Art in Action

“What is beautiful to some people may appear to others to represent a problematic and pejorative system.”

This is, of course, just the first step. They’re testing the waters. I’d give it at least another five years before the “feminists” & their islamic brothers are ready to heap up the paintings of John William Waterhouse and burn them all, in their version of Savanarola’s bonfire of the vanities.

In the meantime, gaze upon the same artist’s Lady of Shalott, above, and marvel that such things were possible, once.

A Serious Question

I read with great interest, today, Vox Day’s post on “The anti-Churchian Alt-Right:

Please do read the whole thing.

I’m never quite sure what to make of VD. He insists that he’s a Christian, but he never seems to get very specific about it.

He doesn’t seem to accept the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, or any other living authority on what it means to be a Christian.

I tried to ask him for some details, today, but his blog has lately become very commenter-unfriendly. So here are my questions:

In your opinion, Vox Day, to be a Christian, which of the following propositions must one believe:

(1) God is pure act without potency.

(2) Jesus of Nazareth died on the cross.

(3) God and Jesus of Nazareth are one in substance.

Lying Liars

When was it – maybe two or three years ago? – that the open-borders folks were assuring us that there was nothing to worry our little heads about, ’cause illegal immigration was over, ’cause the economy was so bad – or something like that.

(Am I the only one who remembers this?)

Where are they now, as countless women & children, heeding Obama’s summons, flood across our Southern border?

Kamikaze Catholics

Galliawatch links to a couple of interesting videos featuring Jean-Michel di Falco, Bishop of the diocese of Gap & d’Embrun in Provence.

The videos are in French, but tiberge kindly provides an English translation.

Bishop di Falco describes himself as a fourth generation immigrant from Italy to France, and still remembers being called a “spaghetti.” (I guess that’s his claim to Holy Victimhood.)

Oh, and it seems he also got called a “toad” at some point or other.

Anyway, he simply loves Muslim immigrants and is deeply disturbed by the fact that others don’t: “the rejection of the Other, when he is different or comes from a foreign land, worries us. Often fear or violence are the consequences. Some even feel they are no longer welcome…”

Later, he continues:

“…Criticism from people who do not share our faith is understandable. But when it comes from Christians, those who read the Bible, sometimes even clergy, then I am surprised. It would be betraying Christ not to proclaim over and over again today his message of love for all, without discrimination of any sort.”

* * * * *


There are ordained Bishops of the Holy Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church, today, who believe that the message of Jesus of Nazareth was “love for all, without discrimination of any sort” – and who are “surprised” to learn that “those who read the Bible” might think otherwise.

I mean, whoah. What can one say?

Has Mark Steyn thrown National Review under the bus?

In the wake of Mark Steyn’s recent contretemps with his editor at National Review (somebody named Jason Steorts) people have been wondering whether Steyn’s been Derb’d.

Since, at this point, Steyn is surely a bigger deal than everybody else at NR put together, I think it makes more sense to ask: has he thrown NR under the bus?

Anyway, here are his last four posts at NRO, in chronological order:

12/20. Article: “The Age of Intolerance”

sample quote: “How do you make a fruit cordial? – Be nice to him. Or else.”

12/22. Corner Post: “Re-Education Camp”

sample quote: “I am sorry my editor at NR does not grasp the stakes. Indeed, he seems inclined to ‘normalize’ what GLAAD is doing. But, if he truly finds my ‘derogatory language’ offensive, I’d rather he just indefinitely suspend me than twist himself into a soggy pretzel of ambivalent inertia trying to avoid the central point – that a society where lives are ruined over an aside because some identity-group don decides it must be so is ugly and profoundly illiberal.”

12/24. Corner Post: “Mumbo-Jumbo for Beginners”

sample quote: “I don’t know why one of NR’s editorial staff could not have posted the court order with an accompanying explanation…”

[editors note: uh-oh. things are getting REALLY ugly here.]

1/3. “Happy Warrior” Column: “Heading South”

No sample quote this time. You simply must read the whole thing. Think what the late Lawrence Auster might have said about the Mandela funeral – if only he’d had a little more sense of humor.

Could this have been the last straw for the guys at NR, most of whom seem to be firmly in the Nelson Mandela = Martin Luther King = Jesus of Nazareth camp?

Bryan Caplan, Borders Abolitionist

Nick Land takes note of Tyler Cowen’s admission that “Plunking 500 million or a billion poor individuals in the United States most likely would destroy the goose laying the golden eggs.”

Land comments: “This sentence twists deeper into delirium with every reading. It has to be a candidate for the most insane splinter of sanity in history. (It makes me wonder whether an object the size of Jupiter, consisting of pure neutronium, colliding with Manhattan Island at 90% light speed, would most likely depress property values.)”

I really like that: “the most insane splinter of sanity in history.”

Bryan Caplan, on the other hand, reacting to Cowen’s remark, launches straight into insane insanity, comparing the cause of open borders to that of the abolition of slavery: “Yes, enslaving a Haitian is plainly worse than forbidding him to accept a job offer anywhere on earth except Haiti. But they’re both dire harms. How would you react if the world’s laws barred you from every non-Haitian labor market on earth? With weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Well. I must admit that, yes, I’d be pretty unhappy if I were barred by “the world’s laws” from every non-Haitian labor market on earth. But, then, I’m not Haitian. The people, culture and language of Haiti are utterly foreign to me. Forcing me to find a job there would be a social, if not a physical, death sentence. Obviously, this is not true of native Haitians – who, after all, grew up there, have both shaped and been shaped by their society, and presumably know the ropes sufficiently well to get along and go along and – who knows? – possibly even do their bit to improve the place.

The question Caplan ought to ask me is how I would react if “the world’s laws” barred me from every non-USA labor market on earth…to which I would reply that, in the first place, I am, pretty much, so barred, and, in the second place, I neither weep nor gnash my teeth about this. I don’t even lose any sleep over it – even though I’m stuck in a low-pay dead-end zero-security job the very thought of which would, no doubt, reduce Caplan to “weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Besides, Caplan’s characterization of the position of immigration restrictionists – that they want the “world’s laws” to forbid anybody “to accept a job offer anywhere on earth except” their original place of citizenship is utterly unhinged.

In the immortal words of Margaret Thatcher, “No, no, no, no no!”

(1) I don’t want there to be any “world’s laws” at all bearing on employment.

(2) I have no problem with anybody anywhere accepting any job offer whatsoever.

(3) But I do have a problem – a very big problem – with people who have contributed nothing to the extremely expensive (a) infrastructure and (b) welfare system (now including Obamacare!) of my country coming here and exploiting said (a) and (b) without first proving that their presence will be a net benefit to all, or at least most, of those of us who have so contributed, and not just to themselves and to a small political and economic elite.

(4) And I have an even bigger problem with the fact that the minute anybody “of color” crosses the desert or steps off the boat or gains admission in any other way, s/he/it instantly qualifies for “affirmative action” – i.e., racial preferences that privilege s/he/it over my kin and kind.

(5) And I have an even bigger problem than that with the fact that all this is taking place within an ideological climate, imposed from on high by the powers that be, of politically correct multiculturalism, which, far from requiring immigrants to change so as to accomodate themselves to the traditional culture of America, instead positively encourages them to maintain their own separate identity, insisting that it is, precisely, the traditional culture of America that must change to accomodate itself to them.

So far as I can tell, Libertarianism Inc. is barely even trying to do anything about the welfare state and affirmative action these days, and when it comes to multiculturalism, the Cowen’s and Caplan’s of the world seemingly just can’t wait to sell their fellow Americans’ birthright for a mess of pottage cheap chalupas.

In any case, given Caplan’s evident inability to paraphrase the position of his opponents on this issue accurately or honestly, he ought not to try: he should confine himself to responding to actual quotations.

Moldbug Resartus

I’ve been so preoccupied for the last few weeks teaching new courses on logic & ethical theory & intro phil that, until today, I missed the latest issue of Radish!

Suffice it to say (if you didn’t already beat me to it): do not pass go, do not collect $200 – click on the link and go straight to Hell Radish.

The topic is libertarianism’s racism problem.

Long. Wordy. Brilliant. Too many quotes from Thomas Carlyle, but, hey – that goes with the territory.

Since I still think of myself as something of a libertarian, I will need to respond, at some point.

In the meantime, enjoy.