Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Two More Winners

While I'm in the mood for award-winning photographs, here are two more. According to France-Echos, the top photo appeared on the cover of Le Monde 2, a supplement to the newspaper, on September 7, 2006. The article inside was a forum for Muslim women to express their views on the wearing of the veil. But for France-Echos, the real reason for the report was to turn attention away from the commemoration of September 11.

The second egregious photograph (I presume it's not a "fauxtograph"), first appeared (to my eyes anyway) at Novopress, back in early August. I was going to publish it right away, but I couldn't think of anything to say about it. It seems to defy explanation. While it's comical, it has a strange science-fiction quality about it also. I know it has appeared at other websites, including Lawrence Auster's VFR.

At the risk of sounding very intolerant, both photos put me off. These sights will be commonplace one day in the Western nations. They are probably already common in parts of France. In the United States, we see many Muslims, and a certain number of women draped in burkas but they are still a small minority, though I've heard that more and more are being allowed in.

These people would be so much more interesting if they were in their own lands and we were tourists taking in the strange sights and the exotism of a culture completely different from our own. But to bring them into the West as wards of the State, so to speak, undermines our own identity as Western peoples, and makes them hideous in our eyes. And all the while we must cater to their needs, pander to their wishes, and censor from our thoughts any negative judgments.

Walls, fences, boundaries and borders all have a purpose: self-preservation, preservation of diverse cultures, containment of violence, and preservation of a certain natural order in which people can live in the comfort of a culture congenial to their nature.


At October 02, 2006 12:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


I was just sent here by someone, maybe Mr. Auster, (I always go read what he suggests I go and read - :>) After finishing reading your thoughts, about how as tourists we can find diverse cultures interesting and exotic,fully acceptable,but when we try to 'bring them home', they tend to be high maintanence and difficult to successfully blend into our culture.

I was wondering: is the goal of 'world citizens' types to totally destroy all difference in cultures? Well, that might be a goal of nature, to have us struggle and then meld into one, indistinguishable, HUMAN being, with no distinctions between us, not even hair color or eye color. Would that eliminate war, at least on this planet? But does peace mean that we lose so much that makes life interesting?

I lived 10 years in Europe, 6 of those years in Paris. I am VERY interested in what is happening there, so thanks for your blog.

West Palm Beach,

At October 02, 2006 2:38 PM, Anonymous W.LindsayWheeler said...

I was also redirected from VFR. Great site! In response to Patricia, the One Worlders are also called neo-babelists. One World is also the intention of Communism. Communism was once named "International Communism" for it sought to establish a One World Government. First it was the League of Nations and then the United Nations.

It comes from Karl Marx who called for "All the Workers to Unite" at the end of the Communist Manifesto. It is also the cry of Freemasonry where they believe and teach the "brotherhood of Man".

And yes all these people want Peace. This is the goal of Socialism. But because they are materialists, they seek a materialist answer in that they seek by eliminating racism and differences so that they can create a "man-made" peace.

Peace enervates. In nature, strife is common and is needed. God implanted the cosmos with strife. Racism is the glue that holds nations together. They want to end nations and so they end racism. This is only a part answer to you Patricia. And their goal of race mixing, of cultural mixing is evil and unrighteous.

At October 02, 2006 4:14 PM, Anonymous Squidley said...

To add to what lindsay said:

I find it useful to draw a distinction between racism and racialism, which could also be called race realism.

Racism is a Bad Thing. It prejudges people negatively based solely on their skin color. Racialism/Race Realism, on the other hand, is a Good Thing. It recognizes that race is real, and that it has real-world consequences.

The problem is that in practical application, there is some overlap between the two, but the motivations are different. For example, both argue against social policies like school bussing, but they do it for different reasons. Racists want to keep the blacks out of white schools because they believe blacks are intrinsically inferior (or whatever). Race realists, however, want to keep the blacks out of white schools because they recognize that blacks, as a group, are unable to achieve equal academic achievement as whites, because blacks, as a group, have lower IQs. While high-intelligence blacks can be welcomed into white schools, the indiscriminate introduction of blacks of lower ability into white schools ends up harming the white students, as the classes are inevitably dumbed down to match the level of the slower students. Furthermore, there is little benefit for black students, who are uprooted from their neighborhoods and are prevented from participating in extra-curricular activities that conflict with the bus schedule.

There are, of course, other reasons and other examples, but this is an easy one to recognize and explain.

At October 02, 2006 7:22 PM, Anonymous W.LindsayWheeler said...

I don't know squidley. Actually, the Oxford English Dictionary says that "Racism means that differences are biological". I agree with that. "Racialism means that one race is superior to another". Again, I can agree with that. The Oxford English Dict. doesn't have any entry for "race realists". I beg to differ from you on your definitions. Americans have defined racism differently than the British.

Actually, Racism is a virtue; wherein virtue is the golden mean and deficiency and excess are the evils. The lack of racism is an evil and the excess of racism called ethno-centrism is an evil. I never heard the word "race realist" though.

At October 04, 2006 9:35 AM, Blogger PD111 said...

The dogma of multiculteralism is destroying the very concept of nation states. The nation state was founded on the basis, that people using a common language and a shared culture are more likely to live in peace and harmony, and thus contribute to the general good of mankind.

The continuing destruction of this eminently sensible arrangement leads not only to discomfort of the citizens of the nation but to the likelihood of wars. We are beginning to see this in the West, as the hostility to Muslims, who have a very different, if not quite alien culture, to the what is in the West.

If we end up in full scale war, and there are many who predict this, future historians will wonder at the idiocy of our present attachment to the dogma of multiculteralism enforced by the PC Stasi.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home