Here on the fifteenth anniversary of the attacks on the United States by Islamic terrorists and the start of the latest iteration of the Islamic jihad upon the West after a lull of about 200 years, we at Bloody Nib Manor find ourselves wondering why, in view of the on-going attacks and terrorist acts in the West committed by "radicalized" Muslims the faith has been given a pass by liberal politicians and the media.
The usual explanation is that the "radicals" do not represent Mohammedanism (nota bene: this writer does not refer to the religion as Islam; he refers it to Mohammedanism because Muslims consider Mohammed the perfect man and attempt to worship him, though they deny it, by living and thinking as did he) as a whole and that Mohammedanism is a religion of peace and that only about ten percent of the total of the Mohammedan world is "radicalized." If one takes a low figure of the number of Muslims in the world of 1.6 billion adherents or the high figure of 2 billion of the benighted that means, on the low end, there are, according to the media, about 160 million to 200 million Mohammedans who wish very ill on the West and on non-Mohammedans. That is more people who fought under arms during World War Two; a war that was fought on at least three continents with probes onto another three.
The liberal and middle of the road politicians, the liberal press, and the liberal portions of Christianity seem to think, because they have no idea of history, the value of reading history and source documents, or even listening to or reading the statements of Mohammedanism. The, for the want of another and better term, liberal cohort of the West insists that a statement by a a Mohammedan civil rights group which cares more for it's prosperity and religious influence reflect true Mohammedanism. In other words, despite the evidence that at least ten percent, if not more, of the followers of Mohammad want nothing more than all nations to be governed by Sharia Law and will kill and terrorize to meet that goal, the liberal cohort believes, or pretends to believe that Mohammedanism is nothing much more than a Middle Eastern version of Unitarian Universalism with some odd thoughts about how women can dress. After all Amish and Hasidic women dress a bit odd in the modern world. Why not Mohammedan women walking around in duffel bags under the threat that if they show a naked arm they will be whipped? The world is just a wacky place.
Years ago (1996) the Catholic writer Peter Kreeft (a convert from Protestantism to Roman Catholicism), wrote a book entitled Ecumenical Jihad. It is a book that this writer is sure that he'd much rather forget. The rough premise of the book was that all religions should get together in a loose way and fight against secularism in the world. He actually made statements that Hindus could see Christ in Hinduism and that Buddhists can see Christ in Buddhism and that Mohammedanism can see Christ in the Koran. In toehr words, the book was a big Kumbaya fest against secular humanism and religion, any religion is much better than cultural atheism. But Mr. Kreeft, who up until the attacks against the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, spent more time attacking Protestantism than he did Mohammedanism, did not do his reading of history and talking to those who are not Mohammedans who have lived under the rule of Mohammedans. He based his thoughts on an Egypt, a Turkey an Iran of the 1960s and 1970s when the leaders of those nations, as bastards as they may have been, were trying to direct their nations from out of the the cover of the Koran.
If Mr. Kreeft had done his due diligence in research instead of carrying a grudge against Calvin and Luther and Stephan Waldo he would have spoken to Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Baha'is and Christians who lived under Mohammedan rule. And he would have found that Mohammedanism is intolerant to anything outside the teachings of an Arab epileptic pedophile who claimed to channel the words of God. But Mr. Kreeft wrote the book twenty years ago, so may be excused for being so damn naive. After all, and it pains this writer to write this, there is a portion of the Catholic Church that is more than willing to overthrow some of the basic tenants of their faith to get more people in the pews.
And all the above is just to state that if a Catholic theologian teaching at a Catholic college who is "supposed" to know better, it's no wonder that the media (a pretty lazy bunch for the past 60 years) fall into the same trap.
The intelligent and interested person would, in deciding what to make of Mohammedanism, would look at history and talk to non-Mohammedans who had lived under Mohammedans. Let's cut down the potential interviewees further. Let's look at monotheists who were not Mohammedans,
Did the Christians and Jews thrive, or even maintain, under Mohammedan rule in Spain and southern France or in North Africa? No, they did not. Those Jews and Christians who were willing to deny their faith in action, in not in fact, may have escaped the burdens of Mohammedanism and may have thrived, but those person were few and far between. The average farmer or tradesman was at the beck and call of the most low-born Mohammedan and had to basically hide his worship of the One True God.
The Sikhs in suffered mightily under Mohammedanism and the Mughal dynasty. The Sikhs were constantly attacked by the Mughals and only when they had had enough of that nonsense did they take up arms to protect themselves and become a warrior class in India. Mohammedanism is one of the reasons that the Sikhs supported and fought for the the English Raj in India. It was not a matter of conquest of the Mohammdeans as much as it was a matter of protection against them.
The Baha'i religion was founded in Persia in the early 19th century. Some people consider them a form of reformed Mohammedanism. Others, including their spokesmen, don't. But the fact of the matter is that the Baha'is have been terribly persecuted in Iran and any other Mohammedan nation. An Indian friend of this writer states that the Baha'is are "soft" and thus easily subjected to bullying by the followers of the Arabian trader. It turns out that the safest places for a Baha'i adherent are the U.S and Canada, Europe and Australia and Israel. They are not safe in their own home.
This writer proposes that there be established an organization of non-Mohammedan monotheistic religions. It could be called something like the Association of Non-Mohammedan Monotheistic Faiths. The purpose of this organization would be to promote the liberty of those faiths and argue against the spirit of easy ecumenicalism that put forth by the media and much of the established church. All of these faiths, while being monothiestic (as is supposed to be Mohammedanism), have suffered under the rule of the adherents of Mohammed.
There has to be a push-back against Mohammedanism. And a strong push back. If there isn't Mohammedansim will use lawfare and warfare to change the nature of the nation and and the values that true peaceful monothiests hold dear.
To be short, we will be under their thumb.
Sunday, September 11, 2016
Saturday, September 10, 2016
Who Ya Callin' Deplorable, Willis?
We here at Bloody Nib Manor are trying our best to ignore the presidential campaign. There is no good candidate, in our opinion, and we sometimes find ourselves wishing for a monarchy with a strong parliament to act against the wishes of the monarch. But we have a strong president with a mostly lap dog legislature. To the residents of the Manor, including the staff, the choice between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump is like the choice between one having one's tea sweetened by a spoonful of dog poop or a spoonful of cat poop at the local ABC tearoom. In other word's, it's time to go to the George and Dragon and drink a whole lot of the local beer because the nation has gone stark raving mad in nominating Ludwig II or a Borgia to be president of the nation.
Having said that, it's an awful thing that Mrs. Clinton has called one half of the supporters of Mr. Trump, "deplorable" as well has other denigrations such as racists and nationalists.
Let us face facts. There are supporters of Mr. Trump who are awful people. The type of people you wouldn't want to stand behind at the 7-11 or Wal-Mart because they have swastikas tattooed on their noggins and are wearing Doc Martin boots. But there are a whole lot of supporters of Mrs. Clinton who walk around the streets wearing tee-shirts bearing the image of Che Guevarra (Cuba's and the left's favorite mass murderer) or Lenin or Stalin. Does one make a man a racist and not the other a Communist of the worst sort?
No presidential candidate can prevent the oddest assortment of people from supporting him of her.
But here's the point. A lot of the people who Mrs. Clinton described as being "deplorable" are the working middle class---men and women who are skilled workers and who see their jobs going to China or Vietnam or Pakistan and who would like to live out their working lives with the idea that they will have a job next week instead of coming into work on a Monday and finding that their job is now being done by a girl named Yuja or a man named Tran or Mohammed in a land far, far away. The whole "We are the world" joke goes okay when one is selling Coke. But it doesn't go so well when one is trying to make the rent.
Mrs. Clinton's comments about the "deplorable" reminds one of Mr. Obama's comment about "bitter clingers." In other words, more than a half of the nation really do not deserve to live in their nation.
Mr. Trump, as a little Nero that he is, at least pretends to pay attention to the working class and the working middle class. Note that this writer has written that Mr. Trump "pretends." Mrs. Clinton doesn't even pretend. She, like many other pols, seem to think that a nation can be made on thinking and no product i.e., Silicon Valley.
This is simply not true. Things, actual things that can be held in one's hand, real things like cars, soap, food, watches, tents and knives and so forth make real money. The rest, the investors and so forth, play with play money that can crash an economy because it's based on nothing at all much like Kim Kardashian. There is no there. It's as empty as a Nebraska cornfield in the dead of winter. It is sweat and blood that makes money. Not ideas despite what the popular press says. If Zuckerberg or Gates or Jobs had had only ideas they would be sitting in their mothers' basements while working at Starbucks as bad baristas and thinking of their ideas. It's the men and women who build the computers and chips that make them wealthy. No computer equals no Microsoft and no Apple and no Facebook.; And yet these jokers have deigned themselves as sort of Masters of the Universe and are not slow to betray their countrymen by sending the jobs to a nation that is just plain bad and awful.
So those are the deplorable. The people in the U.S. who just want to work at a job and be left alone by the government. They are the "bitter clingers" who cling try to cling to their jobs while the jobs are being sent to parts unknown and the religion that they and their forebearers from time immemorial and the right to defend themselves from criminals and the state.
Mr. Trump is an idiot. He always will be a self-absorbed idiot. We, at the Manor, will not vote for him. But Mrs. Clinton is worse simply because she thinks that she knows how to run one's life better than one does.
Needles to say, neither one will be invited to the autumn ball at Bloody Nib Manor.
Having said that, it's an awful thing that Mrs. Clinton has called one half of the supporters of Mr. Trump, "deplorable" as well has other denigrations such as racists and nationalists.
Let us face facts. There are supporters of Mr. Trump who are awful people. The type of people you wouldn't want to stand behind at the 7-11 or Wal-Mart because they have swastikas tattooed on their noggins and are wearing Doc Martin boots. But there are a whole lot of supporters of Mrs. Clinton who walk around the streets wearing tee-shirts bearing the image of Che Guevarra (Cuba's and the left's favorite mass murderer) or Lenin or Stalin. Does one make a man a racist and not the other a Communist of the worst sort?
No presidential candidate can prevent the oddest assortment of people from supporting him of her.
But here's the point. A lot of the people who Mrs. Clinton described as being "deplorable" are the working middle class---men and women who are skilled workers and who see their jobs going to China or Vietnam or Pakistan and who would like to live out their working lives with the idea that they will have a job next week instead of coming into work on a Monday and finding that their job is now being done by a girl named Yuja or a man named Tran or Mohammed in a land far, far away. The whole "We are the world" joke goes okay when one is selling Coke. But it doesn't go so well when one is trying to make the rent.
Mrs. Clinton's comments about the "deplorable" reminds one of Mr. Obama's comment about "bitter clingers." In other words, more than a half of the nation really do not deserve to live in their nation.
Mr. Trump, as a little Nero that he is, at least pretends to pay attention to the working class and the working middle class. Note that this writer has written that Mr. Trump "pretends." Mrs. Clinton doesn't even pretend. She, like many other pols, seem to think that a nation can be made on thinking and no product i.e., Silicon Valley.
This is simply not true. Things, actual things that can be held in one's hand, real things like cars, soap, food, watches, tents and knives and so forth make real money. The rest, the investors and so forth, play with play money that can crash an economy because it's based on nothing at all much like Kim Kardashian. There is no there. It's as empty as a Nebraska cornfield in the dead of winter. It is sweat and blood that makes money. Not ideas despite what the popular press says. If Zuckerberg or Gates or Jobs had had only ideas they would be sitting in their mothers' basements while working at Starbucks as bad baristas and thinking of their ideas. It's the men and women who build the computers and chips that make them wealthy. No computer equals no Microsoft and no Apple and no Facebook.; And yet these jokers have deigned themselves as sort of Masters of the Universe and are not slow to betray their countrymen by sending the jobs to a nation that is just plain bad and awful.
So those are the deplorable. The people in the U.S. who just want to work at a job and be left alone by the government. They are the "bitter clingers" who cling try to cling to their jobs while the jobs are being sent to parts unknown and the religion that they and their forebearers from time immemorial and the right to defend themselves from criminals and the state.
Mr. Trump is an idiot. He always will be a self-absorbed idiot. We, at the Manor, will not vote for him. But Mrs. Clinton is worse simply because she thinks that she knows how to run one's life better than one does.
Needles to say, neither one will be invited to the autumn ball at Bloody Nib Manor.
Sunday, August 28, 2016
Professionals! Your Betters!
We here at Bloody Nib Manor have never been especially fond of professional actors or athletes. We've always held them in our esteem as college philosophy professors. In other words, adolescents living a prolonged adolescence. Often a much too long prolonged adolescence.
Ask yourself this question:
Why should a man or woman be paid a lot of money to do the same thing that you did for free, or had to pay to do (child sports and theatre) as a child or as a young person? If your answer is because of the excellence of their performance you've made the wrong answer. Those same people who are paid a mighty sum of money to pretend to be who they aren't or who play a game better than the average bear would, if they were really interested in the thing that they excel in, do that thing as a hobby while working at the local machine shop or as a para-legal because, according to their own words, they have a "passion" for it,
But they don't have a passion for their acting or sport. They have a passion for the money it brings them. No man or woman over the age of 30 would risk ruining his or her knees by playing weekend football or soccer while working a 9 to 5 job. And acting, while easier on the body than athletics, reveals the actors and wannabes by the few people sitting in the seats of the local Little Theatre. The person who is now a big star would have, after a half dozen plays with a quarter filled theatres would have chucked it all and gone back to the job at the bank. The "passion" lasts as long as the money does.
The Romans of the Classical and Empire times, while liking theatre and various sports, held actors and professional athletes in low regard. Those two groups were considered little more than jesters who offered a moment's distraction from daily life. To be sure, many upper class Roman men longed for a female athlete and often impregnated one, and the Roman matrons got all hot and bothered by an actor or a gladiator. But it was considered shameful. A man consorting with proper prostitutes was considered more comely than having a fling with a female athlete (there were few, if any, female actors at the time).
In 17th and 18th century England the theatres were considered little more than whorehouses for the upper class. Professional athletes were considered meat to be bet upon much like dogs in bull-baiting or fighting cocks.
But for some reason both "professions" have become respectable. And instead of looking at them with at askance, we seem to have made them heroes and heroines of almost Homeric dimensions. They have become all-wise gods of some sort and not just experts in their fields.
And this is just not true. The average guy working at the 7-11 or you mechanic or plumber or preacher or para-legal is more aware of what is going on the world than the average actor or athlete simply because they live in the real world and have to break a sweat to make the rent, feed their kids or/and pay for Obamacare. They are down on the ground. Actors and actresses are often made much of because they are accidents of birth (they are pretty or good liars) and professional athletes are accidents of birth by their talents. But their talents, both the theatre crowd and the stadium crowd, are not wise. They are not cultured. They are vulgar and esily swayed because they want to be something that they are not. They want to be considered smart and wise because they know the gag better than we do. They know that they are, in the big picture, nothing. They will soon be forgotten by the people who now adore them. A new model will come along.
Your old great granny and her granny and their wisdom and smarts will be more of you and your DNA and be much longer remembered than a paid liar or a paid athlete. Their names may go into a book. But your granny's wisdom lives in the blood and will be passed on to the kids who call you granny or gramps.
And those bastards hate that.
Ask yourself this question:
Why should a man or woman be paid a lot of money to do the same thing that you did for free, or had to pay to do (child sports and theatre) as a child or as a young person? If your answer is because of the excellence of their performance you've made the wrong answer. Those same people who are paid a mighty sum of money to pretend to be who they aren't or who play a game better than the average bear would, if they were really interested in the thing that they excel in, do that thing as a hobby while working at the local machine shop or as a para-legal because, according to their own words, they have a "passion" for it,
But they don't have a passion for their acting or sport. They have a passion for the money it brings them. No man or woman over the age of 30 would risk ruining his or her knees by playing weekend football or soccer while working a 9 to 5 job. And acting, while easier on the body than athletics, reveals the actors and wannabes by the few people sitting in the seats of the local Little Theatre. The person who is now a big star would have, after a half dozen plays with a quarter filled theatres would have chucked it all and gone back to the job at the bank. The "passion" lasts as long as the money does.
The Romans of the Classical and Empire times, while liking theatre and various sports, held actors and professional athletes in low regard. Those two groups were considered little more than jesters who offered a moment's distraction from daily life. To be sure, many upper class Roman men longed for a female athlete and often impregnated one, and the Roman matrons got all hot and bothered by an actor or a gladiator. But it was considered shameful. A man consorting with proper prostitutes was considered more comely than having a fling with a female athlete (there were few, if any, female actors at the time).
In 17th and 18th century England the theatres were considered little more than whorehouses for the upper class. Professional athletes were considered meat to be bet upon much like dogs in bull-baiting or fighting cocks.
But for some reason both "professions" have become respectable. And instead of looking at them with at askance, we seem to have made them heroes and heroines of almost Homeric dimensions. They have become all-wise gods of some sort and not just experts in their fields.
And this is just not true. The average guy working at the 7-11 or you mechanic or plumber or preacher or para-legal is more aware of what is going on the world than the average actor or athlete simply because they live in the real world and have to break a sweat to make the rent, feed their kids or/and pay for Obamacare. They are down on the ground. Actors and actresses are often made much of because they are accidents of birth (they are pretty or good liars) and professional athletes are accidents of birth by their talents. But their talents, both the theatre crowd and the stadium crowd, are not wise. They are not cultured. They are vulgar and esily swayed because they want to be something that they are not. They want to be considered smart and wise because they know the gag better than we do. They know that they are, in the big picture, nothing. They will soon be forgotten by the people who now adore them. A new model will come along.
Your old great granny and her granny and their wisdom and smarts will be more of you and your DNA and be much longer remembered than a paid liar or a paid athlete. Their names may go into a book. But your granny's wisdom lives in the blood and will be passed on to the kids who call you granny or gramps.
And those bastards hate that.
Saturday, August 27, 2016
Who Ya Callin' Naked, Mohammed?
We here at Bloody Nib Manor have never been beach-goers. There was a time for about three years when we lived near a beach and we never visited it.. But we have no animus against the beach and beach-goers. It was always that other people did, but not us, for some reason.
Having said that, this writer finds this whole "burkini" (or is it "burquini"?) thing in France interesting,
For those not in the know, a burkini is a full bodied covering that some Mohammedan women wear to the beach. It covers the body from the ankles to the top of the head with an opening for the face. It makes a Victorian woman's bathing costume look almost scanty with bare shoulders and stockinged legs below the knees
Several French municipalities on the Med have decided to ban the burkini because they see the thing as a threat to French civil and secular society and an expression of Mohammedan aspirations for dominance. Other people, of the more liberal an Kumbaya crowd, see the banning of the burkini as a sort of racism or anti-religionism (and it's very odd that they only worry about anti-religionism when it deals with Islam and not with Christians in a purportedly Christian nation.
There has been a lot of talking about this thing among the eggheads of various flavors and they have all gotten it wrong.
Societies regularly put limits on what people can or cannot wear in public ion that society. A native woman from the deepest Congo cannot parade around the streets of Paris or London bare-breasted and wearing only a colored cord belt around her waist. And a man from the same tribe cannot go to the local 7-11 wearing only a penile sheath and a smile. And a person cannot walk into a bank with his or her face covered and expect not to be thought hincky. Traditionally the beach has been a place for people to shed some of their clothes (sometimes, in the matter of fat men and Speedos all too much) and soak up some sun and enjoy the sea water. In this society (and this writer means European and American society) a full body covering from head to toe is reserved to Catholic nuns. And well some people may ask what separates Catholic nuns from Mohammedan women the answer is simply this: nuns are separate from society and they have made vows. Mohammedan women are not. They are women who live in society and who deal with society and in the Western society they have to conform to to that society (not a bikini or even a one piece bathing suit, but perhaps in a blouse and clam-diggers). If they don't they have no desire to become part of the society to which they have thrown their lot. In other words, they are, whether by the insistence of their husbands or not) termites undermining the pillars of the society into which they have moved and and are bringing the very thing that they claimed to have escaped to the society to which they have moved. In other words, they escape one thing and bring that thing to the place to which they have escaped.
Nations have cultures. Anyone who enters that culture should be expected to conform to that culture. If one moves to France one should learn to speak French and behave like a French person. The only rebels allowed are, at the nearest, the third generation of the immigrant. And only then when that person can only speak the language of the nation instead of being bi-lingual with the the country of origin.
Consider the Amish. They are a closed and very conservative society. They get by. They not only get by, but they prosper. The men and women dress as if it was the early 19th century. They may go to the beach, but they where their normal everyday dress. And the nation almost adores them because they are not only examples of a life long gone, but because they do not force themselves on the greater society. When was the last time you, dear reader, saw a Mohammedan of a conservative religious bent, not demand that society conform to him or her?
The "burkini" is an insult to Western society. It's like the Mohammedan's flipping a giant bird to western society. And one finds one's self wondering if women in Saudi Arabia or Iraq where such a silly thing to the beach in their nations. One wonders how the Mohammedan women in Burma some one hundred years ago could get through the day walking to and from their fields bare-breasted and not feel the shame that the Wahabists have now put upon them. And the reason is because they had a sort of common sense that Wahabist Mohammadism doesn't.
It's been charged that Christian missionaries have ruined micro-cultures by the teaching Christ. But, know for a fact, that the Livingston and Judson never demanded that their converts dressed as Victorian ladies instead of people living in the bush and jungle.
So should the "burkini" be banned according to the denizens of Bloody Nib Manor? The answer is "yes." If the women who wear this bad they should just wear a wet suit and pretend to be surfers.
Having said that, this writer finds this whole "burkini" (or is it "burquini"?) thing in France interesting,
For those not in the know, a burkini is a full bodied covering that some Mohammedan women wear to the beach. It covers the body from the ankles to the top of the head with an opening for the face. It makes a Victorian woman's bathing costume look almost scanty with bare shoulders and stockinged legs below the knees
Several French municipalities on the Med have decided to ban the burkini because they see the thing as a threat to French civil and secular society and an expression of Mohammedan aspirations for dominance. Other people, of the more liberal an Kumbaya crowd, see the banning of the burkini as a sort of racism or anti-religionism (and it's very odd that they only worry about anti-religionism when it deals with Islam and not with Christians in a purportedly Christian nation.
There has been a lot of talking about this thing among the eggheads of various flavors and they have all gotten it wrong.
Societies regularly put limits on what people can or cannot wear in public ion that society. A native woman from the deepest Congo cannot parade around the streets of Paris or London bare-breasted and wearing only a colored cord belt around her waist. And a man from the same tribe cannot go to the local 7-11 wearing only a penile sheath and a smile. And a person cannot walk into a bank with his or her face covered and expect not to be thought hincky. Traditionally the beach has been a place for people to shed some of their clothes (sometimes, in the matter of fat men and Speedos all too much) and soak up some sun and enjoy the sea water. In this society (and this writer means European and American society) a full body covering from head to toe is reserved to Catholic nuns. And well some people may ask what separates Catholic nuns from Mohammedan women the answer is simply this: nuns are separate from society and they have made vows. Mohammedan women are not. They are women who live in society and who deal with society and in the Western society they have to conform to to that society (not a bikini or even a one piece bathing suit, but perhaps in a blouse and clam-diggers). If they don't they have no desire to become part of the society to which they have thrown their lot. In other words, they are, whether by the insistence of their husbands or not) termites undermining the pillars of the society into which they have moved and and are bringing the very thing that they claimed to have escaped to the society to which they have moved. In other words, they escape one thing and bring that thing to the place to which they have escaped.
Nations have cultures. Anyone who enters that culture should be expected to conform to that culture. If one moves to France one should learn to speak French and behave like a French person. The only rebels allowed are, at the nearest, the third generation of the immigrant. And only then when that person can only speak the language of the nation instead of being bi-lingual with the the country of origin.
Consider the Amish. They are a closed and very conservative society. They get by. They not only get by, but they prosper. The men and women dress as if it was the early 19th century. They may go to the beach, but they where their normal everyday dress. And the nation almost adores them because they are not only examples of a life long gone, but because they do not force themselves on the greater society. When was the last time you, dear reader, saw a Mohammedan of a conservative religious bent, not demand that society conform to him or her?
The "burkini" is an insult to Western society. It's like the Mohammedan's flipping a giant bird to western society. And one finds one's self wondering if women in Saudi Arabia or Iraq where such a silly thing to the beach in their nations. One wonders how the Mohammedan women in Burma some one hundred years ago could get through the day walking to and from their fields bare-breasted and not feel the shame that the Wahabists have now put upon them. And the reason is because they had a sort of common sense that Wahabist Mohammadism doesn't.
It's been charged that Christian missionaries have ruined micro-cultures by the teaching Christ. But, know for a fact, that the Livingston and Judson never demanded that their converts dressed as Victorian ladies instead of people living in the bush and jungle.
So should the "burkini" be banned according to the denizens of Bloody Nib Manor? The answer is "yes." If the women who wear this bad they should just wear a wet suit and pretend to be surfers.
Saturday, July 30, 2016
Entertainers! Your Guides to Life.
We here at Bloody Nib Manor have never been of the star-struck type. This is not to say that the ever-lovely Lady Nib and your faithful correspondent have not had favorite actors or actresses, musicians or singers who we admired for their skill in their trades (and be it know that most of them are tradesmen and not professionals despite their protests. The best are artists of a sort, but really not creators or builders. They are interpreters of the sweat and skill of others).
And, historically, actors and actresses, have been considered people of questionable morality. This sense goes back to the days of classical Greece and up until the 1940s. This writer's grandfather, Baron William of Talequa, used to say, "Actors are whores and the only attention you should give them is when you're in the movie house." But that was three or four generations ago and things have changed for some reason. No longer is entertainment bought and paid for (a opposed to home-made such as front porch music, poetry recitals in the kitchen and plays put on in the barn by the bairns) just a diversion from real life. It seems to have become real life for many people, and actors have suddenly gone from playthings for the wealthy like Nell Gwynne or Lily Langtree or Junius Booth or Colly Cibber. Somewhere along the line they decided that they were Solons or Wilberforces with the morality and wisdom that we all seem to lack.
The reason seems to be that because the populace in general has mistaken them for the roles they play on the screen. Sally Fields played a union organizer in "Norma Raye" and she then became some sort of expert on labor relations. Merle Streep played played reporter Karen Silkwood in a film and almost single-handedly ruined the apple groing industry through her false allegations regarding Alar. Neither had a background in labor or science, but for some reason they were listened to because, not of what they pretended to know, but because of their roles in movies.
Some years ago Laura Ingraham wrote a book called "Shut Up and Sing." Yours is no fan of Ingraham, though he does agree with her politically (she comes across as a snarky and angry teenager). The book was made up of essays, one of which addressed the country-bluegrass band, The Dixie Chicks, expressing their anger with President G.W. Bush going to war with Iraq and Afghanistan, and the D.C., with no knowledge, in fact, of the complications of this decision and deciding from their gut, used their fame as not only a platform for their opinions, but almost insisted that their opinions were better than anyone else's because they were, well, famous and much-loved among the C&W fans. Well, they were before they opened their traps and they found out that all people were interested in about them was that they made decent music.
And therein lies the problem, the joke, the gag about entertainers spouting off politically or even scientifically. Leonardo Di Caprio wants you to get rid of you air conditioner, your car and your gas powered lawn mower to help cool the planet because he knows better while he wastes more energy and contributes more to "global warming" in a day making a movie or flying around in a private jet than the average American family does in six months. He knows better than you do despite the fact that his education is no better than yours. And he's more right and moral than you do because he's an...well... an actor with a string of girlfriends he takes up and discards like Kleenex. Just hope you don't have a pretty daughter; you'll have to get out the Iver Johnson to chase him off the porch like you would do to keep a horny Tom screaming for your female tabby.
This awful past two weeks of political conventions have brought this out in spades. Most actors tend to gravitate towards the Democrats, but there are some who consider themselves Republicans. And almost any actor or actress who can managed to punch a card or pull a lever in a voting booth is all too ready to tell you, dear reader, how you should vote because, well, they're actors. They work less than you do, they usually have less life , real life experience on the ground, than you do. But you pay them to play pretend and "let's dress up." In other words, they do for a lot of money what you as a child did for free. Is it any wonder that they think that you are the rube of rubes in the same way that a carny laughs at some bachelor farmer from a dry land farm in the middle of South Dakota looking at the Mermaid of the Java Sea in wonderment not knowing that the thing is half stuffed spider monkey and half stuffed sea bass.
It's a joke. The problem is that neither the populace nor the entertainers know that it's a joke. It's almost a matter of the unthinking being led by the unknowing. The unthinking population, nor realizing that their best interests lie in thinking and deciding for themselves politically and morally, follows the march of the unknowing, who think they know what it is to be a working man or woman with kids and a job that is threatened by outsourcing when, in fact, the average actor, while perhaps spending some time waiting tables or driving cabs, doesn't know what it's like to make a living as a bricklayer, a plumber, or office drone or a veteran. But they pretend that they are bricklayers, plumbers, office drones or veterans while actually, not only not being these things, not actually knowing anyone who has done these things It is almost a Judas goat situation. The Judas goat doesn't know what it's doing, but will lead the herd to the slaughter thinking that it is going good by being the leader because, well, as an actor, it is the leader.
Actors and musicians are no smarter than you. In fact, many of them are not. Their skill lies in their ability to recreate emotions and remember written text. They are like mynah birds or parrots. Would you take your political opinions from a black bird named Rajah or a red bird named Polly? You'd be better off discussing your opinions with your dog. At least a dog cares what you think. Or better yet with your neighbors, friends and co-workers. They have a lot more in common with you, and live lives a lot more like your, and have much more the same problem as you do, than does some guy or doll stepping out of a limo at the Academy Awards in February.
Somewhat related is the joke about musical artists and bands pitching a bitch about their songs being used at the political conventions or during the political campaigns (nota bene: it's usually the Republicans being complained about). There's no point in naming names or incidents as they are too numerous. But what is interesting is that the bands and artists, by doing so, are working against their own self-interests. According to ASCAP every time a song is played in public the song writer and the artist is paid a few cents or more. One could say that the stand was a principled stand because that artist will be losing money from royalties, but know if the singer of a popular song went into the local IHOP and found his or her song played over the PA from a radio station said "artist" would immediately get in contact with his or her ASCAP representative and demand his or her royalty. The "artist" wouldn't demand that the IHOP stopped playing the song even if the "artist" was against bacon. It's all what the Social Justice Warriors call "virtue signalling." In other words, the "artists" are like the Pharisee on the story of the Pharisee and Publican; they'll toot their horn when there are people to hear it.
One wonders what what the reaction would be if, say, Mercedes Benz demanded that rap and hip-hop groups stopped driving and featuring Mercedes Benz products in their videos because Mercedes Benz is opposed to rap and hip-hop culture.
Once a product is out it's not yours.
Now that it's later afternoon this writer has some roses on the grounds that have to be groomed.
And, historically, actors and actresses, have been considered people of questionable morality. This sense goes back to the days of classical Greece and up until the 1940s. This writer's grandfather, Baron William of Talequa, used to say, "Actors are whores and the only attention you should give them is when you're in the movie house." But that was three or four generations ago and things have changed for some reason. No longer is entertainment bought and paid for (a opposed to home-made such as front porch music, poetry recitals in the kitchen and plays put on in the barn by the bairns) just a diversion from real life. It seems to have become real life for many people, and actors have suddenly gone from playthings for the wealthy like Nell Gwynne or Lily Langtree or Junius Booth or Colly Cibber. Somewhere along the line they decided that they were Solons or Wilberforces with the morality and wisdom that we all seem to lack.
The reason seems to be that because the populace in general has mistaken them for the roles they play on the screen. Sally Fields played a union organizer in "Norma Raye" and she then became some sort of expert on labor relations. Merle Streep played played reporter Karen Silkwood in a film and almost single-handedly ruined the apple groing industry through her false allegations regarding Alar. Neither had a background in labor or science, but for some reason they were listened to because, not of what they pretended to know, but because of their roles in movies.
Some years ago Laura Ingraham wrote a book called "Shut Up and Sing." Yours is no fan of Ingraham, though he does agree with her politically (she comes across as a snarky and angry teenager). The book was made up of essays, one of which addressed the country-bluegrass band, The Dixie Chicks, expressing their anger with President G.W. Bush going to war with Iraq and Afghanistan, and the D.C., with no knowledge, in fact, of the complications of this decision and deciding from their gut, used their fame as not only a platform for their opinions, but almost insisted that their opinions were better than anyone else's because they were, well, famous and much-loved among the C&W fans. Well, they were before they opened their traps and they found out that all people were interested in about them was that they made decent music.
And therein lies the problem, the joke, the gag about entertainers spouting off politically or even scientifically. Leonardo Di Caprio wants you to get rid of you air conditioner, your car and your gas powered lawn mower to help cool the planet because he knows better while he wastes more energy and contributes more to "global warming" in a day making a movie or flying around in a private jet than the average American family does in six months. He knows better than you do despite the fact that his education is no better than yours. And he's more right and moral than you do because he's an...well... an actor with a string of girlfriends he takes up and discards like Kleenex. Just hope you don't have a pretty daughter; you'll have to get out the Iver Johnson to chase him off the porch like you would do to keep a horny Tom screaming for your female tabby.
This awful past two weeks of political conventions have brought this out in spades. Most actors tend to gravitate towards the Democrats, but there are some who consider themselves Republicans. And almost any actor or actress who can managed to punch a card or pull a lever in a voting booth is all too ready to tell you, dear reader, how you should vote because, well, they're actors. They work less than you do, they usually have less life , real life experience on the ground, than you do. But you pay them to play pretend and "let's dress up." In other words, they do for a lot of money what you as a child did for free. Is it any wonder that they think that you are the rube of rubes in the same way that a carny laughs at some bachelor farmer from a dry land farm in the middle of South Dakota looking at the Mermaid of the Java Sea in wonderment not knowing that the thing is half stuffed spider monkey and half stuffed sea bass.
It's a joke. The problem is that neither the populace nor the entertainers know that it's a joke. It's almost a matter of the unthinking being led by the unknowing. The unthinking population, nor realizing that their best interests lie in thinking and deciding for themselves politically and morally, follows the march of the unknowing, who think they know what it is to be a working man or woman with kids and a job that is threatened by outsourcing when, in fact, the average actor, while perhaps spending some time waiting tables or driving cabs, doesn't know what it's like to make a living as a bricklayer, a plumber, or office drone or a veteran. But they pretend that they are bricklayers, plumbers, office drones or veterans while actually, not only not being these things, not actually knowing anyone who has done these things It is almost a Judas goat situation. The Judas goat doesn't know what it's doing, but will lead the herd to the slaughter thinking that it is going good by being the leader because, well, as an actor, it is the leader.
Actors and musicians are no smarter than you. In fact, many of them are not. Their skill lies in their ability to recreate emotions and remember written text. They are like mynah birds or parrots. Would you take your political opinions from a black bird named Rajah or a red bird named Polly? You'd be better off discussing your opinions with your dog. At least a dog cares what you think. Or better yet with your neighbors, friends and co-workers. They have a lot more in common with you, and live lives a lot more like your, and have much more the same problem as you do, than does some guy or doll stepping out of a limo at the Academy Awards in February.
Somewhat related is the joke about musical artists and bands pitching a bitch about their songs being used at the political conventions or during the political campaigns (nota bene: it's usually the Republicans being complained about). There's no point in naming names or incidents as they are too numerous. But what is interesting is that the bands and artists, by doing so, are working against their own self-interests. According to ASCAP every time a song is played in public the song writer and the artist is paid a few cents or more. One could say that the stand was a principled stand because that artist will be losing money from royalties, but know if the singer of a popular song went into the local IHOP and found his or her song played over the PA from a radio station said "artist" would immediately get in contact with his or her ASCAP representative and demand his or her royalty. The "artist" wouldn't demand that the IHOP stopped playing the song even if the "artist" was against bacon. It's all what the Social Justice Warriors call "virtue signalling." In other words, the "artists" are like the Pharisee on the story of the Pharisee and Publican; they'll toot their horn when there are people to hear it.
One wonders what what the reaction would be if, say, Mercedes Benz demanded that rap and hip-hop groups stopped driving and featuring Mercedes Benz products in their videos because Mercedes Benz is opposed to rap and hip-hop culture.
Once a product is out it's not yours.
Now that it's later afternoon this writer has some roses on the grounds that have to be groomed.
Sunday, July 10, 2016
Taurus
As anyone who knows either the lovely Lady Nib or this writer is well aware, we are against animal cruelty. We will have no truck with dog fighting, cock-fighting, quail-fighting (there really is such a thing) or Siamese fish fighting on the estate or in the shire.
But, strangely for some people, this writer is no opponent of bullfighting. Especially Spanish bullfighting---Mexican bullfighters are pretty sloppy.
For sure, the bull is tired and bruised before the matador gets to it, but the bull is still a dangerous animal that can kill if given the chance.
And bullfighting is, in some ways cruel. But life is cruel. It comes from a traditon when life was much crueler than it is today. The Cretan "bull-dancers" were, in fact sacrifices that were finished off by bulls. The women were not dancing. They were trying to survive.
Bullfighting (Spanish bullfighting) pits a small man against an animal that weighs near a ton. The man has a sword and his brain. The bull has his horns and his bulk and his instincts. The bull has a chance to kill the man who is trying to kill him. Your hamburger never did.
And while bullfighting may be cruel, is it any crueler than UFC fighting or boxing? In one case you have a dead bull who was teased before it was killed. In the second case you have young men and women abusing one another in ways that no one would want to undergo and living their later lives with brain damage, broken bones and a form of PTSD.
Bullfighting is a pre-Christian ethic or value that has survived into the modern world because there is a primal sense about the "sport" that modern life does not satisfy. It's an awful thing. But it may be necessary for the good of the culture that there are cruel things, bloody things that are real and not movies, for people to realize that there is danger, there is blood, there is a certain amount of cruelty in the world and in the West. And there is also the sense that must be brought out that animals are animals and they are not fuzzy humans. A bucking Brahma bull can kill or maim a man in a second. A Jersey bull isn't loathe to pin a man against a fence until the man is dead. Your cat, when he looks at you, sees not a friend, but a source of food, and won't be shy about eating you if you die in your house.
Life is often a rotten thing. Especially when one realizes that the My Little Pony world is a fake (Pinkie Pie!), which the media encourages despite the fact that it's a lie.
In a kind world only Portuguese bullfighting (at least until the final denoument) would be allowed. But life is not kind. The world is not kind. The world wants blood as some sort of sacrifice and is not satisfied with the Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. And so, since most of the Western world is pretty much pagan, why not let them be satisfied with the blood of bulls or the blood of a bullfighter?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1419158/shock-as-prize-winning-pro-bullfighter-is-killed-during-tournament-in-front-of-audience/
Some people will say that the killing of a bullfighter is a good thing. Those are the same people who say that a pig or a dolphin is a boy or girl. Or even their boy or girl.
But, strangely for some people, this writer is no opponent of bullfighting. Especially Spanish bullfighting---Mexican bullfighters are pretty sloppy.
For sure, the bull is tired and bruised before the matador gets to it, but the bull is still a dangerous animal that can kill if given the chance.
And bullfighting is, in some ways cruel. But life is cruel. It comes from a traditon when life was much crueler than it is today. The Cretan "bull-dancers" were, in fact sacrifices that were finished off by bulls. The women were not dancing. They were trying to survive.
Bullfighting (Spanish bullfighting) pits a small man against an animal that weighs near a ton. The man has a sword and his brain. The bull has his horns and his bulk and his instincts. The bull has a chance to kill the man who is trying to kill him. Your hamburger never did.
And while bullfighting may be cruel, is it any crueler than UFC fighting or boxing? In one case you have a dead bull who was teased before it was killed. In the second case you have young men and women abusing one another in ways that no one would want to undergo and living their later lives with brain damage, broken bones and a form of PTSD.
Bullfighting is a pre-Christian ethic or value that has survived into the modern world because there is a primal sense about the "sport" that modern life does not satisfy. It's an awful thing. But it may be necessary for the good of the culture that there are cruel things, bloody things that are real and not movies, for people to realize that there is danger, there is blood, there is a certain amount of cruelty in the world and in the West. And there is also the sense that must be brought out that animals are animals and they are not fuzzy humans. A bucking Brahma bull can kill or maim a man in a second. A Jersey bull isn't loathe to pin a man against a fence until the man is dead. Your cat, when he looks at you, sees not a friend, but a source of food, and won't be shy about eating you if you die in your house.
Life is often a rotten thing. Especially when one realizes that the My Little Pony world is a fake (Pinkie Pie!), which the media encourages despite the fact that it's a lie.
In a kind world only Portuguese bullfighting (at least until the final denoument) would be allowed. But life is not kind. The world is not kind. The world wants blood as some sort of sacrifice and is not satisfied with the Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. And so, since most of the Western world is pretty much pagan, why not let them be satisfied with the blood of bulls or the blood of a bullfighter?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1419158/shock-as-prize-winning-pro-bullfighter-is-killed-during-tournament-in-front-of-audience/
Some people will say that the killing of a bullfighter is a good thing. Those are the same people who say that a pig or a dolphin is a boy or girl. Or even their boy or girl.
Sunday, July 03, 2016
Which Foot?
When Brexit passed in the United Kingdom we here at Bloody Nib Manor hoisted our Union Jack and St. George's Cross flags up the flagpole on the south tower for about five minutes in celebration. Then, knowing that the actual implementation of the of the withdrawal will be left to the cosmopolites in the U.K. who voted against the referendum, we lowered the flags, folded them up, and went back to our gardening and lawn bowling with the sure knowledge that that we'll breathe our last with the United Kingdom under the heel of the E.U. The E.U. is somewhat like a tick that buries it's head into the flesh do draw blood for its body, which is on the surface. Pull off the blood bloated body and the is still trying to draw blood. And the result is an infection unless the head is dug out with sometime brutal results on the host. It hurts. And who wants to be hurt? The infection is worse, but doesn't hurt as much. The head of the E.U. tick is in the flesh of the United Kingdom and the Leavers would rather leave the head in rather than do the better thing and cut it out no matter the short term pain. The Leavers have their blood to suck and they will do it any way they can.
Which, strangely, brings to the mind of your faithful correspondent, the current Presidential campaign between Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton.
Mr. Trump is a vulgar, ill-educated (note: not un-educated, his education was fine, but he paid little attention to much), bellowing (well, as bellowing as a man with that nasal Manhattan voice can bellow), base bullying populist, and panderer of the Mussolini type. This writer is not calling Mr. Trump a facist. In fact, yours doubts that Mr. Trump really knows what a Fascist is or if he's read D'Annunzio. But he poses and preens like Benito and one finds one's self wondering when he will start wearing that funky cap with a trick golden eagle on the front. He fancies himself a street fighter, but an eight year old karate kid could double him over with a punch. To be short, he's pretty much a dope when it comes to Constitutional governance and he seems to think that the United States operates in the same way that his often failing corporations do. In other words, he's in charge and you are not.
Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, is a personally vulgar but publicly smooth, well-educated (though she never shows it), shrieking (if old Bill had had any manliness he would have folded up his tent and de-camped the first time he heard a tirade from this harpy, but he didn't), elite, and leftist who knows what is better for you than you do of the typical European Socialist/weak Communist type. Think Sweden with a much harder edge and uglier people. Unlike Mr. Trump, she preens and poses in other ways. The reader will never see her in khaki with a funny hat, but will always see her in a modified Star Trek pantsuit which has leanings toward the old Mao uniform of Communist China. She knows the Constitution and will take every loophole and groove to get what she wants. Mr. Obama ignores the Constitution. Mrs. Clinton works it like a wax nose. In other words, she's in charge and you aren't
And both people, Constitutionally and and for the good of the nation, are awful candidates. They are both ticks of one sort or another. He from the populace through his casinos and hotels, she from the people through the government. They have both buried their heads into the flesh of the nation, and no matter which of them is elected, the head of the other will be buried into the national body infecting and corrupting. And the one who is elected will not only have its head stuck into the body politic, but their body will bloat and corrupt not only the nation,l but everything around it.
Some "Solon's" -- and most professional opinion writers, political commentators and talking heads are idiots in real life because they've never done an honest day's work in their lives and really never have to worry about losing their jobs for being wrong -- have been doing "rah-rah" or "nah-nah" for one or the other candidates as if there is actually a good choice between the two. Twitter explodes with #NeverTrump or #NeverClinton and people ignore #Screw'emboth.
The whole thing reminds your faithful correspondent of an old Polack/Russian/moron/Irish/etc. joke:
Two (name your favorite out group here) are walking down a road. They come across a pile of brown stuff on the road. Socrates looks at the pile and says to his friend, "My dear Plato, whatever can that be?" Plato says, "It looks like dog turd."
Socrates: "But do we know for sure?"
Plato: "Let's find out by tests."
Socrates: "Good idea."
So both Socrates and Plato stick their fingers into the mass.
Socrates: "It feels like a dog turd."
Plato: "Surely it does."
They both smell the stuff that is now on their fingers.
Socrates: "It smells like a dog turd."
Plato: "So it does, my dear Socrates."
Then they taste the stuff on their fingers.
Socrates: "It tastes awful. Like dog turd."
Plato: "Wholly disgusting. It's a good thing we didn't step in it."
Well, we've looked, smelled and tasted. The only question is will we step in it with our left foot or right foot? Or will be avoid it?
Which, strangely, brings to the mind of your faithful correspondent, the current Presidential campaign between Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton.
Mr. Trump is a vulgar, ill-educated (note: not un-educated, his education was fine, but he paid little attention to much), bellowing (well, as bellowing as a man with that nasal Manhattan voice can bellow), base bullying populist, and panderer of the Mussolini type. This writer is not calling Mr. Trump a facist. In fact, yours doubts that Mr. Trump really knows what a Fascist is or if he's read D'Annunzio. But he poses and preens like Benito and one finds one's self wondering when he will start wearing that funky cap with a trick golden eagle on the front. He fancies himself a street fighter, but an eight year old karate kid could double him over with a punch. To be short, he's pretty much a dope when it comes to Constitutional governance and he seems to think that the United States operates in the same way that his often failing corporations do. In other words, he's in charge and you are not.
Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, is a personally vulgar but publicly smooth, well-educated (though she never shows it), shrieking (if old Bill had had any manliness he would have folded up his tent and de-camped the first time he heard a tirade from this harpy, but he didn't), elite, and leftist who knows what is better for you than you do of the typical European Socialist/weak Communist type. Think Sweden with a much harder edge and uglier people. Unlike Mr. Trump, she preens and poses in other ways. The reader will never see her in khaki with a funny hat, but will always see her in a modified Star Trek pantsuit which has leanings toward the old Mao uniform of Communist China. She knows the Constitution and will take every loophole and groove to get what she wants. Mr. Obama ignores the Constitution. Mrs. Clinton works it like a wax nose. In other words, she's in charge and you aren't
And both people, Constitutionally and and for the good of the nation, are awful candidates. They are both ticks of one sort or another. He from the populace through his casinos and hotels, she from the people through the government. They have both buried their heads into the flesh of the nation, and no matter which of them is elected, the head of the other will be buried into the national body infecting and corrupting. And the one who is elected will not only have its head stuck into the body politic, but their body will bloat and corrupt not only the nation,l but everything around it.
Some "Solon's" -- and most professional opinion writers, political commentators and talking heads are idiots in real life because they've never done an honest day's work in their lives and really never have to worry about losing their jobs for being wrong -- have been doing "rah-rah" or "nah-nah" for one or the other candidates as if there is actually a good choice between the two. Twitter explodes with #NeverTrump or #NeverClinton and people ignore #Screw'emboth.
The whole thing reminds your faithful correspondent of an old Polack/Russian/moron/Irish/etc. joke:
Two (name your favorite out group here) are walking down a road. They come across a pile of brown stuff on the road. Socrates looks at the pile and says to his friend, "My dear Plato, whatever can that be?" Plato says, "It looks like dog turd."
Socrates: "But do we know for sure?"
Plato: "Let's find out by tests."
Socrates: "Good idea."
So both Socrates and Plato stick their fingers into the mass.
Socrates: "It feels like a dog turd."
Plato: "Surely it does."
They both smell the stuff that is now on their fingers.
Socrates: "It smells like a dog turd."
Plato: "So it does, my dear Socrates."
Then they taste the stuff on their fingers.
Socrates: "It tastes awful. Like dog turd."
Plato: "Wholly disgusting. It's a good thing we didn't step in it."
Well, we've looked, smelled and tasted. The only question is will we step in it with our left foot or right foot? Or will be avoid it?
Sunday, June 19, 2016
It's Not Easy Being White? Man Up, Buttercup
While we here at Bloody Nib Manor live in a land far, far away and in a time that is long ago and yet future, we occasionally pay attention to current events and find ourselves gobsmacked by the latest fads and fancies of the "intellectual" class.
The latest, at least it started a few years ago and has become more popular as the years have ground on, is the idea, indeed charge, if not blatant insult, of White Privilege. To put is short and crude, White Privilege means that caucasians are privileged by their race in both societal and governmental matters in the United States. Never mind what "white" means. The description is as amorphous as cigaret smoke. Example: until the 1930 U.S. census Mexicans were considered white. Are ethnic Jews white? Are Arabs white? Are Iranians white? Are Turks white? Some members of these cohorts say that they are white. Other deny it. For social justice warriors (probably the physically weakest group of self described warriors that the world has seen) a white, for what it's worth, is a person who's ancestry originated in someplace in Europe between Iceland and the western coast of the Bosphorus, and the northern Mediterranian and the North Sea. In other words, a paddy, a whitey-bird, a honky, a gap-tooth hillbilly whose second cousin is a Wall Street stockbroker.
Now, those who are in the know, only white of the inhabitants of Bloody Nib Manor are whitey-birds. The ever-lovely Lady Nib is a Japanese woman, but to be crude and taking liberties, the Japanese are the most whitey-birds of Asians. This writer has often contended that Japan is to Asia what Great Britain is to Europe; part of and yet not quite of. And we here at the Manor feel that the whole White Privilege thing to be silly and stupid and the product of students who don't spend enough time studying their calculus, Beowulf, American history and philosophy. And they don't drink too much, which makes for a frustrated and bored student. If a student isn't studying or drinking there is bound to be trouble and boredom in the student that will break out once the student comes across a teacher/ professor/ teaching assistant who is angry because he/she is frustrated in his/her job dealing with a bunch of dull eyed and uninterested 18-22 year olds and who wants to excite them to "something". And why not teach them to be self-hating. It's the easiest thing to do with young people who think themselves intellectual. Young people are as mallable as Silly-Putty. Or should this writer say as wet plaster of Paris because plaster of Paris hardens and becomes no more mallable. And said students, once they have their diplomas in hand and getting jobs will take the idiocy that their instructors crammed into their tender noggins and try to infect their places of employment with that nonsense. And an employer, who wants to make money for himself, and perhaps the stockholders, will soon detect the infestation and ask our little pink Spartan (pink not meaning gay, but meaning something like a sunshine patriot) to take his or her talents to another place because the workplace is a place to make money and not do "justice" unless one is working for the ACLU. And then, once our little Spartan finds him or her self without a job and threatened with the fact that he/she may have to move back in with Mom and Dad or among those homeless people he/she idolized and excused at one time, will once again shout "White Privilege!" even if our Spartan is as white as Bjork after Bjork has been living at the bottom of a salt mine for a year.
But to get back to the point (the trouble with the Internet is that it makes it all too easy to write: a good Imperial typewriter would solve all this gabbiness), the charge of White Privilege is predicated on the idea that there is an almost Elders of Zion conspiracy among white people (see the half baked definition of white above) to force their culture, their ethos, their religion onto the United States and will inflict their "disease" on any person of "color" through education can color to make that poor benighted third or fourth or tenth generation person of color that the "white" definition of culture in the United States is actually the majority culture of the United States and that English literature, while being studied the world over, is worth more attention and is more complex than say tales told inside a hogan by Navahos or inside a yurt by Mongolians.
And because the United States is based on an ethos that is European and the establishment, whether in business or government, acts on that ethos instead of consulting Lao-Tzu or Shaka Zulu in governance and business, the white person is evil because that person, while not in actuality not holding other people down, encourages "white privilege." To our Spartan ignoring or disparaging equals hate. And thus whites, in their very blood, unless enlightened by an angry professor, teacher or teaching assistant, hate all others, will keep down all others, will even kill all others.
Because of this nonsense the white person, especially the white man, is the most hated person among the chattering classes. A white man or woman will beat his or her chest giving a mea culpa trying to convince the average honky that he or she is guilty of being a bad person simply because of his or her skin color and heritage because of the "sins" of his or her ancestors his cohorts. The result is a lot o frustrated and somewhat angry white men and women who feel that they have been unfairly put upon to atone for things that they have had no part in. And they are starting to bitch about it.
We here at the Manor can only tell those people to suck it up. You're the bad guy now. You're badder than a Muslim shooting up a nightclub or a train station. You are bad. This writer is bad. The world would have been a lot better off if there had been no Europeans. Or at least this is true this week, this month, this year. But there will come a day when our Spartan calls the cops to prevent a murder and a couple of pale-faced Irish-American cops show up. And then our Spartan will praise the Micks who saved him/her (and this writer is fully aware that the police rarely prevent crimes). But don't look for that day soon.
The job, by heritage, of the white person who has been accused of "white privilege" is to carry on. He/she is to set his/her face like a flint to promote his/her values and live by them. To set an example. And, of course, for the society as a whole, the example will be denigrated or ignored. But as Homer teaches us in The Iliad through the character of Achilles, it is better to face one's fate, as bad as that may be, than to sit in one's tent crying the blues. It's better for one's self and better for the society.
**** Note: The use of the he/she, him/her nonsense are only used in this post because, while is is unlikely that a young pink Spartan will read this post, this writer is loathe to offend that young Leonidas needlessly. He/she may throw a poppy at this writer in anger and that will make this writer very sad.
The latest, at least it started a few years ago and has become more popular as the years have ground on, is the idea, indeed charge, if not blatant insult, of White Privilege. To put is short and crude, White Privilege means that caucasians are privileged by their race in both societal and governmental matters in the United States. Never mind what "white" means. The description is as amorphous as cigaret smoke. Example: until the 1930 U.S. census Mexicans were considered white. Are ethnic Jews white? Are Arabs white? Are Iranians white? Are Turks white? Some members of these cohorts say that they are white. Other deny it. For social justice warriors (probably the physically weakest group of self described warriors that the world has seen) a white, for what it's worth, is a person who's ancestry originated in someplace in Europe between Iceland and the western coast of the Bosphorus, and the northern Mediterranian and the North Sea. In other words, a paddy, a whitey-bird, a honky, a gap-tooth hillbilly whose second cousin is a Wall Street stockbroker.
Now, those who are in the know, only white of the inhabitants of Bloody Nib Manor are whitey-birds. The ever-lovely Lady Nib is a Japanese woman, but to be crude and taking liberties, the Japanese are the most whitey-birds of Asians. This writer has often contended that Japan is to Asia what Great Britain is to Europe; part of and yet not quite of. And we here at the Manor feel that the whole White Privilege thing to be silly and stupid and the product of students who don't spend enough time studying their calculus, Beowulf, American history and philosophy. And they don't drink too much, which makes for a frustrated and bored student. If a student isn't studying or drinking there is bound to be trouble and boredom in the student that will break out once the student comes across a teacher/ professor/ teaching assistant who is angry because he/she is frustrated in his/her job dealing with a bunch of dull eyed and uninterested 18-22 year olds and who wants to excite them to "something". And why not teach them to be self-hating. It's the easiest thing to do with young people who think themselves intellectual. Young people are as mallable as Silly-Putty. Or should this writer say as wet plaster of Paris because plaster of Paris hardens and becomes no more mallable. And said students, once they have their diplomas in hand and getting jobs will take the idiocy that their instructors crammed into their tender noggins and try to infect their places of employment with that nonsense. And an employer, who wants to make money for himself, and perhaps the stockholders, will soon detect the infestation and ask our little pink Spartan (pink not meaning gay, but meaning something like a sunshine patriot) to take his or her talents to another place because the workplace is a place to make money and not do "justice" unless one is working for the ACLU. And then, once our little Spartan finds him or her self without a job and threatened with the fact that he/she may have to move back in with Mom and Dad or among those homeless people he/she idolized and excused at one time, will once again shout "White Privilege!" even if our Spartan is as white as Bjork after Bjork has been living at the bottom of a salt mine for a year.
But to get back to the point (the trouble with the Internet is that it makes it all too easy to write: a good Imperial typewriter would solve all this gabbiness), the charge of White Privilege is predicated on the idea that there is an almost Elders of Zion conspiracy among white people (see the half baked definition of white above) to force their culture, their ethos, their religion onto the United States and will inflict their "disease" on any person of "color" through education can color to make that poor benighted third or fourth or tenth generation person of color that the "white" definition of culture in the United States is actually the majority culture of the United States and that English literature, while being studied the world over, is worth more attention and is more complex than say tales told inside a hogan by Navahos or inside a yurt by Mongolians.
And because the United States is based on an ethos that is European and the establishment, whether in business or government, acts on that ethos instead of consulting Lao-Tzu or Shaka Zulu in governance and business, the white person is evil because that person, while not in actuality not holding other people down, encourages "white privilege." To our Spartan ignoring or disparaging equals hate. And thus whites, in their very blood, unless enlightened by an angry professor, teacher or teaching assistant, hate all others, will keep down all others, will even kill all others.
Because of this nonsense the white person, especially the white man, is the most hated person among the chattering classes. A white man or woman will beat his or her chest giving a mea culpa trying to convince the average honky that he or she is guilty of being a bad person simply because of his or her skin color and heritage because of the "sins" of his or her ancestors his cohorts. The result is a lot o frustrated and somewhat angry white men and women who feel that they have been unfairly put upon to atone for things that they have had no part in. And they are starting to bitch about it.
We here at the Manor can only tell those people to suck it up. You're the bad guy now. You're badder than a Muslim shooting up a nightclub or a train station. You are bad. This writer is bad. The world would have been a lot better off if there had been no Europeans. Or at least this is true this week, this month, this year. But there will come a day when our Spartan calls the cops to prevent a murder and a couple of pale-faced Irish-American cops show up. And then our Spartan will praise the Micks who saved him/her (and this writer is fully aware that the police rarely prevent crimes). But don't look for that day soon.
The job, by heritage, of the white person who has been accused of "white privilege" is to carry on. He/she is to set his/her face like a flint to promote his/her values and live by them. To set an example. And, of course, for the society as a whole, the example will be denigrated or ignored. But as Homer teaches us in The Iliad through the character of Achilles, it is better to face one's fate, as bad as that may be, than to sit in one's tent crying the blues. It's better for one's self and better for the society.
**** Note: The use of the he/she, him/her nonsense are only used in this post because, while is is unlikely that a young pink Spartan will read this post, this writer is loathe to offend that young Leonidas needlessly. He/she may throw a poppy at this writer in anger and that will make this writer very sad.
Sunday, June 12, 2016
Mum's the Word. In Other Words, Shut the Hell Up!
Occasionally, while lazing around Bloody Nib Manor watching the lovely French maids wearing short black dresses and petticoats reaching up to dust the upper shelves of the library or tramping through the extensive grounds looking for signs of fox for the next foxhunt, you're faithful correspondent occasionally considers the matter of free speech. To be short, this writer is for it. In fact, the freer the better.
We have come into an age when one's speech or expression of an opinion that is opposed to that of another (especially a young college student, a minority of some sort, a thin-skinned politician or entertainer) is considered "hate speech." And all one has said is something like, "You're an idiot", or "You're wrong and I'm right." Considering a person an idiot does not mean that one hates them, let alone considering that person wrong. It just means that one thinks that the person being addressed or discussed is mistaken, mislead, wrong, uninformed or just plain dumb. And the fact of the matter is that all of us, even this writer, fall into one of these catagories once in a while. But yours, as are you, gentle reader, is rarely grossly wrong. But there are people who have ideas and position that seem to be based on the ideas of an pimpled adolescent angry at the fact that he isn't dating the "hot" cheerleader or the high school quarterback.
But to get back to the point (this writer apologizes for the straying), even if a person is so uneducated, so racist, so bigoted as to really engage in real "hate" speech such as "Jews are the spawn of the Devil" or the Asian version of the same, "Chinese are the Jews of Asia" or White-Europeans are oppressors and wreckers of the world" or "Mexicans are lazy gang-bangers" or "Blacks dance good while picking your pocket through welfare", that doesn't mean that that form of speech, while as prejudiced as it may be, has no right to be expressed. Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is sacrosanct. It is the foundation of the Republic. And once the government and politicians, never mind the media, which is run by a bunch of lily-livered Ivy Leaguers who have no more sense of the Constitution than a foxhound does of calculus, starts regulating speech on the premise of a subjective idea of "hate" we're all in trouble. One finds one's self wondering if Animal Farm were to be published today if PETA would have protested the book because it finds the portrayal of pigs and hogs offensive.
And we come to the question about the value of "hate." Today hate is considered bad because liberals and atheists take a wishy-washy reading of the Bible. They forget that God, in the Old Testament hated i.e., " Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated" or that Our Lord Jesus Christ said that we should hate evil (which brings up the whole modern idea that there is no such thing as "evil", just differences of opinion). We should not, as a matter of course, hate people or a particular person outside of special circumstances such as hating Hitler, the Nazis, Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are not worth hating. They are worth disdain). But it right, in fact, for a mature thinking person, to hate bad ideas or bad behaviours. Such ideas would be, according to your faithful correspondent, such ideas like Nazism (an old favorite), Communism, Fascism, Racism (whether black or white), serial polygomy (the behaviour and not the person), homosexuality (the behaviour and not the person), and Islam (the religion and not the individual), among many other things that may raise one's ire. Hate is something that one holds within one's self. And whether changable or not (and it seems that it is), the expression of that hate is, at least for now in the United States and by law allowed. One has the right to make one's point in print, on screen, or by voice. And once that right is taken away by law in some way or another the next step will be legally mandated love.
Not only will the citizen be required not to hate, or even tolerate, but will be required to express in some form love for those who stand for everything against one stands. In other words one will be required to give a big and enthusiastic "God bless you. brother!" to the guy who is taking money from your wallet whether he is doing it by legal means i.e., taxes and fees, or if the guy is thug on the street pointing a gun at one. And one will be expected to love the person who hates one. And the result will be the destruction of one's self.
Now, there is a bit of debate about "radical" Islam and the rights of Americans to criticize the religion and the products of the religion, as well as the willing ignorance of some people in positions of leadership to ignore the products of Islam.
Recently David Petraus, the man who was the Army general in Iraq for a few years, has said that Islam should not be criticized because it will anger the Mohammedans. But at the same time his former service has no problem criticizing conservative Christians and limiting their speech. General Petraus has no problem pitching a bitch against a Holy Roller, but when it comes to the local Imam it's all hands off. The question is why? The reason is simply that the Holy Roller may hired a lawyer to file a losing lawsuit, but the Imam may send or encourage a young man with more hormones than sense to blow up somebody. In other words, Gen. Petraus wants us to limit our speech to prevent being physically attacked by the benighted. And he states, in effect, that the United States is not able to protect its citizens practicing a fundamental right as written in the Constitution. It is almost like people who do not have cancer and who are afraid of getting cancer not using the word "cancer." It's like referring to cancer as the "C" word If one doesn't talk about it it will go away instead of facing the threat and fighting it. It's childish thinking. But childish thinking has become all too often the norm.
Pope Francis (note that this writer is not a Roman Catholic; he's the Protestant of Protestant, Baptist of Baptists) has been playing the same game with the Mohammedans. He's met with several Mohammedan religious leaders while singing Kumbaya. In other words, he's basically said that all religions are true religions, which asks the question, why doesn't he just resign and get a job as a shoe-maker? Pope Francis is as reluctant to piss of the Mohammdans as this writer is to stick his hand into a pit of vipers. The difference is that the behaviour of Mohammedans such as Boko Haram, ISIS, Al-Queda and the Taliban (all groups who make it a habit to kill or persecute Christians) are groups that the Pope has not condemned or publicly hated. He apparently sees those groups as victims of Western oppression while the faithful of the church he leads are slaughtered. He's too busy hating capitalism. And should probably be prosecuted for hate speech.
Hate is not the best of emotions. In fact, it's pretty rotten. But it's not useless. It has its places. Love is good. But love is not all. Any young man or young woman will be able to tell the reader that love, occasionally like the old J. Geils song, stinks. And love, misplaced love, is as destructive, perhaps even more destructive, than is a good healthy hate. And once that expression of hate is legally restricted that hate will manifest itself in ways that the society will rue.
We have come into an age when one's speech or expression of an opinion that is opposed to that of another (especially a young college student, a minority of some sort, a thin-skinned politician or entertainer) is considered "hate speech." And all one has said is something like, "You're an idiot", or "You're wrong and I'm right." Considering a person an idiot does not mean that one hates them, let alone considering that person wrong. It just means that one thinks that the person being addressed or discussed is mistaken, mislead, wrong, uninformed or just plain dumb. And the fact of the matter is that all of us, even this writer, fall into one of these catagories once in a while. But yours, as are you, gentle reader, is rarely grossly wrong. But there are people who have ideas and position that seem to be based on the ideas of an pimpled adolescent angry at the fact that he isn't dating the "hot" cheerleader or the high school quarterback.
But to get back to the point (this writer apologizes for the straying), even if a person is so uneducated, so racist, so bigoted as to really engage in real "hate" speech such as "Jews are the spawn of the Devil" or the Asian version of the same, "Chinese are the Jews of Asia" or White-Europeans are oppressors and wreckers of the world" or "Mexicans are lazy gang-bangers" or "Blacks dance good while picking your pocket through welfare", that doesn't mean that that form of speech, while as prejudiced as it may be, has no right to be expressed. Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is sacrosanct. It is the foundation of the Republic. And once the government and politicians, never mind the media, which is run by a bunch of lily-livered Ivy Leaguers who have no more sense of the Constitution than a foxhound does of calculus, starts regulating speech on the premise of a subjective idea of "hate" we're all in trouble. One finds one's self wondering if Animal Farm were to be published today if PETA would have protested the book because it finds the portrayal of pigs and hogs offensive.
And we come to the question about the value of "hate." Today hate is considered bad because liberals and atheists take a wishy-washy reading of the Bible. They forget that God, in the Old Testament hated i.e., " Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated" or that Our Lord Jesus Christ said that we should hate evil (which brings up the whole modern idea that there is no such thing as "evil", just differences of opinion). We should not, as a matter of course, hate people or a particular person outside of special circumstances such as hating Hitler, the Nazis, Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are not worth hating. They are worth disdain). But it right, in fact, for a mature thinking person, to hate bad ideas or bad behaviours. Such ideas would be, according to your faithful correspondent, such ideas like Nazism (an old favorite), Communism, Fascism, Racism (whether black or white), serial polygomy (the behaviour and not the person), homosexuality (the behaviour and not the person), and Islam (the religion and not the individual), among many other things that may raise one's ire. Hate is something that one holds within one's self. And whether changable or not (and it seems that it is), the expression of that hate is, at least for now in the United States and by law allowed. One has the right to make one's point in print, on screen, or by voice. And once that right is taken away by law in some way or another the next step will be legally mandated love.
Not only will the citizen be required not to hate, or even tolerate, but will be required to express in some form love for those who stand for everything against one stands. In other words one will be required to give a big and enthusiastic "God bless you. brother!" to the guy who is taking money from your wallet whether he is doing it by legal means i.e., taxes and fees, or if the guy is thug on the street pointing a gun at one. And one will be expected to love the person who hates one. And the result will be the destruction of one's self.
Now, there is a bit of debate about "radical" Islam and the rights of Americans to criticize the religion and the products of the religion, as well as the willing ignorance of some people in positions of leadership to ignore the products of Islam.
Recently David Petraus, the man who was the Army general in Iraq for a few years, has said that Islam should not be criticized because it will anger the Mohammedans. But at the same time his former service has no problem criticizing conservative Christians and limiting their speech. General Petraus has no problem pitching a bitch against a Holy Roller, but when it comes to the local Imam it's all hands off. The question is why? The reason is simply that the Holy Roller may hired a lawyer to file a losing lawsuit, but the Imam may send or encourage a young man with more hormones than sense to blow up somebody. In other words, Gen. Petraus wants us to limit our speech to prevent being physically attacked by the benighted. And he states, in effect, that the United States is not able to protect its citizens practicing a fundamental right as written in the Constitution. It is almost like people who do not have cancer and who are afraid of getting cancer not using the word "cancer." It's like referring to cancer as the "C" word If one doesn't talk about it it will go away instead of facing the threat and fighting it. It's childish thinking. But childish thinking has become all too often the norm.
Pope Francis (note that this writer is not a Roman Catholic; he's the Protestant of Protestant, Baptist of Baptists) has been playing the same game with the Mohammedans. He's met with several Mohammedan religious leaders while singing Kumbaya. In other words, he's basically said that all religions are true religions, which asks the question, why doesn't he just resign and get a job as a shoe-maker? Pope Francis is as reluctant to piss of the Mohammdans as this writer is to stick his hand into a pit of vipers. The difference is that the behaviour of Mohammedans such as Boko Haram, ISIS, Al-Queda and the Taliban (all groups who make it a habit to kill or persecute Christians) are groups that the Pope has not condemned or publicly hated. He apparently sees those groups as victims of Western oppression while the faithful of the church he leads are slaughtered. He's too busy hating capitalism. And should probably be prosecuted for hate speech.
Hate is not the best of emotions. In fact, it's pretty rotten. But it's not useless. It has its places. Love is good. But love is not all. Any young man or young woman will be able to tell the reader that love, occasionally like the old J. Geils song, stinks. And love, misplaced love, is as destructive, perhaps even more destructive, than is a good healthy hate. And once that expression of hate is legally restricted that hate will manifest itself in ways that the society will rue.
Saturday, June 11, 2016
We, As A Nation, Have Gone Insane!
The proof of the title of this post is contained in four words: Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump.
Let's begin with Mrs. Clinton (this writer will not refer to her as Ms. because she has done nothing but ride her husband's coat tails to power; she, herself has done nothing). Mrs. Clinton is a liar. And not only a liar, but a public and enthusiastic liar. She has lied about herself, about her husband, about her service in the State Department and Senate. She's lied about her daughter and son-in-law. She's lied to coal miners. She will lie at the drop of a hat. Hell! She'll lie at the drop of a leaf. Lying comes to her as easily as does the playing of a power chord does to a metal rocker. The woman stands for nothing except herself and her will to power. She would kick a newborn infant in the head if she thought it would get her votes. Bill Clinton was often called, at least here in the county where Bloody Nib Manor is the seat, the used car salesman. Hillary Clinton is the aluminum siding salesman. And how anyone in their right mind and with the sense of a possum can consider her an "outsider" just proves that the word "outsider" means to the media and Washington that the person has taken a vacation to New York City for a week. To use a word from Raispel's novel, The Camp of the Saints, the woman is a hag. Not because of her appearance, but because like the classical hag of mythology, once she grabs onto something she will not let go and expects the victim to bear her on his back until the day he dies. Then she'll find another sucker.
Regarding Donald Trump. Much like Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump is a liar, but on a perhaps a smaller scale. He's as shifty as a six speed automatic transmission. He's crude, and not in a good way. He appeals to the lowest instincts of the population. He, like Mrs. Clinton, has no respect for the Constitution. He likes to play the tough guy despite the fact that her was a terrible draft dodger. He was been, and still may be, an enthusiastic sybarite with no loyalty to any wife or respect for any friends. Think this, dear reader; if a man cannot be faithful to his wife, the heart of his heart and flesh of his flesh, before divorcing her, why do you expect the man to remain loyal and faithful to such a concept as a nation?
Both of these Nietzschian characters, driven more by the will to power instead of the welfare of the Republic, are the choices for President of the United States unless God intervenes and strikes them both speechless. This writer would have added "blind" but for the fact that they both exhibit blind ambition.
And the populace have bought their nonsense, lies and crap. They both pretend to be "outsiders", but that's nonsense of the Great Wall of China scale. Sure, Mrs. Clinton is a woman and has given birth to a child. But her being a woman makes her no more an outsider than Joseph Stalin was an outsider in Russia (for the history challenged, Stalin was a Georgian and eventually managed to kill more Russians while ruling Russia than did the German during World War II). To be crude and vulgar, a vagina is not a special qualification to lead the nation in the same way that it is not a disqualification. And as regards Mr. Trump, no big business man is an outsider. He, like many business men, depends on the government teat to make his millions and he has and will do whatever he can to get that milk.
Neither one of them cares about the populace. They care about themselves and their cronies. To them governmental power is a way to naked power and they'll say whatever they can to get it. They don't care that most Americans are much like Hobbits. They just want to be left alone from the Samaugs and Saurons and Sarumons. They just want to be left alone to tend their gardens or practice their trade, drink their beer and smoke their pipes, have parties and watch fireworks. All they ask is to be protected from the Smaugs, the Saurons and the Sarumons.
And the government, and Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump won't even promise or do that. One wopnders if they are Orcs.
Let's begin with Mrs. Clinton (this writer will not refer to her as Ms. because she has done nothing but ride her husband's coat tails to power; she, herself has done nothing). Mrs. Clinton is a liar. And not only a liar, but a public and enthusiastic liar. She has lied about herself, about her husband, about her service in the State Department and Senate. She's lied about her daughter and son-in-law. She's lied to coal miners. She will lie at the drop of a hat. Hell! She'll lie at the drop of a leaf. Lying comes to her as easily as does the playing of a power chord does to a metal rocker. The woman stands for nothing except herself and her will to power. She would kick a newborn infant in the head if she thought it would get her votes. Bill Clinton was often called, at least here in the county where Bloody Nib Manor is the seat, the used car salesman. Hillary Clinton is the aluminum siding salesman. And how anyone in their right mind and with the sense of a possum can consider her an "outsider" just proves that the word "outsider" means to the media and Washington that the person has taken a vacation to New York City for a week. To use a word from Raispel's novel, The Camp of the Saints, the woman is a hag. Not because of her appearance, but because like the classical hag of mythology, once she grabs onto something she will not let go and expects the victim to bear her on his back until the day he dies. Then she'll find another sucker.
Regarding Donald Trump. Much like Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump is a liar, but on a perhaps a smaller scale. He's as shifty as a six speed automatic transmission. He's crude, and not in a good way. He appeals to the lowest instincts of the population. He, like Mrs. Clinton, has no respect for the Constitution. He likes to play the tough guy despite the fact that her was a terrible draft dodger. He was been, and still may be, an enthusiastic sybarite with no loyalty to any wife or respect for any friends. Think this, dear reader; if a man cannot be faithful to his wife, the heart of his heart and flesh of his flesh, before divorcing her, why do you expect the man to remain loyal and faithful to such a concept as a nation?
Both of these Nietzschian characters, driven more by the will to power instead of the welfare of the Republic, are the choices for President of the United States unless God intervenes and strikes them both speechless. This writer would have added "blind" but for the fact that they both exhibit blind ambition.
And the populace have bought their nonsense, lies and crap. They both pretend to be "outsiders", but that's nonsense of the Great Wall of China scale. Sure, Mrs. Clinton is a woman and has given birth to a child. But her being a woman makes her no more an outsider than Joseph Stalin was an outsider in Russia (for the history challenged, Stalin was a Georgian and eventually managed to kill more Russians while ruling Russia than did the German during World War II). To be crude and vulgar, a vagina is not a special qualification to lead the nation in the same way that it is not a disqualification. And as regards Mr. Trump, no big business man is an outsider. He, like many business men, depends on the government teat to make his millions and he has and will do whatever he can to get that milk.
Neither one of them cares about the populace. They care about themselves and their cronies. To them governmental power is a way to naked power and they'll say whatever they can to get it. They don't care that most Americans are much like Hobbits. They just want to be left alone from the Samaugs and Saurons and Sarumons. They just want to be left alone to tend their gardens or practice their trade, drink their beer and smoke their pipes, have parties and watch fireworks. All they ask is to be protected from the Smaugs, the Saurons and the Sarumons.
And the government, and Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump won't even promise or do that. One wopnders if they are Orcs.
Saturday, June 04, 2016
Why I Will Not Mourn the Death of Muhammed Ali
While the rest of the world seems intent on mourning the death of and praising the life of Muhammed Ali, and insistent on portraying him as some sort of teddy bear with a wicked punch, we here at Bloody Nib Manor refuse to do so. Of course, we feel for his family. But not for him. And the reason is this:
Muhammed Ali, more than any one person in sports and in popular culture, made "trash talking" in public acceptable and even accepted. For better or worse, previous to his arrival on the scene sportsmen pretended to be men of gentlemanly qualities in public. They may have slightly disparaged their opponents, but they did not denigrate them as if they were Greeks and Trojans meeting on the Illian plains aiming spears at one another. Ali started the coarsening of the sports world. He contributed to the coarsening of the culture of the society as a whole. The bragging, the posing the loud mouth antics have become a staple of contemporary life. And it's no damn good. It's a celebration of the lower instincts while, in fact, as hypocritical as it may sound, the sports world, the entertainment world and the wealthy world, should, for their own survival and well-being, and for society as a whole, promote civility instead of celebrating the lower class values and behaviour. Because the Barbarians are at the gates of civilization. Ali was their scout and termite. When it all collapses in a jumble of trash talk and bragging blame Ali.
Muhammed Ali, more than any one person in sports and in popular culture, made "trash talking" in public acceptable and even accepted. For better or worse, previous to his arrival on the scene sportsmen pretended to be men of gentlemanly qualities in public. They may have slightly disparaged their opponents, but they did not denigrate them as if they were Greeks and Trojans meeting on the Illian plains aiming spears at one another. Ali started the coarsening of the sports world. He contributed to the coarsening of the culture of the society as a whole. The bragging, the posing the loud mouth antics have become a staple of contemporary life. And it's no damn good. It's a celebration of the lower instincts while, in fact, as hypocritical as it may sound, the sports world, the entertainment world and the wealthy world, should, for their own survival and well-being, and for society as a whole, promote civility instead of celebrating the lower class values and behaviour. Because the Barbarians are at the gates of civilization. Ali was their scout and termite. When it all collapses in a jumble of trash talk and bragging blame Ali.
Sunday, April 17, 2016
Sunday, March 27, 2016
Distance Equals Apathy
The bombings in Brussels this week brought up an interesting "thing." A certain segment of the Turkish cyber-population put out the question of why the Western world was not as concerned about the bombings in Istanbul last week as it was about the bombings in Belgium. After all, the Turks reasoned, as many or more people were killed in Istanbul as were killed in Brussels. Not many people draped their Facebook photos with the colors of the Turkish flag, while, as is usual for the "caring" a bunch of people decided to "support" the Belgians by having their Facebook photos tinted red, yellow and black.
Of course, as the aggrieved often do, the Turk cyber-army blamed the lack of concern about the Istanbul bombing on ethicism, racism, and anti-Islamism. The first charge is interesting because many Turks consider themselves Europeans while most Europeans, except for the economic and nattering class, do not consider Turkey a European nation in any way. It may have once been back in the days of the Ancient Greeks and Byzantines, but since those days Turkey has become a near East nation. In other words, the western-most part of Muslim Asia.
But what the complaining Turks really don't realize that the reason that people don't gather outside the Turkish embassies in Paris, London, Washington, D.C. and other Western capitols is simply because of distance. Istanbul is far, far away in distance and culture. Erodogan is a man who wants to make Turkey into a wholly Muslim nation, a Muslim nation is culture and law. He wants to throw over the tradition of Ataturk and the Young Turks who wanted to Westernize and secularize Turkey. What the West sees in the bombing in Turkey is Muslims attacking Muslims. And, as secular and stupid culturally, why should the West care. It's a family battle. And any cop knows that the worst situation to find one's self in is a domestic dispute.
And, after all, why should the West care? Turkey has done nothing for the world. It's contributed nothing culturally. It has tried it's best to squash the remnants and history of Christians in Turkey except for tourism. A bombing in Turkey means nothing more than a bombing in Baghdad means to the Turks.
Regarding Brussels: Not many people are aware of it, but Brussels is the Western center of black market arms trading. The Belgians, in their greed, have turned a blind eye to the trading of massive numbers of assault weapons (real assault weapons that go full automatic and not the California definition of such), rocket launchers and such. Brussels is the Western version of what Istanbul was in the 1920s and 1930s. The Belgians made their bed by trying to atone for the guilt that they earned by the awful King Leopold. But in the atoning they have ruined their nation. The same with the French and English. They have forgotten that the firsdt job of a nation is to maintain that nation, and protect and promote that nation's culture.
Of course, as the aggrieved often do, the Turk cyber-army blamed the lack of concern about the Istanbul bombing on ethicism, racism, and anti-Islamism. The first charge is interesting because many Turks consider themselves Europeans while most Europeans, except for the economic and nattering class, do not consider Turkey a European nation in any way. It may have once been back in the days of the Ancient Greeks and Byzantines, but since those days Turkey has become a near East nation. In other words, the western-most part of Muslim Asia.
But what the complaining Turks really don't realize that the reason that people don't gather outside the Turkish embassies in Paris, London, Washington, D.C. and other Western capitols is simply because of distance. Istanbul is far, far away in distance and culture. Erodogan is a man who wants to make Turkey into a wholly Muslim nation, a Muslim nation is culture and law. He wants to throw over the tradition of Ataturk and the Young Turks who wanted to Westernize and secularize Turkey. What the West sees in the bombing in Turkey is Muslims attacking Muslims. And, as secular and stupid culturally, why should the West care. It's a family battle. And any cop knows that the worst situation to find one's self in is a domestic dispute.
And, after all, why should the West care? Turkey has done nothing for the world. It's contributed nothing culturally. It has tried it's best to squash the remnants and history of Christians in Turkey except for tourism. A bombing in Turkey means nothing more than a bombing in Baghdad means to the Turks.
Regarding Brussels: Not many people are aware of it, but Brussels is the Western center of black market arms trading. The Belgians, in their greed, have turned a blind eye to the trading of massive numbers of assault weapons (real assault weapons that go full automatic and not the California definition of such), rocket launchers and such. Brussels is the Western version of what Istanbul was in the 1920s and 1930s. The Belgians made their bed by trying to atone for the guilt that they earned by the awful King Leopold. But in the atoning they have ruined their nation. The same with the French and English. They have forgotten that the firsdt job of a nation is to maintain that nation, and protect and promote that nation's culture.
Sunday, March 20, 2016
Killing O'Reilly's Reputation
It has always been a mystery to the denizens of Bloody Nib Manor that such a character and bloviator as Bill O'Reilly is so popular. We can only presume that the reason is because Mr. O'Reilly shares some of the same qualities as Foghorn Leghorn; loud, loud and loud. Much like Donald Trump.
Let us consider Mr. O'Reilly. Now, please understand, this writer really doesn't know much about Mr. O'Reilly's personal life, but he does know that Mr. O'Reilly was, at one time, a public school teacher, is a Catholic, and has been caught up in a couple of personal scandals that made the news for about five minutes. He has hired ghost writers to write his "Killing..." series of books and has, apparently, done little of the research done in the books. Sometimes one wonders if he has even read the books to which his name is attached.
Mr. O'Reilly, as a Catholic schoolboy of his time, would have been taught that the Jews killed Jesus. In the intervening years that particular view has become unpopular, and the blame has shifted from the Pharisees and the Jews of Jerusalem to Pontious Pilate and the Roman or we all did because of our sin nature. Having not read Mr. O'Reilly's book on the matter (after all, one only has so much time to read bad books, and that time is usually best used for old pulp novels and penny dreadfuls), but your faithful correspondent assumes that in the book Mr. O'Reilly blamed the Romans and/or us. If he could he probably would have named the man who thrust the spear into Christ's side so he have a "scoop." Can you imagine the headlines? "O'Reilly claims that Biggus Dopus killed Jesus! Jews worldwide breathe a sigh of relief!"
The reality of the matter with Bill O'Reilly is that he is no more intelligent, informed or wise than the average man or woman. He's got the gift of gab and a loud voice. One gets more informed opinions from one's barmaid or barber simply because they live lives at the ground floor. And O'Reilly is one of the most condescending men on television. His constant use of the word "folks" instead of "people" or "the population" is a bad attempt to appear caring and folksy. Well, he is, in the New York sense. He's like a CUNY ethnic musicologist who puts up with by a sung version of Barbary Ellen sung by a 90 year old man in the Ozarks who has never heard another version of the song, but considers it nonsense because it doesn't line up with Jean Ritchie's version. The "folks" are supposed to line up with his version of what "folks" are. The man is a fake populist. He wants no more to do with a real Texas cattle rancher or aerospace worker or clerk at Wal-Mart than any of us do want to do with the crazy homeless guy at the corner befouling himself while waving away djinns and muttering about the Pythagorean theorem.
The man is a clown of the August type (look it up). Just fool who pretends to be serious; in fact, super serious of almost Thomas Aquinas type. But it's easy for a fool to pretend to be wise. Politicians have done it for centuries. Serious men and women do serious things. They have serious thoughts. They write serious books (by themselves and not with ghostwriters). And they speak seriously. O'Reilly does none of these things. He's incapable of doing so. Peter Finley Dunn, in his Mr. Dooley articles from the early 20th century, wrote more seriously than does O'Reilly.
And so, Mr. O'Reilly gives his twin, Donald Trump, a lot of air time. Trump, like O'Reilly, is a snob while pretending not to be one, not wise, not smart (except in money --- and that can be disputed), a fake populist, and very, very loud. And while Mr. O'Reilly may occasionally rail against Mr. Trump, he knows that his money is to be made from Trump. And that means that Mr. O'Reilly is no better than the people than Mr. Trump and he rail against simply because the two of them are the people they rail against. Neither one has been a stone mason like Socrates, a tinsmith like John Bunyan. They've been school boys, college boys and then professionals. The non-professionals are there to serve them and they are not loath to get what they want by pretending to kowtow to those they really think their lessers
Trump is a modern Mussolini and O'Reilly is his D'Annunzio
Sunday, February 14, 2016
I Was Wrong. But Not As Wrong As Those With The Big Stick
We here at Bloody Nib Manor are peaceful people. We like peace, love and happiness. And we want the same for the World. But when a poacher encroaches upon the estate to steal our wild game or livestock we have no choice but to get out the shotgun, the hounds, and horse whip and search out those who have violated the sanctity of what is legally and morally ours and give them a sound thrashing despite the malefactor's pleading of poverty. After all, said malefactor receives from the State a monthly stipend that is about equal to the monthly income of the estate. And while we are not rich, we are not poor. He. or she, wants what we have. Not because he needs it- after all, how many people are making rabbit stew in Southern California to feed their starving children-- but because he or she wants it.
And we have found that often such people are bullies of the worst sort. They beat their kids, wife, husband, brothers, sister, moms and dads just because they can do it an instill fear in those who depend upon them just because they can. They are like idiotic scientists who think, "Gee, if I can make a robot that is a better worker than a real human that would be a good thing despite the fact that my invention would throw many people out of work and drive them into poverty. And that would be a good thing because I did something that can be done and because I'll make a venture capitalist a whole lot of jack and I'll be hated by every wrench turner in the world."
Now, to get down to brass tacks after this all too long introduction which is barely related to the point of this nonsense. Let us agree that the Assad family of Syria is a family of awful dictators and jerks. They are, as many leaders in Arab lands, not people you'd want to share grazing land with. In fact, to the average American, if an Assad patronized a certain Wal-Mart, said Wal-Mart would lose a lot of customers because that Wal-Mart would become known as the "Jerk Wal-Mart." Of course, "slipper people" would continue to patronize and steal from that location. But, you know "slipper people."
So several years ago, during the "Arab Spring" the Syrian opposition (a group made up of about of as many groups as the average Democratic convention) decided that it would be a good thing to beg for guns and tanks from the West and make their pitch for an overthrow of the Assad regime. Of course, as is natural, Assad wanted to protect his pitch and started getting rough against those who wanted to overthrow him. Having sanctions placed against him by the West he started to improvise by dropping locally made bombs from helicopters, being a general bad-ass, and trying to destroy those who wanted to destroy him and his regime. And the West, being rather silly and short-sighted, and loving rebels (except in the case of the Confederates during the Civil War and the rebels in the Hungarian Revolution of the 1950s) decided to throw its support to the rebels despite what the rebels wanted or believed.
The result was that the West ended up supporting a bunch of Islamic thugs and helped to spread the Isis ideology. After all, they were against the thug Assad and that was good. Until the Islamic militias and Isis got control of areas and the West found out that it was supporting thugs that were worse than Assad. Christians, Kurds (no great group of tolerance), Yazhidis and Muslim minorities have been killed and oppressed by the groups that the West has supported. Sites of historical Christian importance have been destroyed by the Islamic militias, whether by Isis or other groups. Syrians have been enslaved by the Mohammedan militias, whether Isis or not. Syrians have been killed by the Assad regime, and killed in spades by the Mohammedan militias.
The West, while trying to remove the slow growing cancer of the Assad regime, has, in fact, lanced the tumor and allowed the poison to spread and metastasize into a more aggressive and faster spreading cancer.
This writer, was, at first an anti-Assad thinker. But soon, after the State Department decided to support every damn "rebel" with an AK-47 saying that he was against Assad despite the fact that he was a Mohammedan supremacist of the worst sort, decided that Assad was a jerk and a creep, but he wasn't as much a jerk or creep as many of the groups who wanted to take down his regime. Consider the fact that under the regimes of the Assads Christians, Yazhidis and minority Muslims were integrated into the larger Syrian society. Under the areas controlled by the Mohammedan rebels they are neither accepted nor protected. They are oppressed and persecuted.
To paraphrase a saying from the 1950s, "Assad may be a jerk, But he's a better jerk than the alternative."
Liberty and freedom are great and wonderful things to the West (at least until recently with all the SJW and "hate speech" nonsense), but one has to ask the question, "The freedom and liberty to do what? Be Nazis? Be Islamic supremacists? The right to oppress the other?" At worst Assad is a fascist of the Franco sort. His enemies are Mohammedan Nazis. What we are seeing in Syria is a Middle Eastern version of the Spanish Civil War, and for once, the Russians may be on the right side.
And we have found that often such people are bullies of the worst sort. They beat their kids, wife, husband, brothers, sister, moms and dads just because they can do it an instill fear in those who depend upon them just because they can. They are like idiotic scientists who think, "Gee, if I can make a robot that is a better worker than a real human that would be a good thing despite the fact that my invention would throw many people out of work and drive them into poverty. And that would be a good thing because I did something that can be done and because I'll make a venture capitalist a whole lot of jack and I'll be hated by every wrench turner in the world."
Now, to get down to brass tacks after this all too long introduction which is barely related to the point of this nonsense. Let us agree that the Assad family of Syria is a family of awful dictators and jerks. They are, as many leaders in Arab lands, not people you'd want to share grazing land with. In fact, to the average American, if an Assad patronized a certain Wal-Mart, said Wal-Mart would lose a lot of customers because that Wal-Mart would become known as the "Jerk Wal-Mart." Of course, "slipper people" would continue to patronize and steal from that location. But, you know "slipper people."
So several years ago, during the "Arab Spring" the Syrian opposition (a group made up of about of as many groups as the average Democratic convention) decided that it would be a good thing to beg for guns and tanks from the West and make their pitch for an overthrow of the Assad regime. Of course, as is natural, Assad wanted to protect his pitch and started getting rough against those who wanted to overthrow him. Having sanctions placed against him by the West he started to improvise by dropping locally made bombs from helicopters, being a general bad-ass, and trying to destroy those who wanted to destroy him and his regime. And the West, being rather silly and short-sighted, and loving rebels (except in the case of the Confederates during the Civil War and the rebels in the Hungarian Revolution of the 1950s) decided to throw its support to the rebels despite what the rebels wanted or believed.
The result was that the West ended up supporting a bunch of Islamic thugs and helped to spread the Isis ideology. After all, they were against the thug Assad and that was good. Until the Islamic militias and Isis got control of areas and the West found out that it was supporting thugs that were worse than Assad. Christians, Kurds (no great group of tolerance), Yazhidis and Muslim minorities have been killed and oppressed by the groups that the West has supported. Sites of historical Christian importance have been destroyed by the Islamic militias, whether by Isis or other groups. Syrians have been enslaved by the Mohammedan militias, whether Isis or not. Syrians have been killed by the Assad regime, and killed in spades by the Mohammedan militias.
The West, while trying to remove the slow growing cancer of the Assad regime, has, in fact, lanced the tumor and allowed the poison to spread and metastasize into a more aggressive and faster spreading cancer.
This writer, was, at first an anti-Assad thinker. But soon, after the State Department decided to support every damn "rebel" with an AK-47 saying that he was against Assad despite the fact that he was a Mohammedan supremacist of the worst sort, decided that Assad was a jerk and a creep, but he wasn't as much a jerk or creep as many of the groups who wanted to take down his regime. Consider the fact that under the regimes of the Assads Christians, Yazhidis and minority Muslims were integrated into the larger Syrian society. Under the areas controlled by the Mohammedan rebels they are neither accepted nor protected. They are oppressed and persecuted.
To paraphrase a saying from the 1950s, "Assad may be a jerk, But he's a better jerk than the alternative."
Liberty and freedom are great and wonderful things to the West (at least until recently with all the SJW and "hate speech" nonsense), but one has to ask the question, "The freedom and liberty to do what? Be Nazis? Be Islamic supremacists? The right to oppress the other?" At worst Assad is a fascist of the Franco sort. His enemies are Mohammedan Nazis. What we are seeing in Syria is a Middle Eastern version of the Spanish Civil War, and for once, the Russians may be on the right side.
Sunday, February 07, 2016
You Thinkin' For Me?
For a lot of years a lot of feminists have been telling men that their idea of beauty was just all damn wrong. They have bitched that the cultural idea of beauty was based on male dominance and such nonsense, and that regular features were just too outre' to be believed in real life. And they always brought up the Barbie doll as an example of what men wanted and what women weren't.
Well, to put a point on it, feminists are stupid, very stupid and foolish and destructive in this regard. Most of that crowd are overweight and/or lesbianish who would love nothing more to live in a crazy land of women and cats where men only appear to fix their roofs and plumbing.
Mattel has recently released three new model Barbies. There is the regular Barbie that has been known for over fifty years, the tall Barbie, the short Barbie and the full figured Barbie. Some people have called the full-figured Barbie the Wal-Mart Barbie. Well, good for Mattel. This writer hopes that they make a lot of money, but he thinks that the full-figured Barbie will be the slowest seller.
Now here's the deal. No man or boy that your faithful correspondent has known has ever said that his ideal woman was a Barbie woman. In fact, they hardly know Barbie. They do like seeing and or being with pretty or beautiful women with nice figures. But what they think beautiful and nice figured is subjective. They, do not think that Gravel Gertie is a beauty. They might like Gravel Gertie. They may love Gravel Gertie. They may marry Gravel Gertie and have a passel of Gravelettes. But they don't think that GG is a Miss Universe.
And here comes the point, in short. Who is it to tell you what you think is beautiful? No one has that right except you. If you think that Olivia Wilde or Catherine Zeta-Jones are great beauties, no one, feminist, or scholar of popular culture, has not right to tell you that those two women aren't beautiful to you and that Lena Dunham and Amy Shumer should be your beauties that person is an idiot and fascist.; There is a sense of aesthetics that goes on inside one's noggin that should be, and this writer means really SHOULD BE and WILL BE, that is one's own and not a potential victim of angry women who can't get a job because they majored womens' studies at the local UC instead of engineering, teaching or pottery.
This writer knows what he thinks of as a beautiful woman and no amount of pounding upon him by a bunch of cat lovers and the media will make him change his mind.
Well, to put a point on it, feminists are stupid, very stupid and foolish and destructive in this regard. Most of that crowd are overweight and/or lesbianish who would love nothing more to live in a crazy land of women and cats where men only appear to fix their roofs and plumbing.
Mattel has recently released three new model Barbies. There is the regular Barbie that has been known for over fifty years, the tall Barbie, the short Barbie and the full figured Barbie. Some people have called the full-figured Barbie the Wal-Mart Barbie. Well, good for Mattel. This writer hopes that they make a lot of money, but he thinks that the full-figured Barbie will be the slowest seller.
Now here's the deal. No man or boy that your faithful correspondent has known has ever said that his ideal woman was a Barbie woman. In fact, they hardly know Barbie. They do like seeing and or being with pretty or beautiful women with nice figures. But what they think beautiful and nice figured is subjective. They, do not think that Gravel Gertie is a beauty. They might like Gravel Gertie. They may love Gravel Gertie. They may marry Gravel Gertie and have a passel of Gravelettes. But they don't think that GG is a Miss Universe.
And here comes the point, in short. Who is it to tell you what you think is beautiful? No one has that right except you. If you think that Olivia Wilde or Catherine Zeta-Jones are great beauties, no one, feminist, or scholar of popular culture, has not right to tell you that those two women aren't beautiful to you and that Lena Dunham and Amy Shumer should be your beauties that person is an idiot and fascist.; There is a sense of aesthetics that goes on inside one's noggin that should be, and this writer means really SHOULD BE and WILL BE, that is one's own and not a potential victim of angry women who can't get a job because they majored womens' studies at the local UC instead of engineering, teaching or pottery.
This writer knows what he thinks of as a beautiful woman and no amount of pounding upon him by a bunch of cat lovers and the media will make him change his mind.
Are You Going to Believe Your Lying Eyes Or Me?
Have you ever heard Muslims talk about Christianity and wondered what kind of loco weed they had been smoking? They talk about our Faith with a sense of confidence as if they had read the Bible annually despite the fact that they've never touched the Good Book. And they say the silliest things. They say that the Trinity that Christians believe in is made up of God the Father, God the Son and the Virgin Mary. Actually they don't say those exact words. They say that Christians believe that believe the Trinity is made up of Allah, Jesus and Mary. They say that Jesus was never crucified and that right before the crucifixion Jesus pulled a great sleight of hand by somehow substituting Judas or some such body onto the cross moments before the nails were driven in. They do say that Our Lord was a prophet, but a prophet on a lower level than the Arabian merchant known as Mohammed.
Now, admittedly, most Christians (and non-Mohammedans and a lot of Mohammedans) don't know much about the Koran. But when Christians argue against Islam they use what amount of the Koran they do know, along with the various hadiths. Mohammedans don't use the New Testament to argue against Christianity. They use a version of Christianity outlined in Mohammed's rantings known as the Koran. So what Mohammedans know about Christianity is based on what Mohammed knew about Christianity. And that wasn't much.
Let us, for the sake of argument, make an analogy with the Star Wars movies. Christians are people who have seen the Star Wars movies. Mohammedans are people who have never seen the movies basing their knowledge of the films on a report by a man who never saw the movies. Their original source is a man who never ran across an orthodox Christian in his life. His only contact with anything that could be remotely called Christian was small pockets of gnostic and heretical Christians. In other words, he had based his knowledge of Star Wars on a group of people who saw Jar-Jar Binks as the movies. Then, after meeting with this crowd of Binksists he leaves them and never mentions Star Wars for some twenty-odd years. And after that period of time he starts writing his visions and mentions Star Wars and how he knows the films very well. This is what Mohammedans base their knowledge of our Faith upon. They don't care about what you believe. They care about what Mohammed believed that you believe. They know much less about Christianity than than the most hard-line Orthodox Jew does about Christianity or the most uneducated true Christian does about Temple Judaism. The Old Testament is part of the Christian Bible. Orthodox Jews know what Christians truly think, in faith, because they try to protect themselves from what they consider blood libel. Mohammedans only read the Koran: the rantings of an Arab trader, who lived off a wealthy older woman for years, with a taste for young flesh and violence.
Now, here's the thing. When one is faced with a Mohammedan who is trying to explain to a Christian what that Christian believes, the Christian has to keep in mind that one is being faced with a person who one is faced with a person who is reading Cliff's Notes written by a guy who has never read the books.
And to refute the Mohammed nonsense all one has to do is ask the Mohammedan is where Mohammed received his authority to be a prophet. The Islamic will reply that it's predicted in the Old Testament (which it isn't). And then all one has to say to our friendly Omar is, but you, and the Koran, say that the Old Testament is corrupt. In other words, your prophet's authority is based on a text that your prophet said was corrupt. Maybe you should rethink your religious beliefs.
Now, admittedly, most Christians (and non-Mohammedans and a lot of Mohammedans) don't know much about the Koran. But when Christians argue against Islam they use what amount of the Koran they do know, along with the various hadiths. Mohammedans don't use the New Testament to argue against Christianity. They use a version of Christianity outlined in Mohammed's rantings known as the Koran. So what Mohammedans know about Christianity is based on what Mohammed knew about Christianity. And that wasn't much.
Let us, for the sake of argument, make an analogy with the Star Wars movies. Christians are people who have seen the Star Wars movies. Mohammedans are people who have never seen the movies basing their knowledge of the films on a report by a man who never saw the movies. Their original source is a man who never ran across an orthodox Christian in his life. His only contact with anything that could be remotely called Christian was small pockets of gnostic and heretical Christians. In other words, he had based his knowledge of Star Wars on a group of people who saw Jar-Jar Binks as the movies. Then, after meeting with this crowd of Binksists he leaves them and never mentions Star Wars for some twenty-odd years. And after that period of time he starts writing his visions and mentions Star Wars and how he knows the films very well. This is what Mohammedans base their knowledge of our Faith upon. They don't care about what you believe. They care about what Mohammed believed that you believe. They know much less about Christianity than than the most hard-line Orthodox Jew does about Christianity or the most uneducated true Christian does about Temple Judaism. The Old Testament is part of the Christian Bible. Orthodox Jews know what Christians truly think, in faith, because they try to protect themselves from what they consider blood libel. Mohammedans only read the Koran: the rantings of an Arab trader, who lived off a wealthy older woman for years, with a taste for young flesh and violence.
Now, here's the thing. When one is faced with a Mohammedan who is trying to explain to a Christian what that Christian believes, the Christian has to keep in mind that one is being faced with a person who one is faced with a person who is reading Cliff's Notes written by a guy who has never read the books.
And to refute the Mohammed nonsense all one has to do is ask the Mohammedan is where Mohammed received his authority to be a prophet. The Islamic will reply that it's predicted in the Old Testament (which it isn't). And then all one has to say to our friendly Omar is, but you, and the Koran, say that the Old Testament is corrupt. In other words, your prophet's authority is based on a text that your prophet said was corrupt. Maybe you should rethink your religious beliefs.
Sunday, January 17, 2016
Where's Your Kippa, Brother?
Recently in France there have been attacks on Jewish men wearing kippas (yarmulkes to you and me).
The reaction by some Jewish rabbis is France is to urge Jewish men not to wear kippas in public and wear ball caps instead.
This is a silly and stupid reaction. It surrenders to the bad.
Instead they, and all Jews and those who care about Jews, should have said, and still say, "Wear your kippa. And non-Jews who care about Jews should wear kippas even if one is a Catholic, Protestant or atheist. Then the Orcs won't know who to stab. And then they'll know that they are out-numbered."
The reaction by some Jewish rabbis is France is to urge Jewish men not to wear kippas in public and wear ball caps instead.
This is a silly and stupid reaction. It surrenders to the bad.
Instead they, and all Jews and those who care about Jews, should have said, and still say, "Wear your kippa. And non-Jews who care about Jews should wear kippas even if one is a Catholic, Protestant or atheist. Then the Orcs won't know who to stab. And then they'll know that they are out-numbered."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)