tiepolo

I think the horriffic revelations coming out of Rotherham and other towns across the UK merit a 'Truth About'. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2734694/It-hard-appalling-nature-abuse-child-victims-suffered-1-400-children-sexually-exploited-just-one-town-16-year-period-report-reveals.html [*]Report found 1,400 children abused between 1997 and 2013 in Rotherham [*]The figure is likely to be a conservative estimate of the true scale [*]Victims terrorised with guns and doused in petrol and threatened with fire [*]More than a third of the cases were already know to agencies [*]Author of the report condemned 'blatant' failings by council's leadership [*]Action blocked by political correctness as staff 'feared appearing racist' [*]Majority of victims described the perpetrators as 'Asian' men [*]Leader of Rotherham Council has stepped down with immediate effect [*]No council employees will receive disciplinary action, leaders state

What if they tried to start a war and no foolish goyim turned up to kill each other?

Bloody hell...

Deafening silence from the feminists, on this topic, of course, which gives the lie to the notion they care about female welfare. Also notable no one seems to be asking where the fathers of all these victims were. If a daughter of mine were subjected to anything like this I would be doing a Liam-Neeson-out-of-'Taken'.

Britain, and much of Europe in general, has gone crazy, and our authorities and social services seem content to let third-worlder rapists run rampage, and to abuse those most vulnerable members of the native population. Calling the offenders 'Asians' is an insult to most of that continent, by the way, they are mostly Pakistanis. (No Mongolians, Koreans or Japanese people have been implicated.) Somalis, Middle-Easterners and North Africans have also been involved with the gang rape of European girls in Europe. The common factor is not Asianness but Mohamedanism. A similar rape epidemic has afflicted the Scandinavian countries, with Muslim immigrants having a virtual monopoly on the 'assault rape' category. (There, direct violence, rather than grooming with drugs and alcohol, seems to be the preferred method). I recently heard that 'Muhammad' is the most common male name in Oslo now. Not even baby name, but male name generally, and most of the non-European immigrants there are Pakistanis and Somalis. What are they doing in Scandinavia, (aside from raping the indigenous females?) There have also been a spate of rapes of white girls in Australia by Middle Easterners and Pakistanis. The most common baby name in Britain is also Muhammad. Muslims are also parasitic, on the whole, with half the men and 75% of the women being unemployed. Anjem Chaudary quaintly rechristened Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) 'Jihad Seekers Allowance'. Pakistani gangs have committed racially motivated murders of whites, such as the much under-reported torturing and slaying of 15 year old Kriss Donald in Glasgow. This was the first racially motivated murder ever recorded in Scotland. White children have also been bullied for being white in schools where whites are minorities. One, nine-year old Aaron Dugmore, hanged himself after being bullied by Muslim kids at his school in Birmingham. Such tactics along with general intimidation have encouraged white flight, or ethnic cleansing of whole areas. Escaping immigrants, ironically, is a common reason Brits give for emigrating. A sense of losing their country is another reason why white Europeans don't want to have many children. My sister has said she doesn't want to have kids since they would likely grow up to become an ethnic minority. My parents are glad they are not going to live to see the future of this country. Many people I speak to privately express similar sentiments. Yet voice these concerns too publically and one can be arrested. (One can also be arrested for quoting Churchill's words on Islam, as Paul Weston discovered. So much for a free society.) Our countries are now exporting Jihadist terrorists to the Middle East, meanwhile. (These exported Jihadists are also mostly Pakistanis, despite the mainstream media's insistence on calling them 'Britons', 'Beligans' 'Norwegians' etc.) The BNP called attention to the phenomenon of Muslim gangs raping mostly white and exclusively non-Muslim girls in England, some years back. For that public service the traitor-authorities treat them as criminals. Granted that Nationalists may have been attempting to capitalise on the situation, but it doesn't mean they weren't telling the truth of the matter, or that it should have been swept under the rug while the 'liberals' bleat about 'racism' and 'Islamophobia'. Pretending that the Muslims were the victims rather than the aggressors and violators in this whole situation is surely no-longer tenable for intellectually honest people. Not that you find many such thinkers among our politicians... In an attempt to portray the murder of off-duty soldier Lee Rigby as a betrayal of Islam, Nick Clegg misquoted the Quran, in an egregious way, to make it sound much more peaceful than it really is, failing also to mention that the very next verse to that he cited ordered the slaughter and dismemberment of those who wage war against Allah and his prophet. Islam has been aggressing against Europe for 1400 years, with little let-up. The gang rape of vulnerable white girls (who also endued beatings and mutilation) by Muslim 'men' seems to be an epidemic. Other cases, as also witnessed in Oxford, Rochdale, Derby and Telford. Gang rape by 'Asians' was said to be a fact of life in Rotherham. The cases surely are reflections of the traditional Islamic attitude to the females of enemy peoples, who were seen as fair game for sexual enslavement. In the Quran such slaves are referred to as 'what your right hand possesses'. The social services and police knew about all this and kept it quiet - for fear of looking racist, supposedly. Respect for 'diversity' is deemed a higher priority for police recruits than the catching of criminals. One Channel 4 documentary on the subject of 'Asian' gang rape was not aired because the police said it might damage 'community cohesion'. The conspiracy of silence doubtless condemned hundreds of other victims to a similar fate. The police, meanwhile, actually launched a prosecution against Channel 4 for its documentary 'Undercover Mosque' (which exposed Imams preaching Islamic supremacism, sedition and violence), preferring to prosecute honest journalists rather than the actual criminals who were caught on camera. Another question with regard to the Rotherham scandal, and the others, meanwhile, is where were the victims' fathers?

I don't know if I do, I'm in a state of flux.

I defined a nation just now, and it was nothing like that.

The people only make up the free market when they are doing business. They make up the nation at all times. The nation is the people, a nation is a people with common bonds, generally including things like language, culture, heritage, lineage, shared history, common identity, values and allegiance etc. The land exists to facilitate the nation, but nation can exist without land. The Jews called themselves the 'nation of Israel' even during the two thousand years when they were without sovereign territory, and when they were scattered through many lands. There is a distinct difference between the nation and the people within a territory. Even legal citizenship doesn't confer membership of a nation in a deep sense. Hence it is annoying for a true, born and bred Briton to hear, say, bearded, pijama-wearing, wife-veiling Pakistani Muslim colonisers in Britain referred to as 'Britons', on news reports, (especially when said colonisers do something like go off and fight as Jihadis for Islamic State in Iraq, indicating their lack of allegiance to anything Britain stands for). Being born in a stable doesn't make you a horse. Dissenting and dissociating from the nation-of-origin is fine, both culturally and financially, in my book. So you can reject a national identity without being physically booted out, and you can opt out of taxes, etc. but just don't expect any support by the rest of the nation. As for passage across borders, that depends on the neighbouring nation, doesn't it? Your right to enter a foreign land is outweighed by the rights of the foreigners to say who they want to let in. It's funny that few advocates of open borders have taken out the walls and fences separating their homes and gardens from those of their neighbours. If the neighbouring country wants to let you in without a passport that is their prerogative. Again this is not something you can impose without believing in presumptuous positive rights. A nation is a real thing, it is a population with common allegiance, usually laying claim to a particular territory which they maintain in order to continue to exist as a people and to safeguard their self-determination, This is more tangible a thing than abstract ideas which people here would not call into question, like 'liberty' and 'morality' and 'virtue'. A nation owning a homeland is no more abstract a notion than three brothers each co-owning a single car. The main problem is when nations are reduced to administrative entities, and citizens are merely considered those under the authority of a particular government. This is backwards. The state should be the political expression of an organic, unified nation, existing to serve the people's interests, and reflecting their character, and providing a unifying focus and a connection to history. Obviously the state should also be publicly accountable to root out corruption.

So it occurred to me that it's possible to reconcile voluntarism with a (preferably minimalist) state. The objection is to being compelled to pay taxes with the threat of imprisonment. How about this: a system where you wouldn't be imprisoned for not paying tax. You would have the right to opt out of paying tax, but the cost would be that you could not use public services, not call the police, etc. This would seem the optimum arrangement. I think some government is needed. A nation is the common property of its citizens, and needs some management in the common interest. The roads etc. are the arteries of the nation. I don't like the idea of private police forces, private jails and private armies, either. The army and the police should be serving the country, not the free market. The arrangement just mentioned could allow for the possibility of some form of national health service, also.

I noticed the following in the comments section below an article by Jim Goad on Takimag, on the subject of the progressive/Leftist double-think, with race and gender being regarded as social constructs but with homosexuality and transgenderism being defended as natural, biological states. http://takimag.com/article/race_is_a_social_construct_so_im_a_poor_black_orphan_jim_goad/print#disqus_thread The guy commenting is the following, and I was wondering what people here think and what they would say to him:

I don't have a smart phone, and don't want one, since I spend too much time looking at computer screens when I am at home (from where I work). I welcome being able to get away from them, and from the internet, when I am out and about.

I believe I recently heard on a recent show it said that Stef doesn't let his daughter play with kids who are smacked/come from abusive homes. Poses the question shouldn't children be able to decide who they want as friends, and isn't it cruel to deprive the allegedly abused child of the solace of a well-adjusted playmate?

I envy people who can choose what to believe. I'm stuck with believing what the available evidence (along with Occam's razor) seems to indicate is true. I would choose to like football, too, for similar reasons of better fitting into the crowd and having an easier life. One cannot chose things like that any more than ones existential beliefs, it seems.

There is more room for spinning an interpretation in such fields as history and literature.

Because Cultural Marxism is all about emotional manipulation and using Western peoples' decency and doubt as a weapon against them (this is harder to apply to the hard sciences). However the question of why the forces of traditionalism were so easily displaced by the socialist subversives in Academia is certainly one to ponder. Leftists were never shy of backing up their touchy-feely protestations of 'liberalism' and 'tolerance' with force and intimidation. A reaction to the excesses of Fascist regimes in Europe is one possible answer, causing a collapse of confidence among the traditional right which was easily damned by supposed association. However the process of socialist infiltration was in place prior to the rise of fascism, and fascism was actually itself only a reaction to Marxist subversion. The Nazi regime in particular ended up actually being a gift to Marxists in the post-war period, who were able to accuse any anti-Marxist of being a fascist. Somehow the mass killings that Marxism was leading to long before there were any Fascists to worry about was kept from popular consciousness.

The question to ask if you don't want a romantic relationship, as I believe il padrone would say, is 'would I take this shit from her if she were an elderly Asian gentleman?' Personally I see no reason not to be civil and conversational with someone even knowing they are unreliable, as long as you acknowledge that fact, don't invest too much in them (emotionally or otherwise) and don't expect too much from them. If they want to go deeper and to probe why they might have this personality flaw and what they can do about it, then it is for them to initiate that process.

The shoah where this happened, you mean? Too soon?

There are plenty of rich Africans. There are 9,500 millionaries living in Lagos, Nigeria, alone! http://www.vanguardngr.com/2014/03/nigerian-millionaires-hit-23000-next-four-years-study/ In answer to your question, no, not everyone can be rich, because the term 'rich' implies relatively high wealth compared to an average. If every man on earth was seven foot tall then no seven-footer could sensibly be described as 'that tall bloke'. 'Rich' also implies access to things that are exclusive and/or rare.

How should a philosophical person respond to cold calls and scam phone calls? On the one hand these are an irritating intrusion, on the other one feels some sympathy for the poor wretches who have to do that job. It must be quite unpleasant sitting in a call centre in India getting phone slammed down on you all day long.

Fitstly, it annoys me that we assume the liberal arts belong to statists and Leftists. This sphere seems to have been abandoned to the Marxist pseduo-intellectual mafia without much of a fight. Why shouldn't a range of political outlooks be represented on every faculty? As for the purpose of home schooling, I would think the purpose of it would be to spare children from being exposed to coercion and indoctrination, and forced association with other kids who might be bullies or other sorts of dangerous and harmful influences.

I was wondering whether the idea of going to college defeats the purpose of home-schooling. It may be necessary for qualifications, but one is subjected to much more propaganda and just as much peer pressure at college and university compared to school, from what I recall. Are home learning courses and things like the Open University a preferable alternative?

The existence of spurious threat narratives should not be taken to mean that there are no real threats or predatory or malevolent forces in the world, however. Reason and evidence should be deployed to determine whether a genuine threat exists. Just because someone cried wolf doesn't mean there is never a reason to be on one's guard for wolves.

The idea of a 'rape culture' in the West is an absolute calumny. Most men regard rape as a hideous and unforgivable crime. Feminists are evil to promote the anti-male lies they do, and to lessen and the specific crime and the culpability of specific criminals by making it a generalised thing. The libellous notion of 'rape culture' appeals to feminists, as has been noted, because it allows them to imagine themselves both as victims and objects of desire. In fact they are usually both privileged and undesirable.

'Aladdin’s Princess Jasmine, The Little Mermaid’s Ariel, and Sleeping Beauty are all portrayed as victims in these visual scenarios, and are each seen withstanding an inappropriate — and illegal — advance from their respective on-screen fathers. Saint Hoax told Yahoo Movies via email that hearing of her friend's case of abuse inspired her to take action: “I recently learned that one of my closest friends was molested by her father when she was seven," the artist wrote. "It took her 14 years to be able to share that traumatizing experience. That story shocked me to my core. ... I used Disney princesses because it's a visual language that my targeted audience would be attracted to.” ' https://uk.yahoo.com/movies/disney-princesses-used-in-sexual-assault-awareness-90076370572.html According to the statistics that report cites, the percentage of underaged rape victims raped by their fathers is only 20%. This is nothing like the 46% implied by the posters, where fathers are used to represent 'other family members'.

A recent installment... ...got me thinking on the question of revenge, and its moral nature. Say someone was the victim of a wrong that cannot be repaired, and some time elapsed. Would it be moral, theoretically, for the victim to seek revenge? Does revenge after an interval count as an act of aggression? I would tentatively say not, since the sufferer of the original wrong continued to be plagued by vengeful feelings arising from the original injustice, which count as part of that transgression. Does the original aggressor deserve a chance to make an apology that is not desired, and to make excuses, and to sate their conscience without actually undoing any of the original harm? Is it not legitimate for the former victim to want nothing from a past tormentor but to see that tormentor suffer?