FROM Novus Ordo Watch:

Now that a total of twelve people were killed — including two policemen — in Paris, France, at the editorial offices of the blasphemous and pornographic Charlie Hebdo cartoon newspaper, countless people across Europe are marching in favor of freedom of speech, holding signs that say “Je Suis Charlie” (“I am Charlie”), thus expressing their solidarity with the victims of the massacre and their determination to support and enforce people’s rights to believe and express in public whatever they please, regardless of how much it may offend another.

People held demonstrations and candlelight vigils not only in Paris, where a total of 2.5 million was estimated on Sunday, Jan. 11, but also in Amsterdam (Netherlands), Lisbon (Spain), Cludj (Romania), Stuttgart (Germany), Salzburg (Austria), and Prague (Czech Republic). That is not to say that all those people agreed with the truly disgusting (and often severely anti-Catholic) cartoons printed by the Charlie Hebdo rag, but rather that, even though they might disagree, they clearly support everyone’s right to free speech. That’s always the official reasoning. (more…)

IN the post about RAF Wing Commander Nikki Thomas, James P. writes:

She looks ridiculous. The narrow shoulders, the ill-fitting suit, the oversize medals (awarded for what?) that remind me of Leonid Brezhnev, the hat that makes her look like she should be handing out parking tickets. Much of it is “not her fault” in the sense that her physique is what it is, and she wears the uniform the military prescribes for her. Still, she chose to put herself where she is, and I have no doubt she would aggressively insist she has every right to be there, no matter what the cost to the RAF and the nation. 

(more…)

A QUOTE from Dr. Emanuel Tanya [Update: The alleged source of this quote is disputed here.]:

We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers. (more…)

TOM writes:

Regarding our situation, the writer Solange Hertz summed it all up in one of her books:

In its youth the sinful earth was renewed by the Flood, only to relapse into universal disorder. Eventually God became man in ordered to renew it by His Blood, generating a new society of grace on earth, and in due time the political miracle called Christendom literally materialized from the petition “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven,” which He commanded be addressed daily to our Father “Who are in Heaven.” Like Israel of old, however, it too began disintegrating. (more…)

THE Archbishop of Paris, Cardinal André Vingt-Trois, in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, says the massacre is “a call to rediscover the fundamental values of [the French] republic,” including freedom of religion. This is so wacky it would truly defy belief if it weren’t so darn common these days to see “Catholic” prelates promoting other religions.

“Freedom of religion” means the rise of Islam in France. Jihad and sharia rule are inseparable from Islamic religious beliefs. If Islam has freedom then it must inevitably rule much of France.

It is precisely freedom of religion, as defined by the French revolutionaries, that has led to the Islamization in France.

(more…)

B. WRITES in response to the post on Intel:

Will hiring more women make Intel a better company?  No.

The problem with women in the workforce at Intel is very similar to the problem Ms. Hale describes at the National Health Service: women get pregnant and work less, forever.  Assuming they don’t quit outright.

(more…)

THIS 1951 promotional film for the British Royal Air Force shows a few women in Air Force desk jobs, but makes no effort to display them as pilots or combatants. And that’s, of course, because there were no women as pilots or combatants, but more importantly there was no shame that there were no women as pilots or combatants.

The entire thing is an unabashed display of masculine confidence, strength and technical prowess. “Diversity” destroys all that. It’s a cancer that eats away at the entire ethic of national defense.

Even so, the drive to masculinize women was already well underway in 1951. Here’s Queen Elizabeth in 1944 dressed as a man.

(more…)

FEW women want to work in the technology industry, but there are big bucks to be gained by claiming that they are victims of a conspiracy, underrepresented not because they are less suited to and less interested in the work, but because for some self-defeating reason, male managers deliberately don’t hire competent women.

At Breitbart, Virginia Hale writes on Intel’s intention to spend much more to favor women job candidates (and non-whites): (more…)

HENRY McCULLOCH writes:

The Telegraph takes a brief break from wall-to-wall coverage of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, and the terrible risks it poses.  Risks, that is, of vicious European — white European, that is, a qualification one didn’t use to have to make — backlash against the peace-loving, law-abiding Moslems who are bringing their prophetic witness and cultural “vibrancy” to enrich our moribund white-bread societies.  But I digress…

The Telegraph turns its reportorial — actually, propagandistic is the better adjective — talents to a story about another breakthrough for Equality and Progress in the relentless Cultural Revolution busily ruining everything that once was normal: a woman is commanding a Royal Air Force fast-jet squadron for the first time! Pip, Pip…  Remember that The Telegraph is the journalistic flagship of British conservatism, including the Conservative Party.  But what can one expect of a nation that has an Islam-groveller such as David Cameron as its “Conservative” prime minister?

Apparently, the young — and I do mean young: she is a Wing Commander (Lieutenant Colonel-equivalent) at only 36; might her sex have anything to do with her accelerated promotions? — lady in question, one “Nikki” Thomas, recently took command of No. 19 Squadron, RAF, an outfit based in Norfolk that flies Tornado ground-attack aircraft.  The Telegraph gushes, in finest Soviet Life (anyone else remember that fine magazine?) style about how Nikki and her comradette, Juliette “Jules” Fleming, scored another breakthrough for the Amazons in 2009 by flying together as the first all-woman Tornado crew.  Given the vast significance of the post-imperial RAF to the Free World’s defense — sarcasm on — this was an earth-shaking accomplishment.  I know I feel safer with Nikki and Jules patrolling overhead.  …Sarcasm off. (more…)

MARK PERRY at the American Enterprise institute presents some interesting charts related to common feminist fallacies. Here’s one with his commentary:

Every year the National Committee on Pay Equity (NCPE) publicizes its “Equal Pay Day” to bring public attention to the gender pay gap. “Equal Pay Day” last year fell on April 14, and allegedly represents how far into 2014 the average woman had to continue working to earn the same income that the average man earned in 2013. Inspired by Equal Pay Day, I introduced “Equal Occupational Fatality Day” in 2010 to bring public attention to the huge gender disparity in work-related deaths every year in the US. “Equal Occupational Fatality Day” tells us how many years into the future women would be able to work before they experienced the same number of occupational fatalities that occurred in the previous year for men.

(more…)

CALLING Muslim mass murderers Islamic “extremists” is like calling Stalin a Communist “extremist” or Hitler a Nazi “extremist.” They were not extremists if extremism means they took a moderate worldview and went too far. They were acting upon their principles. These principles were held by people who would never murder, but that does not mean that the principles themselves did not entail murder.

Here’s Dr. Bill Warner, from the Center for the Study of Political Islam, on this subject of Islamic “extremism.” [See a particularly acute case of Islam Denial Syndrome in today’s New York Times, which states: “The rash of horrific attacks in the name of Islam is spurring an anguished debate among Muslims here in the heart of the Islamic world about why their religion appears cited so often as a cause for violence and bloodshed.”]

From Warner’s talk:

So how many times have you heard this? Islamic State cuts off heads or they’re selling sex slaves in Africa and the apologists for Islam say, “Oh, that’s radical, that’s extreme, that’s not real Islam. I know some Muslims at work and they’re fine people; and besides that, it’s just a tiny minority that’s doing all those things.” So, in other words, “We don’t need to worry about it.”

What do they mean by extreme? Certainly cutting off heads falls in that category. But, you know there are other things that are extreme, like beating your wife, child brides, inbreeding (i.e., marrying your first cousin). Those are extreme things too. And what do all these extreme things have in common? They’re all in the Sharia. (more…)

  ANN BARNHARDT, famous for publicly burning pages of the Koran, reacts to the French massacre here and here: I see that there have been many protest marches and gatherings in France wherein people are holding up signs saying, “Je suis Charlie.”  “I am Charlie.”  Um, I’m not Charlie.  These people were not the pillars of society or role models, as evidenced by their pro-sodomite blasphemy linked above.  Satan frequently uses these multi-vectored attacks because one has to be able to process multiple datasets simultaneously AND identify and maintain the connections (and disconnections) between them.  And, as we have discussed before, modern western man has been so dumbed-down and contra-educated that holding ONE premise and following a single-track logical progression is nearly impossible for most people today.  In this case, we have to juggle multiple subjects and then tease out the truth and the morally upright position and reaction.  Let’s see if we can do it. A.) These people did not deserve to be murdered.  Obviously. B.) They are not martyr saints. C.) Freedom of speech is not a “god” unto itself.  Only God is God, and His rights trump ours.  Americans, in particular, have a tendency to worship the Constitution and the American governmental paradigm, particularly with regard to the “rights of man” over and above God.  Careful with that.  It’s a very slippery slope. D.) The issue here is islam [sic], and the fault, blame and culpability for these murders…

FROM Father Frederick Faber’s The Foot of the Cross, as quoted at Christ or Chaos:

In the judgment of the world, and of worldly Christians, [the] hatred of heresy is exaggerated, bitter, contrary to moderation, indiscreet, unreasonable, aiming at too much, bigoted, intolerant, narrow, stupid, and immoral. What can we say to defend it? Nothing which they can understand. We had, therefore, better hold our peace. If we understand God, and He understands us, it is not so very hard to go through life suspected, misunderstood and unpopular.

(more…)

  JEANETTE V. writes: Two men who fell in love and had sex change operations are now getting married as lesbians. The only reason this is even covered by the news media is to desensitize people and make freakishness normal.

  FROM a New York Times report about the two brothers, Cherif and Said Kouachi, believed to have been the gunmen in the massacre in Paris on Wednesday: The massacre, which singled out cartoonists and other staff members at a newspaper that frequently mocked Islam, Christianity and all forms of religious and secular authority, left France stunned. It also raised questions about how Chérif Kouachi, so well known to the police for so many years, and his brother had managed to conceal their intentions. [Do any "terrorists" openly announce their intentions?] Part of the answer may be that they appear to have moved smoothly between normal immigrant society and an extremist Islamist underground. [Normal immigrant society is Muslim.] Born in the 10th Arrondissement, they came from secular backgrounds and initially drifted into petty delinquencies, not religious fanaticism. [To kill for the prophet is not Islamic fanaticism unless Mohammed was also an Islamic "extremist," in which case all Muslims are extremists.] Libération, a French newspaper, described Chérif Kouachi as an orphan whose parents were Algerian immigrants. It said he was raised in foster care in Rennes, in western France, and trained as a fitness instructor before moving to Paris, where he lived with his brother Said in the home of a convert to Islam. He held menial jobs, working at times as a pizza delivery man, shop assistant and fishmonger. [In other words, they found work and opportunity in France, but still resented their adopted country.]

IN REACTION to the French massacre, the entire Western world is calling for freedom of speech. But as Tiberge points out at Galliwatch, the very existence of large numbers of Muslim agitators in France is a result of the destruction of freedom of speech, not by terrorists but by the French elite:

Has it occurred to any of the apostles of freedom of speech that if there really were freedom of speech in France there would be no terrorism? Has it occurred to them that for forty years the French have been muzzled on behalf of the Muslims, and that the so-called freedom of speech they are “defending” today does not exist? Has it occurred to them that this is not really about freedom of speech at all? Are they trying to say that having fifteen million Muslims in their country is not a problem so long as they have “freedom of speech”? And since freedom of speech does NOT apply to the Front National or to the Catholics against moral depravity or to Identitarians fighting for their heritage, who is it that benefits from “freedom of speech”? Answer: The Muslims, the terrorists, and the pornocrats!

(more…)

THOMAS F. BERTONNEAU writes:

The criminals have been identified and confronted, two arrested, one killed.  Good. [CORRECTION: Two are still at large and one has turned himself in. Read here.]

But there is this, from the NBC Website: “Authorities identified the three [Charlie Hebdo murderers] as Said Kouachi and Cherif Kouachi, both French and in their early 30s, and 18-year-old Hamyd Mourad, whose nationality wasn’t immediately clear.”

I have italicized the incredibly stupid, incredibly mendacious, utterly wicked elements of the sentence.

(more…)