wave of radical feminism has severely wounded the family structure of the Western world. It is impossible to raise the birth rates to replacement level before women are valued for raising children, and before men and women are willing to marry in the first place. Human beings are social creatures, not solitary ones. We are created to live with partners. Marriage is not a “conspiracy to oppress women”, it’s the reason why we’re here. And it’s not a religious thing, either. According to strict, atheist Darwinism, the purpose of life is to reproduce.
A study from the United States identified the main barriers to men tying the knot. Heading the list was their ability to get sex without marriage more easily than in the past. The second was that they can enjoy the benefits of having a wife by cohabiting rather than marrying. The report lends weight to remarks by Ross Cameron, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Family and Community Services, who chided Australian men, blaming Australia’s looming fertility crisis on men’s commitment phobia. “The principal reason young women say they don’t get around to having children is they can’t find a bloke they like who is willing to commit,” he said. “This commitment aversion in the Australian male is a real problem.”
Barbara Boyle Torrey and Nicholas Eberstadt write about a significant divergence in fertility between Canada and the U.S.: “The levels of Canadian and American long-term trends in age of first marriage, first births, and common-law unions are consistent with the divergence in total fertility rates in the two countries. But the divergence in none of these proximate variables is large enough to explain the much larger divergence in fertility.” “Changing values in the U.S. and Canada may be contributing to the fertility divergence. The stronger notional role of men in U.S. families and the greater religiosity of Americans are positively associated with fertility, and the latter is also a strong predictor of negative attitudes toward abortion. Women in Canada enter common-law unions more often, wait longer than American women to marry, and have children later and less often.”
In Europe, Newsweek writes about how packs of wolves are now making a comeback in regions of Central Europe: “A hundred years ago, a burgeoning, land-hungry population killed off the last of Germany’s wolves.” “Our postcard view of Europe, after all, is of a continent where every scrap of land has long been farmed, fenced off and settled. But the continent of the future may look rather different. “Big parts of Europe will renaturalize,” says Reiner Klingholz, head of the Berlin Institute for Population Development. Bears are back in Austria. In Swiss alpine valleys, farms have been receding and forests are growing back in. In parts of France and Germany, wildcats and ospreys have re-established their range.”
“In Italy, more than 60 percent of the country’s 2.6 million farmers are at least 65 years old. Once they die out, many of their farms will join the 6 million hectares (one third of Italian farmland) that has already been abandoned.” “With the EU alone needing about 1.6 million immigrants a year above its current level to keep the working-age population stable between now and 2050, a much more likely source of migrants would be Europe’s Muslim neighbors, whose young populations are set to almost double in that same time.”
It is numbers like these that have induced Phillip Longman to foresee “the Return of Patriarchy” and proclaim that “conservatives will inherit the Earth:”
“Among states that voted for President George W. Bush in 2004, fertility rates are 12 percent higher than in states that voted for Sen. John Kerry.” “It turns out that Europeans who are most likely to identify themselves as “world citizens” are also those least likely to have children.” “The great difference in fertility rates between secular individualists and religious or cultural conservatives augurs a vast, demographically driven change in modern societies.” “Tomorrow’s children, therefore, will be for the most part descendants of a comparatively narrow and culturally conservative segment of society.”
In addition to the greater fertility of conservative segments of society, the rollback of the welfare state forced by population aging and decline will give these elements an additional survival advantage.” “People will find that they need more children to insure their golden years, and they will seek to bind their children to them through inculcating traditional religious values.”
This last point is worth dwelling with. The elaborate welfare state model in Western Europe is frequently labelled as “the nanny state,” but perhaps it could also be named “the husband state.” Why? Well, in a traditional society, the role of men and husbands is to physically protect and financially provide for their women. In our modern society, part of this task has simply been “outsourced” to the state, which helps explain why women in general give a disproportionate support to high taxation and pro-welfare state parties. The state has simply become a substitute husband, upheld by taxation of their ex-husbands.
It should be mentioned that if this welfare state should for some reason cease to function, for instance due to economic and security pressures caused by Muslim immigration, Western women will suddenly discover that they are not quite as independent from men as they like to think. In this case, it is conceivable that we will se a return to the modern traditional “provide and protect” masculinity, as people, and women in particular, will need the support of the nuclear and extended family to manage.
Another issue is that although countries such as Norway and Sweden like to portray themselves as havens of gender equality, I have heard visitors to these countries comment that the sexes are probably further apart here than anywhere else in the world. And I readily believe that. Radical feminism has bred suspicion and hostility, not cooperation. And what’s more, it has no in any way eradicated the basic sexual attraction between feminine women and masculine men. If people do not find this in their own country, they travel to another country or culture to find it, which in our age of globalization is easier than ever. A striking number of Scandinavian men find their wives in East Asia, Latin America or other nations with a more traditional view of femininity, and a number of women find partners from more conservative countries, too. Not everyone, of course, but the trend is unmistakable and significant. Scandinavians celebrate “gender equality,” and travel to the other side of the world to find somebody actually worth marrying.
To sum it up, it must be said that radical feminism has been one of the most important causes of the current weakness of Western civilization, both culturally and demographically. Feminists, often with a Marxist world view, have been a crucial component in establishing the suffocating public censorship of Political Correctness in Western nations. They have also severely weakened the Western family structure, and contributed to making the West too soft and self-loathing to deal with aggression from Muslims.
Although feminism may have strayed away into extremism, that does not mean that all of its ideas are wrong. The women’s movement will make lasting changes. Women have occupied positions considered unthinkable only a few decades ago. Some things are irreversible.
Women pretty much run men’s private lives. Marriage used to be a trade: Female nurturing and support for male financial and social security. In a modern world, women may not need men’s financial support quite as much as they did before, while men need women’s emotional support just as much as we have always done. The balance of power has changed in favor of women, although this situation may not last forever. This does not have to be bad. Women still want a partner. But it requires men to be more focused on doing their best.
A study by scientists at the University of Copenhagen concludes that divorce is closely linked to poor health, especially among men. The research indicates that the death rate for single or divorced males aged 40-50 is twice as high as for other groups. The research has taken into account whether there are other factors that could lead to an early death — such as a mental illness and having grown up under poor social conditions. “Considering the high amount of children growing up in broken homes we do believe that the study is very relevant. “It proves that divorce can have a serious consequence,” and that we may need a prevention strategy. John Aasted Halse, psychologist and author of numerous books about divorce, agrees.
The apparent contradiction between female dominance on the micro level and male dominance on the macro level cannot be easily explained within the context of a “weaker/stronger sex”. I will postulate that being male first of all is some kind of nervous energy, something you need to prove. This will have both positive and negative results. Male numerical dominance in science and politics, as well as in crime and war, is linked to this. Women do not have this urge to prove themselves as much as men do. In some ways, this is a strength. Hence I think the terms “The Restless Sex” for men and “The Self-Contained Sex” for women are more appropriate and explain the differences better.
Daniel Pipes keeps saying that the answer to radical Islam is moderate Islam. There may not be any such thing as a moderate Islam, but there just might be a moderate feminism, and a mature masculinity to match it. In the book Manliness, Harvey C. Mansfield offers what he calls a modest defense of manliness. As he says, “Manliness, however, seems to be about fifty-fifty good and bad.” Manliness can be noble and heroic, like the men on the Titanic who sacrificed their lives for “women and children first,” but it can also be foolish, stubborn, and violent. Many men will find it offensive to hear that Islamic violence and honor killings have anything to do with masculinity, but it does. Islam is a compressed version of all the darkest aspects of masculinity. We should reject it. Men, too, lose their freedom to think and say what they want in Islam, not just women.
However, even a moderate version of feminism could prove lethal to Islam. Islam survives on the extreme subjugation of women. Deprived of this, it will suffocate and die. It is true that the West still hasn’t found the formula for the perfect balance between men and women in the 21st century, but at least we are working on the issue. Islam is stuck in the 7th century. Some men lament the loss of a sense of masculinity in a modern world. Perhaps a meaningful one could be to make sure that our sisters and daughters grow up in a world where they have the right to education and a free life, and protect them against Islamic barbarism. It’s going to be needed.
How the Feminists’ “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Islam
From the desk of Fjordman on Mon, 2006-09-04 15:39
Some commentators like to point out that many of the most passionate and bravest defenders of the West are women, citing Italian writer Oriana Fallaci and others as examples. But women like Ms. Fallaci, brave as they might be, are not representative of all Western women. If you look closely, you will notice that, on average, Western women are actually more supportive of Multiculturalism and massive immigration than are Western men.
I got many comments on my posts about Muslim anti-female violence in Scandinavia. Several of my readers asked what Scandinavian men are doing about this. What happened to those Vikings, anyway? Did they drink too much mead in Valhalla? Despite the romantic mystique surrounding them today, the Vikings were for the most part savage barbarians. However, I doubt they would have looked the other way while their daughters were harassed by Muslims. In some ways, this makes present-day Scandinavians worse barbarians than the Vikings ever were.
One of the reasons for this lack of response is a deliberate and pervasive censorship in the mainstream media, to conceal the full scale of the problem from the general public. However, I suspect that the most important reason has to do with the extreme anti-masculine strand of feminism that has permeated Scandinavia for decades. The male protective instinct doesn’t take action because Scandinavian women have worked tirelessly to eradicate it, together with everything else that smacks of traditional masculinity. Because of this, feminism has greatly weakened Scandinavia, and perhaps Western civilization as whole.
The only major political party in Norway that has voiced any serious opposition to the madness of Muslim immigration is the rightwing Progress Party. This is a party which receives about two thirds or even 70% male votes. At the opposite end of the scale we have the Socialist Left party, with two thirds or 70% female votes. The parties most critical of the current immigration are typically male parties, while those who praise the Multicultural society are dominated by feminists. And across the Atlantic, if only American women voted, the US President during 9/11 would be called Al Gore, not George Bush.
The standard explanation in my country for this gender gap in voting patterns is that men are more “xenophobic and selfish” than women, who are more open-minded and possess a greater ability to show solidarity with outsiders. That’s one possibility. Another one is that men traditionally have had the responsibility for protecting the “tribe” and spotting an enemy, a necessity in a dog-eat-dog world. Women are more naïve, and less willing to rationally think through the long-term consequences of avoiding confrontation or dealing with unpleasant realities now.
Didn’t feminists always claim that the world would be a better place with women in the driver’s seat, because they wouldn’t sacrifice their own children? Well, isn’t that exactly what they are doing now? Smiling and voting for parties that keep the doors open to Muslim immigration, the same Muslims who will be attacking their children tomorrow?
Another possibility is that Western feminists fail to confront Muslim immigration for ideological reasons. Many of them are silent on Islamic oppression of women because they have also embraced “Third-Worldism” and anti-Western sentiments. I see some evidence in support of this thesis.
American writer Phyllis Chesler has sharply criticized her sisters in books such as The Death of Feminism. She feels that too many feminists have abandoned their commitment to freedom and “become cowardly herd animals and grim totalitarian thinkers,” thus failing to confront Islamic terrorism. She paints a portrait of current U.S. University campuses as steeped in “a new and diabolical McCarthyism” spearheaded by leftist rhetoric.
Chesler has a point. Judging from the rhetoric of many feminists, all the oppression in the world comes from Western men, who are oppressing both women and non-Western men. Muslim immigrants are “fellow victims” of this bias. At best, they may be patriarchal pigs, but no worse than Western men. Many Western universities have courses filled with hate against men that would be unthinkable the other way around. That’s why Scandinavian feminists don’t call for Scandinavian men to show a more traditional masculinity and protect them against aggression from Muslim men. Most Norwegian feminists are also passionate anti-racists who will oppose any steps to limit Muslim immigration as “racism and xenophobia.”
Totalitarian feminists in Norway are threatening to shut down private companies that refuse to recruit at least 40 percent women to their boards by 2007, a Soviet-style regulation of the economy in the name of gender equality. I have read comments from Socialist politicians and leftist commentators in certain newspapers, such as the pro-Multicultural and feminist — critics would say Female Supremacist — newspaper Dagbladet, arguing that we should have quotas for Muslim immigrants, too.
What started out as radical feminism has thus gradually become egalitarianism, the fight against “discrimination” of any kind, the idea that all groups of people should have an equal share of everything and that it is the state’s responsibility to ensure that this takes place. A prime example of this is Norway’s Ombud for Gender Equality, which in 2006 became The Equality and Anti-discrimination Ombud. The Ombud’s duties are “to promote equality and combat discrimination on the basis of gender, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability and age.”
Western feminists have cultivated a culture of victimhood in the West, where you gain political power through your status in the victim hierarchy. In many ways, this is what Political Correctness is all about. They have also demanded, and largely got, a re-writing of the history books to address an alleged historic bias; their world view has entered the school curriculum, gained a virtual hegemony in the media and managed to portray their critics as “bigots.” They have even succeeded in changing the very language we use, to make it less offensive. Radical feminists are the vanguard of PC.
When Muslims, who above all else like to present themselves as victims, enter Western nations, they find that much of their work has already been done for them. They can use a pre-established tradition of claiming to be victims, demanding state intervention and maybe quotas to address this, as well as a complete re-writing of history and public campaigns against bigotry and hate speech. Western feminists have thus paved the way for the forces that will dismantle Western feminism, and end up in bed, sometimes quite literally, with the people who want to enslave them.
Swedish Marxist politician Gudrun Schyman has suggested a bill that would collectively tax Swedish men for violence against women. In a 2002 speech, the same Schyman famously posited that Swedish men were just like the Taliban. A male columnist in newspaper Aftonbladet responded by saying that Schyman was right: All men are like the Taliban.
The irony is that in an Islamic state similar to the one the Taliban established in Afghanistan, certain groups of people, in this case non-Muslims, pay a special punishment tax simply because of who they are, not because of what they earn. Radical feminists such as Ms. Schyman are thus closer to the Taliban than Western men, although I’m pretty sure that irony would be completely missed on them.
Schyman’s battle cry is “Death to the nuclear family!” I have heard the same slogan repeated by young Norwegian feminists in recent years. Schyman seethed that today’s family unit is “built on a foundation of traditional gender roles in which women are subordinate to men. The hierarchy of gender, for which violence against women is the ultimate expression, has been cemented.” “Conservatives want to strengthen the family. I find this of grave concern.”
In the year 2000, Swedish feminist Joanna Rytel and the action group Unf**ked Pussy entered the stage during the live broadcast of the Miss Sweden contest. She also wrote an article called “I Will Never Give Birth to a White Man,” for a major Swedish daily, Aftonbladet, in 2004. Rytel explained why she hates white men — they are selfish, exploitative, vain, and sex-crazed — and just to make things clear, she added, “no white men, please… I just puke on them, thank you very much.”
Misandry, the hatred of men, isn’t necessarily less prevalent than misogyny, the hatred of women. The difference is that the former is much more socially acceptable.
If all oppression comes from Western men, it becomes logical to try weakening them as much as possible. If you do, a paradise of peace and equality awaits us at the other side of the rainbow. Well congratulations to Western European women. You’ve succeeded in harassing and ridiculing your own sons into suppressing many of their masculine instincts. To your surprise, you didn’t enter a feminist Nirvana, but paved the way for an unfolding Islamic hell.
It is correct, as feminists claim, that a hyper-feminine society is not as destructive as a hyper-masculine society. The catch with a too soft society is that it is unsustainable. It will get squashed as soon as it is confronted by more traditional, aggressive ones. Instead of “having it all,” Western women risk losing everything. What are liberal feminists going to do when faced with aggressive gang of Muslim youngsters? Burn their bras and throw the pocket edition of the Vagina Monologues at them?
Perhaps women can succeed in turning their men into doormats, but it will be on the cost of doing so to their nation and to their civilization as well. According to Italian American feminist Camille Paglia, “If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.” That may be an exaggeration, but male energy is definitely a driving force in any dynamic culture.
Muslim anti-female violence in the West is a symptom of the breakdown of the feminist Utopia. Freedoms need to be enforced by violence or the credible threat of violence, or they are meaningless. Even though women can take steps to protect themselves, the primary responsibility for protection will probably always belong to men. Women will thus only have as much freedom as their men are willing and capable of guaranteeing them. It is a major flaw in many feminist theories that they fail to acknowledge this.
The difference between women’s rights and women’s illusions is defined by a Smith and Wesson, not by a Betty Friedan or a Virginia Wolf.
Writer Lars Hedegaard in Denmark does not buy into the theory that women approve of Muslim immigration out of irrational naivety or ideological conviction. He thinks they simply want it, as he writes in a column entitled “The dream of submission.” He does notice, as I do, that women are more likely than men to support parties that are open for more Muslim immigration.
Why is this, considering that there is hardly a single Muslim majority area in the world where women enjoy the same rights as men? And Hedegaard asks a provocative question: Are women more stupid and less enlightened than men, since they in such great numbers are paving the way for their own submission? He comes up with an equally provocative answer: “When women are paving the way for sharia, this is presumably because women want sharia.” They don’t want freedom because they feel attracted to subservience and subjugation.
The English author Fay Weldon has noted that “For women, there is something sexually very alluring about submission.” And as Hedegaard dryly notes, if submission is what many women seek, the feminized Danish men are boring compared to desert sheikhs who won’t allow you to go outside without permission. Muslims like to point out that there are more women than men in the West who convert to Islam, and this is in fact partly true. Islam means “submission.” Is there something about submission that is more appealing to some women than it is to most men? Do women yield more easily to power?
In a newspaper article about Swedish women converting to Islam, the attraction of the Islamic family life seems to be a common feature among women converts. Several of them state that in Islam, the man is more rational and logical, while the woman is more emotional and caring. This means that the woman should be the one to take care of the children and do the housekeeping, while the man should be the one to work and provide for the family. Many of the women feel that their lives lack a sense of purpose, but Christianity does not seem like a relevant alternative to them.
The fixation with looks in our modern society and the tougher living conditions for women, who are supposed to both have a career and do the housekeeping, play a part, too. Which is curious, considering the fact that it was women themselves, encouraged by modern talk show hostesses such as Oprah Winfrey, who talked about “having it all”; it wasn’t the men. Men know that nobody can “have it all,” you have to give up something to get something. Maybe women have discovered that working life wasn’t all that it was cracked up to be? Men do, after all, universally die years before women all over the world.
The plot of novelist Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code is that the modern history of Christianity was a big, patriarchal plot to deprive women of the rights they supposedly enjoyed before this, during the age of “the sacred feminine” and the fertility goddesses who were always barefoot and pregnant. But if that’s the case, why is it that women make up the majority of Europe’s churchgoers? Why do women, out of their own free will, seek out these oppressive, patriarchal religions? Maybe French philosopher Ernest Renan was onto something when he called women “the devout sex.” Do women need religion more than men?
Are some feminists simply testing out men’s limits in the hope of finding some new balance between the sexes, or are they testing men to find our which men are strong enough to stand up to their demands, and thus which men can stand up to other men on their behalf? I heard one woman who was an ardent feminist in the 1970s later lament how many families they broke up and destroyed. She was surprised at the reaction, or lack of reaction, from men: “We were horrible. Why didn’t you stop us?”
In psychiatry, female patients are seen more frequently with self-inflicted wounds or self-destructive behaviour than men, who tend to direct their aggression outwards. It is also a well-known fact that many women blame themselves for abusive husbands, and make excuses for their abusers’ behavior. Has the West adopted some of the negative traits of the female psyche? The newly feminized West gets attacked and assaulted by the Arab and Islamic world, and continues to blame itself, while at the same time be fascinated by its abusers. It is thus behaving in the same way as a self-loathing woman towards an abusive man.
Virginia Woolf in her book A Room of One’s Own praises the genius of William Shakespeare: “If ever a human being got his work expressed completely, it was Shakespeare. If ever a mind was incandescent, unimpeded, I thought, turning again to the bookcase, it was Shakespeare’s mind.” “Let me imagine, since facts are so hard to come by, what would have happened had Shakespeare had a wonderfully gifted sister, called Judith, let us say.” “His extraordinarily gifted sister, let us suppose, remained at home. She was as adventurous, as imaginative, as agog to see the world as he was. But she was not sent to school. She had no chance of learning grammar and logic, let alone of reading Horace and Virgil.” She “killed herself one winter’s night and lies buried at some cross–roads where the omnibuses now stop outside the Elephant and Castle.”
Feminists claim that the reason why women haven’t been as numerous in politics and science as men is due to male oppression of women. Some of this is true. But it is not the whole story. Being male means having to prove something, to achieve something, in a greater way than it does for women. In addition to this, the responsibility for child rearing will always fall more heavily on women than on men. A modern society may lessen these restraints, but it will never remove them completely. For these practical reasons, it is unlikely that women will ever be as numerous as men in politics or in the highest level in business.
Christina Hoff Sommers, the author of The War Against Boys, points out that “after almost 40 years of feminist agitation and gender-neutral pronouns, it is still men who are far more likely than women to run for political office, start companies, file for patents, and blow things up. Men continue to tell most of the jokes and write the vast majority of editorials and letters to editors. And — fatal to the dreams of feminists who long for social androgyny — men have hardly budged from their unwillingness to do an equal share of housework or childcare. Moreover, women seem to like manly men.”
She also notes that “One of the least visited memorials in Washington is a waterfront statue commemorating the men who died on the Titanic. Seventy-four percent of the women passengers survived the April 15, 1912, calamity, while 80 percent of the men perished. Why? Because the men followed the principle ‘women and children first.’ “The monument, an 18-foot granite male figure with arms outstretched to the side, was erected by ‘the women of America’ in 1931 to show their gratitude. The inscription reads: “To the brave men who perished in the wreck of the Titanic. [...] They gave their lives that women and children might be saved.”
Simone de Beauvoir famously said, “One is not born, but becomes a woman.” She meant that they should reject all the inducements of nature, society, and conventional morality. Beauvoir condemned marriage and family as a “tragedy” for women, and compared childbearing and nurturing to slavery.
Strangely enough, after decades of feminism, many Western women are now lamenting the fact that Western men hesitate to get married. Here is columnist Molly Watson:
We’re also pretty clued up about why our generation is delaying having children — and it has nothing to do with being failed by employers or health planners. Nor, despite endless newspaper features on the subject, does it have much to do with business women putting careers before babies. In my experience, the root cause of the epidemic lies with a collective failure of nerve among men our age. […] I don’t know a woman of my age whose version of living happily ever after fundamentally hinges on becoming editor, or senior partner, or surgeon, or leading counsel. But faced with a generation of emotionally immature men who seem to view marriage as the last thing they’ll do before they die, we have little option but to wait.
What happened to the slogan “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”? I’d just like to remind Ms. Watson that it was in fact the women who started this whole “single is best” culture that now permeates much of the West. Since women initiate most divorces and a divorce can potentially mean financial ruin for a man, it shouldn’t really be too surprising that many men hesitate to get involved at all. As one man put it: “I don’t think I’ll get married again. I’ll just find a woman I don’t like and give her a house.” At the same time, women during the past few decades have made it a lot easier to have a girlfriend without getting married. So women make it riskier to get married and easier to stay unmarried, and then they wonder why men “won’t commit?” Maybe too many women didn’t think all this feminism stuff quite through before jumping on the bandwagon?
The latest wave of radical feminism has severely wounded the family structure of the Western world. It is impossible to raise the birth rates to replacement level before women are valued for raising children, and before men and women are willing to marry in the first place. Human beings are social creatures, not solitary ones. We are created to live with partners. Marriage is not a “conspiracy to oppress women”, it’s the reason why we’re here. And it’s not a religious thing, either. According to strict, atheist Darwinism, the purpose of life is to reproduce.
A study from the United States identified the main barriers to men tying the knot. Heading the list was their ability to get sex without marriage more easily than in the past. The second was that they can enjoy the benefits of having a wife by cohabiting rather than marrying. The report lends weight to remarks by Ross Cameron, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Family and Community Services, who chided Australian men, blaming Australia’s looming fertility crisis on men’s commitment phobia. “The principal reason young women say they don’t get around to having children is they can’t find a bloke they like who is willing to commit,” he said. “This commitment aversion in the Australian male is a real problem.”
Barbara Boyle Torrey and Nicholas Eberstadt write about a significant divergence in fertility between Canada and the U.S.: “The levels of Canadian and American long-term trends in age of first marriage, first births, and common-law unions are consistent with the divergence in total fertility rates in the two countries. But the divergence in none of these proximate variables is large enough to explain the much larger divergence in fertility.” “Changing values in the U.S. and Canada may be contributing to the fertility divergence. The stronger notional role of men in U.S. families and the greater religiosity of Americans are positively associated with fertility, and the latter is also a strong predictor of negative attitudes toward abortion. Women in Canada enter common-law unions more often, wait longer than American women to marry, and have children later and less often.”
In Europe, Newsweek writes about how packs of wolves are now making a comeback in regions of Central Europe: “A hundred years ago, a burgeoning, land-hungry population killed off the last of Germany’s wolves.” “Our postcard view of Europe, after all, is of a continent where every scrap of land has long been farmed, fenced off and settled. But the continent of the future may look rather different. “Big parts of Europe will renaturalize,” says Reiner Klingholz, head of the Berlin Institute for Population Development. Bears are back in Austria. In Swiss alpine valleys, farms have been receding and forests are growing back in. In parts of France and Germany, wildcats and ospreys have re-established their range.”
“In Italy, more than 60 percent of the country’s 2.6 million farmers are at least 65 years old. Once they die out, many of their farms will join the 6 million hectares (one third of Italian farmland) that has already been abandoned.” “With the EU alone needing about 1.6 million immigrants a year above its current level to keep the working-age population stable between now and 2050, a much more likely source of migrants would be Europe’s Muslim neighbors, whose young populations are set to almost double in that same time.”
It is numbers like these that have induced Phillip Longman to foresee “the Return of Patriarchy” and proclaim that “conservatives will inherit the Earth:”
“Among states that voted for President George W. Bush in 2004, fertility rates are 12 percent higher than in states that voted for Sen. John Kerry.” “It turns out that Europeans who are most likely to identify themselves as “world citizens” are also those least likely to have children.” “The great difference in fertility rates between secular individualists and religious or cultural conservatives augurs a vast, demographically driven change in modern societies.” “Tomorrow’s children, therefore, will be for the most part descendants of a comparatively narrow and culturally conservative segment of society.”
In addition to the greater fertility of conservative segments of society, the rollback of the welfare state forced by population aging and decline will give these elements an additional survival advantage.” “People will find that they need more children to insure their golden years, and they will seek to bind their children to them through inculcating traditional religious values.”
This last point is worth dwelling with. The elaborate welfare state model in Western Europe is frequently labelled as “the nanny state,” but perhaps it could also be named “the husband state.” Why? Well, in a traditional society, the role of men and husbands is to physically protect and financially provide for their women. In our modern society, part of this task has simply been “outsourced” to the state, which helps explain why women in general give a disproportionate support to high taxation and pro-welfare state parties. The state has simply become a substitute husband, upheld by taxation of their ex-husbands.
It should be mentioned that if this welfare state should for some reason cease to function, for instance due to economic and security pressures caused by Muslim immigration, Western women will suddenly discover that they are not quite as independent from men as they like to think. In this case, it is conceivable that we will se a return to the modern traditional “provide and protect” masculinity, as people, and women in particular, will need the support of the nuclear and extended family to manage.
Another issue is that although countries such as Norway and Sweden like to portray themselves as havens of gender equality, I have heard visitors to these countries comment that the sexes are probably further apart here than anywhere else in the world. And I readily believe that. Radical feminism has bred suspicion and hostility, not cooperation. And what’s more, it has no in any way eradicated the basic sexual attraction between feminine women and masculine men. If people do not find this in their own country, they travel to another country or culture to find it, which in our age of globalization is easier than ever. A striking number of Scandinavian men find their wives in East Asia, Latin America or other nations with a more traditional view of femininity, and a number of women find partners from more conservative countries, too. Not everyone, of course, but the trend is unmistakable and significant. Scandinavians celebrate “gender equality,” and travel to the other side of the world to find somebody actually worth marrying.
To sum it up, it must be said that radical feminism has been one of the most important causes of the current weakness of Western civilization, both culturally and demographically. Feminists, often with a Marxist world view, have been a crucial component in establishing the suffocating public censorship of Political Correctness in Western nations. They have also severely weakened the Western family structure, and contributed to making the West too soft and self-loathing to deal with aggression from Muslims.
Although feminism may have strayed away into extremism, that does not mean that all of its ideas are wrong. The women’s movement will make lasting changes. Women have occupied positions considered unthinkable only a few decades ago. Some things are irreversible.
Women pretty much run men’s private lives. Marriage used to be a trade: Female nurturing and support for male financial and social security. In a modern world, women may not need men’s financial support quite as much as they did before, while men need women’s emotional support just as much as we have always done. The balance of power has changed in favor of women, although this situation may not last forever. This does not have to be bad. Women still want a partner. But it requires men to be more focused on doing their best.
A study by scientists at the University of Copenhagen concludes that divorce is closely linked to poor health, especially among men. The research indicates that the death rate for single or divorced males aged 40-50 is twice as high as for other groups. The research has taken into account whether there are other factors that could lead to an early death — such as a mental illness and having grown up under poor social conditions. “Considering the high amount of children growing up in broken homes we do believe that the study is very relevant. “It proves that divorce can have a serious consequence,” and that we may need a prevention strategy. John Aasted Halse, psychologist and author of numerous books about divorce, agrees.
The apparent contradiction between female dominance on the micro level and male dominance on the macro level cannot be easily explained within the context of a “weaker/stronger sex”. I will postulate that being male first of all is some kind of nervous energy, something you need to prove. This will have both positive and negative results. Male numerical dominance in science and politics, as well as in crime and war, is linked to this. Women do not have this urge to prove themselves as much as men do. In some ways, this is a strength. Hence I think the terms “The Restless Sex” for men and “The Self-Contained Sex” for women are more appropriate and explain the differences better.
Daniel Pipes keeps saying that the answer to radical Islam is moderate Islam. There may not be any such thing as a moderate Islam, but there just might be a moderate feminism, and a mature masculinity to match it. In the book Manliness, Harvey C. Mansfield offers what he calls a modest defense of manliness. As he says, “Manliness, however, seems to be about fifty-fifty good and bad.” Manliness can be noble and heroic, like the men on the Titanic who sacrificed their lives for “women and children first,” but it can also be foolish, stubborn, and violent. Many men will find it offensive to hear that Islamic violence and honor killings have anything to do with masculinity, but it does. Islam is a compressed version of all the darkest aspects of masculinity. We should reject it. Men, too, lose their freedom to think and say what they want in Islam, not just women.
However, even a moderate version of feminism could prove lethal to Islam. Islam survives on the extreme subjugation of women. Deprived of this, it will suffocate and die. It is true that the West still hasn’t found the formula for the perfect balance between men and women in the 21st century, but at least we are working on the issue. Islam is stuck in the 7th century. Some men lament the loss of a sense of masculinity in a modern world. Perhaps a meaningful one could be to make sure that our sisters and daughters grow up in a world where they have the right to education and a free life, and protect them against Islamic barbarism. It’s going to be needed.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
“Single payer or public option” (euphemisms for “socialized”) medicine is back in the news, this time as a cost savings measure since the debt is so high. Did nobody see this bait & switch tactic coming? A year ago I had this conversation with someone (my brother, I think). The Congress will pass some half-assed plan which will cost a fortune & not address the things it’s supporters claim are wrong with healthcare, then when its shown to be a failure, they’ll suggest socialized medicine as the cure for fixing the fix.
Here’s my fix for healthcare in America:
1) Allow competition across state lines. Why do we see ads for car insurance every day? Competition, that’s why, same reason rates have come down.
2) End employer/group programs. This scam by the monopolies in healthcare insurance forces you to pay for a bundle of services you don’t need. You buy a policy just like you do for car, home, life insurance and you buy the features & coverage’s you want. It used to be known as major medical because that’s all it covered. Incidentally, it’s another leftover from FDR/New Deal days. During the war gov’t mandated controls on wages & hiring practices meant employers had to offer “something” to lure workers away so “medical insurance” began to be an employer benefit.
3) Assigned Risk, just like car insurance. Co “A” insures 40% of the populace; they take 40% of the high risk policies & the max. rate is capped.
4) That’s the limit of Federal involvement.
And now, on to the rant…
A man who has NEVER run anything, never hired/fired, done payroll, had to show some level of performance to justify pay is now in charge of America & bound & determined to hand over control of all wealth to the federal government.
I hate that piece of crap Barack Obama; absolutely despise that lying, corrupt, racist, fascist ass. I will give him & his regime the same measure of respect that his idiotic worshippers have given previous administrations, that is to say less than none. I will not be placated by the racist notion that we should expect or demand less of our leader by virtue of “…1st black president”. I will not be fooled by propaganda nor intimidated by threats into accepting that this regime is anything other than a coup by national socialists whose purpose is to destroy our republic and replace it with an all powerful & totalitarian socialist police state. This Nazi shit came to power as a result of massive voter fraud, voter intimidation and record amounts of special interest money and any efforts to investigate any of this have been stymied by his goons both within & outside of the regime. I will continue to rail against this Nazi assbag at every opportunity and I will harbor no tolerance for any of his minions even those who follow simply because they are too stupid to see the truth.
Some debate rages as to whether BHO is smart or imbecilic, is he capable of some of the plotting attributed to him? As a friend of mine pointed out a black man, raised as a Muslim with no experience, named Barack HUSSEIN Obama won the US Presidential election while we are at war in 2 Muslim countries. Don’t underestimate this guy. Do I think he’s brilliant? Hell no, he’s a dope who makes as many or more gaffes than those attributed to GWB but what he does have is cunning, ambition, driven by class & racial hatred, a good sense of how to use the media and create/exploit hysteria, in short a master manipulator. Short of not being able to get the Olympics the Hitler/BHO comparison is not without some validity.
Here’s my fix for healthcare in America:
1) Allow competition across state lines. Why do we see ads for car insurance every day? Competition, that’s why, same reason rates have come down.
2) End employer/group programs. This scam by the monopolies in healthcare insurance forces you to pay for a bundle of services you don’t need. You buy a policy just like you do for car, home, life insurance and you buy the features & coverage’s you want. It used to be known as major medical because that’s all it covered. Incidentally, it’s another leftover from FDR/New Deal days. During the war gov’t mandated controls on wages & hiring practices meant employers had to offer “something” to lure workers away so “medical insurance” began to be an employer benefit.
3) Assigned Risk, just like car insurance. Co “A” insures 40% of the populace; they take 40% of the high risk policies & the max. rate is capped.
4) That’s the limit of Federal involvement.
And now, on to the rant…
A man who has NEVER run anything, never hired/fired, done payroll, had to show some level of performance to justify pay is now in charge of America & bound & determined to hand over control of all wealth to the federal government.
I hate that piece of crap Barack Obama; absolutely despise that lying, corrupt, racist, fascist ass. I will give him & his regime the same measure of respect that his idiotic worshippers have given previous administrations, that is to say less than none. I will not be placated by the racist notion that we should expect or demand less of our leader by virtue of “…1st black president”. I will not be fooled by propaganda nor intimidated by threats into accepting that this regime is anything other than a coup by national socialists whose purpose is to destroy our republic and replace it with an all powerful & totalitarian socialist police state. This Nazi shit came to power as a result of massive voter fraud, voter intimidation and record amounts of special interest money and any efforts to investigate any of this have been stymied by his goons both within & outside of the regime. I will continue to rail against this Nazi assbag at every opportunity and I will harbor no tolerance for any of his minions even those who follow simply because they are too stupid to see the truth.
Some debate rages as to whether BHO is smart or imbecilic, is he capable of some of the plotting attributed to him? As a friend of mine pointed out a black man, raised as a Muslim with no experience, named Barack HUSSEIN Obama won the US Presidential election while we are at war in 2 Muslim countries. Don’t underestimate this guy. Do I think he’s brilliant? Hell no, he’s a dope who makes as many or more gaffes than those attributed to GWB but what he does have is cunning, ambition, driven by class & racial hatred, a good sense of how to use the media and create/exploit hysteria, in short a master manipulator. Short of not being able to get the Olympics the Hitler/BHO comparison is not without some validity.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Something on TV about the JFK assassination & LBJ. Was there a plot, did the CIA have a hand in it? Why did this happen? Who cares? JFK’s claim to fame is that he was assassinated in Dallas. Otherwise he would have gone in the history books as a 2-term President who had sex with movie stars & got us into the Vietnam War. The Kennedys were the drunken, arrogant, overgrown fratboy whoremonger sons of a bootlegger who bought an election with the help of his Mob buddies. PR & lots of time & money spent on media relations account for much of their legacy. The whole thing is of little or no relevance to modern society. The subsequent lunatic theories have a much greater effect on our culture than the actual death of the President.
I’ve read about 3 dozen books on the JFK assassination, I’ve read the Warren Commission report, I still have a dozen plus books on the subject. What I’ve come to believe is that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, shot Kennedy from the 6th floor of the Texas Schoolbook Depository. Forget a motive kids. Why did Hinckley shoot Reagan, why did Chapman shoot Lennon, or why did Booth shoot Lincoln? Anyone know David Berkowitz’s motive? The motive only needs to make sense to one guy. If you look at the Zapruder film frame 313 shows the front of JFK’s head blown out. Shot from behind. Small hole in, big hole out, bullets do that, its physics. Is it a tough shot? Maybe. Lucky shot? Maybe, but anybody who does enough shooting has at some point made that tough or lucky shot that they might never repeat.
The notion of Oswald as the lone nut is no more ridiculous than any of the other theories and less so than some. If I was to make a case for a conspiracy I would look at how the Soviet government could exploit the death of Kennedy and benefit from increased unrest and distrust of the government in the US and whether they funneled money or fueled any of the theories of conspiracy. I could almost accept the conspiracy of the myriad of theories blaming the government in some capacity and helping to destroy the belief that our government was “good”.
I’ve read about 3 dozen books on the JFK assassination, I’ve read the Warren Commission report, I still have a dozen plus books on the subject. What I’ve come to believe is that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, shot Kennedy from the 6th floor of the Texas Schoolbook Depository. Forget a motive kids. Why did Hinckley shoot Reagan, why did Chapman shoot Lennon, or why did Booth shoot Lincoln? Anyone know David Berkowitz’s motive? The motive only needs to make sense to one guy. If you look at the Zapruder film frame 313 shows the front of JFK’s head blown out. Shot from behind. Small hole in, big hole out, bullets do that, its physics. Is it a tough shot? Maybe. Lucky shot? Maybe, but anybody who does enough shooting has at some point made that tough or lucky shot that they might never repeat.
The notion of Oswald as the lone nut is no more ridiculous than any of the other theories and less so than some. If I was to make a case for a conspiracy I would look at how the Soviet government could exploit the death of Kennedy and benefit from increased unrest and distrust of the government in the US and whether they funneled money or fueled any of the theories of conspiracy. I could almost accept the conspiracy of the myriad of theories blaming the government in some capacity and helping to destroy the belief that our government was “good”.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
My favorite stupidity for this week…
53 days into the Gulf oil spill, the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history BHO hasn’t met with the CEO of BP?
I'mma kik day assez fo dis oil mess! Really? Are you some ghetto tough guy now? Sit down & shut up Barney! In the BP financial records of the last 20 years you've been the top recipient of money from BP & BP funded PAC’s which is even better because you've only been in their pockets, whoops, national politics for 5 years. You're not kicking anything, you fraud. According to the Center for Responsive Politics… During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant itself and is also the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.
“This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.”A&D (aka Wilder) Publishing’s “disclaimer” at the beginning of a recent printing of our Constitution. “Parents may want to discuss…before allowing them to read this..” WTF!!?? Parents may also want to discuss with their children the fact that while we followed this document our nation was a land of wealth and prosperity and a beacon of freedom & hope to the rest of the world.
I saw an article discussing our efforts to create democracy in Iraq. Democracy?? Seriously?? Most stupid "warplan" ever! If we're staying until these savages have "democracy" we'll be there forever! These people still live in a tribal culture! If you could end that primitive nonsense they'd still be decades if not longer from understanding "democracy". Iraqi’s walked the streets with ak-47's during Saddam's regime, had they wanted a new form of government they could have had a revolt like our forefathers did. We took on the super-power of the 18th century and won because we wanted a better government. Giant waste of American money & lives. These primitives have no comprehension of “Democracy” let alone any desire for it. Should have nuked them all on 9/12…
General Motors Co. is disclosing that seven executives will get roughly $7.5 million in company stock as part of their pay packages. The company says in regulatory filings that the executives include North American President Mark Reuss, Vice Chairman for Product Development Tom Stephens and President of GM Europe Nick Reilly.Previously GM had only disclosed a $9 million pay-and-stock deal for CEO Ed Whitacre, $6.2 million for Chief Financial Officer Chris Liddell and $5 million for Vice Chairman for Corporate Strategy Stephen Girsky.GM officials say the company could sell stock to the public late this year. No date has been set. The U.S. government owns 61 percent of GM because it gave the company roughly $50 billion in aid. GM has repaid $6.7 billion, with the rest converted to stock. Still no word on when the taxpayers get the $48 billion dollars in as-of-yet unpaid TARP bailout money.
Al & Tipper are splitting up. The Pope of the Greenies is of course amongst the uber-wealthy as a result of selling the fraudulent new religion of climatology. Some of the goods likely to be in the property settlement: $100 million. That’s the Gores’ net worth. Before the 2000 election the family's net worth was closer to $1 million. Since then, the Gores have purchased the Montecito mansion,( an $8.8 million ocean-view villa in the gated community of Montecito, California. The 6,500-square-foot villa on one-and-a-half acres of grounds includes a swimming pool, a spa, fountains, five bedrooms and nine baths, sounds very eco friendly to me) a multimillion-dollar home in Nashville, Tenn., a condo in San Francisco in addition to their home in the Washington area. They bought a 100-foot houseboat named, aptly, Bio-Solar One in 2008. And they own a farm in Carthage, Tenn., that includes a zinc mine. Which brings us to business writer and Anxiety Institute founder Alan Caruba, who believes the "separation" is a ruse to protect those assets should there be a federal investigation of certain environmentally minded activities. It seems that Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma (R), already has called for the Justice Department to investigate. "Al Gores big, big problem these days is something dubbed 'Climategate,' the revelation that the science of global warming is entirely fabricated and utterly false," Mr. Caruba says, noting that Mr. Gore established the $1 billion Generation Investment Management LLP to invest in assorted green technologies, assisted by Goldman Sachs veteran David Blood.
53 days into the Gulf oil spill, the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history BHO hasn’t met with the CEO of BP?
I'mma kik day assez fo dis oil mess! Really? Are you some ghetto tough guy now? Sit down & shut up Barney! In the BP financial records of the last 20 years you've been the top recipient of money from BP & BP funded PAC’s which is even better because you've only been in their pockets, whoops, national politics for 5 years. You're not kicking anything, you fraud. According to the Center for Responsive Politics… During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant itself and is also the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.
“This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.”A&D (aka Wilder) Publishing’s “disclaimer” at the beginning of a recent printing of our Constitution. “Parents may want to discuss…before allowing them to read this..” WTF!!?? Parents may also want to discuss with their children the fact that while we followed this document our nation was a land of wealth and prosperity and a beacon of freedom & hope to the rest of the world.
I saw an article discussing our efforts to create democracy in Iraq. Democracy?? Seriously?? Most stupid "warplan" ever! If we're staying until these savages have "democracy" we'll be there forever! These people still live in a tribal culture! If you could end that primitive nonsense they'd still be decades if not longer from understanding "democracy". Iraqi’s walked the streets with ak-47's during Saddam's regime, had they wanted a new form of government they could have had a revolt like our forefathers did. We took on the super-power of the 18th century and won because we wanted a better government. Giant waste of American money & lives. These primitives have no comprehension of “Democracy” let alone any desire for it. Should have nuked them all on 9/12…
General Motors Co. is disclosing that seven executives will get roughly $7.5 million in company stock as part of their pay packages. The company says in regulatory filings that the executives include North American President Mark Reuss, Vice Chairman for Product Development Tom Stephens and President of GM Europe Nick Reilly.Previously GM had only disclosed a $9 million pay-and-stock deal for CEO Ed Whitacre, $6.2 million for Chief Financial Officer Chris Liddell and $5 million for Vice Chairman for Corporate Strategy Stephen Girsky.GM officials say the company could sell stock to the public late this year. No date has been set. The U.S. government owns 61 percent of GM because it gave the company roughly $50 billion in aid. GM has repaid $6.7 billion, with the rest converted to stock. Still no word on when the taxpayers get the $48 billion dollars in as-of-yet unpaid TARP bailout money.
Al & Tipper are splitting up. The Pope of the Greenies is of course amongst the uber-wealthy as a result of selling the fraudulent new religion of climatology. Some of the goods likely to be in the property settlement: $100 million. That’s the Gores’ net worth. Before the 2000 election the family's net worth was closer to $1 million. Since then, the Gores have purchased the Montecito mansion,( an $8.8 million ocean-view villa in the gated community of Montecito, California. The 6,500-square-foot villa on one-and-a-half acres of grounds includes a swimming pool, a spa, fountains, five bedrooms and nine baths, sounds very eco friendly to me) a multimillion-dollar home in Nashville, Tenn., a condo in San Francisco in addition to their home in the Washington area. They bought a 100-foot houseboat named, aptly, Bio-Solar One in 2008. And they own a farm in Carthage, Tenn., that includes a zinc mine. Which brings us to business writer and Anxiety Institute founder Alan Caruba, who believes the "separation" is a ruse to protect those assets should there be a federal investigation of certain environmentally minded activities. It seems that Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma (R), already has called for the Justice Department to investigate. "Al Gores big, big problem these days is something dubbed 'Climategate,' the revelation that the science of global warming is entirely fabricated and utterly false," Mr. Caruba says, noting that Mr. Gore established the $1 billion Generation Investment Management LLP to invest in assorted green technologies, assisted by Goldman Sachs veteran David Blood.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Saturday, May 29, 2010
This may a little rough and rambling but I’m just typing things “off the cuff”. My apologies.
News of the World
North Korea is now exporting nuclear technology! A UN report states that the North Korean government is involved in “banned nuclear and ballistic activities” in a number of nations, notably Iran, Syria, and Myanmar. In addition North Korea is said to be setting up “assembly” shops abroad in places like the Congo, where they can export components, assemble them, and then export them abroad from a less-sanctioned nation. Remember when the last administration referred to North Korea and Iran as 2 parts of an “Axis of Evil”? Right-wing warmonger. Our State Dept. (I had forgotten that we had one until I saw the wicked witch of Little Rock on the news) is completely ineffective. We have no foreign policy whatsoever.
Some recent (this week) examples of our failed excuse for foreign policy:
During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan (Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism) described violent extremists as victims of "political, economic and social forces," "Nor do we describe our enemy as 'jihadists' or 'Islamists' because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam”. Among his other remarks in that same speech…that it would be "counterproductive" for the United States to use the term, as it would "play into the false perception" that the "murderers" leading war against the West are doing so in the name of a "holy cause."
During a national security discussion at the Brookings Institution Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (she’s such a non-entity that even the news media often forgets her title, referring to her as “the former 1st lady”) complained that the United States has lowered taxes on the wealthy (ignore the fact that the highest bracket has remained at 35% for 7 years from 39.6% while the lowest went from 15% to 10% and that nearly 40% of Americans pay no taxes) and said nations around the world need to "increase their public revenue collections" to spur investment "The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues (the United States is), whether it's individual, corporate, whatever the taxation forms are,"
How does either of these tools help protect our national security or national interests? Brennan feels that we shouldn’t label as anti-U.S. Islamic Jihadists the anti-American Islamic Jihadists who continuously claim to be conducting a jihad in the name of Islam against the Great Satan (the U.S). Hillary in the meantime tries to link national security in the face of mounting nuclear threats from China-Korea-Iran to the BHO redistribution of wealth scheme.
This administration has tied every issue facing our country to their National Socialist war on our culture (and in the process placing the blame on GWB, the Emmanuel Goldstein of the Obama camp) so that oil spills are examples of corporate greed (ignore that the BHO gang granted the exemption that allowed the drilling) and its not Barney’s problem but BP’s to clean it up. Making cars safer, $108 million in new taxes on car sales to research what happened (notice past tense) at Toyota. Defending our nation is dependant on wealth redistribution and being sensitive to the feelings of our enemies. Solving illegal immigration issues should be accomplished by dissolving the borders, providing welfare to foreign invaders and describing as racist any notion that we maintain some form of national sovereignty. We have allowed our nation to be hijacked and put on a course to become something anathema to that which its creators ever envisioned.
On the Environmental Front….
In his news conference Thursday, President Obama singled out the MMS as being a problem and said that although Interior Secretary Ken Salazar had started cleaning house there, "the culture had not fully changed in MMS." He described it as "a culture in which oil companies were able to get what they wanted without sufficient oversight and regulation." He also went on to state that he had inherited this problem from Goldstein (whoops, GWB). Let’s look at a little timeline, shall we?
Jan. 29, 2009 Newly installed Interior Secretary Salazar launches an ethics reform program and orders a new code of conduct for MMS employees. Then 10 months later…
Oct. 7, 2009 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform reports MMS program mismanagement and cozy relationships with industry officials have led to the loss of billions in revenue. Months later we see…
April 8, 2009 GAO report says MMS in Alaska has been a target for lawsuits that claim it hasn't properly considered the environmental effects of offshore petroleum lease sales.
So, as President you know, prior to when you take office that there’s a problem. You appoint new management, who continue “business as usual”, you ignore reports that nothing has changed (because now your cronies are getting rich?) and lawsuits claiming laxity. Finally, when there is a catastrophic failure on a platform exempted by the BHO administration 1st claim that clean-up is BP’s problem then go on vacation, lots. Hold a news conference in which you claim everything is under control and that even if you were more involved it would still be a disaster and lives would still be ruined. Then when Party hack James Carville is foaming at the mouth on national TV about how “people are dying down here & he’s doing nothing” you show up for a photo-op on a beach and explain that the buck stops with me but this is the result of corporate greed and the boogey-men from the last administration and in no way is any of this my fault so I don’t want any questions or blame. Where are the claims of corruption, profiteering and racism in the government so prevalent when Katrina hit New Orleans (nobody ever looks at the failure to heed NWS warnings to evacuate, failure of local officials to have a plan of evacuation or to apply for available federal relief funds)?Where are the protests, where is the outrage?
News of the World
North Korea is now exporting nuclear technology! A UN report states that the North Korean government is involved in “banned nuclear and ballistic activities” in a number of nations, notably Iran, Syria, and Myanmar. In addition North Korea is said to be setting up “assembly” shops abroad in places like the Congo, where they can export components, assemble them, and then export them abroad from a less-sanctioned nation. Remember when the last administration referred to North Korea and Iran as 2 parts of an “Axis of Evil”? Right-wing warmonger. Our State Dept. (I had forgotten that we had one until I saw the wicked witch of Little Rock on the news) is completely ineffective. We have no foreign policy whatsoever.
Some recent (this week) examples of our failed excuse for foreign policy:
During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan (Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism) described violent extremists as victims of "political, economic and social forces," "Nor do we describe our enemy as 'jihadists' or 'Islamists' because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam”. Among his other remarks in that same speech…that it would be "counterproductive" for the United States to use the term, as it would "play into the false perception" that the "murderers" leading war against the West are doing so in the name of a "holy cause."
During a national security discussion at the Brookings Institution Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (she’s such a non-entity that even the news media often forgets her title, referring to her as “the former 1st lady”) complained that the United States has lowered taxes on the wealthy (ignore the fact that the highest bracket has remained at 35% for 7 years from 39.6% while the lowest went from 15% to 10% and that nearly 40% of Americans pay no taxes) and said nations around the world need to "increase their public revenue collections" to spur investment "The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues (the United States is), whether it's individual, corporate, whatever the taxation forms are,"
How does either of these tools help protect our national security or national interests? Brennan feels that we shouldn’t label as anti-U.S. Islamic Jihadists the anti-American Islamic Jihadists who continuously claim to be conducting a jihad in the name of Islam against the Great Satan (the U.S). Hillary in the meantime tries to link national security in the face of mounting nuclear threats from China-Korea-Iran to the BHO redistribution of wealth scheme.
This administration has tied every issue facing our country to their National Socialist war on our culture (and in the process placing the blame on GWB, the Emmanuel Goldstein of the Obama camp) so that oil spills are examples of corporate greed (ignore that the BHO gang granted the exemption that allowed the drilling) and its not Barney’s problem but BP’s to clean it up. Making cars safer, $108 million in new taxes on car sales to research what happened (notice past tense) at Toyota. Defending our nation is dependant on wealth redistribution and being sensitive to the feelings of our enemies. Solving illegal immigration issues should be accomplished by dissolving the borders, providing welfare to foreign invaders and describing as racist any notion that we maintain some form of national sovereignty. We have allowed our nation to be hijacked and put on a course to become something anathema to that which its creators ever envisioned.
On the Environmental Front….
In his news conference Thursday, President Obama singled out the MMS as being a problem and said that although Interior Secretary Ken Salazar had started cleaning house there, "the culture had not fully changed in MMS." He described it as "a culture in which oil companies were able to get what they wanted without sufficient oversight and regulation." He also went on to state that he had inherited this problem from Goldstein (whoops, GWB). Let’s look at a little timeline, shall we?
Jan. 29, 2009 Newly installed Interior Secretary Salazar launches an ethics reform program and orders a new code of conduct for MMS employees. Then 10 months later…
Oct. 7, 2009 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform reports MMS program mismanagement and cozy relationships with industry officials have led to the loss of billions in revenue. Months later we see…
April 8, 2009 GAO report says MMS in Alaska has been a target for lawsuits that claim it hasn't properly considered the environmental effects of offshore petroleum lease sales.
So, as President you know, prior to when you take office that there’s a problem. You appoint new management, who continue “business as usual”, you ignore reports that nothing has changed (because now your cronies are getting rich?) and lawsuits claiming laxity. Finally, when there is a catastrophic failure on a platform exempted by the BHO administration 1st claim that clean-up is BP’s problem then go on vacation, lots. Hold a news conference in which you claim everything is under control and that even if you were more involved it would still be a disaster and lives would still be ruined. Then when Party hack James Carville is foaming at the mouth on national TV about how “people are dying down here & he’s doing nothing” you show up for a photo-op on a beach and explain that the buck stops with me but this is the result of corporate greed and the boogey-men from the last administration and in no way is any of this my fault so I don’t want any questions or blame. Where are the claims of corruption, profiteering and racism in the government so prevalent when Katrina hit New Orleans (nobody ever looks at the failure to heed NWS warnings to evacuate, failure of local officials to have a plan of evacuation or to apply for available federal relief funds)?Where are the protests, where is the outrage?
Friday, May 28, 2010
Some of my friends have some odd views of the world and how it should be ordered so I have done some study. Let me see if I understand the “Liberal” viewpoint…
“There ought to be a law…” and the government should be providing more services and taxing the “rich” should pay for it, but the government shouldn’t interfere in my life and I pay enough. “Rich” doesn’t include anyone in Hollywood nor contributors to the National Socialist movement.
Killing innocent babies in the womb is ok and should be funded and protected by the government as a “right” but killing criminals is wrong because an innocent man might die. A woman’s “right” to kill her baby is her choice alone, but if she chooses to have the child she’s entitled to reparations from the father, who has no say in the matter of his child.
If an old conservative has an affair with a staffer he’s a sex offender and should resign in disgrace. If a President who was the darling of hippydom has a long history of using his offices to not only hide his career as a sexual predator but to bribe and intimidate anyone who tries to go public he’s a victim of the “right-wing conspiracy”.
Being anti-Christian, attacking all references to Christianity and promoting the nonsensical, unfounded, unconstitutional Supreme Court doctrine of “Separation of Church & State” because of fears of the “Christian Right" establishing a theocracy in America while howling for U.S. aid to make Tibet a theocracy under that fraud & Hollywood celebrity, the Dalia Lama and promoting idiocy like footbaths in airports so that terrorists can observe their foul Sharia law before blowing up our airplanes.
Whining for “solutions” and “compromise” when what you really mean is endless debate designed to confuse and obfuscate and calling acceptance of your pet policy a compromise by virtue of having allowed it to be discussed.
Using the words “tolerance” and “open-minded” to describe the intolerant, close-minded doctrine of rejecting and destroying the ideas and institutions of anyone not adhering to leftist dogma through a campaign of attack and ridicule including name-calling and claims of racism and fascism against the Party’s enemies.
Attempting to restructure the language itself through both the education system and the legal system to prevent ideas contrary to leftist dogma from being expressed, but being “for” freedom of speech.
Promoting a massive nanny state wherein all aspects of life will be regulated, the sheeple will be protected from themselves and in which all will be provided for via the public coffers while maintaining the ability to call with a straight face any who oppose this “utopia” of National Socialism as a “Nazi” or “right-wing fascist conspirator”
“There ought to be a law…” and the government should be providing more services and taxing the “rich” should pay for it, but the government shouldn’t interfere in my life and I pay enough. “Rich” doesn’t include anyone in Hollywood nor contributors to the National Socialist movement.
Killing innocent babies in the womb is ok and should be funded and protected by the government as a “right” but killing criminals is wrong because an innocent man might die. A woman’s “right” to kill her baby is her choice alone, but if she chooses to have the child she’s entitled to reparations from the father, who has no say in the matter of his child.
If an old conservative has an affair with a staffer he’s a sex offender and should resign in disgrace. If a President who was the darling of hippydom has a long history of using his offices to not only hide his career as a sexual predator but to bribe and intimidate anyone who tries to go public he’s a victim of the “right-wing conspiracy”.
Being anti-Christian, attacking all references to Christianity and promoting the nonsensical, unfounded, unconstitutional Supreme Court doctrine of “Separation of Church & State” because of fears of the “Christian Right" establishing a theocracy in America while howling for U.S. aid to make Tibet a theocracy under that fraud & Hollywood celebrity, the Dalia Lama and promoting idiocy like footbaths in airports so that terrorists can observe their foul Sharia law before blowing up our airplanes.
Whining for “solutions” and “compromise” when what you really mean is endless debate designed to confuse and obfuscate and calling acceptance of your pet policy a compromise by virtue of having allowed it to be discussed.
Using the words “tolerance” and “open-minded” to describe the intolerant, close-minded doctrine of rejecting and destroying the ideas and institutions of anyone not adhering to leftist dogma through a campaign of attack and ridicule including name-calling and claims of racism and fascism against the Party’s enemies.
Attempting to restructure the language itself through both the education system and the legal system to prevent ideas contrary to leftist dogma from being expressed, but being “for” freedom of speech.
Promoting a massive nanny state wherein all aspects of life will be regulated, the sheeple will be protected from themselves and in which all will be provided for via the public coffers while maintaining the ability to call with a straight face any who oppose this “utopia” of National Socialism as a “Nazi” or “right-wing fascist conspirator”
Obama is the new Nixon...
U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 4.
”The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
18 U.S.C 600
Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment,
position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit,
provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of
Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such
benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any
political activity or for the support of or opposition to any
candidate or any political party in connection with any general or
special election to any political office, or in connection with any
primary election or political convention or caucus held to select
candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
18 U.S.C 595
Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position
by the United States, or by any department or agency thereof, or by
the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality thereof,
or by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or
any political subdivision, municipality, or agency thereof, or
agency of such political subdivision or municipality (including any
corporation owned or controlled by any State, Territory, or
Possession of the United States or by any such political
subdivision, municipality, or agency), in connection with any
activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by
the United States, or any department or agency thereof,
uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or
affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the
office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member
of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate
from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or
both.
BHO promised the most transparent administration ever, no more politics as usual and that west coast harpy Nancy Pelosi vowed the most transparent, ethical Congress ever. Has everyone stopped laughing yet? This could be the most sneaky backroom-dealing, out of touch, paranoid, self absorbed President/administration since Tricky Dick.
Rod Blagojevich sells BHO’s Senate seat to Roland Burris, long term Chicago Democratic apparatchik. The BHO mob denies having even met Blago in person let alone being involved in the selection process. Meantime dozens of photos show Barney O and Blago together. Blago attempts to subpoena BHO and Barney O has apparently been interviewed by the FBI, with his lawyer present to advise him but the administration claims that he cannot/will not be subpoenaed.
Rahm Emanuel, according to Congressional disclosures, made $16.2 million in his two-and-a-half-years as a banker (the now-defunct firm of Wasserstein Perella) then went to work for Freddie Mac (appointed by Clinton). During his time on the board, Freddie Mac was plagued with scandals involving campaign contributions and accounting irregularities. The Obama Administration rejected a request under the Freedom of Information Act to review Freddie Mac board minutes and correspondence during Emanuel's time as a director. Freddie Mac’s shady and/or illegal lending processes started the collapse of the housing industry, but this administration refuses to act to fix Freddie & Fanny but instead continue to pour TARP money into these institutions. In the meantime they launch a “show-trial” and file “lawsuits” against Goldman-Sachs (which by the way paid back all the TARP money, with interest and gave $1 million to BHO and $4.5 million to DNC) to inflame and misdirect public sentiment while the administration lines its pockets and pushes America toward National Socialism.
Rahm Emanuel sends his former boss Slick Willie to bribe Joe Sestak (Clinton appointed him a Rear Admiral) with a job offer to not run for U.S. Senate??!! 1st the administration ignored questions on the matter for 3 months, then issued a statement that they did “nothing illegal” and now issue a statement describing their actions as legal. Stonewalling the appointment of a special investigator by the AG goes a long way to making the stink dissipate, too, doesn’t it? The claim from the BHO gang is that he (Sestak) was offered a non-paying position as an “advisor” at the White House by Clinton at the prompting of Rahm Emanuel, apparently without authorization from the President. Are we to believe that he (Emanuel) acted on his own? Of course he did. Just like Haldeman and Ehrlichman. Didn’t BHO promise a “new administration”, one cutting ties from this very sort of politics and the Clinton administration? Why then is his staff packed full of lifelong Democratic Party hacks, Clinton staffers, and the Clintons themselves?
Had this been under the previous administration, the controlled media would be screaming for an investigation. David Axelrod (who invented BHO) would have been on CNN talking about a culture of corruption. The pattern of corruption is clear to anyone not a victim of the hypnosis/hysteria that is the Cult of Obama. I could (and perhaps will) write volumes on the corrupt, greedy, money-grabbing gang of Chicago political thugs currently hovering around 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. This is clearly an attempt at election tampering even more obvious than BHO’s army of voter-fraud perpetrators known as ACORN (definitely an article there too). Since the Gore/Lieberman attempt to steal a presidential election, the left is working daily to subvert our election laws and fill seats at every level by any means! For now I ask you to write/call/email your state and federal officials, urging an investigation in this matter.
U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 4.
”The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
18 U.S.C 600
Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment,
position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit,
provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of
Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such
benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any
political activity or for the support of or opposition to any
candidate or any political party in connection with any general or
special election to any political office, or in connection with any
primary election or political convention or caucus held to select
candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
18 U.S.C 595
Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position
by the United States, or by any department or agency thereof, or by
the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality thereof,
or by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or
any political subdivision, municipality, or agency thereof, or
agency of such political subdivision or municipality (including any
corporation owned or controlled by any State, Territory, or
Possession of the United States or by any such political
subdivision, municipality, or agency), in connection with any
activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by
the United States, or any department or agency thereof,
uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or
affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the
office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member
of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate
from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or
both.
BHO promised the most transparent administration ever, no more politics as usual and that west coast harpy Nancy Pelosi vowed the most transparent, ethical Congress ever. Has everyone stopped laughing yet? This could be the most sneaky backroom-dealing, out of touch, paranoid, self absorbed President/administration since Tricky Dick.
Rod Blagojevich sells BHO’s Senate seat to Roland Burris, long term Chicago Democratic apparatchik. The BHO mob denies having even met Blago in person let alone being involved in the selection process. Meantime dozens of photos show Barney O and Blago together. Blago attempts to subpoena BHO and Barney O has apparently been interviewed by the FBI, with his lawyer present to advise him but the administration claims that he cannot/will not be subpoenaed.
Rahm Emanuel, according to Congressional disclosures, made $16.2 million in his two-and-a-half-years as a banker (the now-defunct firm of Wasserstein Perella) then went to work for Freddie Mac (appointed by Clinton). During his time on the board, Freddie Mac was plagued with scandals involving campaign contributions and accounting irregularities. The Obama Administration rejected a request under the Freedom of Information Act to review Freddie Mac board minutes and correspondence during Emanuel's time as a director. Freddie Mac’s shady and/or illegal lending processes started the collapse of the housing industry, but this administration refuses to act to fix Freddie & Fanny but instead continue to pour TARP money into these institutions. In the meantime they launch a “show-trial” and file “lawsuits” against Goldman-Sachs (which by the way paid back all the TARP money, with interest and gave $1 million to BHO and $4.5 million to DNC) to inflame and misdirect public sentiment while the administration lines its pockets and pushes America toward National Socialism.
Rahm Emanuel sends his former boss Slick Willie to bribe Joe Sestak (Clinton appointed him a Rear Admiral) with a job offer to not run for U.S. Senate??!! 1st the administration ignored questions on the matter for 3 months, then issued a statement that they did “nothing illegal” and now issue a statement describing their actions as legal. Stonewalling the appointment of a special investigator by the AG goes a long way to making the stink dissipate, too, doesn’t it? The claim from the BHO gang is that he (Sestak) was offered a non-paying position as an “advisor” at the White House by Clinton at the prompting of Rahm Emanuel, apparently without authorization from the President. Are we to believe that he (Emanuel) acted on his own? Of course he did. Just like Haldeman and Ehrlichman. Didn’t BHO promise a “new administration”, one cutting ties from this very sort of politics and the Clinton administration? Why then is his staff packed full of lifelong Democratic Party hacks, Clinton staffers, and the Clintons themselves?
Had this been under the previous administration, the controlled media would be screaming for an investigation. David Axelrod (who invented BHO) would have been on CNN talking about a culture of corruption. The pattern of corruption is clear to anyone not a victim of the hypnosis/hysteria that is the Cult of Obama. I could (and perhaps will) write volumes on the corrupt, greedy, money-grabbing gang of Chicago political thugs currently hovering around 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. This is clearly an attempt at election tampering even more obvious than BHO’s army of voter-fraud perpetrators known as ACORN (definitely an article there too). Since the Gore/Lieberman attempt to steal a presidential election, the left is working daily to subvert our election laws and fill seats at every level by any means! For now I ask you to write/call/email your state and federal officials, urging an investigation in this matter.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
For what it's worth, here is the text of the Arizona revised statute 11-1051 (the immigration bill all the uninformed sheeple are so distraught about). I omitted sections G-K which discuss court fees and expenses and are not relevant to the debate over what this law allows. The whole thing, including all the various drafts, Arizona House & Senate versions etc. may be viewed at http://www.keytlaw.com/blog/2010/04/anti-illegal-immigration-law-part-1/
Here it is:
A. No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.
B. For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:
1. A valid Arizona Driver’s License
2. A valid Arizona non-operating identification license
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification
C. If an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States is convicted of a violation of state or local law, on discharge from imprisonment or on the assessment of any monetary obligation that is imposed, the United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States customs and border protection shall be immediately notified.
D. Notwithstanding any other law, a law enforcement agency may securely transport an alien who the agency has received verification is unlawfully present in the united states and who is in the agency’s custody to a federal facility in this state or to any other point of transfer into federal custody that is outside the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency. a law enforcement agency shall obtain judicial authorization before securely transporting an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States to a point of transfer that is outside of this state.
E. In the implementation of this section, an alien’s immigration status may be determined by:
1. A law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to verify or ascertain an alien’s immigration status.
2. The United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States customs and border protection pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).
F. Except as provided in federal law, officials or agencies of this state and counties, cities, towns and other political subdivisions of this state may not be prohibited or in any way be restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual or exchanging that information with any other federal, state or local governmental entity for the following official purposes:
1. Determining eligibility for any public benefit, service or license provided by any federal, state, local or other political subdivision of this state.
2. Verifying any claim of residence or domicile if determination of residence or domicile is required under the laws of this state or a judicial order issued pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in this state.
3. If the person is an alien, determining whether the person is in compliance with the federal registration laws prescribed by title II, chapter 7 of the federal immigration and Nationality act.
4. Pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373 and 8 United States Code section 1644.
Here it is:
A. No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.
B. For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:
1. A valid Arizona Driver’s License
2. A valid Arizona non-operating identification license
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification
C. If an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States is convicted of a violation of state or local law, on discharge from imprisonment or on the assessment of any monetary obligation that is imposed, the United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States customs and border protection shall be immediately notified.
D. Notwithstanding any other law, a law enforcement agency may securely transport an alien who the agency has received verification is unlawfully present in the united states and who is in the agency’s custody to a federal facility in this state or to any other point of transfer into federal custody that is outside the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency. a law enforcement agency shall obtain judicial authorization before securely transporting an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States to a point of transfer that is outside of this state.
E. In the implementation of this section, an alien’s immigration status may be determined by:
1. A law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to verify or ascertain an alien’s immigration status.
2. The United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States customs and border protection pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).
F. Except as provided in federal law, officials or agencies of this state and counties, cities, towns and other political subdivisions of this state may not be prohibited or in any way be restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual or exchanging that information with any other federal, state or local governmental entity for the following official purposes:
1. Determining eligibility for any public benefit, service or license provided by any federal, state, local or other political subdivision of this state.
2. Verifying any claim of residence or domicile if determination of residence or domicile is required under the laws of this state or a judicial order issued pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in this state.
3. If the person is an alien, determining whether the person is in compliance with the federal registration laws prescribed by title II, chapter 7 of the federal immigration and Nationality act.
4. Pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373 and 8 United States Code section 1644.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
I saw something on either the erroneously named “History Channel” or the equally misnamed “Learning Channel” (I don’t recall which) about the Crusades in which the narrator referred to the Crusades as the 1st Holy War and that the Crusades prompted Islamic hostility to the West that has lasted until modern times!
A little history lesson:
In 622 Muhammad led an army against the Quraysh at Badr, near his hometown of Mecca (these were Muhammad’s tribesmen, from whom he split to form his new “religion”) because they were “unbelievers” (It is not ye who slew them, it is Allah, Qur’an 8:17)
Shortly thereafter he plants the seed of Muslim hatred toward Jews when he announces in the tribal marketplace of the Banu Qaynuqa “Oh Jews, beware lest Allah bring upon you the vengeance He brought upon Quraysh and become Muslims” They refuse & he besieges their city until it surrenders. He then issues orders to “Kill any Jew that falls into your power” Two pieces from the Bukhari, vol.1 book2 no. 24 (the Muslim confession of faith) "Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform all that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.” And another (no.25) “Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad).” The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?” He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause."
In 638 Muslims besieged and captured Jerusalem. The next several centuries see an escalation from the “jizya” a tax to be non-Muslim (still in use in Muslim nations around the world today), prohibition against practicing or teaching the Christian & Jewish faiths, building or even repairing temples and churches to crucifixions and beheadings.
711, Muslims invade the Iberian Peninsula and southern France…
831, Sicily…
840, Crete falls…
965, Cyprus…and at every step of the way, taxation, intimidation, forced conversion, torture, imprisonment & even death for those who do not accept this new “religion” So to claim that Westerners are somehow responsible for creating the animosity that these people have towards us is ludicrous using any real study of history and the teachings of Muhammad.
In order to devise a strategy against a foe, one must first define what constitutes a victory, what must we do before the fighting can stop..? History demonstrates that defining the cause of the conflict & hence how to end it is much easier amongst similar cultures than against dissimilar.
We have been unsuccessfully fighting a war with Islam for 1300 years because we fail to understand what they are fighting for. In simple terms they believe that all non-Muslims must yield to them and accept Allah or be persecuted and killed and they believe that giving one’s life in the Holy War against the non-Muslim is the highest form of piety. Folks, it’s us or them, but do not despair history provides a parallel. In December of 1941 we found our nation fighting a foe whose culture was alien to us in the form of the Japanese Empire. They held that their leader was divine, that non-Japanese were racially and morally inferior, that capitulation was disgraceful, that their enemies where to be treated as subhuman and that to die in the cause of the Emperor was to achieve martyrdom. Anyone else seeing it?
We fought the Japanese for nearly 4 years in what was some of the bloodiest and most ruthless combat that the American fighting man has ever experienced until we finally developed the means (we possessed already the will) to make “dying for the Emperor” a horrible reality without any chance to slay the hated enemy nor any “glory”. It was only when they realized that they would indeed all die fighting for the “cause” that living and coexisting seemed like the better choice.
Until we demonstrate the futility of war against us (the fruits of Western culture vs. the stagnation of theirs appear to be no incentive to quit) this will go on until they win and we will cease to exist by our own weakness and failure of will.
A little history lesson:
In 622 Muhammad led an army against the Quraysh at Badr, near his hometown of Mecca (these were Muhammad’s tribesmen, from whom he split to form his new “religion”) because they were “unbelievers” (It is not ye who slew them, it is Allah, Qur’an 8:17)
Shortly thereafter he plants the seed of Muslim hatred toward Jews when he announces in the tribal marketplace of the Banu Qaynuqa “Oh Jews, beware lest Allah bring upon you the vengeance He brought upon Quraysh and become Muslims” They refuse & he besieges their city until it surrenders. He then issues orders to “Kill any Jew that falls into your power” Two pieces from the Bukhari, vol.1 book2 no. 24 (the Muslim confession of faith) "Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform all that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.” And another (no.25) “Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad).” The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?” He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause."
In 638 Muslims besieged and captured Jerusalem. The next several centuries see an escalation from the “jizya” a tax to be non-Muslim (still in use in Muslim nations around the world today), prohibition against practicing or teaching the Christian & Jewish faiths, building or even repairing temples and churches to crucifixions and beheadings.
711, Muslims invade the Iberian Peninsula and southern France…
831, Sicily…
840, Crete falls…
965, Cyprus…and at every step of the way, taxation, intimidation, forced conversion, torture, imprisonment & even death for those who do not accept this new “religion” So to claim that Westerners are somehow responsible for creating the animosity that these people have towards us is ludicrous using any real study of history and the teachings of Muhammad.
In order to devise a strategy against a foe, one must first define what constitutes a victory, what must we do before the fighting can stop..? History demonstrates that defining the cause of the conflict & hence how to end it is much easier amongst similar cultures than against dissimilar.
We have been unsuccessfully fighting a war with Islam for 1300 years because we fail to understand what they are fighting for. In simple terms they believe that all non-Muslims must yield to them and accept Allah or be persecuted and killed and they believe that giving one’s life in the Holy War against the non-Muslim is the highest form of piety. Folks, it’s us or them, but do not despair history provides a parallel. In December of 1941 we found our nation fighting a foe whose culture was alien to us in the form of the Japanese Empire. They held that their leader was divine, that non-Japanese were racially and morally inferior, that capitulation was disgraceful, that their enemies where to be treated as subhuman and that to die in the cause of the Emperor was to achieve martyrdom. Anyone else seeing it?
We fought the Japanese for nearly 4 years in what was some of the bloodiest and most ruthless combat that the American fighting man has ever experienced until we finally developed the means (we possessed already the will) to make “dying for the Emperor” a horrible reality without any chance to slay the hated enemy nor any “glory”. It was only when they realized that they would indeed all die fighting for the “cause” that living and coexisting seemed like the better choice.
Until we demonstrate the futility of war against us (the fruits of Western culture vs. the stagnation of theirs appear to be no incentive to quit) this will go on until they win and we will cease to exist by our own weakness and failure of will.
Monday, May 17, 2010
This is an interesting news tidbit...
Reprinted from Investors.com
Policy Failure: Greece was told that if it wanted a bailout, it needed to consider privatizing its government health care system. So tell us again why the U.S. is following Europe's welfare state model.
The requirement, part of a deal arranged by the IMF, the European Union and the European Central bank, is a tacit admission that national health care programs are unsustainable. Along with transportation and energy, the bailout group, according to the New York Times, wants the Greek government to remove "the state from the marketplace in crucial sectors."
This is not some cranky or politically motivated demand. It is a condition based on the ugly reality of government medicine. The Times reports that economists — not right-wingers opposed to health care who want to blow up Times Square — say liberalizing "the health care industry would help bring down prices in these areas, which are among the highest in Europe."
Of course most of the media have been largely silent about the health care privatization measure for Greece, as it conflicts with their universal, single-payer health care narrative.
The public health system in the Hellenic Republic is operated by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, where centralized decisions and rules are made.
It provides free or low-cost treatment through what is essentially a single-payer system established in 1983 when the Socialist Party was in power. Family members and retirees are also covered. Like the systems in Britain and Canada, it has agonizingly long waiting lists.
It should be no surprise that in Greece, health care spending as a percentage of the economy is relatively steep. According to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development data, it's higher than that in the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom and Japan. Despite all the spending, Greece could never cover 100% of its citizens, reaching only about 83% for primary care.
Today, the patient most in need of a room in the intensive-care ward is Greece itself — what with government debt nearing 120% of GDP and the deficit at 13% of GDP.
Reprinted from Investors.com
Policy Failure: Greece was told that if it wanted a bailout, it needed to consider privatizing its government health care system. So tell us again why the U.S. is following Europe's welfare state model.
The requirement, part of a deal arranged by the IMF, the European Union and the European Central bank, is a tacit admission that national health care programs are unsustainable. Along with transportation and energy, the bailout group, according to the New York Times, wants the Greek government to remove "the state from the marketplace in crucial sectors."
This is not some cranky or politically motivated demand. It is a condition based on the ugly reality of government medicine. The Times reports that economists — not right-wingers opposed to health care who want to blow up Times Square — say liberalizing "the health care industry would help bring down prices in these areas, which are among the highest in Europe."
Of course most of the media have been largely silent about the health care privatization measure for Greece, as it conflicts with their universal, single-payer health care narrative.
The public health system in the Hellenic Republic is operated by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, where centralized decisions and rules are made.
It provides free or low-cost treatment through what is essentially a single-payer system established in 1983 when the Socialist Party was in power. Family members and retirees are also covered. Like the systems in Britain and Canada, it has agonizingly long waiting lists.
It should be no surprise that in Greece, health care spending as a percentage of the economy is relatively steep. According to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development data, it's higher than that in the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom and Japan. Despite all the spending, Greece could never cover 100% of its citizens, reaching only about 83% for primary care.
Today, the patient most in need of a room in the intensive-care ward is Greece itself — what with government debt nearing 120% of GDP and the deficit at 13% of GDP.
I read this the other day and wanted to share it. My good friend Matt is often quoting Churchill. I wonder what he thinks of this very insightful analysis of Islam.
Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green 1899)
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.
The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."
Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green 1899)
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.
The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's
initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them, what they
could and should do for themselves"
-Abraham Lincoln
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's
initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them, what they
could and should do for themselves"
-Abraham Lincoln
Monday, May 10, 2010
Its already federal law that all aliens in the U.S. carry identification showing their status and that it is presented to law enforcement officials on request. So why is AZ's new law unconstitutional? Don’t answer, it’s a rhetorical question. My grandparents & great grandparents knocked on the front door & asked to come in. They learned English & became citizens. They taught their children to speak English & be Americans as did all immigrants to our country for centuries. Why would I expect that it should be different for others? "The great melting pot" implies assimilation. The current waves of immigrants, legal or otherwise have discarded this concept. I don't have many political "litmus tests" but this is one of them, a core belief about which I am absolutely inflexible.
The PA dept of labor checks all aliens filing unemployment claims to determine whether they are here legally or not. Shouldn’t a bunch of hippies and border jumpers start a riot or something?
If I considered myself "Italian" and advocated more mafiosi invading our country & helped them avoid prosecution & demanded that schools teach Italian nobody would think twice about telling me to shut up & get out. If you consider yourself "Latino" instead of American & you support Mexican invaders in their attack on our country/culture maybe you should get the hell out too! The only hyphenated American is anti-American.
The PA dept of labor checks all aliens filing unemployment claims to determine whether they are here legally or not. Shouldn’t a bunch of hippies and border jumpers start a riot or something?
If I considered myself "Italian" and advocated more mafiosi invading our country & helped them avoid prosecution & demanded that schools teach Italian nobody would think twice about telling me to shut up & get out. If you consider yourself "Latino" instead of American & you support Mexican invaders in their attack on our country/culture maybe you should get the hell out too! The only hyphenated American is anti-American.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)