Category Archives: politics
The women are being raped at night in Oslo, and the men are robbed more than ever.
In just the past ten years more than 4,000 people have been robbed in the town center and the area of the Grønland police station [an immigrant ghetto]. Most of them are young men. Sturla Nøstvik is robbery-victim 351 from Grønland just from this year, the same period in which around fifty assault-rapes have been reported in Oslo. The robbers play on fear, violence, and severe threats that leave a mark on the victims. Police superintendent Inge Sundeng in Grønland describes them as the “somewhat-forgotten victims”.
The police visited Sturla Nøstvik in the emergency room after the robbery. They told Nøstvik that a gang of robbers had committed many similar robberies in Grünerløkka and surrounding areas in thee past weeks. They told him that everybody should have the right to feel safe, but that they had no way of halting the robberies. “We have lost the city,” they said…
It’s astounding that people are so daft as to bandy about examples like Steve Jobs’ parents as an argument pro immigration. When immigrants come in small enough numbers, they become forced to assimilate, hence Steve Jobs’ parents. But if you get millions of Syrians to relocate in, say, Oslo, then you don’t turn them into Norwegians, rather you turn Oslo into Syria. Soil, afterall, can scarcely be said to have the magical ability to imbue Western modes of thinking to those who happen to stand over it.
The church, of course, is pro-immigration. But it’s clear from statements like ‘turn the other cheek’ that Jesus was not a consequentialist. So if the right thing to do — the morally right thing to do — is to welcome immigrants en masse, then fine. But, as is plain to see, there are consequences — and getting robbed and raped, figuratively as well as literally, apparently happen to be one of them. And the problem is that liberals, whose primary form of debate is to shout “racist” at anyone insufficiently moved by their rhetoric, don’t seem the least bit aware of them.
presciently foretold the coming of people like Bruce Jenner:
“The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by precedent, by implication, by erosion, by default, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other—until the day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.” – Ayn Rand
For all her nauseating blowhardiness and philosophical ineptitude, she at least got a couple of things right. The tactic is really simple: defining yourself in terms of what you indulge in gives you warrant in taking any criticism of your behaviour as a personal affront. Anyone who disagrees with what you do can now be said to be an intolerant bigot. Because, by spinning the narrative as progressives are wont to do, what you do, or rather what you like doing, has magically now become who you are. We are reliably informed by ‘progressives’, however, that the exception is religion, where it’s possible to mock the idea and not the person. Sounds familiar, does it not?
When we said abortion is infanticide, we were met with laughter and derision.
When we told them there’s no difference between an abortion and the killing of an infant, they called us stupid. We were said to be woefully misinformed.
They said it was all primitive religious foolery; we were said to be against science.
In wanting to remove a woman’s right to choose, we were told that we hate women.
We were labelled misogynists, and the women among us were said to have ‘internalized misogyny’.
But now, though, the sufficiently intelligent among them belatedly realize that WE WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG — that there is no ontologically significant difference between a newborn infant and a fetus — and so now we’ve gone from “abortion is not infanticide” to “yes it is, but infanticide is O.K!”:
“Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.
The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.”
The lesson here is that when dealing with people who are proven to be morally depraved, not an atom should be ceded–not a single one.
They will call you words like ‘bigot’ to scare you into submission and shut the conversation in their favor.
They will call for boycotts against anyone who’s insufficiently subordinate to their liberal ideology.
They will inflict all manner of wound.
However, now, more than ever, you must stand your ground.
The professional victims of the feminist movement strike again. Scientist, and now, hero, Matt taylor (pictured above) successfully lands a spacecraft on a comet (not an easy thing, trust me), meanwhile, and apropos of nothing at all, Chris Plante of the Verge whines about being offended by Matt’s shirt, which he argues is ‘sexist’, and “ostracizing”:
This is the sort of casual misogyny that stops women from entering certain scientific fields. They see a guy like that on TV and they don’t feel welcome. They see a poster of greased up women in a colleague’s office and they know they aren’t respected.
” This is the climate women who dream of working at NASA or the ESA come up against, every single day. This shirt is representative of all of that, and the ESA has yet to issue a statement or apologize for that.”
The problem, Chris, is that it is people like you, and not people like Matt, who are ‘marginalizing’ women, by constantly making them out to be these emotionally fragile flowers who can scarcely muster the strength to not give a rodent’s posterior about someone’s choice of textile. If you feel you aren’t able to do what you love because there are people within close proximity who choose to wear something you find offensive, then you are simply not as enthusiastic about what you do like you happily claim you are. But I suppose that’s par for the course since feminists and their band of orbiting white knights love encouraging each other to blame the ‘patriarchy’ for their failures.
It is truly remarkable, is it not, how feminists can turn any situation around and make it about their feelings. And this is why, even as a non-gamer, I stand with gamergate.
About the Israel-Palestine conflict, whose side is right? On that score, I remain agnostic. However, Sam Harris, as seems to be his wont, gives us more reasons to doubt that he actually thinks things through:
“What would the Jews do to the Palestinians if they could do anything they wanted? Well, we know the answer to that question, because they can do more or less anything they want. The Israeli army could kill everyone in Gaza tomorrow. So what does that mean? Well, it means that, when they drop a bomb on a beach and kill four Palestinian children, as happened last week, this is almost certainly an accident. They’re not targeting children. They could target as many children as they want. Every time a Palestinian child dies, Israel edges ever closer to becoming an international pariah. So the Israelis take great pains not to kill children and other noncombatants”
“What do we know of the Palestinians? What would the Palestinians do to the Jews in Israel if the power imbalance were reversed? Well, they have told us what they would do. For some reason, Israel’s critics just don’t want to believe the worst about a group like Hamas, even when it declares the worst of itself. We’ve already had a Holocaust and several other genocides in the 20th century. People are capable of committing genocide. When they tell us they intend to commit genocide, we should listen. There is every reason to believe that the Palestinians would kill all the Jews in Israel if they could.”
— Sam Harris
End Quote. Well, Noam Chomsky will be blown away by such penetrating insight.
Of course Sam Harris here is suggesting that if the tables were turned and we had a flourishing, well-educated Palestinian state, who had the second strongest army in the world on the one hand, and an impoverished, disenfranchised and, one could — in fact, one should — say, subjugated bunch of Israelis on the other, we’d be seeing the Palestinians dining on the corpses of Israelis with wild abandon. Which is, needless to say, an overly-simplistic analysis of what is.
I think Sam’s completely disregarding what history shows us to be what usually happens in wars of this kind, where the one who has less bullets and tanks will tend to resort to, shall we say, terroristic means. I doubt that the Palestinians, if they were in Israel’s position, would choose to incur the wrath of the West or risk being “international pariahs” by wantonly killing Israeli children by the hundreds, if not thousands, like Sam suggests they would, because that would be, in the long-haul, detrimental to their ‘well-being’. I mean, Nato would be up their arses the moment they do. So they wouldn’t be much different from Israel if the tables were turned, me thinks. Although a persuasive argument can be made that their people would be less happy despite all the hypothetical progress –you know, Islamic laws being somewhat draconian and all.
The constant ‘OMG religion is a baddie!‘ theme is a recurring problem with Sam, it very much seems. He keeps putting a religious spin to everything because of the incentive he has in painting religion as the evil his books proclaim it to be. (And/or also because he really — really ignorantly — believes it to be evil) The Israel-Palestine conflict is a territorial and not a religious dispute, despite that both sides often use religion to justify their positions. The fact remains that if it wasn’t religion, it would be something else. Hitler used, among other things, an adulterated version of Darwin’s theory to justify much of the holocaust; Stallin and the extremist wing of the Russian Communist Party told themselves their strong hand policy was the only way to revive Russia; the Tamil Tigers largely have nationalistic rather than religious motivations for strapping explosives to their chests, etc. I could go on about this. The readily confirmable fact of the matter is that people will use all manner of justification for killing each other. It’s not like that will all suddenly stop the moment the Palestinians have themselves baptized in Sam’s brand of atheism.
Man is, for the most part, NOT a rational animal. He is a rationalizing one. And he will remain one with or without religion. And, granted the incentives are high enough, he’ll be able to rationalize his way into any position within a few minutes. Within a few minutes! That’s the real world.
Sam either doesn’t realize this, which makes him naive, or he refuses to acknowledge it because it’s easier to, or there’s more reward for him in, making religion out to be this bogeyman that keeps us immersed in a fecal stew of irrationality.
This is evidence that even Nobel Prize winners can say some pretty dumb things. Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize winning economist says of a twitter joke about the economy and the recent earthquake:
People on twitter might be joking, but in all seriousness, we would see a bigger boost in spending and hence economic growth if the earthquake had done more damage.
If they come up with an award for the dumbest thing an ostensibly smart person had said, many will be nominating Krugman.
By this reasoning, we should be seeing “a bigger boost in spending and hence economic growth” in Japan in 3..2..1..
Oh wait, that never happened, and may never be likely to happen in the aftermath of such an event.
Krugman’s analyses, just like the one where he asserts that governments can borrow unabated without affecting interest rates, are always scarcely based on
I think this is generally the problem in the world of economists today; it doesn’t matter what they’ve got monumentally wrong, and in what frequency, everything will eventually even out as long as they get something right, which is bound to happen at some point with all that guessing.
(Update: It’s been pointed out that the Krugman Google plus account which made the inane claim may be a fake.)
If you missed the Iowa GOP debate, you’re lucky. But if you insist on chastizing yourself some more, this piece might make you sufficiently propitiated by showing you the kind of idiocy that had transpired. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised about the brain-numbing responses that were given. It’s likely America has collectively lost somewhere in the range of 2 I.Q. points for having been subjected to this inane departure from reality, which, under normal circumstances, could have only been justified as a carefully scripted piece of performance art.
One of the more notable things the audience had the misfortune of witnessing was Bachmann’s utterly senseless assertion “In the last two months I was leading on the issue of not increasing the debt ceiling. That turned out to be the right answer”. Ofcourse, this left the audience members, who fall at the higher end of the intelligence bell curve, with wide gaping jaws of incredulity.
I don’t think any of the candidates won. They’ve all accomplished the opposite of what they’ve intended to do –which was to seem like they had some idea on what the hell they were talking about. But, I guess if winning in this instance meant succeeding in making yourself look comparably less of an ass, then Romney won.
This is why people shouldn’t immediately dismiss climate-change skeptics as uninformed blockheads. There is evidence that humans have some fault, but none that’s of the hard variety. I think, among us average chaps, the reasonable position to hold with respect to this whole issue is that of an agnostic. While I’m tending to believe we humans do contribute to climate change, whether this contribution is significant and whether we have the ability to make an atom of difference about it by driving around in Priuses is another matter.
In the meantime, global-warming alarmists, if they want to be taken seriously, really ought to tone down the fear-mongering a bit in the face of this new evidence.
The phone-hacking debacle that has placed media titan Rupert Murdoch under
parliamentary investigation has amusingly pitted a couple of op/ed writers against each other. Op/ed columnists at the liberal media outfit The New York Times are cheerily rejoicing in Murdoch’s comeuppance, while at least one writer (I’m sure there’s more to come) of the Wall Street Journal, a Murdoch owned outfit, has been keen to point out the former’s double standards in it’s demonization of the use of hacked information while patently supporting and disseminating the similarly ill- gotten ones of Wikileaks.
Of course, I’m with the Times on this one. It won’t take a few brain cells to figure
out who’s barkering. It’s abundantly clear that these quasi Murdoch apologists know very well who butters their bread. Funny they don’t feel the need to distance themselves from the coming excoriation. It won’t be good for Murdoch; his wrinkly aged anus could possibly be headed for sore-dom. And that’s only partially a metaphor; I think we all know what prison boys fancy themselves doing to the lower end of the next man’s alimentary canal.
Oh boy, oh boy! Hope to see more fighting words in the days to come!
The Dalai Lama told a group of students in a speaking conference at the University of Minnesota that, as far as his socio-political views are concerned, he’s a Marxist. The group of some 150 Chinese students were rightly astonished by this pronouncement.
This isn’t actually the first time the Dalai Lama has expressed such an anti-capitalistic stance; At a lecture in NYC, the Tibetan leader said although “capitalism” brought new freedoms to China, he still was a fervent believer of Marxist ideology; he then gave a rather weird distinction between the 2 views by saying Marxism has “moral ethics” whereas capitalism is only about making profits. That’s right. According to the Dalai Lama: Marxism has “moral ethics”. (Face, meet palm, now.)
It could be that he’s slightly sucking up to China –whose communist party, at least ostensibly, holds Marxism as its guiding philosophy– in the hopes of resolving some Tibetan-Chinese issues. But, nah, that would be too obvious.
Marxism may be seen to have some fictitious similarities with Buddhist philosophy –which is probably why the Dalai Lama holds it in esteem– in that it may give the illusion of being a socio-political view that advocates equality and class-less societies. But we already know from history that these are illusions. The only altruism in a Marxist society is of the forced variety; you ought to give to your fellow neighbor, as Jesus would do, else, we kill you.
It’s a good thing the Dalai Lama doesn’t fancy himself a politician, because his understanding of political philosophies; what works and what doesn’t, seems wanting.