Feminist Degree will always lose to scripture.

Well, this is taken from a post by Dalrock which links to another post by a devout man that lists 10 types of women that a man should not marry. There are over six hundred comments so far, and the tweetage rage from the Christian feminists slash SJW is… frenzied. Shark jumping frenzied.

Screenshot - 190115 - 18:44:24For younger men, I would agree with the bulk of the list. A young man of God needs to find a wife who is a Christian, not career minded, not child hating, not a feminist, not divorced or a baby momma, a virgin, and with a fervent devotional life and (missed by the author) head over heels in love with him.

I have some issues for those of us who have been through the mill and are now divorced, for various reasons, given the antichristian family courts we have in most countries.  I’m reformed, and the party who has been left by an unbeliever for licit reasons (adultery and abandonment) can remarry, for the other party is as dead for them. (I would allow abuse, perhaps: I accept that a person who has repented and lived as a single person in celibacy for some time can remarry, after some time, but this is allowed for the fact our hearts are hard)

But that is not what I want to comment on. It is the argument to authority. Please note that the commentator’s handle is Juliet Davis.

as someone with a Doctorate in Theology and Philosophy, and a Christian, there are so many laughable things about this it’s difficult to know where to start. The unbeliever is probably the only sound theological suggestion because people who don’t share a faith will possibly struggle to go in the same direction in life.

I love it when people start quoting the Bible chapter and verse because they miss out all the interesting things like using the death penalty for working on the holy day. Using a quotation to support your argument lends no credence to it – it just means that another human being shared your opinion. St Paul, and all the contributors of the Bible that the Catholic Church chose to include, are men. It is written during a time in history, and in a society, very different from our own. In today’s world we are lucky to find love.

Well, Juliet, some comments that will ensure that I am on your avoid list.

  1. Your degrees mean nothing. Yes, they were won with tears and exhaustion. Yes, the thesis was exhausting. Yes, it was five years of your life. But compared to scripture, they are nothing. I have a number of degrees, and they got me into the community of scholars: what matters more is my papers and my citation statistics. I’m not sure if you have a PhD, or a Th.D, or both: but both mean little beyond your thesis. Your thesis topic would tell me more.
  2. Your disavowal of creeds makes me wonder what breed of Churchian you are. Ah, you say, but I said I was a Christian. Yet you criticize scripture. Scripture is the rule of the Church. It contains the very data on which our salvation is formed: including that the just penalty for breaking the laws of God — which we all have inside us — is to die. This is shown in the Mosaic law. You criticize scripture as being written by men (using feminist tropes) as if this deconstruction can preserve the Gospel. Need I remind you that Christ either rose from the dead, giving us hope for our salvation, or he did not, leaving us the most pitiable of deluded fools? You cannot have the form of Christianity and deny the power of the gospel.
  3. Shaming does not work. Arguing from authority, or shaming people since you state you have authority, is circular. You need to show data. You need to cite evidence. The standard way theologians have done this is to cite scripture, carefully, respectfully. Saying “I is a theologian and you are wrong” does not work in this era: many laymen have read theology, are equally educated, can parse Greek if not Hebrew and will argue right back.  From Dalrock’s comment stream:

    I love the classic appeal to authority from the chick with the doctorate in theology. Nothing screams churchian feminazi like a doctorate in theology.

    Shame works both ways. Disavowing Data leaves you with your feet firmly in the ether.

Juliet, arguing from authority has always been a weak argument. Arguing from feelings has been not much better (which I note you did not do) and arguing from ideology indicates that you are placing your ideology before scripture.

Screenshot - 190115 - 19:05:24

And, given the progressive memes, consider, carefully, if you are living contrary to the evils inherent in this world, or living in a manner that supports them.

How the boomer SJWs are mostly wrong.

I’m a fairly fast reader. While waiting for a flight down to Dunedin and on the flight I read Thom Hartman’s book “The crash of 2016″ from cover to cover.

He takes an idea which is fairly true: that over eighty years we forget the errors of the previous long generation, combines it with another true idea, that the very rich use depressions to acquire assets, and then makes a conspiracy out of it.

He claims all this dates back to an obscure memo, and that the USA has followed that to a hollowing out of the state. He is correct again that the state is hollow and collapsing, but in his tendency to blame the right for this (as if a vast right wing conspiracy exists, and I take money from the Koch Brothers) reflects a truth he did not state.

Paranoia, blaming others, externalising the responsibility for errors, is a sign you are defeated, or are about the be defeated. We saw this with Nicky Hagar publishing “Dirty Politics”, claiming there is a conspiracy between the leader of NZ Tories and Tory bloggers.

I do not know that much about US politics, but NZ politics… I know enough of the players. And the main person accused of being in the conspiracy, one Cameron Slater, is controlled…. Nah. The data that has come out includes the PM’s staff telling him to back away from stories. Slater pushed back. There is no conspiracy. There needs be no conspiracy.

The suggestion there is a conspiracy indicates a sense of failure in the Left.

It is at least well-understood that there are seasons in history, but they seem to have a mysterious, implacable dynamism that mere humans can only hope to ride like great waves, hoping to not get crushed. In the background of the present disturbances are not only the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, but the imminent collapse of the machinery that boosted up the greater Islamic economy of our time: the oil engine. It was oil and oil alone that allowed the populations of the Islamic world to blossom in a forbidding desert in the late 20th century, and that orgy of wealth is coming to an end. So will the ability of that region to support the populations now occupying it.

The violent outreach of Islamic wrath is actually a symptom of the region’s death throes, already obvious in the disintegration of one nation-state after another across North Africa and the Middle East. Saudi Arabia will only be one of the last dominoes to fall because it is so stoutly girded by desperate American support. The current theory is that Saudi Arabia can ride out $40-a-barrel oil because of its built-up cash reserves. But that seems mostly a schematic idea. Long before Saudi Arabia goes absolutely broke, it will face terrible internal political strife between the clans and the princes who happen not to be descendants of Muhammad ibn Saud — which represent only 15,000 of the roughly 29 million in the kingdom, and only about 2,000 of those actually in the power loop. King Abdullah is past 90 years old, a mere bit of fragile baling wire holding the whole thing together. Islamic violence is fierce as it is because the Islamic world is actually losing its mojo.

So, I disagree with Hartman’s main thesis. I disagree with his politics. But I agree with description of the USA infrastructure as dirty and shabby: one can be a conservative and support a welfare state, and one can run a welfare state with a reasonable income tax rate if you get rid of the complexities of tax law (Here NZ speaks from experience) but that alone does not solve social problems.

I’d go further. The USA has institutionalized structural problems, due in part to its racial politics, that are greater and more disabling in the long term than the Commonwealth countries. Yes, NZ, Australia, the UK and Canada have a state based health care system — with marked waiting lists. I avoid it, even though I work in it, because when I need problems dealt with I want no delays: I have to get back to supporting a family. Yes, all commonwealth countries have disadvantaged minorities, and this has got worse, not better for them, as their access to an income without work has increased. And yes, we all have problems with minorities that do not integrate and exploit the systems we have — from the Islamics to our suburbs of despair.

But we have still, just, a basic loyalty to each other. We are not divided against each other: we are too small to have a complete infrastructure of propaganda aimed at only one skin colour, gender, or religion. The US is that big, and the politics of the country (encouraged by gerrymandering, which is illegal in the commonwealth) encourage people into factions which are farmed for votes as efficiently as a southern landowner managed his sharecroppers.

This is not a problem of the right: it is a problem of the left. If you want to blame the Republicans for allowing bankers to be feral, you should also blame the Democrats for insisting that bad home loans are given, as if the result (home ownership) leads to the virtue (financial prudence).

Hartman talks about the neofeudalism of the republicans, but he does not see that he himself is a member of the same class, and follows the same structure: the Democrat party is no more for the workers than the Republican party is for small business. Both are about supporting the state, and keeping control among a meritocracy. And that is what is fragile.

So Hartman is incomplete. He sees a coming collapse, but his analysis is distorted, either by his politics or his sense of existential despair. The rage of the left is akin to that of the Islamics: their ideology (which would be considered a “total system” and akin to a religion by Popper) is failing.

What will replace it is either collapse or Christ.

On a recent Sunday, my family and I only showed up 10 minutes early for Mass
. That meant we had to sit in fold-out chairs in the spillover room, where the Mass is relayed on a large TV screen. During the service, my toddler had to go to the bathroom. To get there, we had to step over a dozen people sitting in hallways and corners. This is business as usual for my church in Paris, France.

I point this out because one of the most familiar tropes in social commentary today is the loss of Christian faith in Europe in general, and France in particular. The Wall Street Journal recently fretted about the sale of “Europe’s empty churches.”

Could it be, instead, that France is in the early stages of a Christian revival?

Yes, churches in the French countryside are desperately empty. There are no young people there. But then, there are no young people in the French countryside, period. France is a modern country with an advanced economy, and that means its countryside has emptied, and that means that churches built in an era when the country’s sociological makeup was quite different go empty. In the cities — which is where people are, and where cultural trends gain escape velocity — the story is quite different.

But back to our parish. Is our pastor some outlier with megawatt charisma? In terms of flair, he would win no public speaking contests. But there is something that sets him apart from many of the Catholic priests my parents’ generation grew up listening to: he is unapologetically orthodox. He is tactful, but unafraid to talk about controversial topics. He will talk about a lackadaisical approach to the liturgy being a kind of unfaithfulness to God. A few weeks ago, I even got to see something for the first time in my life: a Catholic priest preaching about Hell.

But there is no rigoristic hectoring at our parish. Our pastor will stress the importance of living in accordance with the Church’s rules, and in the same breath say something like: “Is the real problem in the Church people who are divorced and remarried, or people who are homosexual? No, the real problem is people who go to church every Sunday and are not willing to see everyone as a child of God, are not willing to welcome them.”

My life, my riches, and my honour are on Christ. Let us pray for revival: for the secular world, (which includes Islam) has disappeared down some sort of rabbit hole, seeing despair as a result, and calling it good.

Your husband is not your BFF. Your wife is not your buddy.

Your wife is not your best friend. She has another job.

She covers your back, holds you when you are vulnerable, and supports your successes. She runs the house, has your children, and deals with your need for intimacy.

And she should not bitch about your music or Photographing or Jogging if you don’t bitch about her dressmaking or flower arranging or cycling. Because friendship is different from marriage. Alte cuts to the bottom of this.

I got over myself and stopped treating my husband like my best friend
. Husbands aren’t friends, they’re spouses. You have to be more tolerant with spouses because you’re not keeping them around for their entertainment value.

I have real, actual female friends now (both online and in real life), which has taken a lot of the burden off our relationship and freed us up to concentrate on discussing spousal things, like our kids, sex, relatives, faith, finances, and future. Ditch the romance and you might find your passive-agressiveness disappears along with it. My expectations were the problem, so I fixed them and now I prefer my husband’s company to everyone else’s.

The pro photographer and I share some interests. But we don’t share everything, and that is OK. More than OK. Because it means we have things to talk about that include kids, relatives, faith, future and our wish for licit satisfaction, and (much more safely when you are courting) what happened at orchestra, or on the hike.

Men need buddies — in Kiwiland and OZ they are called mates and it is not ghey: it is about hunting, footy and xbox (or viola, cameras, and nature in my case). Women need friends — in real life much more than guys do, for facebook and pinterest do not satisfy.

And men and women are different. Obvious is obvious. Most men know this: women used to, but they have been lied to so often they have forgotten the truth.

Tell the Churchian marketdroids to get behind Satan.

The quotage below is using hard language. Aaron Clarey, AKA Captain Capitalism, is not a Christian. He does not censor his speech. I do not like to bowdlerise, and so if you cannot tolerate the use of basic Anglo-Saxon can I suggest you stop reading.

Because, like Aaron, I cannot stand modern Churchianity. I hunger for the gospel, not the latest chick-led rock band singing Hillsong ditties[1]. Out of tune.

I have checked the person Aaron linked to in the “leaving in droves” and he is not that great an example. He is driven by emotion. He has no theological background. And he cannot imagine how you can damn a sin and still emphasize with the perpetrator.

He should try counselling people who have participated in genocides, murders, rapes [2]. When you develop empathy with them, and can work with them, then you find the issues that drive SJW trivial.

Much as I hate church, as I’ve aged I’ve realized I’d rather listen to a sermon from a fire and brimstone pastor because they actually stood for something. However, these aging patriarchs of the church must be a dying breed, because they would never allow for the tomfoolery and bullshit that now infects every church.

Teen rock bands
Single mom support groups
Baptizing of pets
Gay marriage
Gay pastors
Female clergy

Not that I’m necessarily against these things (I’m actually quite pro most of those things), but it exposes and belies the true intention of modern day church and what a load of bullshit it is. Instead of standing for standards and adhering to its constitution (the bible) there are way too many churches that instead change, adapt, and betray its original rules and laws simply to get more congregants. And this simple act tells me they care more about money, marketing, and creating jobs for ego maniacs who’d rather be pastors than work real jobs.

However, the real Christians are fleeing in droves. Done with acoustic guitar playing bands, support groups, vacations disguised as “missionary trips,” and the whole potpourri of thinly veiled business marketing, real adherents of Christ as looking for something that just doesn’t exist – a normal fucking church.

The second we begin to market we are like Peter trying to tell Jesus not to go to Jerusalem. The correct response is Vade, Retro Satanus! (Get behind me, Satan).

The work of the gospel has never been one of clever marketing and fundraising. It has been one of presenting the truth, without trickery. The Spirit brings growth, and it is not our doing.


1. The composers at Hillsong are good. By any standard. World class, in fact. But most people are not that good at writing, and that good at performing.

2. Yes, I have worked professionally with people who have witnessed, cleaned up the mess of, and committed all of the above. It is called working with refugees and prisoners. No, I don’t do it now.

The fruit of the Spirit is Peace (Not the fruit of Islam)

I’m quoting Conrad Black here.

We must stop hiding our Christian light under a bushel,
and end this imbecilic fantasy that indulgence of those who would kill or subjugate all of us and anyone else deemed ambivalent in their hydra-headed jihad will achieve anything except the encouragement of their violent contempt. The two most populous Western countries, the United States and Brazil, are overwhelmingly Christian. A very inquisitive person would ransack the Western media to discover this, but a bone-crushing majority in both countries embrace the principal tenets of Christianity.

Extensive research by the very rigorous Pew Research Center, revealed a month ago that 73% of American adults believe that Mary was a virgin when delivered of Jesus, that 75% believe in the story of the Three Wise Men, 81% that Jesus was placed in a manger, 74% that angels announced His birth to shepherds, and 65% of adult citizens of the United States believe all of the above. The figures for belief in the four tenets mentioned above among Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 are, respectively, 70%, 74%, 80%, and 69%. Even among the millions of Americans with post-graduate degrees, from 53 to 65% believe each one of these traditional assertions.

This is not remotely the version of public religious faith anyone would deduce from the mainstream U.S. media. Brazil is a good deal more fervent, in Christian terms, than the United States, the more so from the Roman Catholic conversions to evangelical Protestantism of about 20% of the country when the Liberation Catholics were presenting Christ as a Marxist who sanctioned violence for social aims. (The process of erosion from Rome to Christian fundamentalism effectively stopped when Pope John Paul II excommunicated the principal Liberation theologians.)

The Canadian figures would be somewhat, but not unrecognizably, less robust than the American. Even Western Europe, though there would be extensive erosion of the faith in most of it, is unambiguously Christian by cultural and traditional criteria. The fact that Western society is so commendably tolerant does not give us a dispensation from protecting our heritage from assault. Pope Francis, who receives much greater respect and admiration from the Western (and the whole) world than our secular leaders, has endorsed military action against military Islam.

Screenshot - 120115 - 11:12:10

Contrast this with the protests in Afghanistan — in solidarity with the terrorists who destroyed 12 lives in Paris.

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (Reuters)
– Hundreds in southern Afghanistan rallied to praise the killing of 12 people at the French newspaper Charlie Hebdo, calling the two gunmen “heroes” who meted out punishment for cartoons disrespectful to Islam’s prophet, officials said Saturday.

The demonstrators also protested President Ashraf Ghani’s swift condemnation of the bloody attack on the satirical newspaper, according to the officials in Uruzgan province.

The rally came after worshippers left Friday prayers at a local mosque in Chora district and swelled to several hundred people, said Chora police chief Abdul Qawi.

“The protesters were calling the attackers heroes and were shouting that those who had mocked the Prophet Mohammad were punished,” Qawi said.

Provincial police chief Matiullah Khan said that police had been informed in advance of the demonstration, which was allowed under the Afghan constitution’s free-speech provisions.

“They provided good security and it was peaceful,” he said.

Screenshot - 120115 - 11:14:29

It’s fairly obvious. Islam, taken to its logical conclusion, leads to war. Christianity proclaims that the fruit of the spirit is peace. Choose carefully, but look carefully at the consequences of your choices first.

The utility of snark.

Snark, which is a combination of deep cynicism and sarcasm, has a use. It means that we call rubbish dung, lies untrue, and propaganda bullshit. It also means that we have the ability to discuss things.

Snark offends. This is useful, because if it engenders shame then people may change. Or may not. Snark will hurt your feelings if you are in error. If you are correct, snark does nothing to you: it is shrugged away, like water off a good raincoat.

Another point worth making, particularly as people across the political spectrum seem to be genuinely shocked and appalled by this attack, is that far too many attacks on free speech these days are justified in the name of banning “hate speech”, and so on. Certain forms of expression may indeed be hateful and unpleasant but the best defence against that is indifference, contempt, or ridicule. And another point, particularly for the more anarchist-minded out there, especially those of a leftist bent, is this: if you want to vent, do so on private property, in a consensual way. The producers of the French magazine did that: no-one was forced to buy their product or forced to read it. It is not as if they sprayed their cartoons in public streets outside a mosque.

Jyllands Posten Cartoons, as combined by Samizdata

The trouble with policing harassment and offense (which are different things: I think you are free to offend, but calling the cops out by falsely claiming that there is domestic violence at your enemies house (SWATting), publicising his address and employer (Doxxing) and harassing the employer to get him sacked because he has hurt your feelings probably cross the line) is that setting up such rules is hard to do and even harder to enforce.

Trolls and online mobs, almost by definition,
are groups that are skilled in efficiently directing concentrated fire against others. That means that voices that are facing harassment can be the ones ejected from online discussion, as the weight of the mob makes it look like they are the ones who are radical and outside the mainstream. To find examples of this, one need only look to the governments—such as China, Israel and Bahrain—that employ paid commenters to sway online opinion in their favor. And of course, there are plenty of trolls willing to do it for free.

We also worry that the business models of the current batch of centralized, monolithic, and multi-national (but US-based) social networks potentially work against both the preservation of free speech and the safety and privacy of those targeted by harassment. Companies’ primary focus is on revenue and legal safety. Many would be happy to sacrifice free expression if it became too expensive.

I have my own work arounds. Comments here are read by me, and I am not afraid to edit comments (in bold) or ban people. Under NZ law, I am responsible for what is left up. This does not scale that well: Cameron Slater, who gets a million plus hits a month, as a couple of full time Mods policing his site, and uses disqus (and many of those tools as well).

Like almost everyone, I use spam filters on comments and on my email: in particular I have a series of filters that ban certain words (In short, if you swear you are toast). And this site is fairly obscure.

Screenshot - 110115 - 15:47:02

But words? Disagreement? Meh. We are adults here: the occasional argument is keeps the blood flowing.

Say, for whatever reason, valid or not, you perceive me as annoying and contrary and generally pin-headed, and you undertake to call me truly despicable names in the most contemptuous and filthy manner imaginable. Every day. Until you expire. Are you harassing me? No. You aren’t. It wouldn’t even rise to the standard of mild annoyance. Why? Because I am immune to such rhetoric under all but the most trying circumstances, and even were you somehow to reach such a malodorous level of offense, you’re still 100% within the bounds of acceptable speech in my book; I just have to cope with it (which would require just about zero effort, I assure you.)

But the next person in line? They might break down into tears, wander off into the nearest bathtub, and slit their wrists if you simply called them a douchebag or implied they had too many pimples.

Whose fault is this? What is our responsibility in the matter of such weak, unprepared, or broken personalities? Should we pad the very walls and take out all the tubs and razors and knives and muzzle each and every one of us to prevent poor Cluetard McDimwit from wrist slitting lest something rises to the level of offense in the dim, dysfunctional reaches of what passes for his mind?

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again:

No one has the “right to not be offended.” Being offended is subjective. It has everything to do with you as an individual, or as part of a collective, or a group, or a society, or a community; it varies due to your moral conditioning, your religious beliefs, your upbringing, your education; what offends one person or group (collective, society, community) may not offend another; and in the final analysis, it requires one person to attempt to read the mind of other persons they do not know in order to anticipate whether a specific action will cause offense in the mind of another. And no, codifying an action in law is not in any way sufficient… it is well established that not even lawyers can know the law well enough to anticipate what is legal, and what is not. Sane law relies on the basic idea that we try not to risk or cause harm to the bodies, finances and reputations of others without them consenting and being aware of the risks. Law that bans something based upon the idea that some individual or group simply finds the behavior objectionable is the very worst kind of law, utterly devoid of consideration or others, while absolutely permeated in self-indulgence.

Prepare your kids, and yourself, for exposure to the opinions of others, and gird yourself appropriately lest there is (gasp) an encounter with differing opinion, surprising and/or not-to-your-taste behavior, or OMFG, someone intentionally being nasty, crude or stupid. Or all or the foregoing. It is not anyone else’s job to do this for you or your children; and it is not anyone else’s responsibility if your failure to do so causes unrest, or worse, in minds you failed to prepare. Including yours.

In order to have freedoms, we must be educated well enough, and prepared well enough, to deal with them. If the fact that some cannot deal with them is sufficient to the cause to limit those freedoms, then eventually, they will erode away to nothing. Likely there will always be some personality on the borderline of collapsing at some provocation, imaginary or otherwise. Should we really attempt to tune our whole society to the lowest possible standard of discourse as a result?

Think very carefully before you endorse force of any kind as a remedy for “offense.” To borrow somewhat from Jefferson, if it does not pick my pocket, break my leg, or falsely portray my reputation in some measure likely to cause material or financial consequence… then no remedy is called for; no coercion of law appropriate; and no sympathy required.

Screenshot - 110115 - 17:48:56

And finally, as the Sunday Star Times warned, yet again, against moving away from multiculturalism, they may find, like all the elite, that the ground has been cut out from under them.

What has been ruled out of bounds for more than three decades
is finally becoming the political fault line. And the line is not going to be drawn in the favor of those with blood on their hands, in the favor of those whom history will one day damn far more fervently than the Chamberlains and Quislings of a previous generation. Names like Merkel, Hollande, Cameron, and Blair will be reviled across Europe as long as they are remembered.

At the train station, I heard one schoolgirl telling her friends that World War III has started and she doesn’t care if anyone calls her racist. There is a perception that something has dramatically changed in the last week, and indeed, the way in which people are not being hysterical about it over here, but are speaking out rather calmly, strikes me as being all the more ominous for the establishment.

There are two natural fault lines that matter.

Within the church, between those who consider the word of God as inspired and our ultimate rule for living and those who choose to deny this, placing their salvation at risk. The latter call the rest of us fundamentalists or tradtionalists. Wear it with prude.

And in the secular world. those who hold to the Western paradigm of free speech and preservation of property and those who would destroy it in the name of Gaea and Progress. The latter call us conservatives and inbred regressives. Wear that with pride, for as with the church, the liberal viewpoint is slowly committing suicide.

Charlie Hebdo reaped the whirlwind.

I agree with both these comments, but for different reasons. We need to stand up for satirists — even those we dislike, because free speech is costly. It means we will be offended. But it means we can preach Christ, and that is even more offensive.

Screenshot - 100115 - 16:16:23

For those of you who have been living under a rock, three terrorists screaming “Allahu Akbar” (God is great) charged into the offices of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and shot 12 members of the staff, including the editor who refused to bow to demands he stop publishing cartoons “offensive to Muslims,” to death

Meanwhile USA Today published an open letter from Muslim activist Anjem Choudary entitled “People Know The Consequences.”

In it he writes: “Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people’s desires.”

He goes on to say the French government should have prevented them from publishing the cartoons and “In an increasingly unstable and insecure world, the potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.” You boil that down and it’s a naked threat. “You do anything we don’t like and we’ll kill you.”

Well Mr. Choudary and your ilk. To you and those who enable you. Who say things like “The future does not belong to those who slander the prophet Muhammad,” I have this to say: We will not be intimidated. We will not bow our heads to 12th century barbarians who think it is acceptable to kill people simply because you don’t like what they had to say. We will not accept the idea that some things are simply off limits.

I hear and see things as a Christian man I find offensive daily. Christians are considered safe targets for any manner of insult, satire and ridicule. News flash. We don’t kill people, we don’t demand censorship (yes yes there are one or two nuts, and we all denounce them) and we certainly don’t blame the victims of violence for their brutalization. Those of us who believe in — not just America, although certainly that — but in Western Civilization will continue to stand against you and those like you. We will continue to write, and report and, yes, draw cartoons, you don’t like. We will continue to bang the drum and call attention to the cancer that is radical Islam.

Because je suis Charlie.

Screenshot - 100115 - 16:18:18

And I agree that Charlie Hebdo were left wing SJWs. Who applied free speech selectively. They are not natural allies of the church: they are anticlerical. But I would not kill them: I would argue with them.

Screenshot - 100115 - 16:23:03

But if you let in people who hate you, and coddle them, and appease them, then they will think they can bring war to you. The terrorists have bought war to the West.

As of my writing this the Google news search of Charlie Hebdo shooting nets “About 21,700,000 results“. Rotherham abuse nets “About 27,800 results“. Rotherham rape “About 9,520 results“. The latter story has had four months for stories to be written, the former a couple days.

Here we can see the West’s priorities: a dozen left-wing journalists get killed by the same people they fought so hard to import and it is an international crisis that everyone must care about. 1400 innocent children get raped by those same imports and nobody gives a shit.

You should have been angry months ago.

Anyway, here’s my opinion on Charlie Hebdo: they got what they deserved the natural consequences of their pro-immigration beliefs (Ed: Ill-phrased and added a clarification) and I’m not going to shed a tear. May God grant them mercy in the next life.

Charlie Hebdo was a vile left-wing rag that regularly engaged in anti-Christian blasphemy. They are not ‘us‘. The Muslims aren’t us, but neither are Charlie Hebdo. If our enemies want to start killing each other, why should we involve ourselves? Let them take each other out.

I do have some sympathy for free speech and I might be sympathetic if Charlie Hebdo was staunch ideological pro-free speech organization but like most left-wingers Charlie are very selective in their desire for free speech

The issue here is not your skin colour: it is your religion and your ideology. Christians have to tolerate disagreement. We know there is no perfect society and no perfect church. We have seen what happens when a society tries to be perfect — from the monasteries to Calvin’s Geneva and through to the intentional communities of the Mennonites and Shakers — they fail. For we are not God: God is perfect, we are not. We have to tolerate a certain amount of argument and freedom of speech to allow for correction.

We know people around us do not believe: we have to consider how to evangelize them: with our actions as much as with our words. But our theology has always separated the Church (Kirk) from the state: theologians, like soldiers, should not rule. Islam does not see this.

We have let in — perhaps in ignorance, perhaps with an Anticlerical and antichristian animus — people who will not assimilate. It is not their race or all religions — Chinese Buddhists, Punjabi Sikhs and Ashkenazi Jews have all integrated into British Society, often to the highest levels.

The issue is Islam. The religion, particularly the Wahabite form, is from the pit. And we need to have the courage to say this: for the Wahabite is the Nazi of our age. We have let them in and acceded to their poisonous demands. This we can do no more.

Cartoons for this day

Cameron Slater at Whaleoil has, appropriately, published the Charlie Hebdo cartoons that offended the Islamorons sufficiently that their butthurt drove them to murderous rage.

Screenshot - 080115 - 09:53:15

Do these people not understand that there is a certain point where letting people live turns to — you must leave, for you are destroying our culture, our way of life and our faith. Learn from History:when the jews and gays cannot do business that time is close.

For the second straight day on Sunday anti-Jewish
rioters defied a protest ban in Paris to rampage in the predominantly Jewish suburb of Sarcelles in what one police official called the “Paris Intifada.”

Hundreds of mostly Arab and North African youths marched through the streets wielding bars and clubs while shouting, “Death to Israel.”

The neighborhood’s main kosher grocery Naouri was burned to a shell as was a local Jewish owned pharmacy. The nearby synagogue in Garges was firebombed, but little damage was done.

Riot police attempted to disperse protesters and block access to another synagogue in Sarcelles and a few dozen Jewish vigilantes gathered nearby.

Journalists were assaulted and some police officers were injured by the rioters,

NZ Herald, 5 Jan 2015

Vox has republished more of the Charlie Hebdo Covers.

Screenshot - 080115 - 10:04:01

From instapundit: and I note that liberation is saying the suspects are in custody.

Screenshot - 080115 - 10:16:29

Neil Gaiman misses the point. The point is faar. The Islamists want us all to scared to stop them ruling. Perhaps it is time to stop shooting rabbits.

The racism of the SJWs.

Social Justice Warriors keep on talking about privilege. As if the quality of one’s character is determined by the colour of your skin. Bike Bubba nails it

Now apart from whether I believe in the idea of white privilege at all-
-I am thinking that my privilege lies not in the color of my skin, but rather in the fact that my home life featured a lot of “books” and parents who cared enough about me to keep me in certain situations and out of others--but it’s worth noting that the very premiss of “white privilege” is that the mere fact of caucasian ancestors conveys certain advantages in life, and therefore whites cannot, by definition, avoid using white privilege.

And so the person who says that she will use “white privilege” against those who use it is really saying that she is going to discriminate against white people. I guess that’s one’s right, or “black privilege”, when one is a politically favored civil rights activist.

Do not expect the SJW, or any politician, to acknowledge this or repent from this, even though it is clearly against the confessions of the Kirk. Because they see dividing people by the colour of their skin, as a feature, not a bug.

Screenshot - 060115 - 18:57:42

The elite have time to think: the narod are kept from it [quotage]

I am going to disagree with Aaron. Not on the minimalism: keeping your expenses down is always a good idea. And having autonomy in your job and activities allows you to think about good ideas.

And allows you to develop them. When your time is micro managed, you cannot think laterally and sort out problems. And that environment is to be avoided: avoiding the corporate drones is one reason I work for a university, in a job which is not normal.

Authors and anecdotes aside, the truth is that if you’re constantly occupied with a 9-to-5, mind-numbing job, you won’t have the time, energy, or desire to pursue any dreams you might have. But if you are a minimalist, working barely 10 hours per week, the human mind will find something else to do with the remaining 30. And usually what it picks isn’t mind-numbing or boring, but your hobby, your interest, and your passion. And in being your passion, it will inspire you to dedicate even more time to it than you would a normal job, thereby ensuring its uniqueness and quality. And it is high-quality, unique things that act as a lightning rod to riches.

There is no guarantee, of course, that you will make it rich sitting inside your studio apartment, drinking Weasel whiskey, smoking cigarettes, contemplating the next great work of fiction or “Angry Birds” app for smartphones. But it is a guarantee that you stand better chances of becoming a millionaire than the mass-produced MBA slaving away 80 hours a week, hoping for that promotion, as his employer secretly files for bankruptcy

I would add that if you get one really good idea every two to three years, you are doing well. If you are able to take those ideas and make something of them, you are doing very well, and if you can make money from them you are rare. For most of us, doing some kind of work is needed, if for no other reason than to keep our brains from rusting. Says me on holiday.

While I am looking around the net (I will walk in a while, when I will not be burned to a crisp — which is what happens at the moment when I go to the car) consider this from Henry Dampier, who has the SJW to rights. They want to be the elite without the responsibility.

The American caste that Moldbug calls the Brahmins
does this for a living: agitating for equality, and earning a cut of the enormous transfer payments that shuffle from person and institution to person.

The notion that the better classes have obligations to the poor, and that the poor have obligations to their superiors, combined by legal rights appropriate to each, is a self-stabilizing system. Since many of the factors that separate rich from poor are determined by nature and fortune, it’s a sanity check for everyone involved to relate to one another appropriately as befits our real capabilities and duties to one another. Even aristocrats revert to the mean, and all great houses crumble to nothing over time, which humbles all of us.

Extending these rights and duties beyond what a sovereign can provide — the tendency of universalism — is another topic, but I won’t get into it here. Suffice to say for now that law isn’t free, each legal right has a cost, and since we want to preserve civilization, we ought to use all the mechanisms that worked in the past to reduce the costs of law enforcement as much as possible.

One of the things that the elite manage to give themselves is time out. Be it better work hours, a less noxious boss or none at all, sabbatical time, or a trust account — they have time to agitate, time to organize, and time to work out how best to regulate the productive classes into impotence.

We should not be like them. We need to run our budgets with enough time to take a day out every week: to recover, to think. We need to cherish our humanity more than our bank balance. This is the proper method of honouring the Sabbath: for if we take not the time to recover and think we will be forced into this by being doxxed out of our jobs, our health breaking, or our now remarkably unproductive economy imploding.