August 14, 2016

"The French Riviera city of Cannes has banned beachgoers from wearing a swimsuit designed for Muslim women, called a burkini, citing the recent Islamist violence."

"Going into effect late last month, a city ordinance bans the burkini as well as any swimwear that 'ostentatiously displays religious affiliation, when France ... [is] the target of terrorist attacks.'"

The covering up of the body counts as an ostentatious display. It's not an ostentatious display of the body — go right ahead and do that — it's an ostentatious display of your mind.

What's the ugliest part of your body? I think it's your mind.

107 comments:

ndspinelli said...

Somali's make their girls wear the Muslim covering head to toe when they are like 2-3 years old. Seeing young girls @ the beach up in the Twin Cities, not being able to just be kids and swim, is heartbreaking.

Curious George said...

"ndspinelli said...
Somali's make their girls wear the Muslim covering head to toe when they are like 2-3 years old. Seeing young girls @ the beach up in the Twin Cities, not being able to just be kids and swim, is heartbreaking."

I'm guessing it's a lot better than swimming is some mudhole in the shithole they came from.

What's heartbreaking is what is going to happen to the TC in less than a generation.

coupe said...

It's kind of sad that France still thinks it has any culture left. They fined Brigitte Bardot for complaining about moslems method of killing animals, and charged her with hate crimes.

It seems to me, the canary chirped a long time ago. It's just hordes of moslem infidels arriving at their shores, and none of those those people like foie gras or wear beret's.

Drew W said...

There was a story a couple years ago or so about a Muslim schoolgirl in some French town being sent home because she showed up in class wearing a headscarf. I kept thinking the school administrators were going to say, "This is France. Don't come back until you put on something trashy!"

buwaya puti said...

The traditional Filipino female bathing costume is a white cotton shirt. Full stop.
The tradition is that the village women/girls had their bathing spot on the creek, upstream of the carabao wallow.
The Filipino male fantasy has always had a strong element of wet white cotton shirts down by the creek. This is ubiquitous in that sort of movie.
Laslo would understand no doubt.

gspencer said...

Banning burkinis is good.

Banning Muslims is better.

Lyle said...

Will Hollywooders boycott Cannes now?

Lyle said...

gspencer,

Islamists, not Muslims per se, are the problem. Islmaists clearly committed to non-violent coexistence would be fine too.

jacksonjay said...

What is the SPF factor of a burkini?

Adamsunderground said...

A tale of the Armpit and the Pendulum

Paco Wové said...

Throughout Micronesia, women displaying their thighs was taboo. So shorts for women was right out. Showing off anything above the waist was fine, but thighs? No no no. I suppose if you did all your swimming in a touristy hotel area, you could probably get away with standard western female bathing attire.

Bob Boyd said...

Trojans leaders, upon discovering their gates open and Greeks pouring into the city, voted to ban Gyro restaurants.

Roughcoat said...

The traditional Filipino female bathing costume is a white cotton shirt.

Buwaya, my dad served in the Philippines during World War II (he was a navy jr. officer, an Ensign JG). He liked it a lot, for the reason you allude to -- and despite the fact that there were Japanese around, and despite the fact that he married my mom just weeks before shipping out to the islands. It was only when I was older -- old enough to understand" -- that he took me aside, privately, to explain to me the wonders of Philippine womenhood, even if only glimpsed from afar, that he encountered in his overseas service. When I say "from afar" I mean that he was a chaste and respectful observer of their beauty, nothing more. At least, that's what I think, i.e. what he led me to believe.

War is often hell, but not always.

rhhardin said...

So much for clothing optional.

Terry said...

One of the things the special clothing does is separate the Muslim women from the non-Muslem women, so you know who you can harass.
Who would make a little kid where a burqa out of modesty?

Left Bank of the Charles said...

When Trump proposes it, it will be genius.

gspencer said...

Lyle,

All Muslims read the same Koran which divinely sanctions the subjugation of the non-Muslim. Some Muslims read the words and act on them; some read the words and nod in agreement; some read the words and think, "Those words are good for some, but not for me." And rarely there's the odd Muslim who rejects the words at which point he/she can no longer be considered a Muslim (according to their rules and interpretations), and has set him/her|self up for the charge of apostasy which under the Shariah calls for the death penalty.

Our problem in the West is that we don't know who's who. Nor do we have a means of identifying who will come down with an urgent case of Sudden Jihad Syndrome ("I used to think that those words were only good for other Muslims; now I think they're good for me too"). Lots of examples of this could be given; San Bernardino, December 2015, is a good example.

The Poisoned M&Ms Rule has relevance. What percentage should be acceptable?

YoungHegelian said...

as well as any swimwear that "ostentatiously displays religious affiliation,

So much for my cruciform Speedos, I guess.

And, the puritans at NPR probably had to work at it to find a beach photo in Cannes that didn't have any topless women in it.

Anglelyne said...

Curious George: What's heartbreaking is what is going to happen to the TC in less than a generation.

Then the TC will finally be who we are!


I re-read The Camp of the Saints recently. Just about all the characters in that long-ago "paranoid", "hyperbolic", "extremist" novel are now living, breathing, large-and-in-charge in the West (Pope Hippie, for example).

Recommended, for a cynical laugh at the prescience if nothing else. Follow with a chaser of Submission.

Lem said...

This is an affront to sarcasm and everything La France holds dear.

This will not stand.

PB said...

What about those hooded diving suits? Are those still legal? I would think they would be as they've been around for some time and thus make the burkini clearly discriminatory. Though, not as discriminatory of the imposition of burkas.

Anglelyne said...

gspencer: Our problem in the West is that we don't know who's who.

Our problem in the West is that we have abandoned observing and reasoning from empirical evidence and experience and would rather believe our own bullshit.

Lyle said...

gspencer,

You must not know many Muslims. There a lot of good Muslims already living in America and to defeat Islamism we're going to have to stand with Muslims who stand up to Islamism.

You seem to want to be rid of all Muslims. Scary!

Paddy O said...

You've never even seen my mind.

Stop mind-shaming!

Oso Negro said...

Lyle, other than your perception that we need Muslims to defeat Muslims, do you think that Muslim citizens are absolutely essential for American life? Do you think that we could live full and productive lives without Muslims among us? Just curious.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Is it really "ugliness" they're banning? It's a signal that they're banning. Semiotics.

They're regulating appropriate swimwear/beachwear. Regardless, prude. You can't really address this without getting into the French policy of laïcité. This is a French legal/constitutional concept. Some of your readers may know it, but I doubt the majority do - so as someone who blogs under the guise of discussing things informed by her academic legal expertise, you're doing them a disservice if you don't point that out.

Curious George said...

I would suggest that France also ban the traditional Muslim male suicide vest.

Anglelyne said...

Lyle: You must not know many Muslims. There a lot of good Muslims already living in America and to defeat Islamism we're going to have to stand with Muslims who stand up to Islamism.

I know good Muslims living in America, assets to the community. I'd be sorry if their lives were inconvenienced in any way. That doesn't change the stark fact that a critical mass of Muslim immigration into Western countries is always bad news for the native culture. Always. There are no extant exceptions, and how nice the majority of Muslims happen to be has no bearing on the inevitable deterioration of the native quality of life. People like you never, ever want to examine that reality like adults. And no, the U.S. is not a magical exception (because proposition nation!).

If we weren't meddling in their countries, and allowing them to pour en masse into ours, we wouldn't "need the good ones to fight the bad ones".

Btw, "you must not know [insert group here]" is a stupid, childish argument. You have no clue with whom your interlocutor does or does not have experience. Get better arguments.

Adamsunderground said...

You seem to want to be rid of all Muslims. Scary!

The call to prayer is a Finial Solution in itself

gspencer said...

Lyle,

The created-in-the-West distinctions of “Islamism,’ “Radical Islam,” “Moderate Islam,” and on and on, are utterly false. There are no flavors of Islam.

Don’t believe me? Well, read the words of a top Muslim.

Back in 2007, when confronted with the phrase “moderate Islam”, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan famously responded: “These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

“Islam is Islam and that’s it.” He, a man who is a life-long practicing Muslim, said it. Or do you pretend to know more about Islam than he?

Of course there are good Muslims; but there is no good Islam. And when you state “[t]here a lot of good Muslims already living in America,” you’re using the term “good” as you understand it. When Muslims, or your Islamists, murder in the name of Islam and Allah, they are being “good” as they understand it.

And where did they get that understanding?

From reading the words of the Koran.

William said...

I live in NYC. On the Great Lawn in Central Park, one occasionally comes across a topless sunbather. I presume that they're French or Scandinavian tourists. It's shocking that they come to our country and have such little respect for our customs and practices. I just hope this practice doesn't catch on, but I try to be tolerant.

mockturtle said...

So covering your body is now a crime. You've come a long way, baby!

Lyle said...

gspencer,

I am quite well read on Islam and Islamism. Islamism won't go away until Muslims make it go away. We live in a free country and Muslims can be Muslim all they want to. Should we be stopping Salafists and Wahhabists from immigrating to the U.S.? Yeah, sure.

You need to spend some time with some actual Muslims and educate yourself.

boycat said...

Lyle's been smoking some good stuff!

Paco Wové said...

"educate yourself."

Stupid argument #2.

Lyle said...

boycat,

what an argument!

Lyle said...

Paco Wove,

Why? What's your argument that ignorance should win the day?

Paco Wové said...

"What's your argument that ignorance should win the day?"

Blatant misrepresentation of another's comment: stupid argument #3.

gspencer said...

I'm done, Lyle. The exchanges have demonstrated, once again, that it's impossible to grow tomatoes in cement. Insulting me and others not an effective means of persuasion.

But I would like to know where I and the other Althouse commentators might find the definition of "Islamist" since they, Muslims themselves, don't refer to themselves that way. Reciting the Shahadah is all that's needed to become a Muslim.

Are there further secret handshakes required to be an Islamist?

Lyle said...

gspencer,

You're bigoted against people you don't even know. You aren't going to fix Islamism by just being angry and bigoted against Islam.

... and ah, actually Islamists refer to themselves as Islamist. You need to read more. Pick any book by Hirsi Ali.

Lyle said...

Paco Wove,

You haven't defended your argument yet. You can do it!

coupe said...

mockturtle said...So covering your body is now a crime.

It's an insult. People kill for being insulted. It's not like parking the wrong way, it's a f'n death match.

Lyle said...

Anglelyne,

You're projecting on to me things I haven't said. I am against Islamism. I do not want Salafists or Wahhabists being allowed in the country even to visit. We should be looking at any and all Muslims visitors or immigrants very carefully.

I quite aware of what is going in the world and who exactly is responsible for it.

Temujin said...

Oh well...I'll say it. Thanks for the Zappa reference.

Lyle said...

Oso Negro,

America is a free country (you know that 1st Amendment?) and it is impossible to live without there being Muslim-Americans. If Islam didn't exist of course we would go on living with out it. Islam and Muslims exist, however. You don't have the ability to ever change this. You do have the ability to stand up to Islamism and Islamists though.

Char Char Binks said...

It doesn't matter, the Caliphate will soon take over all Gaul. Charles Martel has lost.

coupe said...

Moslem women aren't liberated. The religion requires that they be subservient to men. The Islamic culture is designed to reward the men who want to become the warlords.

These men collect women as they gain power. Their women can't show skin.

This is a culture that should be wiped out, if the west wants to live free.

There should be no moslems, like there is no knights templar. These people are all wacko's.

Adamsunderground said...

You do have the ability to stand up to Islamism and Islamists though.

Who re-instated the draft when I wasn't looking?!

Rhythm and Balls said...

“Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

And it will continue to be "it" until a central authority comes along in Islam to say what is it and what isn't it.

Until then, anyone and their brother or cousin can just pore over the many examples created by Muhammad himself and claim those behaviors to be the most authentic. And they ain't pretty.

coupe said...

Char Char Binks said...Charles Martel has lost.

Joan of Arc misplaced his sword, so there is no future, and l'Hexagone will bow to their masters.

holdfast said...

The French really do need a First Amendment. Under their stupid rules you can't dress like a Muslim, and you can't complain (rightly or not) about Muslim practices you find offensive. Neither ban makes any sense, and both are just going to result in resentment, which will eventually find another, more violent, way to express itself.

Maybe it's having friends in the Orthodox Jewish community and the Greek/Eastern Orthodox Church community, but religious practices requiring women to cover their hair, or to cover their arms or legs, don't bother me. The full tent-like burqua does strike me as weird, and impractical, but not terribly offensive. I guess I would draw my personal line at veils/chadors, which are creepy as hell, and a very bad idea from a security perspective. Many jurisdictions already have prohibitions on wearing masks and other face-coverings.

Hagar said...

France, and most Latin countries, run on the Napoleonic Code. Napoleon was very "enlightened," but no kind of a democrat.

Unknown said...

it is impossible to live without there being Muslim-Americans.


You keep pushing this line and eventually you're gonna find people who will tell you that you don't need to be that free.

Mars adds and removes different colors of M&Ms all the time. If you don't like the brown ones you don't have to eat the brown ones whether they're poisoned or not.

Saying that there is no solution is not acceptable, because it's not true.

Ugly? Disgusting? What's ugly and disgusting is cleaning up after shootings, bombings and beheadings.

John said...

The burkini in the article looks like I used to wear when I did a lot of scuba diving. Sweat pants and sweat shirt. I found them more comfy than a wetsuit.

Nice we have religious freedom in the US though, isn't it? I can go to the beach in sweatshirt/pants or in an assless speedo.

It is amazing how many restrictions pretty much every other country around the world has on freedoms of speech, religion, weaponry and much more.

Our FF's really knew what they were doing when they wrote the Constitution. I agree 100% with Hamilton that there was no need for a Bill of Rights, at least theoretically. I am very happy he was overridden on this since we have seen that even with the BOR our freedoms are constantly being trampled. The BOr has proven to be essential from a practical point of view.


John Henry

buwaya puti said...

France, and most of Europe, made a grave error.
Assuming that there was a good reason to let in so many immigrants (a controversial idea in the first place), and granting that they had made a reasonable choice in that, there were still other choices to make.
They had a choice of who they would let in as immigrants.
They had the world to choose from. They could have selected for talent, for cultural compatibility, for all these things that would have left them better off. The British could have favored the HK Chinese, whom they largely blocked. The French could have imported their Catholic Vietnamese, who they likewise blocked. The Germans could have favored nearly anyone compatible.
But they didn't. They all ended up, it seems deliberately, preferentially, importing mostly masses of Muslims from populations not well known for being either well behaved or productive. I havent seen a good explanation of this. It seems perverse.

buwaya puti said...

The French for instance let in a huge number of Moroccans. The French had a great deal of experience with Moroccans. While excellent soldiers, these were the sort of people one had to make sure to send home as soon as they were no longer needed - for very sound reasons, based on plenty of precedent. Why they thought this was a good idea to let in hundreds of thousands in peacetime is beyond comprehension.

tim in vermont said...

Meanwhile Merkel is busy reconstituting the secret police after importing a million Muslims on her personal whim. It would seem that they are mostly military age men come here without a wife and children, and since the refugees are mostly men, and large numbers of them seem to think that German women are whores to be raped, not married, the prospect of them settling in peacefully to German ways, learning a trade, having families seems pretty dim.

But liberals got to feel good!

tim in vermont said...

https://quran.com/9:123

tim in vermont said...

For those of you who say the above passage only refers to time of war.... Well, they do consider this a time of war.

Achilles said...

Lyle said...

"America is a free country (you know that 1st Amendment?) and it is impossible to live without there being Muslim-Americans. If Islam didn't exist of course we would go on living with out it. Islam and Muslims exist, however. You don't have the ability to ever change this. You do have the ability to stand up to Islamism and Islamists though."

I am going to make a religion that specifies gay people are to be thrown off buildings and killed, young girls will be held down by their relatives and have their genitalia mutilated without anesthesia, and my adherents get to kill nonbelievers as well as believers who leave the religion.

You must accept my religion or you are a bigot.

Are you smart enough to understand this rhetorical device? We do not have to accept Islam. We are stupid if we do.

buwaya puti said...

If France had imported 10 million Chinese, Vietnamese and Filipinos (well, the Filipinos just to get the other two groups to lighten up a bit, and maybe to introduce wet cotton shirts as beachwear) instead of that number of North Africans, would they be having these problems? I think we all know the answer to that.

Roughcoat said...

I havent seen a good explanation of this. It seems perverse.

I haven't seen an explanation either, and it does seem perverse.

I suspect it has something to do with self-loathing, i.e. the loathing of Westerners for their own Western civilization. I sort of, kind of, understand the origins of this self-loathing, but only on an inchoate level. I can't quite put my finger on it, at least not enough to articulate or explain the phenomenon. I think it involves moral and spiritual rot, decay, decadence, demoralization, corruption -- and, paradoxically, arrogance. Lots and lots of arrogance. It is a type of sickness, related to the sickness that informs and animates the practitioners of sado-masochistic sex. Maybe Spengler was right, maybe the metaphors are exhausted. Maybe the Mandate of Heaven is passing. Time for those of us who care to exercise the Benedict Option. And to read and understand "A Cantcle of Leibwitz" as an instructional manual.

Roughcoat said...

Correction: "A Canticle for Leibowitz."

The Cracker Emcee said...


"Islamists, not Muslims per se, are the problem. Islmaists clearly committed to non-violent coexistence would be fine too."

More cultures have been supplanted by aliens "committed to non-violent coexistence" than you've had hot dinners. It is sheer fantasy to think that you can keep liberal democratic values in a society where Muslims are numerous enough to have a veto.

And I'm headed to a Muslim wedding this afternoon.

buwaya puti said...

The instructions in "A Canticle for Leibowitz" (Walter Miller) are pretty extreme.
My favorite novel btw. Bar none.
Available on the Althouse Amazon portal in every format known to Jeff Bezos!

buwaya puti said...

Roughcoat, thats the essential argument in "Camp of the Saints". The Spengler - perversity thing.
Personally I suspect demonic influence or the process described by Gramsci. Or both together, why not.

The Cracker Emcee said...

Roughcoat,

You're right, of course. Though I think it has far more to do with Western arrogance than self-loathing. Quite simply, Western liberals, like their 19th century imperialist ancestors, think that people of color are children.

Fernandinande said...

What's the ugliest part of your body? I think it's your mind.

If the mind is a body part, how big is it and how much does it weigh?

mockturtle said...

If it has energy, it has mass.

Jonathan Graehl said...

The implication of mixed mingling with people in that dress vs out is very much friend or foe ID for kafir-hunters. "What might happen to me if i'm not dressed like that?" is not good for tourist $$$. Several dozens-killed tourist/rich-area terrorist murder sprees have conspicuously targeted the kafir (unbeliever) and spared the faithful.

buwaya puti said...

But even to liberals who think people of color are children, why would they prefer some "children" to others? Because they do. Perversely, to my mind.

They could easily have pulled the picks of the litter, but they chose the opposite.

Heck, they could even have used a cuteness filter, as in choosing kittens or kids out of an orphanage, it would have worked to their advantage.

Roughcoat said...

Personally I suspect demonic influence or the process described by Gramsci. Or both together, why not.

Yes, surely, we should not discount the possibility of malevolent supernatural forces at work. As a practicing Catholic (and I do need a great deal of practice) I am rather obliged to consider this possibility. And I do consider it. I do, in fact, believe that malevolent supernatural forces are at work. But not as prime movers: rather, as influencers, and deceivers: by offering us evil choices in the guise of glittering jewels, which we take of our own free will. The glamor of evil and all that.

Gramsci may have been a demon. Maybe one of the Nephilim. A servant of Morgoth, perhaps?

buwaya puti said...

Gramsci was one of those people who analyzed and described, but did not do. He did not create or invent a process, he merely discovered it, like Darwin did not invent evolution.

Unlike Lenin, who both theorized and did. Gramsci spent his most productive time safely in Mussolinis prisons. Mussolini was not all bad.

No doubt Gramsci was on the side of Satan, but he is not to blame for the Gramscian phenomena.

Roughcoat said...

From Wikipedia, re "The Camp of Saints": "In 2001 the Southern Poverty Law Center described it as 'widely revered by American white supremacists and is a sort of anti-immigration analog to The Turner Diaries,"[11] and as recently as October of 2015 condemned the novel as "the favorite racist fantasy of the anti-immigrant movement in the US.'"

Uh-oh, now that's some heavy-duty hauling out of the big PC guns, I mean tarring "Camp of Saints" with the "Turner Diaries" white-supremacist brush. Double-plus bad-thought!

n.n said...

Yeah, the burkini is the problem. The progressive wars, the regime changes, the social justice adventurism, the creation and arming of terrorist and cartel groups, the relocation of millions of people in refugee crises (illegal immigration, excessive immigration), the anti-native policies, the class diversity policies (e.g. racism, sexism), the dysfunctional revolution (a.k.a. the sexual revolution), the abortion and cannibalism (i.e. debasement) of several million human lives annually, and redistributive change/progressive debt (i.e. trickle-up poverty) are not the problems.

Roughcoat said...

Buwaya, I disagree with you re Gramsci. He is indeed to blame, at least partly. He was the talker/writer, the deceiver: which is Satan's modus operandi. As much to blame as Goebbels, e.g.; a Screwtape, a Tempter. Words have meaning and in meaning there is power: and Gramsci used both malevolently. Or did Gramsci not know what he was saying? I find it impossible to believe that he did not. He clarified and explained the process, and added his own innovations to it: all of which are forms of inventions. Yes, he is to blame.

buwaya puti said...

Of course, this is a natural reaction to "Camp of the Saints", and a very just one.
Its a very, very racist work, there is no question about that at all.
And, besides that, it is frankly blasphemous, anti-Catholic (in my day it would never had been permitted in a Catholic school library), lurid, inhuman, horrifying and cruel.
The interesting part is not whether it is upsetting, in all those ways, but whether it is true. Its the most accurately prophetic piece of fiction of the last century.

William said...

Where are the feminists on this? A young,attractive woman has tremendous bargaining power in life. But this power is diminished or even eradicated if she is made to wear these absurd and uncomfortable garments.......To paraphrase Al Capone, you can get more with a smile and a bikini than with just a smile or even a smile and a burkini.......Most of the young women who wear these garments do so because of family and social pressure. But if you criticize such garments, you're criticized for bigotry. You suffer more opprobrium for criticizing bigotry than for being a bigot.

Roughcoat said...

Gramsci was Satan's amanuensis: doing what he was best at to further the devil's cause. Or, and I repeat, did he not know what he was saying, did he not believe in the meaning of his words and power of language? Did he have no conception that he was writing a battle plan for the commission of evil? If he didn't, then he was an extraordinarily stupid man. I do not think Gramsci was an extraordinarily stupid man.

Roughcoat said...

Buwaya, excellent analysis of "Camp of Saints." I agree totally.

William said...

Maybe feminists favor Muslm immigrants because the women are less of a threat. Those damned Filipanas and Vietnamese are just too damned skinny and pretty.

buwaya puti said...

In re Gramsci,
I don't know. I think Gramsci had little influence on the process he described. Perhaps he was a strong influence by second-hand on the 1960s new left, and leftist academia, but I'm not sure he was that much more of a source of ideas than many others.

Unknown said...

William said...
I live in NYC. On the Great Lawn in Central Park, one occasionally comes across a topless sunbather.


Don't give New Yorkers a bad name, I hope you wipe it off!

Rhythm and Balls said...

I think you're on to something, William.

mockturtle said...

Gramsci was Satan's amanuensis: doing what he was best at to further the devil's cause.

Anyone not furthering the Lord's cause is furthering Satan's, wittingly or unwittingly.

John said...

Blogger buwaya puti said...

The instructions in "A Canticle for Leibowitz" (Walter Miller) are pretty extreme.
My favorite novel btw. Bar none.
Available on the Althouse Amazon portal in every format known to Jeff Bezos!

Except, for some reason, Kindle.

Which means that I may never read it, much as I would like to. All I have heard about it makes me think it is a great book.

Unfortunately, Kindle has spoiled me from reading any books on paper. I just find paper very painful to read. Not an eye problem, more like if I tried to go back to a manual typewriter after getting used to word processing. The technology, paper, just sucks.

Come on, Bezos. Help a brother out, please.

John Henry

John Henry

Roughcoat said...

buwaya:

I'm curious, do you think the same goes for the works of, e.g., Alinksky and Cloward-Piven? Or, for that matter, Marx?

I think we may be talking past each other, I'm not sure.

coupe said...

Anyone who covers their head and body with cloth, should be in a convent or religious school, and shielded from the general public.

Nuns don't surf.

Roughcoat said...

Alinsky.

Who dedicated his book to Satan, the "first rebel."

buwaya puti said...

I thought I saw Kindle?
MEGO I suppose.
Sorry.

Roughcoat said...

Paul Johnson, in his book "Intellectuals," best expresses, for me, the role writer/philosophers like Gramsci play, and the culpability they must bear, in the promulgation of evil ideas and the way those ideas influence the actions of those who subscribe to them.

buwaya puti said...

In re Gramsci I mean that the commies started taking over "the institutions" and imposing their own "cultural hegemony" long before Gramsci told them to do so.

Process was well advanced before he got around to describing it. And even more advanced by the time anyone much read him, they werent published until the 1950s, and they were not available in French or English until @1970-71.

Marx inspired, or rather, justified the already inspired. So you have more of a case for active satanism there. Alinski wrote a manual that taught a generation specific techniques, so there also.

buwaya puti said...

Correction,
French edition of the "Prison Notebooks" 1953, German 1956
English 1971

Roughcoat said...

Okay, I see what you mean. But still ...

Adamsunderground said...

Anyone not furthering the Lord's cause is furthering Satan's, wittingly or unwittingly.

Even on the seventh day, He rested, the slacker.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

There is another possibility. Female chauvinists are sadistic and are pro-sacrifice of women, girls, interns, and babies, too, in order to progress their political ambitions and for their "greater good".

An alternative explanation is that the refugee crises were caused by social justice adventurism and premature evacuation for the purpose of creating democratic leverage and disenfranchising native people (and competitors). The refugees, as women, girls, interns, babies, and priests are merely nonviable props to be aborted, corrupted in an ambitious campaign.

A coalition of anti-native factions and [class] diversity mongers.

PDM said...

Roughcoat, apropos of almost nothing except factual accuracy, I believe your father must either have been an Ensign, or an Ensign and then (afterward) a Lieutenant, Junior Grade, or Lieutenant JG, as it is commonly known.

That's how the officer ranks worked when I was an officer in the Navy. A quick Google search shows "Ensign Junior Grade" only as a rank of officer "in naval services and space forces, most notably the Starfleet of the United Federation of Planets." That's from a Star Trek Wiki site. I never heard of an Ensign, JG until your reference.

Roughcoat said...

buwaya:

You're saying, I think, Gramsci is descriptive rather than prescriptive. Like Clausewitz. But (here it comes). . . Like Clausewitz, succeeding generations have come to see his works as prescriptive, and have acted upon them accordingly.

Anyhoo, I'm out, I must away. My border collies are restless and there are sheep that need herding.

Roughcoat said...

PDM -

You're quite correct. I goofed, a simple mistake. He was a Lt. JG. I can't believe I wrote "Engish JG"! I know better than that! Thanks!

mockturtle said...

Clausewitz was more descriptive than prescriptive???

Darrell said...

A radical Muslim wants to cut off your head. A moderate Muslim wants the radical Muslim to cut off your head.

mockturtle said...

A radical Muslim wants to cut off your head. A moderate Muslim wants the radical Muslim to cut off your head.

Alas, Darrell, I think you are right.

Jupiter said...

No one has to be a Muslim. And no one should be a Muslim.

tim in vermont said...

It’s historic, blared The Star Tribune. Ilhan Omar beat incumbent Rep. Phyllis Khan in the primary and will undoubtedly win the election for the state House in Minnesota even though she married her brother while married to the father of her children.

It’s okay…it was probably just to get him into the country. How noble! The violation of immigration law shouldn’t be a problem either. That’s who we are now. Those are our values now.


Remember when fraudulently marrying somebody for immigration purposes used to get you investigated?

James Graham said...

They should ban them from the Olympics.

Women playing beach volleyball in tents.

Ugh.

Jose_K said...

The State of Emergency, State of Siege ,allows the use of what they call Police Power measures to secure Public Order . Under it, the protection of civil rights are relaxed. The state if siege is more wide and developed and go well beyond the suspension of Habeas Corpus