VFR pot luck
This entry contains comments from last week on a wide variety of subjects that didn’t get posted at the time. Sometimes the incoming is too much for me to handle. But at least they’re being posted now.
Comments have also been added in these continuing threads:
A prediction of genocide
Republican congressional candidate quits race
More food for liberal delusionists on the prospects of reforming Islam
The niqab
Markus writes:
This article on the Niqab made a number of impressions on me:
1) The sheer, depressing—how to say this?—spiritual and intellectual retardation of any woman who would want to express her religious devotion not by dressing modestly (which is valid and commendable), but in such an extreme, anti-human way that also HAS to be uncomfortable.
The niqab is so ugly that any defense of it as anything other than as punishment can only be made by people whose whole sense of humanity is warped beyond anything that you or I can “dialogue” with.
2) The title: “People think you’re oppressed if you wear the niqab.” No—stop—assumption check! My first impulse on seeing women walking around looking like ninjas is not to be concerned about whether or not they’re being oppressed. Their wearing it is affront to me personally, to my culture, to my legal system, to the air I breathe. (It’s the same for the garish face-piercing crowd, but that’s another rant.) Of course, I have sympathy for those who are trapped in a system of real oppression, which I believe many who wear the niqab are. But the article is focused mainly on those who were born and educated in Canada and who willingly choose to wear the hideous thing! Which, incidentally, provides evidence that,far from leading to assimilation, western prosperity and education is actually pushing these people back to their folkways, making them more extreme than their immigrant parents!
3) It provides another instance into the “we’re-all-libertarian-now” credo. The article quotes one Alia Hogben, executive director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, as saying, “There are many people who don’t agree or like the niqab. But they are totally opposed to the idea that the government should have a say in how women dress.” The only word that comes to mind is chutzpah.
A reader writes:
Let’s not forget the other extreme. We visited an Anglican church today and most of the young women had on super tight pants, short skirts, tight shirts, you name it. It was very distracting at times. It’s hard enough not to look in day to day experience. I guess that speaks something about my character but I’d rather not have to see it in church for sure.
LA replies:
I agree with you 100 percent.
Gang rapes in Britain
Karl D. writes:
Here is a link from “Gates of Vienna” I thought you might find interesting. It is of a British program called “Rape in the city” about gang rapes in the UK and focuses primarily on the fact that it is almost exclusively committed by blacks. One of the weaknesses however is that it is presented as almost entirely a “Black on black” problem.
El Ingles writes:
that documentary on gang rape in the UK is quite revealing. not staggering, but revealing, let’s say. and made by a sierra leonean refugee. you’d have to be black to dare make it at all.
Ambiguities in Megan Williams case
Natassia writes:
I came across an article by Peter Kotz written on Saturday. Apparently the victim Megan Williams is mentally retarded and changed her story so many times that prosecutors chose not to put her on the witness stand and relied solely on physical evidence.
The reason prosecutors decided not to charge most of the perpetrators with a “hate crime” is because one of the men was actually dating Megan. Despite the fact that Megan is now saying that the story was made up, Frankie Brewer (one of the seven convicted) still says they are all guilty.
Pope And Anglicans
James N. writes:
I’m profoundly moved by the Pope’s gesture to the Anglicans who profess the catholic faith (sadly, now, a minority). You should read the Belmont Club post “The Lighting of the Beacons”, wherein Richard Fernandez uses the analogy to the calling in of Rohan as Gondor is besieged at Minas Tirith. If you’re not a fan of LOTR, you can skip it—but the image of the walls besieged by orcs (from the East, no less) under the command of Sauron, with hope fading, and the call to the exiles to gather inside the walls and save the day works for me. The Orthodox, clearly, are next.
Pregnancy in Navy
Paul K. writes:
A female navy veteran who works with a friend of mine told him that a high percentage of women enlisted in all services started making babies as soon as they realized it entitled them to a free ride. She also observed that they were universally despised for doing so, not only by the men but by those enlisted women who were not pregnant.
A friend who was an officer on a submarine sent me this comment: “To add insult, consider the fact that the majority of those pregnancy-filled billets would normally be used for sailors to be their shore tour after three or four years on sea duty. With those billets filled, the sea tours are longer, and the shore billets which sea-duty sailors really looked forward to are now filled with their pregnant comrades. Great plan, Navy. BTW, whatever happened to the “equal” part of Equal Opportunity?”
Another friend, an air force veteran, told me that when he was in the Air Force a joke teletype message was passed around announcing that, from that day forward, all babies born to unwed Air Force women would be placed in the Air Force Orphanage where they would be raised until the age of 18 and then enlisted into the Air Force. It also said that, under the new plan, within 20 years the Air Force would be self-sustaining and recruiting could cease.
By targeting Islam as a whole, does Wilders make the scope of the problem too large?
EK writes:
The danger to Wilders is greatest from the U S whose foreign policy he is interfering with!
LA replies:
This is a disturbing thing you’re saying.
At my site, we’ve occasionally discussed the possibility that if Europeans began resisting the EU/Eurabia regime, the US would interfere on the side of the EU.
Game and the Founding [re LA’s innocent compliment of a humorous-seeming Game article as “amusing” which Gamers didn’t find amusing at all.]
Chuck Ross writes:
Larry, I know you aren’t stupid. Did you really expect anyone to believe you thought the article “amusing” given your posture towards Game? I mean, come on. If you weren’t fully aware that the response would be anything else, you’re naive. So you can make the claim that you made an innocent comment and what-not, but you have a history of this type of thing.
Oh well. We can handle it I’m sure.
Also, its nice of Todd White to use your forum to plug his blog all the time. Providing a link to a discussion thread in which he deleted half the comments is also useful…. psych.
You gentlement really don’t get it. Just as capitalism can be used for immoral ends, so can Game; that doesn’t impugn the whole practice. Game works and leads to happier relationships. In an age where men aren’t so much allowed to be men, Game in relationships gives us the leverage to assert ourselves. The option for many of us is to fall victim to a woman with options. So while Game may not be a perfect option, it is the only option we have given the current dating/mating climate. As I wrote about previously (I won’t provide a link, Todd), men have to adopt Game or go the way of the horse-drawn buggy.
LA replies:
Chuck, if you’re calling me a liar, then go away. Either re-write your comment removing the charge that I was saying something I knew wasn’t true, or I don’t want to hear from you again.
Chuck Ross replied by sending the same message with this added on top:
A removal of one sentence should do the trick:
LA writes:
Evidently, Mr. Ross was under the impression that telling me to remove the offending statement from his e-mail was an adequate response to my demand that he re-write his message without the offending statement.
Another point that astonishes me in this. In my brief entry about the “Game and Independence” article, I didn’t say anything about Game. I wasn’t making any arguments about Game. But the Gamers are so frenzied that if you mention Game without actively agreeing with it, they think you’re attacking it.
Further, why do they expect me to say anything positive about Game? We had a week long debate back in September in which I made my views very clear. Again, it’s like the Ron Paul people.
Chuck Ross replies (posted Nov. 3):
Larry,
I removed one sentence from my original email and re-sent it to you. I wasn’t requesting that you do so. I changed the nature of my email by removing the sentence “And I know you aren’t naive” in order to steer away from calling you a liar.
LA replies:
That’s really obscure. How could anyone tell that you had removed that sentence? Further, even without that sentence, it still sounds like you’re saying I lied.
OI writes:
Something I have learned repeatedly in my years on the net is that it is extremely easy to say things in a manner that, if said in person to someone, would be accompanied by mannerisms and body language that would make the correct (innocuous) interpretation clear; whereas when written as pure text the implied tone is very easily misinterpreted. It looks to me like that is exactly what has happened between you and Ferdinand Bardamu, both in his overreaction to the word “amusing”, and your denunciation of “Gamesters” as being a humorless cult. After that this sort of situation just feeds on itself. In other words I believe both sides of the argument are (at least initially) reacting more to perception than substance. Of course that can turn into its own substance pretty quickly.
For whatever it’s worth, I didn’t think the Franklin article was that great, and while I do think you’ve refused to examine some of the arguments and evidence regarding female behavior as closely as would be deserved, it doesn’t hurt me, it’s just a missed opportunity and there are enough of those every day it’s not something to obsess over.
Sailer on Podhoretz
Hannon writes:
Under the entry “Intellectual Life,” David Thompson looks at the recently featured The London Review of Books and its family of media cohorts. Probably you have seen this, but the quotes he uses are compelling in the most revolting sort of way. And the photo of the matron of LRB (in a link)—yikes! I can only hope she was onto the idea of the “footprint” left by children in a developed society long before she thought to reproduce herself.
Female earners
Terry Morris writes:
While having lunch today I caught a glimpse of this Fox News story. The first paragraph of the written story states:
Recent studies found that 40 percent of American women are now the primary earners for their families, and that means more and more moms are going back to work—or at least trying to.
When I saw the 40% figure on the tv I did a double take. 40% of American women are the primary breadwinners for their families?! My God, we’re doomed!
Singer killed by coyotes
Ferg writes:
The comment in the gang rape story that bystanders made no effort to intervene made me re-read the Mitchell story. I found the following quote:
Royal Canadian Mounted Police spokeswoman Brigdit Leger said other hikers heard Mitchell’s screams for help on Tuesday and called emergency police dispatchers.
While it is good the other hikers called the police emergency line, apparently none of them felt the need to go to the area the screams were coming from and render assistance. Screams generally indicate immediate need, yet no one responded? Another instance of the secular fatalism I noted before? How can you stand by and listen to screams and not try to do something other than make a phone call? Surely there are some men left in this world? Are there not?
Insurance mandate
Natassia writes:
I am terrified and angry at what is happening in this country. Where does the American government get the right to FORCE me to purchase health insurance simply because I was born here? Where does the American government get the right to TAKE my money away and give it to someone else because they have not purchased their own insurance?
I was 19 years old making $10 an hour when I purchased my own private health insurance. I was working for a small business and my boss agreed to give me a check every month for half the policy price. The policy, which included maternity, was over $200 a month. Within a year after that I walked into Edward Jones and started my own IRA account for $50 a month. I never made more than $13 an hour at that job and yet rented a room in an apartment and paid for my own car, food, and car insurance as well.
If I could do that as a very young adult, I don’t see why the rest of America is having such trouble with it. Yes, I got slammed with a $3500 bill for an MRI thanks to “pre-existing conditions.” You know what I did? I took out a student loan and paid for it.
My husband’s hard-earned money is taken from him to pay for the elderly whose families do not care for them as they should. His earnings are taxed to pay for unwed mothers who continue to foolishly have children by irresponsible men. This is money that in no way benefits my family.
I thought this was a free country! I thought I was a free individual! How does the U.S.. government justify this?!
I am berated by friends and family for speaking out against Islamic expansionism and our socialist-leaning government. They say I’m obsessed, bigoted, and racist. Apparently if I don’t limit my opinions to the latest MTV Real World episode or the Washington Redskins’ stats I’m a “nut.”
Please tell me how the United States Constitution, which I always thought was meant to LIMIT government, validates the actions of this government. I feel completely out of my element here, but I just know something is wrong with this picture.
Lou Dobbs house shot at
Nik S. writes:
While I am not a big fan of Lou Dobbs, I do admire his outspoken position on illegal immigration. Here is a brief story that gives another example of just how terrible this problem has become.
Morgan disappearance
Clark Coleman writes:
Laura Wood states:
In truth, the rapist is utterly simple and closer to a state of nature. The mugger sees a purse and grabs it. The rapist sees a young woman and he takes her. His sexual impulses are laid bare by his very simplicity. He is the normal and natural man radically simplified.
Perhaps this quote needs clarification. It sounds as if the only thing that separates me from a rapist is that I have better impulse control than the rapist. This sounds awfully close to the feminist view of all men being a step away from being rapists (or actually being rapists according to their loose and politicized definitions).
I believe that rapists have significant hostility towards women, not merely sexual desire for them. Rapists not only understand that their assaults will be emotionally damaging to their victims, it is a consciously sought outcome. Therefore, I contend that it is not merely an issue of being civilized and controlling my impulses that separates me from the rapists. It is also the fact that I lack hostility towards women.
I agree with Laura Wood in one key respect. I doubt that some liberal social engineering program is going to produce a rape-free society. But reducing rape to sexual desire that is not properly constrained is not merely an oversimplification, but an error. Some rapists strike elderly women who are not even perceived as sexually desirable by the rapists, according to their own confessions.
It is very hard for me to understand the mind of a rapist, but in recent years I have come to a certain understanding from afar. A certain portion (not all) of the phenomenon of rape comes from the reaction that some men have to their own rejections or failures. Most of us see a woman who is too beautiful to be likely to have an interest in us and say, “Wow! She’s out of my league!” We can admire her from afar without being lustful or obsessed with her. She is just pleasing to see, that’s all. But some men become angry over the fact that a woman is “out of their league.” They focus that anger on her. “That @*$! probably thinks she is too good for me!” is more along the lines of their thoughts than mere admiration. This has interracial implications, by the way, as non-white men perceive their relative lack of a chance with white women.
Why some men react to women with hostility, and most don’t, I don’t know. Perhaps the explanation is simple, or as Laura Wood said derisively, complex. But women should be aware that there are men out there who are angry at women. Some are angry at all women, some at women they think are out of their league, some at women who remind them of a certain woman in their past, and who knows what other variants. Because the woman does not have to actually do anything to spark this anger, she has no control over it other than to not be in a vulnerable position with such a man in the first place. With that knowledge, she will not be naive about where she goes, at what time of day or night, with whom, etc.
Fatal shootout between FBI & radical black Muslims almost ignored by MSM; FBI go out of their way to defend Islam .
Roland D writes:
Why hasn’t the news of this shootout and the continued flight of the fugitive suspects been the #1 headline in all news broadcasts for the last several days? Here, here, and here.
Black Muslim raid
Gary Bauer writes in his e-mail:
Black Muslim Raids
For two years the FBI has been conducting an undercover investigation of a group called Ummah (the brotherhood) made up mostly of African American converts to Islam. Ummah’s goal is to establish Sharia-law within the United States by any means necessary.
On Wednesday, the FBI raided several Ummah facilities, made a dozen arrests and killed an “imam,” Luqman Ameen Abdullah in a shoot-out when he refused to surrender.
Abdullah was a hate-filled jihadist. A 43-page federal indictment released last night gives chilling details of what this thug was doing at his mosque in Detroit, Michigan. He taught his radical congregation that criminal acts were acceptable if they advanced Islam. He told them it was imperative for them to support Al Qaeda, the Taliban and Hezbollah and that the goal was to force all infidels (us!) to live under Muslim rule.
It is amazing that, eight years after 9/11, this jihadist was preaching his hatred and revolutionary doctrine in the heartland of America. It would be foolish to believe this is the only mosque where sedition and hatred are being promoted. [LA replies: amazing? What planet is Bauer living on?]
Almost as disturbing as this news was the reaction to the arrests and shoot-out by the leadership of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations). CAIR is continually presented as “moderate” by big media and by the Obama Administration. Dawud Walid, head of CAIR’s Michigan branch, immediately defended Abdullah, calling him a “respectable imam in the Muslim community,” and cited his work with the homeless.
Then, unbelievably, Walid said he and other imams plan to complain to the FBI because the Bureau repeatedly mentioned Islam in their indictment. Walid said that when other people are arrested their faith isn’t relevant.
Well, Walid, when someone is an average thug their faith or lack thereof isn’t usually relevant. But when an imam uses the Koran to inspire fellow Muslims to overthrow the government and enslave non-Muslims, radical Islam is central to the case. If there are any “moderate” Muslims in Detroit/Dearborn—it is your move. The microphone is open. The cameras are ready. Will you condemn these murderers in your midst?
Not WASPs exactly
LA writes:
The title of Steve Sailer’s article at Vdare, “The Last of the Nice WASP Progressives: Otis Graham and the War for Patriotic Immigration Reform,” is not exactly correct. As I remember, Otis Graham, a founding board member of FAIR, is of predominantly Scots Irish, not Anglo-Saxon, background. John Tanton, FAIR’s founder, is half Anglo-Saxon; his mother was from a German immigrant family.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 01, 2009 06:40 PM | Send