Friday, December 20, 2013

A Cacaphonous Judeo-Christmas

Christmas Songs written by Jews in the 20th century don't mix with Ancient Christian Christmas Carols.

One cold winter's day in the prime of Advent there funneled into the Osterhout Library an unknown women's group. Once settled, they proceeded to sing a wide array of Christmas carols in a large community room. A library is maybe the least tactful place to sing carols, but a contentious person would make an exception for the ladies because one so rarely hears live voices singing carols these days.

If there was a problem with the carols, it was how the ladies alternated back and forth between spiritual old songs and the somewhat cynical popular Christmas songs from the first half of the 20th century. The "sound" of songs like "A Holly Jolly Christmas" differs vastly from songs like "O Come, O Come Emmanuel." For this reason the ladies' performance was incongruous and kind of maddening to the aesthetically sensitive listener.

Christmas has changed over the past century. What made the holiday fun in pre-20th century days was the festive spirit. Song like Deck the Halls, We Wish You a Merry Christmas, Here We Come A-Caroling, and Jingle Bells embody this spirit of merriment. But a far greater proportion of pre-20th century Christmas songs were religious hymns that conveyed spiritual sincerity. The most popular of these hymnal songs are:

O Come, O Come Emmanuel
Silent Night
Joy to the Word 
The First Noel
O Come All Ye Faithful
O Holy Night
Hark the Herald
We Three Kings
Away in a Manger
It Came Upon a Midnight Clear

The "sound" of these songs differs greatly from the pop Christmas songs of the 20th century, many of which were written by Jews who appreciated Christmas but who couldn't and wouldn't grasp any meaning in the holiday that went deeper than gooey nostalgia found in Irving Berlin's "White Christmas". Jews of 20th century yore appreciated Christmas, just not in the same way pre-20th century Christians did.

The setting for much modern Christmas music is department stores. It would be awkward to hear religious hymns while trying on clothes or buying toys for junior. It may be outright sacrilegious to do so.

Television commercials also play a big role in defining what a modern Christmas is, and these would obviously favor the Santa theme because they are selling stuff that Santa will bring.

The radio is the main source of most people's knowledge of Christmas music, and it follows the commercial trend. Aside from frequently playing the top ten worst Christmas songs, they play songs like these top ten as reported by ASCAP.

1. Winter Wonderland
2. The Christmas Song (Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire)
3. Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas
4. Sleigh Ride
5. Santa Claus Is Coming To Town
6. Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow!
7. White Christmas
8. Jingle Bell Rock
9. Rudolph The Red Nosed Reindeer
10. Little Drummer Boy

Usually 1/3 to 1/2 of the top 25 songs in any given year are written and/or composed by Jews. The only two religious songs that creep in are the lamentable "Little Drummer Boy" and "Do You Hear What I Hear?". If any song epitomizes the aesthetic monstrosity of a Judeo-Christmas, it is the latter, which was written by couple consisting of a Jewish woman and Christian man. There is a theatrical coldness to it and a strained sincerity, as if it is something done merely for something doing it. It is a compromise that erases the best qualities from everyone.

But if most modern Christmas songs are aesthetically lamentable, then capitalism is proving that one doesn't need good aesthetics to survive. To make it in a capitalist society, you don't need to have good taste. You just need to find a way to use the market to make money. Rather than sincere flourishings of spirituality to coat a rough agricultural life or festive crescendos to end a hard year's work, we use less sincere pop jingles to accompany our less austere jobs.

There's no reason to consult spiritual beauty or festive energy when the goal is always another item in Santa's bag or to experience some picturesque snowfall. Because appetites are more frequently satisfied in a more productive capitalist society, the occasion for satisfying them means less, and holiday sincerity overall suffers.

Moreover, for most people, surviving in a capitalist involves many compromises. Putting up with incompetent superiors, doing demeaning jobs, and using one physical motion as in factory work or one mental exercise as in paperwork, repeatedly, till it's time to go home involves compromising one's will toward others. Compromise breeds cynicism, thus making more sincere music seem alien.

Seeking a deeper meaning in life vis a vis the hymnal songs does not get you anywhere in a capitalist economy. Neither does yuletide merriment which is symbolized with leftover pagan symbols such as evergreen trees, holly, ivy, mistletoe, etc.

The meaning of the 20th century songs the ladies sang is very different from the pre-20th century Christian/pagan carols they inter-spliced them with. This is not to say 20th century songs about Santa, Christmas nostalgia, and wintery weather are bad. Moreover, in no way is it artificial that we would have less sincere capitalist music in a less sincere capitalist culture. But for those looking for something more than what such a less sincere society can generate, they do not suffice. Mixing them together with religious songs and old pagan songs denudes them all of their essence. So it'd be nice if the ladies could finish the 20th century songs apart from the older carols.
____________________________

Epilogue

Besides the hymnal songs we listed above, there are some lesser known songs we'd like to share for those looking to explore the landscape of Christmas songs out there:

God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen
What Child is This? (set to the tune Greensleeves)
Good King Wenceslaus
Carol of the Bells (based on an old pagan song Shchedryk.)

From France:
Sing We Now of Christmas
Bring a Torch Jeannette Isabella
Patapan
Now is Born the Divine Christ Child
The March of the Kings (tune found in Bizet's opera "Carmen", and allegedly comes from crusader days.)

From England:
Ding Dong Merrily on High
Coventry Carol
The Boar's Head (about a pagan symbol)
The Holly and the Ivy

From Germany:
How Great Our Joy

From Appalachia, USA:
I Wonder as I Wander

Thursday, August 8, 2013

Message to Readers of this Blog

Dear readers,

There aren't very many of you out there. The few views we receive do not justify the amount of time we spend writing articles. We started off writing disjointed rants to get things off our proverbial chest, but now we wish to produce more original, informed and professional pieces, and thus we will need a better platform.

In the past seven months we've become a lot more serious about politics. We've begun to ask questions that one isn't supposed to ask. We've reached conclusions that would outrage our former fellow travelers.

We no longer wish to promote increasing individual liberty. There are more pressing issues. Even if a liberty candidate like Ron Paul were to win, he would not address the most troubling problems on the horizon which people have blinded themselves to with belief in egalitarianism.

Within certain confines liberty philosophy makes sense, and within these confines the practice of it makes for peaceable high-functioning societies.

But the world will change for the worse, liberty or not. Politics must no longer be about elections but rather preserving populations on a small scale.

The reality is that we face dilemma between turning into Haiti and staving this slide off by moving toward a Brave New World Society.

The only way to prevent the world from sinking into an abyss of Haitian proportions is to move closer to an ideal hierarchical society with hierarchies based on physical reality that determine reproductive quotas.

In light of this it seems incidents of  local corruption or incremental abridgements of liberty --the usual subjects of discussion on this blog -- are but insignificant quibbles in the grand scheme of history. Although such topics are pressing at the moment, they will not matter centuries into the future.

What shapes the horizon is what we've been ignoring all these years.

Monday, June 3, 2013

Navy Runs Facebook ad with Muslim Chaplain

Even though US foreign policy consists primarily of killing and oppressing Muslims, the US Navy has featured a man in Islamic head dress as the ideal Navy chaplain.

Maybe the Navy thought it could influence more Muslims to join on the margin with such an ad rather than Christians. 

But it would seem more reasonable to quit bombing Muslims abroad and deport every single one back to their home nations. It's nothing personal against individual Muslim people, as we've never had a bad experience with one, but consider the following thought experiment. Suppose you set out to create a nation from scratch. Would you throw together members of historically rivalrous religions? or have just one religion? Harmony would demand there be one. 

Christianity is the best religion and happens to be the majority religion in America, so Why purposefully dilute its pervasiveness by increasing adherents of alien religions via immigration? Often what spurs Islamic immigration is political instability in Islamic homelands which US military and/or CIA intervention frequently creates. That's the game: bomb and attack Muslims in their lands so more will come here and disrupt our cultural harmony. It's not an intentional effort but rather the effect of the usual elitist war hawks running roughshod over the world--even to the point of ruining Christendom. 

Decency requires that Christians strive for their children to grow up in a majority Christian America rather than one composed increasingly of Islamic and other oppositional groups. It should be noted that there are 2.7 million Muslims in the US today, which constitutes less than 1% of the total population, but they have high birthrates and are winning many converts, especially among the blacks. Moreover, over 100,000 immigrate to the US every year. It is only a matter of time until they constitute a significant minority.

To reject Islamic immigration on the basis of Muslims being more likely to become terrorists is stupid because about 0.001% of them do. However, 100% of Muslims are Muslims, and that ought to be reason enough for exclusion. Of course, the Muslims push for more Islamic immigration to America so they can be less of a minority, so why shouldn't Christians push back so they can retain their majority? Islamic nations are not dying to take in non-Muslim immigrants, especially not those from the third world.

When Muslims come to America, they become whimpering minorities, but in their own nations, they often assault you or worse if you even accidentally offend their sensibilities. In Islamic Republics, they don't look at Christians with a sense of infinite altruism like the naive liberal Christians look at them when they immigrate to historically Christian nations. You would never see Muslims in Iran, Libya, or Egypt promoting non-Islamic chaplains in their military.  

Deporting all Muslims would foster harmony among the people of the USA and retain their precious shared Christian past. This should be coupled with putting an end to drone strikes in Muslim lands and cutting all foreign aid to Israel--two policies which Muslims would readily support. It's nothing against Muslims personally but rather an attempt to preserve national identity for centuries to come.

Saturday, May 11, 2013

A Lickable Guy: Wilkes-Barre Policeman Makes National News

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/cumberlink.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/7/78/778d5db8-b89d-11e2-a91b-0019bb2963f4/518b8baa988ed.preview-620.jpg
[Photo from FOX News]
May 9, 2013 -AP
A northeastern Pennsylvania city official says a blog photo showing a woman poised to lick the badge of a moonlighting officer outside a bar probably isn't a crime, but may violate department regulation.
Wilkes-Barre spokesman Drew McLaughlin says the police chief is investigating that photo and two others showing a provocatively dressed woman posing on the hood and the trunk of a police car.
The spokesman says no officers are pictured in the police cruiser photos, but that the photo of the woman poised to lick the officer's badge could violate regulations if the officer were actively participating in having the photo made.
Wilkes-Barre officers are allowed to moonlight to provide security at bars through a program run by the police union.
Based on evidence in the photo, police believe the badge licking occurred more than a year ago.

Commentary: All's fair in love and Wilkes-Barre
Several incidences in the Banana Republic of Wilkes-Barre involving the city's finest have preceded the revealing of this pic.
First, they have a creepy relationship with the city's contracted tow truck operator, Leo Glodzik of LAG Towing, and have reputedly harassed innocent people on his behalf. Wilkes-Barre police officers have received cars on loan from him in spite of being in a position to increase his earnings by having more cars towed--a direct conflict of interest. When reporters waited outside city hall to get some answers, the cops actually tried to issue them citations for trespassing.

Additionally, Wilkes-Barre city police refuse to enforce a provision of the contract with Glodzik which reportedly mandates that he submit logs of all his tows to police so they can ensure he is charging industry standard. Several years passed without Glodzik ever submitting any records, while he routinely charged double and triple the standard price for a tow.
Second, police Chief Jerry Dessoye is alleged to have frequented a crack house on McLean Street and to have refused to shut it down.
In short, many of the city's police are thugs. Most probably aren't, but if there were any good men in the department, there would have been some whistle-blowers. Perhaps the crime spilling into the city from New Jersey, New York, and Philly has caused a war-like atmosphere among the cops where morality takes a backseat to survival. If this is true, then the incompetent mayor has only made the city more attractive to criminals by building Coal Street Park near the locus of many violent crimes in the city. Oh well. All's fair in love and the new Wilkes-Barre.

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Muslim Immigrant: "Raping Swedish Women is not as Wrong"

 “It is not as wrong raping a Swedish girl as raping an Arab girl,” says Hamid. [For context, scroll down.]
The following article proves that the extensive per capita increase in the number of rapes occurring in nations taking in multitudes of third world Muslim immigrants is entirely to be blamed on the culture and nature of the immigrants themselves. It should also be mentioned that when people hang around others who have a different religion, they are often more willing to suspend their morality.

re-post from http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/Fjordman51213.htm

[Warning, Explicit Content]
Immigrant Rape Wave in Sweden

Fjordman
2005/12/13

Swedish girls Malin and Amanda were on their way to a party on New Year's Eve when they were assaulted, raped and beaten half to death by four Somali immigrants. Sweden's largest newspaper has presented the perpetrators as "two men from Sweden, one from Finland and one from Somalia", a testimony as to how bad the informal censorship is in stories related to immigration in Sweden. Similar incidents are reported with shocking frequency, to the point where some observers fear that law and order is completely breaking down in the country. The number of rape charges in Sweden has tripled in just above twenty years. Rape cases involving children under the age of 15 are six - 6 - times as common today as they were a generation ago. Most other kinds of violent crime have rapidly increased, too. Instability is spreading to most urban and suburban areas.


According to a new study from the Crime Prevention Council, Brå, it is four times more likely that a known rapist is born abroad, compared to persons born in Sweden. Resident aliens from Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia dominate the group of rape suspects. According to these statistics, almost half of all perpetrators are immigrants. In Norway and Denmark, we know that non-Western immigrants, which frequently means Muslims, are grossly overrepresented on rape statistics. In Oslo, Norway, immigrants were involved in two out of three rape charges in 2001. The numbers in Denmark were the same, and even higher in the city of Copenhagen with three out of four rape charges. Sweden has a larger immigrant, including Muslim, population than any other country in northern Europe. The numbers there are likely to be at least as bad as with its Scandinavian neighbors. The actual number is thus probably even higher than what the authorities are reporting now, as it doesn't include second generation immigrants. Lawyer Ann Christine Hjelm, who has investigated violent crimes in Svea high court, found that 85 per cent of the convicted rapists were born on foreign soil or by foreign parents.


A group of Swedish teenage girls has designed a belt that requires two hands to remove and which they hope will deter would-be rapists. "It's like a reverse chastity belt," one of the creators, 19-year-old Nadja Björk, told AFP, meaning that the wearer is in control, instead of being controlled. Björk and one of her partners now plan to start a business to mass produce the belts and are currently in negotiations with potential partners. "But I'm not doing this for the money," she said. "I'm really passionate about stopping rape. I think it's terrible." In an online readers' poll from the newspaper Aftonbladet, 82% of the women expressed fear to go outside after dark. There are reports of rapes happening in broad daylight. 30 guests in a Swedish public bath watched as 17 girl was raped recently, and nobody did anything. The girl was first approached by 16-year-old boy. He and his friends followed her as she walked away to the grotto, and inside the grotto he got her blocked in the corner, ripped off her bikini and raped her, while his friend held her firm.


There are even reports of Swedish girls being attacked and cut with knives on the dance floor. A 21-year-old man who came to Sweden a couple of years ago admits that he has a low opinion of Swedish females –or “whores” as he calls them. He is now prosecuted, suspecteded of cutting eight girls in several pubs. He is also charged with raping a girl at a private party, and with sexually harassing another girl in the apartment. Several witnesses claim that the 21 year old has said that he hates Swedish women.

Some Muslim immigrants admit their bias quite openly. An Islamic Mufti in Copenhagen sparked a political outcry after publicly declaring that women who refuse to wear headscarves are "asking for rape."

Apparently, he's not the only one thinking this way. “It is not as wrong raping a Swedish girl as raping an Arab girl,” says Hamid. “The Swedish girl gets a lot of help afterwards, and she had probably fucked before, anyway. But the Arab girl will get problems with her family. For her, being raped is a source of shame. It is important that she retains her virginity until she marries.” It was no coincidence that it was a Swedish girl that was gang raped in Rissne – this becomes obvious from the discussion with Ali, Hamid, Abdallah and Richard. All four have disparaging views on Swedish girls, and think this attitude is common among young men with immigrant background. “It is far too easy to get a Swedish whore…… girl, I mean;” says Hamid, and laughs over his own choice of words. “Many immigrant boys have Swedish girlfriends when they are teenagers. But when they get married, they get a proper woman from their own culture who has never been with a boy. That’s what I am going to do. I don’t have too much respect for Swedish girls. I guess you can say they get fucked to pieces.”

The number of rapes committed by Muslim immigrants in Western nations are so extremely high that it is difficult to view them only as random acts of individuals. It resembles warfare. Muhammad himself had forced sex (rape) with several of his slave girls/concubines. This is perfectly allowed, both in the sunna and in the Koran. If you postulate that many of the Muslims in Europe view themselves as a conquering army and that European women are simply war booty, it all makes perfect sense and is in full accordance with Islamic law. Western women are not so much regarded by most Muslims as individuals, but as "their women," the women who "belong" to hostile Infidels. They are booty, to be taken, just as the land of the Infidels someday will drop, it is believed, into Muslim hand. This is not mere crime, but ideologically-justified crime or rather, in Muslim eyes, attacks on Infidels scarcely qualify as crime. Western women are cheap and offensive. We Muslims are here, here to stay, and we have a right to take advantage of this situation. It is our view of the matter that should prevail. Western goods, like the land on which we now live, belong to Allah and to the best of men -- his Believers. Western women, too, essentially belong to us -- our future booty. No wonder there is a deep and increasing suspicion against Muslims in the Swedish and European public.

Sweden has national elections less than a year from now. Here is a suggested draft email, in English and Swedish, that you can send in to Swedish politicians and media to protest the lack of honesty about what Muslim immigration is doing to the country:

I would hereby like to protest against the passivity and the lack of resolve demonstrated by Swedish authorities in the face of a huge spike in the number of rapes in their country. It is time for Swedish politicians, Swedish media and the Swedish public to admit that the large increase in the number of rape charges in their country during the past generation is intimately tied to the immigration that has taken place during that same time period. The attitude among many Muslim men is that women who are not veiled and act properly submissive have themselves to blame if something happens to them. Such a line of thinking is incompatible with the culture of freedom in any Western country. It means that as long as Muslim immigration continues, Sweden will continue to import an Islamic culture that will destroy women’s freedom in Swedish society. The strains caused by immigration are now so large that unless something serious is done about this, pretty soon Sweden will face the same kind of riots we have recently seen in France, and will approach the point of permanent ethnic and religious strife. Swedish politicians and media need to put the well-being of their daughters above that of political correctness and their own Multicultural vanity, and it is shocking that they actually need to be reminded of this. It is an international embarrassment to Sweden as a nation that Swedes travel around the world to lecture about women’s rights, and at the same time their own young women are finding that their most basic rights, such as being able to go outside wearing normal clothes without being harassed, are slipping away. It’s a sham, and it needs to end. Unless Swedish authorities are able to provide basic security to a population that pays some of the highest tax rates in the world, the Swedish government should publicly admit its inadequacy and resign from office. At the very least, it should be honest enough to tell Swedish citizens that they have to provide security for themselves, and stop making it difficult for people to do this. The Swedish general elections are less than a year away, and this time, Muslim immigration needs to be raised to the very top of the public agenda.

Thursday, March 7, 2013

Rand Paul Hits Home Run with Filibuster

Rand Paul's filibuster was a hit--even with Obama's media outlets such as ABC News and MSNBC. Although they often purposefully obscured his reason for filibustering, ie the fact that Brennan couldn't assure Rand that Americans wouldn't be targeted, most of the media gave a favorable presentation of his stand.
The Huffington Post (...) gave Rand the most publicity of the major liberal outlets, because compared with ABC/NBC/CBS, it is far less pro-establishment, less connected to the White House, and more likely to prioritize civil libertarian values above conformity with Washington.

Rush Limbaugh had Rand on his show today, and allowed him full reign to discuss the problems with the proposed drone policy. Limbaugh seemed to be reluctantly supportive of Rand, but nevertheless he gave Rand plenty of time to speak and had a respectable discourse with him. This is a huge victory for Rand because he was given a platform in the difficult-to-crack neo-con talk radio syndicate.

Laura Ingraham wrote an article praising Rand, a rare thing for her to do with someone who isn't a neo-con like she is.

The same could not be said of the vile neo-con Mark Levin, who astonishingly has no mention of the name Rand Paul anywhere on his site, even regarding an article specifically about Rand's filibuster. Levin, a bloodthirsty warmongering Zionist, cares much more about Rand voting for Chuck Hagel and thus against the wishes of the Lobby than he does about Rand protecting our freedoms.

Anyway, Rand chose a good issue to make a stand on. Virtually every sane American, liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc, can identify with the need for a trial by jury.

Rand chose a good nominee to filibuster, because Brennan is a non-Jewish white guy, so Rand cannot be calumnied as anti-semitic or racist by the sneaky media for opposing him.

Finally, Rand energized his pro-liberty base after previously doing some things that had discouraged them, such as voting for NDAA2013, supporting sanctions on Iran, and refusing to discuss Bilderberg.

And in any sense, the genuineness of Rand's filibuster, bourne out by the fact that his speech was substantive throughout, is something most people want more of in politics.

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Rand Paul Nullifies any Benefit from Israel Visit with Hagel Yay

Rand Paul has likely lost all credibility with militant neocons like Mark Levin for voting in favor of Chuck Hagel, who has made remarks concerning the Israel Lobby's power.

Paul went on Levin's show in January, pledging his love for Israel while recounting his recent visit there, yet he squeezed in one little bit that Israel's embargo against Palestinians in Gaza should be ended because the economic prosperity Gazans would gain from trading with the rest of the world would induce them to attack Israel less. Rand framed it as being good for Israel, so Levin let it pass. Rand was very submissive to Levin's expectations of belief in Israeli infallibility.

But it seems like Paul's vote for Hagel will finalize his expulsion from the neocon talk radio syndicate's realm of consideration in 2016, because actions speak louder than words. Indeed, Paul has nullified any creds he got from his "cheap date" with Israel during his visit. It seems he is thrashing about in vain, trying to adhere to his non-interventionist foreign policy convictions on the one hand, while trying to appease the Lobby with the other.

Christians United For Israel (CUFI) campaigned hard against Hagel. Although not headed by a Christian, CUFI is the standard bearer of Christian Zionism and seeks to exploit the innocence of evangelicals for the good of the Israel Lobby. Evangelicals are more likely to compromise on Chris Christie's recent acceptance of Obamacare than go against their belief that any opposition to Israel or its Lobby warrants a curse from God. So Rand has lost credibility with them.

But Rand has gained points with people like Pat Buchanan who perceive Hagel to be the least militaristic option Washington had to offer, despite his support of sanctions against Iran and drone strikes everywhere.

However, Rand's own father, Ron, opposed Hagel for not being anti-war enough.

You can't please them all.

In any case, it's a shame that evangelical churches and the media at large brainwash people to believe that being conservative means having an unquestioning support of war with Israel's opponents. The best we conservatives can do is spread the truth about the apostate belief of Christian Zionism, the lack of threat from Iran, the reason why America should not start wars to ensure Israel's illegal settlements continue to expand, and the real place where radical Islam is gaining ground: Europe via mass immigration.

Thursday, February 7, 2013

Ponytail Man Likens Friendly Sons to Magdalene Laundries

 Disclaimer, the author of this post is not a member of, nor affiliated with the Friendly Sons of Saint Patrick organization.

If a bunch of Irishmen host a dinner for men, then they want women to be wrongfully imprisoned, according to WILK's ponytail man.

Ponytail man is trying to allege that the same impetus that led the Friendly Sons to be a boys only club was behind the Magdalene Laundries in Ireland, which were a cultural tragedy that ruined the lives of many women. This not true.

Magdalene Laundries Background
The documentary Sex in a Cold Climate covers the tragedy of the laundries. After Ireland won its independence from Great Britain in 1922, the new Irish government took over asylums formerly run by the British and converted them into partial laundries. But it wasn't just crazy people who filled them anymore. If a woman got pregnant out of wedlock, or was found to have had sex out of wedlock, or even if she was raped through no fault of her own, she could be sent to the laundries for life. A girl raised in an orphanage who did no wrong could even be sent to the laundries for the "offense" of being pretty. The only way out was either escape or emancipation by someone on the outside, since imprisonment in laundries was actually not bound by any law and was only held together by public shame. Of course, the nuns who ran the laundries worked the women extremely hard and were often shockingly cruel and abusive. Orphanages weren't much better as sometimes priests would abuse girls. A film based on true stories of the laundries is The Magdalene Sisters.
By the way, do the Friendly Sons do any of these things? Obviously no.

Why the Laundries and Friendly Sons are Unrelated
Pony tail man says the laundries and all male gatherings are caused by the patriarchal society. However, there are many things that would seem to play a larger role than male dominated societies.

One would be the strict Catholicism that pervaded Ireland during the 20th century. The idea of Catholic guilt was very strong. It wasn't Catholicism per se behind the laundries because Catholics elsewhere never founded any such laundries in the 20th century* but rather a particular brand of Irish Catholicism involving hyper self-shaming. This shame was practiced by both men and women. If it were exclusion based on sex that caused the laundries to come about, then Why was Ireland the only country to have them? There were plenty of other nations throughout the 20th century where all-male groups abounded, and none of them had Magdalene laundries. Moreover, the Irish Catholic church was not nearly as powerful in the US as it was in Ireland, so this explains why nothing similar arose in America.

Furthermore, Ireland had been oppressed by the British for hundreds of years, and maybe they took it out on their women. Blacks' proclivity to use corporal punishment on their children is often explained as a reaction to having suffered oppression from slavemasters and Jim Crow. Granted, oppression does not necessarily cause people to oppress themselves, but it may dispose them to do so. In any case, Irish in America were never oppressed like they were in Ireland and formed no laundries.

Affirming solidarity between men is not the same as oppressing women. All other things being equal, a group consisting solely of men has more in common than a group consisting of both men and women. There is nothing wrong with a group of men getting together as men, and in fact, there is a healthy masculine camaraderie which helps bring them together as a group. How someone could say this is evil is puzzling. For being a collectivist, Ponytailman seems to exclude collectives of well-off Irishmen from the realm of legitimacy. But I'm sure he'd have no problem with wealthy Arab men meeting among themselves. Furthermore, he would probably have no problem with poor men dining together as men.

Feminists want Power not Equality
Feminists complain that there aren't enough female congressmen, CEOs, judges, etc. But you never hear them complain that there are too few female garbage collectors, sewage treatment plant workers, coal miners, telephone pole wire repairmen, or slaughterhouse workers. They never complain about women missing out on miserable things men have to do--only the things that carry with them prestige or power. So this is why Ponytail man would have no problem with, say, a group of poor factory workers having an all male dinner. The epithet that Mr Ponytail is a Marxist is dead on.

What you can do
If you would like to be a counter-Revolutionary and affirm the Friendly Sons' justification in having their dinner, write them at info@friendlysons.org
_____________________________________

* One might argue that convents were sort of prisons in the middle ages where innocent women were usually sent against their will, but in many places, nuns of that time had slightly more freedom than the nuns of today and enjoyed the privileges of reading and writing which were denied to most men and women at the time.

Hollywood Underestimater Reviews Tron Legacy

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSDi9eMIe_GmeXGS9wNS70bGMXIa2QtjOEo0MmnjwQhYp38wwuj

The uniquely incandescent clothing of characters, vehicles, et al, is what initially lured me into watching Tron: Legacy. I was in the mood for such a rawly reduced presentation of form and light. The film prioritized special effects, and was artful in a stylistic sense. But every action of the characters seemed to be covered with a nonchalantness that didn't allow for a lurid enough presentation for the viewer to digest as meaningful.

However, the saving grace of the film is the female character Quorra, who is the love interest in the plot. Tron Legacy was plagued by all the typical modern Hollywood annoyances: Characters with overly terse speech, a plot choked out by excessively long action scenes, but Quorra offered some relief.

Quorra is a human-like program within the game who has mysteriously acquired a special evolutionary development which other human-like programs don't have. She takes a liking to the main character, Sam Flynn. She displays natural behavior that girls often exhibit when they're around guys they like. These include viewing from afar, giving a lot of eye contact, and prioritizing being together with him. These are innocent female behaviors that Hollywood seems to have tacitly banned in other films. Her damsel in distress quality is heightened by the fact that her life consists of the dark gray drudgery of her cyberworld. In a way, her position of situational weakness and innocence really heightens her ability to love because worldliness and manipulations are absent and unable to block her longing. In spite of her weakness and innocence she is still a smart, strong woman. It is a amazing that a female character who exemplifies feminine virtues such as purity and self-sacrifice squeaked through the Hollywood feminist screen.

Her love-interest, Sam, could have been a little more into her, and the paradigm of her being a computer program sort of gets in the way of a nicer love story. It would have been better if he showed a liking to her earlier in the film. Only when Sam's father avers her equivalence to humanity does he seem to appreciate her. Apparently he is not susceptible to the "indefinable charm of weakness" Oscar Wilde spoke of in women, which Olivia Wilde's character Quorra displays. Anyway, [Spoiler Alert] in the end, she saves Sam, and Sam saves her. Is such a story not the whole point of romantic love? Perhaps a going theme of the movie could be that true love stands alone.

The dynamic of Kevin Flynn and Quorra both being partial yet different creations of Sam's father is interesting as well; almost as if they are his unrelated children of his. The movie will explain why this is so... It is interesting how their romance evolves from a side-issue to almost being the main thing at the end of the movie. But even at the end, it is presented in a sort of distant nonchalantness that pervades the film. Maybe it's supposed to be representative of the indifference people have toward things in a video game world, where one "dies" as often as every minute.

Another theme could be that certain life situations are worth risking it all to escape from. The American Revolutionaries did this in the Revolutionary War. Many people undergo life-threatening surgeries and treatments to get out of horrifying illnesses. This sort of scenario occurs in Tron Legacy.

As a final note, the soundtrack was handled by the House/Techno group Daft Punk. The music often felt like it was building up to something which it never got to, but overall it seemed to fit well with the film.

Ultimately, if you're looking for a movie that doesn't command much but delivers in a few small ways, as in the glow in the dark designs and nonchalant, yet severe damsel in distress element, then Tron Legacy is worth watching.

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

The Hagelian Dilemma

Pat Buchanan, an ardent opponent of the neocons, has endorsed Obama's pick Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense. But Ron Paul will not go so far, and seems to imply that the enemy of the neocons--Chuck Hagel--is not necessarily Dr. Paul's friend.

from RonPaul.com:
Hagel has shown some admirable willingness to advise caution overseas. He is seen as unenthusiastic over the prospects of a US war on Iran, which is certainly to be welcomed. But let us not forget that he did vote for the war against Iraq, he has expressed support for multi-lateral sanctions on Iran, and last year he wrote in the Washington Post that, on Iran, he supports “keeping all options on the table, including the use of military force.” Nevertheless because he does represent a more moderate voice in foreign policy than the neo-conservatives can tolerate, they are dragging his name through the mud. In choosing Hagel, then, we can hope the president is signaling that he will pursue a less aggressive foreign policy in his second term. But we cannot count on it.
This is a confusing issue because although Hagel may not be a Paul Wolfowitz-like neocon, he certainly is not on board with an ideal Paulesque/Buchananite noninterventionist foreign policy. Should someone vote against Hagel for being too pro-war? or vote for him to stick it to the neocons? Is Hagel as good as it gets in terms of aversion to war with Iran? It seems Ron Paul doesn't trust Hagel to avoid war but Buchanan does.
Paul gained his nickname "Dr. No" by holding every vote to a strict standard. This standard includes an opposition to militarism abroad. But holding to this standard may force Obama to nominate someone more pro-war than Hagel. This dilemma gets to the heart of politics as to whether compromise is ever justified.

Finally, the sad fact is that neocons and Ron Paul alike oppose Hagel for opposite reasons. Politics makes strange vote coalitions.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

The Zionist Story

Normally, we don't post videos, but we felt this one was important enough to warrant exception. It refutes the idea that Palestinians are "rocks, obstacles to be moved out of the way."


Wednesday, January 9, 2013

In Defense of Alex Jones

Disclaimer: The Nothington Post staff does not subscribe to any of Alex Jones's conspiracy theories, nor his sensationalism, celebrity worship, and other errors.

Jones was uncomposed and overly boistrous in his debate with Piers Morgan on gun rights. People say that he made liberty people look bad. Indeed, maybe he did. Many conspiracy theorists theorize that he is a double agent who is trying to make liberty people look bad. But it seems Jones's conduct during the debate was a manifestation of his spark plug personality and not deliberate sabotage. That same fiery temperment has made him famous and has also drawn many people to liberty philosophy. Even if he isn't a calm debater, people need to remember the good that he has done.

It's a fact that many Ron Paul supporters found the liberty movement through Alex Jones. Moreover, Jones always supports honest, anti-establishment, pro-freedom candidates like Debra Medina and Kurt Haskell. Despite his conspiracy stigma, Jones has the largest following in the liberty movement, with many fans not totally on board with liberty as well. The worst side effect of his conspiracies may be an overexuberant distrust of government among his followers, but consequently, no Alex Jones supporter could be found to be the chump of a cynical politician.

It's funny because even conspiracy people are developing conspiracies against Jones, saying that because he doesn't tout their worldview enough, he is an agent for the Illuminati or something. But even if this is somehow true, which it isn't, Jones has brought so many people to be "awake", as they call it, that the Illuminati or whoever would have to be totally stupid for sponsoring him.

Jones has a lot of legitimate information on his show that the rest of the media ignores. For example, Jones covers the Bilderberg meeting, an important meeting of world elites that the cowardly mainstream media ignores for fear of being called conspiracy theorists. Like the G20 or any gathering of world leaders, Bilderberg deserves attention, and Jones has nothing to lose in covering it.

In sum, Jones makes valuable contributions to journalism and the liberty movement despite his regrettable conspiracies.
_______________
Correction
We initally gave as an example of the mainstream media ignoring Michigan's law that oppresses small hog farmers at the behest of big agra, and related that Jones had covered it. But we subsequently found an ABC News article about it, so we were wrong that the media ignored it. However, one could say that major media outlets did not cover it enough. If they had publicized it like they did the Trayvon Martin case, then Michigan probably wouldn't have any problems now with oppressive farm laws.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Alan Dershowtiz Caught in a Catch 22

Alan Dershowitz is the biggest intellectual moron in the world. He condemned Mearsheimer and Walt's book, The Israel Lobby, because he disagreed that the lobby has hegemony over US Foreign policy. Yet, Dershowitz is now attempting to prove them right by assembling his Zionist troops to thwart the nomination of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, a man who has stated that "the the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here," and who does not kowtow to the hawkish lobby. 

Dershowitz is so stupid! He's caught in a catch 22. He either proves the book right and demonstrates the hegemony of the Israel Lobby, or has to suffer a defeat for the Lobby with the nomination of Hagel.

If we had a real media in America, nobody would take Dershowitz seriously, and his inconsistencies would be torn to shreds. Dershowitz has a super high verbal IQ, but because 1+1=2 and he says it equals 3, he is stupid no matter the power of his vocabulary.

Another hypocritical assertion of Dershowitz is that he cited Europe as a model for gun laws, as if Europe is a model for the US in general. But besides the Czech Republic, European nations voted unanimously to recognize Palestine as a nonvoting member of the United Nations. I'm sure the Dershy's Euro-phillia was suspended regarding that decision.

Friday, January 4, 2013

Gun Grabbers Use Propaganda Not Reason

Gun grabbers such as the ponytail man waste no time in using recent news of mass shootings as propaganda to fit their preconceived agenda of taking people's guns. They justify exploiting news of murders for political gain by saying that "if this particular gun control law were in place, fewer or no people would have died," and then they act as though those people who would oppose such laws somehow endorse the murders. If gun grabbers are going to throw the first punch, pro-gun people have a right to respond.

First of all, the gun grabbers are selling snake oil. They do not know for sure that the laws they propose would prevent murders. If clip sizes are reduced, then a killer could bring additional clips. If quotas are put on clips, a killer could bring an additional weapon. Economics tells us that there are substitute goods that can be used in place of goods to fulfill the same purpose, so even if all guns are successfully banned, alternative weapons and methods of killing would be sought by killers. If a killer wants to kill a certain number of people, he can find ways to circumvent bans.

It'd be one thing to introduce statistics on gun deaths in the US and and to estimate how many lives a proposed law might save. But in that case, the law would be somewhat testable, and if it failed to reduce deaths, then the gun grabber would look bad. To escape potential statistical scrutiny, gun grabbers opt to play on people's emotions by using news events of mass shootings or shootings involving famous people. You get the idea from these media propagandists that ordinary people who are shot individually elicit no need for anti-gun laws, as if their deaths are less important. Indeed, they are less important to the gun grabber, because they are not as useful in drumming up support for anti-gun legislation.

To answer the question as to whether people "need" to own high powered guns, I quote Sidney Painter in his book on French Chivalry: "Until the non-noble class obtained wealth, leisure, or a cheap, easily used, and effective weapon, the position of the feudal aristocracy was perfectly secure" (page 3). Notice that maintaining feudal aristocracy is partly reliant on the rulers (or government) possessing far superior weaponry to the commoners. The founding fathers wanted to make sure common people could defend themselves against, say, indian raids instead of being helplessly reliant on the government to protect them. Thus, the power structure would be unlike a feudal system in which only rulers could offer sufficient protection. In a land of liberty, commoners deserve to have effective weapons. These weapons should be as potentially effective in defense as the most effective weapon possessed by government agents who deal with similar threats. But because gun grabbers promote government coercion and not liberty, they see no need to support the right to own high powered firearms for people without government-granted status.