Category Archives: society
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.
Vocal new atheist critic of religion, Steven Pinker, in his article Why Is There
“Far from causing us to become more violent, something in modernity and its
cultural institutions has made us nobler. In fact, our ancestors were far more
violent than we are today.”
In Guangdong province, a child was run over twice and was subsequently ignored by dozens of passers-by until an unlikely hero in the form a 57-year-old trash- picker finally stopped to help. (See video here)
This staggeringly horrific incident should be a reminder to all of us to take seriously the iniquity of human nature, and to doubt the naively optimistic claims of people like Steven Pinker who are committed to the belief in the inevitability of society’s moral progress.
But this is, in the end, the only recourse for the naturalist atheist who can’t have faith in God; he must have faith in man. Yet, if there’s anything of value at all to take from history, and from books like Golding’s Lord Of The Flies, it’s that one must always, by default, adopt a more inauspicious view of human nature.
Catherine Hakim, author of Erotic Capital, wants women to use physical attractiveness to get ahead in their careers. She says in an interview:
“Discrimination is part of life itself. […] We discriminate between good restaurants and bad restaurants. We discriminate between people who are intelligent and stupid. We discriminate between people who are competent politicians and incompetent politicians. We discriminate between people who are attractive and unattractive.”
That we do. But there’s an obvious fallacy lurking in there somewhere; isn’t it that when we “discriminate between good..and bad restaurants” we do so precisely among factors that inform our decision to be eating at any restaurant in the first place? We discriminate between “intelligent and stupid” people precisely because stupid people, as opposed to intelligent ones, will ostensibly be less qualified and capable than we might require. In other words, we’re discriminating against the qualities that go against our intentions for choosing one over the other. On the other hand, to discriminate between the attractive and the ugly should add no value given that physical attractiveness has no bearing on how someone can and will perform in the workplace.
A woman using sex to get ahead of a man, careerwise, is analogous to a man using physical force to do the same.
Catherine essentially wants people to think as superficially as she does; since men, on average, find it easier getting up on the corporate ladder, she’ll suggest, to even out the playing field, it’s perfectly fine for women to leave their brains out the door and show some cleavage instead. Catherine thinks she’s empowering women, but in reality she’s doing the opposite.
She’s no doubt pleased with the sheer lunacy that is the cast of Jersey Shore, the Kardashians, and people like Heidi Montag, who, despite their idiotic interiors, are somehow able to get by on physicality alone. (Well, maybe not the cast of Jersey Shore.)
Then again, maybe this is all just the kind of tongue-in-cheek, agent-provocateur type of nonsense authors tend to do nowadays to get attention to their books. One wonders how she was able to stretch this childish ideology into a whole book. It must be one hell of an intellectual lobotomization.