Saturday Stuff

A couple for you today, just because.

Pretty picky, I’d say, but then so am I, I suppose

For a Wife…
Great good nature, and a prudent generosity,
A lively look, a proper spirit, and a cheerful disposition
A good person, but not perfectly beautiful.
Of a moderate height.
With regard to complexion, not quite fair, but a little brown.
Young by all means, though there are exceptions.
A decent share of common sense, just tinctured with a little seasonable repartee, and a small modicum of wit; some learning, enough to make leisure hours agreeable, but not to interrupt domestic duties.
Well, but not critically, skilled in her own tongue.
No deficiency in spelling or pointing, and a good legible hand.
A proper knowledge of accounts and arithmetic, but no skill in vulgar fractions.
A more than tolerable good voice, and a little ear for music; and a capability for singing a canzonet, or a song, in company, but no peculiar and intimate acquaintance with minims, crotchets, quavers, &c.

via Qualifications for A Georgian Wife or Husband, do read it all.

Then perhaps a little Lutheran Satire.

Makes sense to me.

Why We Hate You: Guest Post by ISIL

156635-ISIS-largeSeems to be a lot of discussion about this. How about we simply do them the courtesy to read what they say. They’re not, after all, hiding it.

Shortly following the blessed attack on a sodomite, Crusader nightclub by the mujahid Omar Mateen, American politicians were quick to jump into the spotlight and denounce the shooting, declaring it a hate crime, an act of terrorism, and an act of senseless violence. A hate crime? Yes. Muslims undoubtedly hate liberalist sodomites, as does anyone else with any shred of their trah (inborn human nature) still intact. An act of terrorism? Most definitely. Muslims have been commanded to terrorize the disbelieving enemies of Allah. But an act of senseless violence? One would think that the average Westerner, by now, would have abandoned the tired claim that the actions of the mujahidin – who have repeatedly stated their goals, intentions, and motivations – don’t make sense. Unless you truly – and naively – believe that the crimes of the West against Islam and the Muslims, whether insulting the Prophet, burning the Quran, or waging war against the Caliphate, won’t prompt brutal retaliation from the mujahidin, you know full well that the likes of the attacks carried out by Omar Mateen, Larossi Aballa, and many others before and after them in revenge for Islam and the Muslims make complete sense. The only thing senseless would be for there to be no violent, fierce retaliation in the first place!

Many Westerners, however, are already aware that claiming the attacks of the mujahidin to be senseless and questioning incessantly as to why we hate the West and why we fight them is nothing more than a political act and a propaganda tool. The politicians will say it regardless of how much it stands in opposition to facts and common sense just to garner as many votes as they can for the next election cycle. The analysts and journalists will say it in order to keep themselves from becoming a target for saying something that the masses deem to be “politically incorrect.” The apostate “imams” in the West will adhere to the same tired cliché in order to avoid a backlash from the disbelieving societies in which they’ve chosen to reside. The point is, people know that it’s foolish, but they keep repeating it regardless because they’re afraid of the consequences of deviating from the script.

There are exceptions among the disbelievers, no doubt, people who will unabashedly declare that jihad and the laws of the Shari’ah – as well as everything else deemed taboo by the Islam-is-a-peaceful-religion crowd – are in fact completely Islamic, but they tend to be people with far less credibility who are painted as a social fringe, so their voices are dismissed and a large segment of the ignorant masses continues believing the false narrative. As such, it becomes important for us to clarify to the West in unequivocal terms – yet again – why we hate you and why we fight you.

Like the linked post, we’re going to mostly list reasons, or we’ll have a short book here, instead of a post.

We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah.

Some godlet that, believe in me or die, you know, just like the old days in Rome.

We hate you because your secular, liberal societies permit the very things that Allah has prohibited while banning many of the things He has permitted.

Back to the 7th century.

In the case of the atheist fringe, we hate you and wage war against you because you disbelieve in the existence of your Lord and Creator.

As I said on the last point, and in addition that wasn’t exactly what Christ taught me, doubt it was you, either. Christians have acted like this, but we learned better almost 500 years ago. Hognose says this, “Their beef here seems to be superficially with gay rights, but “alcohol, drugs, fornication, gambling, and usury” all come in for dishonorable mention, and they blame it all on what they think is the underlying crime: “you separate between religion and state.”” He’s not wrong.

We hate you for your crimes against Islam and wage war against you to punish you for your transgressions against our religion.

Mostly they hate us because we make fun of them, I think. Well, that’s life.

We hate you for your crimes against the Muslims; your drones and fighter jets bomb, kill, and maim our people around the world, and your puppets in the usurped lands of the Muslims oppress, torture, and wage war….

Well, my experience says it’s the kids that act out that get spanked. Sometimes they eventually learn, but most kids don’t try to kill the adults, that puts a new spin on it.

We hate you for invading our lands and fight you to repel you and drive you out.

Well, fair enough, I suppose, but have you  heard what happens when we get angry with each other? Right now you’re annoying, I’d suggest you don’t make us angry.

dabiq-cover-breaking-the-cross-150x211-213x300From the linked article:

The whole article is on pp. 30-33 of the terrorists’ magazine, Dabiq, issue 15, “Break the Cross.”

This magazine is available at this link on the Clarion Project’s website.

While this is the most recent issue, they have an archive of every issue of Dabiq there, as well.

I see no particular reason not to believe them, and no, I can’t say I fear them either. They need to be watched and likely put down, like, as others have said, a rabid skunk, although perhaps speaking better Arabic and/ or English than most skunks.

And perhaps I should note here that if you happen to be gay, a woman, or any other not completely male group, including a musician, for heaven’s sake, you might want to think about you is likely to defend you.

I’d further note that while these fools are not all of Islam, not even close, they are Islamic, and that is what they base their crackpot theories on.

Envy and covetousness is a sin for a reason, after all.

via Why We Hate You: Guest Post by ISIL | WeaponsMan

And you know, even if our governments have lost whatever manhood, self-pride, whatever one could call it, I suspect there are quite a few in the west yet, that will not go quietly into the night. I suspect we’ll find out.

Naval_Jack_of_the_United_States.svg

Our attitude towards wealth played a crucial role in Brexit. We need a rethink | Stephen Hawking

2560Unusually, this is a pretty good piece from The Guardian. Of course, Stephen Hawking is a very brilliant man, and it shows.

Money was a key factor in the outcome of the EU referendum. We will now have to learn to collaborate and to share

Does money matter? Does wealth make us rich any more? These might seem like odd questions for a physicist to try to answer, but Britain’s referendum decision is a reminder that everything is connected and that if we wish to understand the fundamental nature of the universe, we’d be very foolish to ignore the role that wealth does and doesn’t play in our society.

I argued during the referendum campaign that it would be a mistake for Britain to leave the European Union. I’m sad about the result, but if I’ve learned one lesson in my life it is to make the best of the hand you are dealt. Now we must learn to live outside the EU, but in order to manage that successfully we need to understand why British people made the choice that they did. I believe that wealth, the way we understand it and the way we share it, played a crucial role in their decision. As the prime minister, Theresa May, said in her first week in office: “We need to reform the economy to allow more people to share in the country’s prosperity.” […]

So I would be the last person to decry the significance of money. However, although wealth has played an important practical role in my life, I have of course had a different relationship with it to most people. Paying for my care as a severely disabled man, and my work, is crucial; the acquisition of possessions is not. I don’t know what I would do with a racehorse, or indeed a Ferrari, even if I could afford one. So I have come to see money as a facilitator, as a means to an end – whether it is for ideas, or health, or security – but never as an end in itself.

Interestingly this attitude, for a long time seen as the predictable eccentricity of a Cambridge academic, is now more widely shared. People are starting to question the value of pure wealth. Is knowledge or experience more important than money? Can possessions stand in the way of fulfilment? Can we truly own anything, or are we just transient custodians?

These questions are leading to a shift in behaviour which, in turn, is inspiring some groundbreaking new enterprises and ideas. These are termed “cathedral projects”, the modern equivalent of the grand church buildings, constructed as part of humanity’s attempt to bridge heaven and Earth. These ideas are started by one generation with the hope a future generation will take up these challenges.

via Our attitude towards wealth played a crucial role in Brexit. We need a rethink | Stephen Hawking | Opinion | The Guardian

‘Yeah, but’, as they say. There is nothing new whatsoever in such ideas. They are simply what Christianity has been about  (in this world, anyway) for about 2000 years. We have always been about individual freedom, yes, but that always had a commitment to family and community in it as well. Part of being free is to be able to be with those you love, and live without untoward fear of others.

What I see here is simply more of the same, people who have thrown away our common heritage, and finding it had reason for being as it was, now find themselves having to reinvent the wheel.

Rather like Chesterton said about the gate, from Tom Simon.

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, ‘I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.’ To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: ‘If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.’

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious.

via G. K. C. on the paradox of reform

Gays, the Left, Terrorism, and a bit on Oil

w1056We’ve been talking most of the week about gays and conservatives, in a political context. You can find those articles here, here, and here. And yes, I am always very grateful when Jessica chimes in on these matters, I’m an old fuddy-duddy sometimes and a younger (and female, not to mention British) perspective helps quite a lot.

As Jessica said the other day, we are not discussing this as a religious matter. The US, particularly, long ago decided that while most of our citizens are Christians, and a plurality quite strong ones, our government is, and was meant to be, secular, although Christian belief and principles lie at its heart.

Not the least of these is the right to worship (or not worship) as you please. That’s one reason it’s quite difficult for me, and hopefully for many of you to consider Islam as our enemy. They have just as much right to worship Allah, as we have our triune God, or for that matter, as many of our citizens do, to worship ‘the God’s of the Marketplace’.

Radical Islamists are another story, however. They have indisputably (unless you’re a leftist, I guess) made it clear that they are an enemy of our culture. If we are wise, we will recognize both that they are, and act on it. Yes, the world is a complicated place, and not prone to useful over-simplification very often.

The ad that leads this article makes a valid point. I found it both funny and profound, and I found the leftist hysteria that resulted from it even funnier. I haven’t heard even the most radical Christian say that we should be killing gays, have you? Didn’t think so. And that is the difference between Christian and radical Islamist – they do so advocate, and they do so act.

That leaves the question hanging as to why the left insists on propping up the Saudi (and other) fundamentalist Islamic regimes. Canada and the United States have it within our power to impoverish all of these states, to the point they would go back to being the irrelevant hellholes they were when the United States was founded. And make a profit doing it, just like we did with the Soviets.

In fact, the very people that first protested that ad were exactly the same people who killed the Keystone Pipeline. Leaves me wondering if they are simply against progress or against western civilization. Wonder if Jane Kleeb would like to answer that question, since it has cost our joint state of Nebraska several million dollars, just in the construction phase.

So, I can only conclude that those people consider it perfectly fine to kill gays, and support radical Islamists. After all, where I grew up, actions speak louder than words. Of course, as Jessica said the other day, leftists think of various groups as ‘brands’ (check out those WikiLeaks emails for more on this) and like some other mass marketers will say one thing to one group and quite the opposite to another. That’s why for those of us who pay attention, they long ago lost any credibility they ever had. Not the first brand to kill itself off that way, and I doubt it will be the last either.

Of course, none of this is new for the left, in either Britain or America (likely in all of Europe, but I don’t know as much about that). Radical Islam is hardly the first mass-murderer that the left has made an icon of, witness Castro’s executioner, Che Guevara, who the left has made an icon out of, as well as others. Here, find out a bit more about him, and see if you think he is an appropriate hero for anybody who values life, let alone freedom. Hat tip to The Daly Gator.

You’ll excuse me while I wash my mind of the thought of who some of my countrymen think are heroes.

The ‘Gay’ vote

mug.jpg

The Democrats, like most leftist political groups, like to think collectively, and in an age of identity of politics we have ‘the black vote’, the ‘hispanic’ vote, the ‘latino’ vote, the ‘women’s vote’ and the ‘gay vote’. You’ll note we don’t have the ‘men’s vote’ – not even the Left is silly enough to imagine men can be categorised as voters by their gender. That doesn’t stop it thinking of the other groups as ‘brands’ whose loyalty can be secured by offering concessions. As Neo was saying the other day, the assumption is that the ‘gay vote’ is mainly Democrat. Historically there is good reason for that, as it was the political Left which was in favour of lifting the various legal discriminations from which gay people suffered. Want to get married to another woman? The Right said ‘no’. Some part of the Right were quite nice about it, large parts weren’t, and no one really likes those who call them ‘dykes’ or ‘faggots’, it isn’t nice. So when it comes to voting, hey, vote Democrat or Labour.

In the UK our last PM, David Cameron, annoyed the heck out of some of his supporters by allowing gay people to get married; but he detoxified the Tory party for gay people. Because under that label, most people whose sexual preference is for someone of their own sex are just as diverse as straights. There is no intrinsic reason why a gay woman or man would instinctively vote for a party that wanted high taxation and more state interference – once the discrimination stuff is gone, gay people are free to vote the way their own instincts and political preference leads them – and many will favour free-market economics and the chance to make a buck or two.

This is hard for the Right, at least the Religious Right, as the Bible is quite clear on homosexuality. But the Bible is pretty clear on lending at interest, divorce and a whole set of things the political Right has managed to absorb and get past. As it does so on this issue, so it frees up people to vote according to their interests. A person who identifies as gay is always liable to put their civil rights at the top of the list, and if, in the past, that meant voting Labour of Democrat whilst holding your nose at the rest of the programme, so be it. Once that ceases to be so, as it now is in the UK, then all those other interests, and identities, come into play. A politics which makes people identify by their sexual preference or skin colour, is a crude politics which works for the crude only when most voters are of one skin colour and one sexual preference. In our pluralistic societies, this is no longer a vote-winner. Trump, who is nothing if not a pragmatist, gets it, and I hope others will too.

All those ‘interest groups’ that the Left targets are part of a wider society, and they can easily be disaggregated by political groupings who do the simple thing of appealing to the common public good. If that means that people of colour get the same rights as white people, well, frankly, great, and not before time; the same is true of the other groups, including gay people. As the slogan goes, some people are gay, get over it. Of course, in church, it is different, but here we’re discussing the political sphere.

Critics of “Gays for Trump” Party Miss the Point |

An interesting follow-on from the GOP convention, and many bad things happening in the world.

Gay rights activists have not traditionally found a political home on the right. Yet gay activist and alternative-right icon Milo Yiannopoulus wants to change that, arguing that while the Republican party may not love homosexuality, Islam wants gays dead, and therefore gay people should support Trump (who Milo calls “Daddy”).

This was the theme of “WAKE UP,” billed as “the most fab party at the RNC,” which brought Milo together with controversial activist Pamela Geller who has gained notoriety for her “Draw Mohammed”cartoon competition as well as billboards in New York which read: “In the war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”

The event was panned by media outlets such as Salon in a piece which shrugged off the event as a “virulently anti-Islam party at the RNC” and The Nation, which slammed it as “Islamophobes, White Supremacists, and Gays for Trump—the Alt-Right Arrives at the RNC.”

Teen Vogue said the event “perpetuates Islamophobia.” The Nation’s piece revealed the alarmingly open presence of white nationalists at the event and the seemingly small numbers of gay people who showed up.

Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who spoke at the event, referred to Europe as “Eurabia” and said, “Islam is the problem.”

If they would have looked to France, they would have seen that gay support for the far right has already happened there. In 2015 a national scandal occurred when it emerged that the winner of France’s largest gay magazine’s beauty contest was an outspoken supporter of France’s right wing Front Nationale.

As early as 2012, 26% of the gay community in Paris supported the Front Nationale, as opposed to 16% of straight people.

The rationale is startlingly simple. Milo’s cult status as an online provocateur has been generated by making controversial statements and pushing the accepted boundaries of discussion. He has been able to tap into the large and growing alt-right movement — a disparate collection of mostly young white males who support socially liberal policies but who hold the left in contempt for their perceived abandonment of liberal values when it comes to human rights abuses committed in the name of Islam.

Because of this, Milo and others make the argument that only the right will stand up to defend gay people against Islamist extremism.

The movement also partially consists of white nationalists and racists, who are able to maintain their foothold because they have consistently spoken out against radical Islam (and indeed Islam in general.)

Put simply, people would rather be racist than dead.

That’s very true, of course, even very socially conservatives don’t want to kill gays. They may want to ‘cure’ them or ‘convert’ them or something of that nature, but they universally realize that conversion at the muzzle of a gun is likely to be insincere, and invalid.

Personally, I would be more pleased if the gay activists would realize that many of us, on the right, simply don’t care, in civil manners about any groups, our quest is for individual rights for each and every one. What Martin Luther King referred to as the content of the character, rather than the color of the skin (and we could easily add sexual preference to that). That underpins all of our belief structure, including the free market.

However the ideology in question is not Islam, as Geert Wilders would argue, but is Islamism, the theocratic political project which seeks to impose the religion of Islam over everyone in the world and implementsharia governance, complete with hudud punishments. This ideology does threaten the freedoms of all Americans.

Tarring all Muslims with the same brush is not only morally wrong, but also facilitates the very thinking propagated by the Islamic State and other Islamist groups –- by dividing the world into two camps, Muslims and non-Muslims.

However, the refusal of the elites around the world — with a few notable exceptions such as the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom David Cameron — to correctly name and challenge the issue has created a vacuum.

People know there is a problem and know that it needs to be tackled.

When the Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) object to billboards calling on Muslims to talk to the FBI if they become suspicious of terrorism, when President Obama and Hillary Clinton point blank refuse to name the ideology at fault, people will start to draw their own conclusions about who is to blame and take action accordingly.

via Critics of “Gays for Trump” Party Miss the Point |

And so our elites themselves have prepared the battleground for the battle between the west, and not our real enemy radical Islam, but Islam itself, and quite possibly our own elites, as well. But we should forestall that, for defeating the wrong army is not victory. We need discernment in our leaders as much as we need courage enough to see and identify the enemy. And yes, there is one, and no it is not Islam. It is radical Islam, and when we fight this battle, we will do enough inadvertent damage to Islam, without confusing Islam itself with it in our minds.

This is the mistake that our political leadership (all across the west) makes. The west will be defended in the end, but there should be enough leadership to show that proper targeting will save many, many lives, on both sides.

I see little reason to fear radical Islam once proper defense measures are put in place, ones that do not overly infringe on our desiderata: individual freedom. But we have leadership that appears to be using radical Islam as a means to control their own populations, rather than defend our civilization. That is unlikely to end well for them, for us, or for Islam.

%d bloggers like this: