"Hungary is Not For Sale!"

Read more...

A Hard Rain

In Canada a $15,000 fine (plus court costs likely to be north of $150,000) has been imposed on an evangelical Christian who distributed leaflets containing criticism of homosexuality based on Biblical teachings.

The ruling contained this passage:

The lack of defences is not fatal to the constitutionality of the provision.  Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction.

There's no legitimacy to be found in a system so evil that it openly declares that it will punish people for making truthful statements.

Three of the six judges on the Canadian Supreme Court who made this ruling are Jews. 

Jews comprise 1.1% of the Canadian population but 50% of the Canadian Supreme Court.
__________________________________________

27:54 And Lot! when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination knowingly?
27:55 Must ye needs lust after men instead of women? Nay, but ye are folk who act senselessly.
27:56 But the answer of his folk was naught save that they said: Expel the household of Lot from your township, for they (forsooth) are folk who would keep clean!
27:57 Then We saved him and his household save his wife; We destined her to be of those who stayed behind.
27:58 And We rained a rain upon them. Dreadful is the rain of those who have been warned.

Read more...

Immigration Wars

Jeb Bush has written a book called Immigration Wars; in it he writes:

Immigrants are unlikely to be complacent about the freedom and opportunity that for them previously was only a dream and was gained only through great effort and sacrifice.

Actually a poll shows Hispanics and Asians are more likely to support the use of drones to issue traffic tickets than Whites are, and that Hispanics are more likely to support the use of drones to track down runaway criminals.

As for whether Americans are so complacent about opportunity, that isn't the vibe I've been getting as of late.

Jeb Bush continues:

Our nation constantly needs the replenishment of our spirit that immigrants bring.

Because if America doesn't keep accepting more and more immigrants, the government will end up shredding the Constitution. Never may that happen!

Like there was there this guy, from Texas or Alabama or something, and he started doing stuff against the Constitution but then all the immigrants voted for this other guy from Kenya who stopped all that.

Everything's been fine ever since!

"For government officials to not only arrest Brandon Raub for doing nothing more than exercising his First Amendment rights [to freedom of speech], but to actually force him to undergo psychological evaluations and detain him against his will goes against every constitutional principle this country was founded upon," said John Whitehead, executive director of the Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties group that has come to the Raub’s defense.

Shut up.

Read more...

Israel's War on Truth

h/t: TOO

Read more...

Doenitz at Nuremberg: A Re-Appraisal

[The Nuremberg] war-crimes trials were based upon a complete disregard of sound legal precedents, principles and procedures. The court had no real jurisdiction over the accused or their offenses; it invented ex post facto crimes; it permitted the accusers to act as prosecutors, judges, jury and executioners; and it admitted to the group of prosecutors those who had been guilty of crimes as numerous and atrocious as those with which the accused were charged. Hence, it is not surprising that these trials degraded international jurisprudence as never before in human experience." 
Professor Harry Elmer Barnes, Ph.D.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., Doenitz at Nuremberg: A Re-appraisal,(Torrance: Institute for Historical Review, 1983) p.148.

"This kangaroo court at Nuremburg was officially known as the 'International Military Tribunal.' That name is a libel on the military profession. The tribunal was not a military one in any sense. The only military men among the judges were the Russians.... At Nuremberg, mankind and our present civilization were on trial, with men whose own hands were bloody sitting on the judges' seats. One of the judges came from the country which committed the Katyn Forest massacre and produced an array of witnesses to swear at Nuremberg that the Germans had done it." 
Rear Admiral, U.S.N. Dan V. Gallery
Thompson, and Strutz ed., pp.XXI-XXII.

"To me the Nuremberg trials have always been totally inexcusable and a horrible travesty of justice. This is especially true when such trials are used to punish the men of the military services who were directing those services in time of war, and thus giving nothing more than an expression of the basic purposes of their whole adult life. In the execution of their wartime duties, these officers naturally carried out, to the letter, the orders and directions which they received from the head of their government. If an officer... should ever, for one instant, consider disregard or disobedience to his government's orders, all cohesion in the military services would fail, from that moment, and the military services would fail in the one reason for their existence - the waging of successful war in the interests of their country." 
Rear Admiral Robert A. Theobald, U.S.N.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.39.

"The Tribunal claimed in theory the right — it certainly had the power --to declare any act a war-crime. But it interpreted Article 6 of the Charter creating it, as excluding from its consideration any act committed by the victorious powers. As a consequence any act proved to have been committed by the victorious powers could not be declared by the Tribunal a war-crime. For this reason, the indiscriminate bombing of civilians which had indisputably been initiated by Great Britain was excluded from consideration as a war crime by the Tribunal." 
F.J.P. Veale, English jurist and author
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.146.

Read more...

Prohibitions

From Why Liberals Hate Guns, by Gregory Hood:
Therefore, the only freedoms that are allowed are ones that further “enjoyment.” There’s a reason why Prohibition of alcohol has become unthinkable even as prohibition of guns is now debated. Certainly, alcohol kills more people than guns. Alcohol also provides no concrete benefits beyond pleasure, whereas a gun can save someone’s life. Alcohol, like guns, can be dangerous in the wrong hands. Nonetheless, Americans accept beer commercials on TV in a way they would never accept rifle commercials precisely because the product is an amusement, an anesthetization against adult action. It doesn’t remove power from the managerial state or question the moral basis of the System in the same way as gun ownership. An addict is tolerated, even coddled by our society. A responsible gun owner is feared.

Our system relieves a person of having to suffer moral responsibility for anything. The decisions have already been made. Thus we have black progressive Ta-Nehisi Coates admitting that since he knows he will die someday, he would rather be shot than own a firearm and take the power of life and death upon himself. It is literally better to die – better even to let one’s children die – than be armed. As Lawrence Auster points out, to kill is the ultimate act of discrimination, because it involves the value judgment that my life and the lives of those I love are more important than the life of another. While gun owners are stigmatized as “fearful,” it’s actually progressives who seem to be trembling at the thought of white people who don’t go along with the program. As Nietzsche said, “No shepherd and one herd! Everybody wants the same, everybody is the same: whoever feels different goes voluntarily into a madhouse.”

Read more...

A Mountain of Lies

David Brooks writes in the NYTimes:
If you want to deter crime, it seems that you’d want to lengthen prison sentences so that criminals would face steeper costs for breaking the law. In fact, a mountain of research shows that increases in prison terms have done nothing to deter crime. 

To quote the brilliant statistician John Lott:

This distrust of prison reducing crime is not new, but many have a hard time believing the simplest rule of economics: if you make something more costly, people do less of it. People accept that this principle applies to what we buy in grocery stores, but not to “bad” things that people might do.

So how plausible is deterrence? Let us take a couple examples from sports.

When college basketball’s Atlantic Coast Conference increased the number of referees per game from two to three in 1978, the number of fouls dropped by 34 percent. Why? Basketball players fouled less often because they were more likely to get caught. In fact, the actual decline in fouling was probably even larger, since fouls that may have gone unnoticed by two referees were more likely to be caught when there were three officials.

Baseball players respond no differently. The American League has more batters hit by pitchers than the National League, but this difference only occurred after 1973, when the American League removed its pitchers from the batting lineup in favor of designated hitters. Since American League pitchers no longer worried that they themselves would be hit in retaliation if they hit an opposing batter, they began throwing more beanballs.

…

Given these results, is it really difficult to believe, as the JFA Institute report claims, that the number of prisoners increased while crime rates fell? Is there really anything that makes criminals immune to these same forces?

A large number of studies indicate that the more certain the punishment, the fewer the crimes committed (for a survey click here.) Arrest rates of criminals are usually the single most important factor in reducing every type of crime. The death penalty may get the most media attention, as it deserves, but everyday police work is really important in making neighborhoods safer. Changes in the arrest rate account for about 16 to 18 percent of the large drop in the murder rate during the 1990s. Conviction rates explain another 12 percent.

By comparison, the death penalty execution rate accounts for about 12 to 14 percent of the overall drop in murders.

Prison stops crime in two ways: deterrence and incapacitation. The JFA Institute report misses both points. A longer prison term deters some would-be criminals from committing crimes to begin with. For those criminals who are not stopped by the threat of prison, at least they are taken off the streets and locked up, preventing them from committing yet more crime.

Longer prison sentences explain at least another 12 percent of the drop in murder rates. Why is it “at least”? Good data simply isn't available. It’s surprisingly difficult to measure how long criminals actually end up being in prison. The length of a criminal’s sentence is often much longer than the actual time served. Furthermore, the time that is served varies widely, even for a single type of crime, depending on a suspect’s criminal history and the severity of the offense.

Read more...

Athens - Then and Now

Bizarrely, the original upload of this video made by the Greek political party Golden Dawn was taken down by Youtube for violating its "hate speech" policies. Putting together a montage of photos showing what a city once looked like as compared to what it looks like now is considered "hate speech" by the Google corporation?

This may be a new watershed for the repression of free thought and expression. Hopefully it's a sign the powers that be are starting to get scared.

Read more...

Response by Andrew to Ron Unz article on Ivy League Admissions

The most remarkable part of this article is that a Jew is pointing out Jewish power. Historically, this has been seen by the Jewish community as betrayal. Nature has mandated that the goal of all living organisms is survival and replication, and that all strategies are fair in this war, including camouflage, mimicry, deception, exploitation and predation. According to the dictates of nature, ethnic networking (and hiding this), giving preference to coethnics (at the expense of outsiders) and colluding together for maximum control of a society (and punishing any that reveal this) are not only fair, but very healthy, adaptive and virtuous strategies. Those who challenge this (like Dr. MacDonald) are sworn enemies, and those who expose this from within (like Ron Unz) are base traitors. In this, the Jews are completely aligned with nature, instinctively understanding that it is imperative that the extended racial family must collaborate, conspire and unite in every way possible if it is to endure.

Of heartening news to other races in North America (and all races are competitors), studies show that the Jewish race here is in decline. Jews are intermarrying at very high rates (about 50%), and the fertility of the non-Orthodox (the fiercest and most harmful to their competitors) is very low. In addition, younger Jews have significantly less loyalty to their race than previous generations. The Jews attending the Ivy League schools are receiving the most liberal education that money can buy, and are imbibing the very poisonous aracial values and philosophy that their antecedents conceived (as an anti-competitor strategy). The decreasing achievement among Jews in academia is doubtless a symptom of this. Future generations of Jews in North America will not only be fewer in number, but significantly less dedicated and effective than the current generation that maintains its stranglehold on our society, culture and political structure.

Read more...

Her Husband Murdered and Maimed, But She Didn't Even Notice

Steve Sailer quotes Jackie Kennedy after the killing of JFK:

“He didn’t even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights. It had to be some silly little communist. It robs his death of any meaning.”

4teepee wisely responds:

Despite what Jackie Kennedy said, even if one buys the idea Lee Harvey Oswald was a communist and not CIA, President Kennedy's death still has meaning. After all, Kennedy was engaged in a relentless terrorist campaign against Cuba -- Operation Mongoose -- giving Oswald plenty of incentive to act.

Read more...

Why did our nation become

Read more...

Don't Blame Auster, He Voted For Kodos

Auster:
It was, as has been discussed before, a fundamental failure of thinking on the part of these non-Romney voting conservatives. Suppose that Obama was a Communist and would bring about Communist rule. Would these non-Romney voting conservatives still have said: “I can’t stand the Republicans, they’re meaningless, they’re useless, they’re against conservatives like me, so I won’t vote for them no matter what”?

There's no reason to think they would've. If they're weren't a lot of voters in America who would be activated to vote against the Democrat if they ran a bone fide Communist as their presidential nominee, it stands to reason the Democrats would've nominated a bone fide Communist for President.

They failed to understand that the issue wasn’t the Republicans or whether one supports the Republicans; I myself specifically said that I did not support Romney. The issue was opposing Obama and preventing his re-election.

I don't see what's the big deal here. Obama's policies in his second term aren't going to be much different than Romney's policies in his first term would've been. Plus the Obama policy Auster hates so much, the Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare), is something Romney cooked up in the first place when he was governor of Massachusetts.

Did Romney have a change of heart about the government's relationship with healthcare in this country since he was governor of Massachusetts?

Truth be told he didn't even bother putting on a pretence of having such a change of heart, openly saying that he sought to "repeal and replace Obamacare" with a system that sounded almost exactly the same as Obamacare.

Romney wanted to pull the old shell game on people. It's only unfortunate that some sincere opponents of the Affordable Care Act like Lawrence Auster got suckered in.

But these conservatives were so fixated on their dislike of the Republicans that they lost sight of the bigger picture; indeed, it could even be said that as a result of their obsession with the inadequacy of Romney they lost certain basic characteristics of thinking beings: (a) the primary, intuitive ability to identify an existential threat, and (b) the logical ability to distinguish and prioritize between an existential threat and an annoyance.

Romney was more than a mere annoyance, he was a threat in himself. It's like when the police play "Good Cop/Bad Cop" on a suspect, the police officer playing the good cop is at least as much of a threat to the suspect as the bad cop.

It ain't nothing but a scam. People who voted for Romney are on par with those who think professional wrestling is real.

When these conservatives see the ruin unleashed by Obama in his second term it is going to be very difficult for them to admit that they themselves, through a fundamental failure of their own thought processes, helped this to happen.



It's interesting that for various reasons, one of them being their proportional system of representation, Greek voters seem to have a meaningful choice in their elections. Golden Dawn advocates policies far different than the policies advocated by the other parties, and yet in the last Greek election they got nearly 7% of the vote, allowing 18 of their members to enter the Greek parliament.

Read more...

Walk Down!

"...We need to continue to show that our policies help every voter out there achieve the American dream, which is to be in the middle class..." -Bobby Jindal (R)

Obviously, by the very definition of the term, all American voters will never be in the middle class. To be in the middle you need both some above and some below you. To encourage a society to aspire to an impossible state is the ultimate cruelty.

"The majority of people here—if some people have criminal records you can send 'em home—but if people are here, law-abiding, participating, four years, their kids are born here ... first secure the border, pathway to citizenship ... then it's done. But you can't let the problem continue. It's gotta stop." -Sean Hannity

Illegal immigrants, by the very definition of the term, cannot be law-abiding. More importantly, I assume the "problem" he says can't be allowed to continue is voters from Mexico and Central/South America overwhelmingly voting for the Democrats. That's where the imbecile's mind is! He only cares about what demographic change is doing to his party and not at all what it's doing to his country and his listeners. The fact that he happens to be wrong about the affect passing amnesty would have on demographic voting patterns is as nothing compared to the monstrosity of that.

"But then what to do? I think you have to ask yourself the following question. Do you accept that the GOP really is the “party of white people” and that racial divisions in the nation’s political DNA are not only real, but so permanent that minorities will forever vote for Democrats in titanic proportions? Because if you do believe that, then demographic trends should tell you that it’s time to pack up the Republican Party in its old kit bag and send it out into the sunset. President Obama didn’t even take 40% of the white vote last week and he still won. That party is over… pun intended." -Jazz Shaw (blogger at Republican blog Hotair)

Translation: "I cannot bear to believe these things, therefore they must not be true."

But all this Republican madness issues forth largely from their desire to avoid being seen as similar to Kemal Ataturk, the most evil man in history who killed so many Armenian men, women and children is his genocidal plot to wipe the Armenian people off the face of the earth.

No wonder the political descendants of Ataturk, who ruled Turkey until quite recently, were treated as pariahs by the Republican Party and the American Government, those two entities so endlessly devoted to the idea that minorities should be protected at all costs.

Read more...

"The Next America"

From VDARE:

In August, Ron Brownstein summarized the conventional view of the GOP’s demographic problem: 

'Republican strategists clearly feel the weight of trying to assemble a national majority with so little support among minorities that they must win three in five whites. “This is the last time anyone will try to do this,” one said. A GOP coalition that relies almost entirely on whites could squeeze out one more narrow victory in November. But if Republicans can’t find more effective ways to bridge the priorities of their conservative core and the diversifying Next America, that weight will grow more daunting every year.'
Obama Needs 80% of Minority Vote to Win 2012 Presidential Election, National Journal, August 27, 2012

This quoted Republican strategist is making a remarkable admission: That the immigration policies his party supports are in the process of creating something else in the place of America, a something else where they'll be no place for the views of current Republican voters to be represented by a major party. (Not that they're well represented by a major party as it is, but it's obvious the strategist is advocating the view that the Republican party should backtrack even from the things it now does to appeal to its overwhelmingly White voting base.)

It should also be noted that if the media didn't take the view that White people have votes which count for less, the first sentence of the paragraph could've been worded like this: "Democratic strategists clearly feel the weight of trying to assemble a national majority with so little support among whites that they must win four in five non-whites."

Read more...

Pop Music

Read more...

Weekend Update Circa 1996

"In Detroit under a new prison rehabilitation program called "Fresh Start", employers will get a tax break if they hire an ex-convict. Employers who hire more than one ex-convict will get robbed and killed." -Norm MacDonald

Read more...

Off the Deep End with Brett Stephens

Brett Stephens writes on his blog:

Giving up is what many are doing on election 2012. They have convinced themselves that both parties “are the same,” and that the system is rigged. Or that no candidate represents their values. Or even that it’s all hopeless and there’s no point participating.

All of this denies the fundamental truth of politics, which is that there are essentially two directions. They aren’t positions or parties, but paths of thought.

Yeah, but the issue here is that both the Democratic and Republican party presidential nominees represent movement in the same direction.

The first is leftism. It’s new, starting in the 18th century, but seems to appear in every society when it gets too bottom heavy. The idea of leftism is that everyone should be able to do whatever they want to, with minimal hierarchy, because what people feel and perceive is most important.

Leftism is obviously not the idea that everyone should be able to do whatever they want. Leftism is a vision of morality as surely as Conservatism is, with its own taboos and strictures. Leftism stands out for its lack of teachings relating to an afterlife, but though they claim not the power to punish in another world, Leftists continually seek to punish in this one.

The second is rightism. It’s ancient, being invented when every society is created. Its idea is that we should pay attention to how reality works and use proven, workable and eternal ideas to guide ourselves. Perception and feelings are secondary to the outside world in this view.

Actually that's empiricism. The earlier forms of rightism would've been based on the concept of reverencing tradition, not the concept of checking tradition against reality to see if it worked. The traditions that survived would have been the ones that worked for the people who followed, and this explains the general consonance between rightism and reality.

It was actually the philosophy of empiricism which helped to undermine rightism and tradition due to the fact that it discovered some traditional beliefs to be empirically invalid, shaking the masses' faith in tradition and leaving them much more receptive to leftism.

It’s not popular to say this, but America and Europe are basically in the same fix. A massive leftism lobby is slowly taking over and replacing the indigenous people with leftist voters, who are both immigrants and home-grown people who are mentally broken because of the effects of liberal social programs. This mob grows like a snowball, and its only desire is to destroy all culture and heritage, all values and preference, and replace them with good “non-conformist” conformists who have one goal alone, reaching the leftist Utopia through equality. Leftism takes prosperous societies and leaves behind starving third-world ghettos because it removes sanity from human minds.

While there's much truth to this, it's important to understand that leftism is not primarily objectionable because it destroys prosperity, something that can be regained once lost, but rather for how it is in the process of destroying things that cannot be replaced.

We can either go toward more leftism, or toward more rightism.

Going toward more rightism is not actually an option in the US Presidential Election of 2012. America is a two party state due to its lack of proportional representation, and it so happens that the only two viable parties have fielded two candidates who both want to take us toward more leftism. Neither Romeny nor Obama want to take us toward more rightism.

Perhaps Obama wants to take us to more leftism faster than Romney does. If this assertion is credited, perhaps it would give someone with rightist beliefs reason to support Romney.

But why is Bret Stephens talking nonsense about Romney wanting to take the country in a rightist direction? That simply isn't the platform he's run on.

Those are your two options. There are no others; even the most far-out and creative belief system is going to be going more toward one direction than the other.

Yes, and both Romney and Obama have belief systems which would take us more in the direction of leftism.

You might look at Mitt Romney and think, “This guy is really too restrained and moderate for what needs to be done."

There is no reason to project traditionalist beliefs onto Mitt Romney. There's no reason to think he's just someone who isn't assertive enough about his beliefs, or that his beliefs are a moderated version of conservatism. Really what's happening is that he doesn't have traditionalist beliefs, only perhaps seeming that way to some due to his pandering to Republican primary voters and the tendency some have to view all things as relative ("Romney doesn't seem to be as extreme a leftist as Obama is, so that means he must be a conservative!")

While that’s true, you should pay attention to our opponents — the leftists — and how they beat us and took over. They found a popular idea. They steadily advanced it, through baby steps and daily acts of disobedience, until they’d browbeaten or guilt-trapped others into joining them.

But Romney isn't trying to do that. He doesn't stand for anything. Even when he accidently was caught expressing an idea (that 47% of the country are moochers) which wasn't quite an echo of what a Democrat would say, he backtracked and apologized like a coward.

A man can't be a vehicle for advancing ideas if he can't be relied on to stand by the ideas he expresses.

It's like if your football team had a running back who fumbled the ball on every single play.

While people hunger for sudden explosive change, it’s the guys like Mitt Romney who are pushing us to victory.

A President Romney would represent a facade of continuity with the American past, a bland talisman giving the apearance of stability even as he wouldn't do anything to actually stave off the advance of chaos and destruction.

They are supremely able administrators and they push relentlessly and constantly for baby steps in the right direction.

People like Romney have administered a policy whereby the country that made them wealthy has been dismantled and sold for parts. The change they push for is the exact same change the hardcore leftists push for, the only difference being their distaste for high taxes on the wealthy and their need to appoint less liberal judges to the Supreme Court as a sop to the pro-life lobby.

In other words, no matter where you are on the right, from a moderate who leans left on gay marriage to an extreme radical counter-revolutionary, you are serving your interests best by joining mainstream politics and approving its message mass support for a rightist direction.

If Romney wanted to take the country in a rightist direction he would be talking about repealing at least some leftist laws. Instead he only whines about some leftist laws while making clear he'd never do anything to change them.

As his spokesman Ed Gillespie said: "The governor would not repeal the Lilly Ledbetter Act. He was opposed to it at the time. He would not repeal it."

That's what opposition to a leftist law means to Romney, pretending to oppose it to fool people against the law into voting for him, while having absolutely no intention to repeal or otherwise alter the law.

Times change, and with it we must, or we fail to adapt and become obsolete. This is the age of liberalism’s failure, as all of its social programs turn into disasters, which means we must be the antithesis of those ideals but also use its methods.

Except in his personal life, where it might've been better if he had married a man or at least used more birth control, Romney has embodied liberalism's ideals.

He's just embodied them in a somewhat different way than Obama has.

As we push forward with patience and deliberation, our opponents quake in fear because this is the one attack they have no defense against.

No sane leftist would much fear the prospect of a Romney presidency. It's just that a lot of leftists in America have an emotional attachment to Obama because he's the first Black president, and they wouldn't like to see him beat even if it was by Leon Trotsky himself.

Unlike in America, elections in Greece actually mean a whole lot now thanks to a party called Golden Dawn, a group of people who are actually conservatives on account of the simple fact that they want to conserve the things they love, principally the Greek people and their traditions. This stands in contrast to Romney, who feigns love for things he'll then sit back and watch die without even trying to lift a finger.

Golden Dawn's website is found here:
http://www.xryshaygh.com/index.php/home

Information on how to donate to Golden Dawn can be found here:
http://www.xryshaygh.com/index.php/home/oikonomikh-enisxysh

Golden Dawn New York's website is found here:
http://xaameriki.wordpress.com/

Read more...

Excerpts From 'The Looming Tower'

But cooperation was still very slow in coming. “This investigation has hit a rock,” General Naji admitted. “We Arabs are very stubborn.”

Ali Soufan teased him, saying, “You’re dealing with another Arab, and I’m also stubborn.”

When Soufan translated this exchange, O’Neill contended that the Arabs were not the equal of the Irish in that department. He told a story about the O’Neill clan in Ireland, who he said had the reputation of being the strongest men in their county. Every year there was a boat race to a giant stone in the middle of a lake, and the O’Neill’s always won. But one year, another clan was rowing faster and pulling ahead, and it appeared that they would touch the stone first. “But then my great-grandfather took his sword,” said O’Neill, “and he cut off his hand and threw it at the rock. You got anything that can match that?”

Soufan and the general look at each other. “We’re stubborn,” said Soufan, “but we’re not crazy.”
…

After the incident in the FBI parking garage, O'Neill began reading the Bible every day. In Yemen, he kept a Bible on his bedside table, along with a recent biography of Michael Collins. He returned to Catholicism in spring of 2001, attending Mass every morning.
...

Immediately after that episode, he buried himself in prayer. He had a couple of prayer guides, and he marked his favorites with ribbons or Post-it notes. He was particularly drawn to the Psalms, including number 142.

On the way where I shall walk
they have hidden a snare to entrap me.
Look on my right and see:
there is no one who takes my part.
I have no means of escape,
not one who cares for my soul.
I cry to you, O Lord.
I have said: “You are my refuge
all I have in the land of the living.”
Listen, then, to my cry
for I am in the depths of distress.
...

In the back of one of his red-leather breviaries, he clipped a schedule of Catholic prayer times, and on July 30 he began to obsessively check them off. It is now a rare practice for ordinary Catholics to pray four or five times as day, as Muslims do, but the ancient practice is still available to members of the clergy and extremely fervent believers. Perhaps in his worship O'Neill drew parallels between the early church and certain aspects of modern Islamism, since the church calendar is full of martyrs and stern ideologues who would be seen as religious extremists today. He began this regimen on the feast day of Peter Chrysologus, the bishop of Ravena, who banned dancing and persecuted the heretics. The next day, July 31, celebrates Saint Ignatius of Loyola, the indomitable Spanish solider who founded the Jesuit order. The vision these saints had of a society governed by God is far more like that of Sayyid Qutb than that of most modern Christians.

In his schedule, O'Neill checked off every prayer until Sunday, August 19, the day the article about the briefcase incident finally appeared in the Times. Then the marks abruptly stopped.

"The duties of this religion are magnificent and difficult," bin Laden said in a videotaped speech that was later discovered on the computer of a member of the Hamburg cell. "Some of them are abominable."

Bin Laden spoke about the Prophet, who warned the Arabs that they would become weak because of their love of life and their fear of fighting. "The sense of less, this misery that has befallen us: all these are proof that we have abandoned God and his jihad," bin Laden said. "God has imposed inferiority on you and will not remove it from you until you return to your religion."

Recalling the Prophet's injunction on his deathbed that Islam should be the only religion in Arabia, bin Laden asked, "What answer do we have for God on the day of reckoning?... The ummah in this time have become lost and have gone astray. Now, ten years have passed since the Americans entered the land of the two holy places.... It becomes clear to use that shying away from the fight, combined with the love of earthly existence that fills the hearts of many of us, is the source of this misery, this humiliation, and this contempt."

These words reached into the hearts of the nineteen young men, many of whom had skills, talent, and education, and were living comfortably in the west; and yet they still resonated with the sense of shame that bin Laden sang to them.

What do we want? What do we want?
Don't we want to please God?
Don't we want Paradise?

He urged them to become martyrs, to give up their promising lives for the greater glory that awaited them. "Look, we have found ourselves in the mouth of the lion for over twenty years now," he said, "thanks to the mercy and favor of God: the Russian Scud missiles hunted us for over ten years, and the American Cruise missiles have hunted us for another ten years. The believer knows that the hour of death can be neither hastened nor postponed." Then he quoted a passage from the fourth sura of the Quran, which he repeated three times in the speech -an obvious signal to the hijackers who were on their way:

Wherever you are, death will find you,
even in the looming tower.

Read more...

Frühling in Paris

Laurence Auster:
"Darwinians and materialists … espouse reductive theories that cancel out man’s conscious life, while they want to continue their own conscious life. That's a hypocrisy far worse than any liberal hypocrisy."

No theory cancels out man's conscious life.

A form of materialist theory including a denial of consciousness would do nothing to stop man from having a conscious life.

Was Aristole a hypocrite because he thought he thought with his heart when in fact he thought with his brain?

Obviously he was not.

The above statement by Auster can be seen for the foolishness it is.

Laurence Auster:
"Let's face it--democracy is grounded in stupidity and is stupid."

The Neocon attributes inherent virtue to the gaudy abstraction called democracy.

Auster attributes inherent vice to that gaudy abstraction.

Paul Nachman:
I've long said that Robert J. Samuelson is one of the few adults in our national public life. John Bolton goes on the list, too.

John Bolton.

Read more...

Evidence Blacks may be a Different Subspecies

Neanderthals are classified as a different subspecies than Homo Sapians. Therefore if sub-Saharan Africans (i.e. Blacks) are less like Europeans than Neanderthals were, it's clearly also the case that sub-Saharan Africans are a different subspecies than Europeans.

 

This article in New Scientist discusses a study based on the idea that Neanderthals and Europeans broke off from each other after they both broke off from sub-Saharan Africans.

 

If this study is accurate, it inevitably follows that sub-Saharan Africans (Blacks) are actually a different subspecies than Europeans.

 

Don't expect any scientists to admit the obvious implications of their own theory, though, given their pathetic fealty the dominant ideology of our time.

 

Human and Neanderthal interbreeding questioned

• 20:00 13 August 2012 by Michael Marshall 

It was the discovery that challenged what it is to be human. The Neanderthal genome revealed that our extinct cousin's genes live on in many modern humans, implying that the two species interbred. But a controversial new study casts doubt on those claims of interspecies hanky-panky.

 

In 2010, Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, and his colleagues sequenced the Neanderthal genome. Their analysis concluded that many modern humans carry a few Neanderthal genes. Only native Africans lack the Neanderthal genes, because Neanderthals did not live in Africa.

 

Right from the start, there was a problem. Neanderthals and modern humans ultimately evolved from the same ancestral population, so any genes shared by the two species might simply have been inherited from this common ancestor.

 

"We were very upfront in our papers that this was a possibility," says Pääbo's colleague David Reich of the Harvard Medical School in Boston.
 

Andrea Manica and Anders Eriksson at the University of Cambridge have now built a model to demonstrate a non-interbreeding explanation for the 2010 result.

 

They began with an ancestral hominin population throughout Africa and Europe. Because of their regional proximity, the hominins in Europe had more genes in common with those of northern Africa than those of southern Africa.

 

Africa and Europe then became genetically isolated from one another, perhaps triggered by changing climates, says Manica. This allowed the Europeans to evolve into Neanderthals and the Africans to evolve into modern humans. Crucially, though, the modern humans in northern Africa retained genetic similarities with Neanderthals that the southern Africans lacked. Northern Africans ultimately moved into Europe – but they didn't need to interbreed with Neanderthals to share some genes in common with them (see diagram).

Read more...

USA Presidential "Debate"

 

I didn't watch the debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, but I have a feeling this guy on The American Conservative [sic] website pretty well summed up what happened:



I was very confused by [how] Romney kept insisting that he was not going to make tax cuts that increased the deficit without saying “All that stuff I promised a few months ago is no longer what I stand for.” It seemed like Romney’s message was “Magic will make my tax cuts revenue neutral.” In general he seemed to be insisting that reality would bend to suit his promises.

Also, whenever Romney talks I feel like he’s about to cry, his mouth wavers between a slight forced smile and a slight frown in a way that seems out of control and his eyes squint so they look like he’s about to start bawling. Obama on the other hand looked like he fell asleep a few times while Romney spoke, so I guess that’s bad too.

Read more...