It is pretty normal and natural that any society can reserve the right to apprehend those who are violating their laws or borders, just as one would expect the Police to use force if someone was beginning to resist their arrest, even if such a crime would not normally seemingly merit violent of action.
It is simply an issue of not allowing anyone to break the law without consequence.
But not the case to the PC EU:
EU Interior Commissioner Cecilia Malmström has warned Spain that it cannot use force to prevent immigrants from crossing the border into its North African enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla. The commissioner said that she would not hesitate to take action if she saw clear signs of European laws being broken, reports the Público online new site.
Malmström’s comments on Monday came days after a controversy flared up over a video in which a sub-Saharan migrant is shown being beaten by Civil Guard officers after he climbed the fence separating Morocco from Melilla.
“Border vigilance measures should be proportional and force can only be used when it is necessary and required in order for agents to continue to carry out their duties, to protect their own safety and their lives. Force must not be used as a deterrent against the unauthorised crossing of the border,” the Swedish commissioner said in answer to a question asked in the European Parliament by a Basque Country MEP representing the Bildu party, Josu Juaristi.
Basically, a hilarious standard is being created because it gives the Eurocommunists an upset stomach to think that force might be used in the process of arresting a flagrant violator of the standing laws.
Now, perhaps such a statement from a fringe party during a season where Europe faced no immigration issues would be somehow respectable, because, after all, there is no pressing need to curb illegal entry, but even still…
We are trapped in a world of absurdity because politicians increasingly ratchet up their sense of humanity until ‘force’ itself, when in the upholding of the law, is no longer ‘legal.’
But many of these European states have brought this upon themselves when they have willfully bent their necks to a central authority that is hellbent on driving Europe into the ground.
I am always skeptical when someone becomes celebrated by mainstream media or the news as a potential leader of the people, some icon of rebellion. Chances are, the have been selected, celebrated and endorsed precisely because some Elites have viewed their ideas as appealing to them. And what we know about Elites: they never have any intention to meaningfully give up their power or influence, and would prefer to extend it more than anything else.
Someone has decided that Russell Brand, perhaps, is the sort of useful idiot that can go out and shill for vague values and “revolution,” and is perhaps a good means to making a buck… Or, thre’s the potential that he could be some true rebel that has somehow landed a gig.
Now when someone tells me that the Occupy Wall Street movement was some eye opening experience for them, and I had not heard about their political views before hand… I immediately become skeptical.
I’ve been having political thoughts (albeit bad ones) since a kid, and I quickly became skeptical and repelled by the mainstream issues that were even chosen and view them all as some sort of diversion.
I heard some intereting analysis from a fellow on PoFo not too long ago (by the name of Grassroots1), who noted that e felt that the Tea Party & OWS would have been good allies. For, in the end, both had a similar agenda, and both wanted meaningful change to a culture of public bailouts of private corporations. In that there was some good analysis and potential for OWS…
But what we quickly saw occur was OWS become an incredibly delineated, solitary “rebellion” of just one story within the greater discontent, and we also saw that the organization became embedded and dominated by typical radicals that would never be able to extend their hands to a broader swathe of society.
I am inclined to believe that Russell Brand is just a silly figure that, if we aren’t careful, will be expected to “speak for our generation” (GOD FORBID!!!), and to “lead us.”
I tell you: anywhere Russell Brand leads you will have to do with his personal bank account and book deal (though he might not know or admit it), and it will have to do more specifically with whatever agenda the Elites behind him have in mind.
Don’t buy his book.
Don’t follow his lead.
Don’t pay attention. Unless it is to laugh… Perhaps he is a good comedian, after all, but I see no reason why his gestures here shouldn’t be treated as another comedic gesture.
Not to mention I do not even know of how to make of the douchey-ness that seeps through towards the end of the interview.
Femen, the radical feminist organization which has garnered fame for utter insanity, has proven itself useful in pointing out the ridiculous nature of the occupied & degenerate Western liberal justice system which, having no regard for any of its own institutions nor any concept of propriety, has essentially sided with Femen and thrown the book at others who have challenged their order.
No doubt, a simple watch through the video will reveal just how utterly nutty the Femen tactics are (as is to be expeced) but the fact that after pulling such a stunt they received 1,500 Euros each for being rouged up by guards shows precisely the nature of liberal European courts who have zero regard for the sanctity of some of their greatest heritage sites, but would hold guards to exaggerated standards while arresting such cretins.
And, of course, while the stunt pulled off on the French island is utterly unacceptable, it is a far cry off compared to Femen’s deed, and the punishment that they received was far lesser.
This is why I love Russia Today: it is one of the few reliable, famous sources that will actually go after the hypocrisy of the West, and will point out the negativity of the direction that we have been taking for a very long time.
The level of hypocrisy within Western institutions, and the level to which they pander to the far left and slap their wrists lightly while witch hunting the right wing, is an issue that should be of a concern to everyone who has ever considered that democracy should be a free & fair notion.
This isn’t even really a ‘left vs. right’ issue, but it is one where we are seeing a gross double standard within institutions that should be objective more or less.
Another fun note:
I turn 30 today.
Sexual politics has become a thing dominating modern politics for the last two decades. The irony is that modern man seems to always complain about the lack of privacy that we enjoy, yet at the same time these issues are pressured to become public affairs. There are massive attempts to manipulate public opinion and to force certain agendas down our throats and so, it is with some degree of regret, that I find myself in the world of people commenting on the highly personal.
It is, no doubt, a victory of misguided or nefarious forces to turn the highly private into the highly public, and to shift discussion towards a decidedly individual topic. But, nonetheless, we must present our opinions respectfully when it is relevant, and stand up for our positions.
Some quotations form James Kalb I caught off of a great Tweeter’s feed:
"Those who say sexual love is 'bigger than both of us' are more right than they know." http://t.co/yI409Ivhsz
— Wagner Clemente Soto (@wcsoto) October 14, 2014
The message here is one that should be rather clear… That to some degree our sexuality does have greater ramifications, and thereby it isn’t some pleasant choice that we make, but it is rather always bearing a large impact on those around us.
Perhaps it could, in some universe, be a private affair, but that is certainly not our universe, and it is certainly not even the will of those who actively engage in sexual politics who attempt to tie everything back to an issue of our individual sexualities.
And it is to them that the suggestion ought to be made that the choices which we make as people do have large impacts on everyone that is around us. Thus, we see why there has always been an attachment to conservative viewpoints on the sexuality of people — to avoid the more pervasive, negative impacts that sexuality can have upon vast numbers of people.
The notion is simple, and something that nearly all of us understand intuitively: to avoid problems and confusions over things we limit the scope of people allowed to use them. Not because we hate people, but because we understand that mistakes are regularly made and the more that people are involved in them the more confusing the situations become, and the greater risk of disaster exists.
Thus: sexuality, regardless of what we want, is ideally restricted to the confines of monogamous relationships that are public and officiously sanctioned.
Love is, as they say, ironically larger than just you or me, it is larger than just any single couple or any single set of desires or preferences, but because of those far ranging impacts, it is something that ought to be minimalized and played down whenever possible.
And it is likewise important to remember that the basis of things that we choose ought not be to obtain pleasure or personal gratification, but ought to likewise be aimed at having a positive impact on those around us. And that such choices are a superior reflection on ourselves when we prioritize a greater social harmony over a personal indulgence.
It is precisely for reasons like these that I have given up alcohol.
I don’t think any of these statements should be treated as controversial, but God knows, even when speaking in the least offensive terms possible, it is common for fault to be found in any words on the topic.
Yesterday I was out at a cafe with a good friend and we contemplated the distressing nature of fear of animals… we found it rather distressing that there are many modern peoples with a fear or antipathy towards animals, or people who even just view animals as somehow ‘out of place.’ I fear that this might even be a growing phenomena for young people around the world today.
All of human history, until the last 100 years, has been characterized by the overwhelming majority of people being close & intimate with a variety of domesticated animals. And just to give a shout out to our veg friends: in some instances the labor & proximity with these animals did not even involve a meat based diet, but the animals were in better circumstances than any factory farm and were used merely for their byproducts like milk or eggs, a la Hindu or Buddhist communities…
Point being: our agrarian or maritime communities were incredibly dependent on the living creatures around them, and in their daily lives there was a close proximity to a variety of animals, whether wild or domesticated.
The very symbolism and language used by our ancestors was one that was colored with animals & nature.
The fact that now there are modern children with unrealistic perspectives on animals, and even sometimes fear of dogs they find to be ‘big,’ is something that I find sad. I think it is a grave disservice to children that they do not grow up in an environment where they have been able to spend time positively with animals — whether as pets or adventures into nature where they come into closer contact. I do sympathize with people who have concerns about the humanity of keeping pets, naturally, but these people get a pass in the sense that it is their very concern for the well being of creatures that has influenced their decision making — and such a process will, no doubt, leave a relatively positive perception of animals to the people around them that they influence…
I remember a Star Trek episode where the children on the Enteprise, during class, were playing with puppies and a variety of animals, as in the future it was seemed to still be incredibly important for children to develop appreciation and proximity to animals. Similarly, I’d support any curriculum that could facilitate familiarizing children with animals & giving them positive experiences from which to grow themselves into being less fearful and more conscious of the animals around them.
We need to take great pains to ground ourselves… To be more humble, to be more kind; to be more considerate of others, and to be practiced in our high moral standards…
A big part of that is to also be compassionate and kind to animals, and to pass that on to others, and perhaps this is something that even affects us more deeply than we initially consider it to.
I have been annoyed for some time now by Vice. I remember it several years ago as being some new, edgy thing with some great stories. It was incredibly alternative and a ‘breath of fresh air.’ I thought of it less as ‘journalism’ or ‘documenting’ things and more as a website or group that focused on documenting and hosting videos of people’s adventures to great places.
This is where the whole informal feeling to it started, but naturally this informal feeling was gradually polished. But when you polish informality, it is like polishing a Turd and hoping that it will shine. It is now just a juvenile, “alt media” portal that caters to the immature.
There seems to be more stories now about “dude smoke weed” “This rapper is crazy and click here to see why,” “Interview with a terrorist ZOMG.” “In Brazil: Drugs & Sex, Oh Yeah.” The fact that they have a whole new outlet devoted to music should be enough to tip you off that this is going to be some glorified and slightly more serious version of a humor website.
But if you wanted the evidence that they are essentially just Mainstream Media with an “edge,” here it is:
By all accounts, the brief tenure of Charles Davis as an associate editor working out of the Los Angeles bureau for Vice Media was not a happy one.
He showed promise when he was hired in July, after having written a couple of successful stories for the company as a freelancer, the first one dating back to late 2012.
But he was dismissed less than two months later, and shortly afterward, Davis went public with a series of accusations against his former employer, backed up by screenshots of emails he posted this week to Twitter, suggesting that the company had killed articles he’d written because of potential conflicts with advertisers and “brand partners” of the company.
Today, some of those tweets were published by Gawker, where in late May a piece was published citing a number of anonymous sources and former Vice Media staffers who said that Vice had edited stories to make them more palatable to sponsors, citing several specific incidents. At the time, Vice denied the story categorically.
Davis’ accusations, if true, complicate that denial. And Davis, who to be sure is a motivated source, told Capital that he believes he was fired after repeatedly writing stories that offended brands, and for his greenlighting of an anti-N.F.L. story from an independent journalist without first “running it up the flagpole” to get it approved by officers of the company.
Davis, now 30, had his first freelance story for Vice.com published on Dec. 21, 2012. On Dec. 2, 2013, Vice published a story of his about unpaid labor among liberal media organizations. In January, he followed that up with a story about unpaid labor at the South by Southwest festival. At this year’s festival, which took place in March, Vice Media co-sponsored an event venue with AT&T.
Vice protects its corporate sponsors and advertisers just like anyone else, and we can certainly guess that they are doing their best to grow all of that just like anybody else.
Next time you go and look at some amazing story over there, remember the only thing that separates them from mainstream media these days is scale & target audience.
Just watch the BBC ,National Geographic, Journeyman Productions, etc. and you will be able to get quality reporting and stories but without some douchey hipster hosting the debacle in a contrived unprofessional way.
Below is a very necessary and interesting podcast — if you are not in the habit of listening to podcasts, I advise you to start. They are a fabulous way to use what would otherwise be downtime to learn. I sometimes listen very passively and am doing other things during it, but just the bits and pieces of information always pay off…
And this is one of the better podcasts I have heard covering the topic of ‘the clan’ within traditional society:
It is from RN Drive which is some Australian regular, radio program I believe, and I highly endorse specifically the ‘War Podcast Feed’ available on player.fm.
The topic covers how previously societies functioned based off of the credibility of individuals and the clans to which they belonged; it was sort of a method to insure the proper behavior of everyone in incredibly decentralized communities.
When the reputation of the family becomes paramount, the amount of pressure put on the individual to behave in a proper fashion increases exponentially, and so to comes the goal for the clan to likewise enforce standards among their own. The sort of standards that one cannot easily enforce in the least if we are talking about a time where there is no centralized governing force or public education.
While it is not covered, it appears that the West has taken the opposite approach to this during the course of its ‘free’ years, and we have essentially abolished all manner of ‘clan’ as an identifiable social order and we likewise have successfully worked in abolishing even the greater importance of the family unit through the mass sanctioning of divorce and all manner of ‘alternative families’. Likewise, so too has our concept of the individual prioritizing an honor/shame dichotomy over the exaggerated sense of personal liberty that they now enjoy.
And we can all see that there is the continuous failure of the Western societies to curb personal decadence & depression that infest the regular peoples and create a subtle pull towards criminality and social degeneration. Of course, there are some people who do not buy into this line of thought — and they are called liberals, and we will all be saying “I told ya so” at larger volumes in another 50 years when most of your major cities all look like Detroit.
& of course, it is necessary for us to fully understand this aspect of Middle Eastern culture to even pretend that we can appraise what is going on there. Without some basic knowledge of this aspect of their society our analysis will always be incomplete, as will our accusations towards them of not fulfilling what we expect of them.
The Hobby Lobby debate is a great illustration of a distracting issue that quickly devolves into a meme contest of mud slinging & false comparisons. The basic facts of the case are often ignored, and there is little to no discussion on what people actually believe government or business should do, or what obligations they actually have towards people. It seems to be more about what team you signed up for years ago, and what shirt you are wearing, than about the actual discussion of it.
That is why being ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ isn’t helpful in this debate. The only thing that is actually helpful is having a clear view of the role of government, the role of business, and the role of individuals within society. And when you even take a moment to understand all of these perspectives that you might have, and come to conclusions on them, you are then suddenly overwhelmed by the absurdity of the Hobby Lobby debate as it stands….
Let us be clear for a minute: Hobby Lobby is only fighting to not pay for 4 of 20 different contraceptive devices that they believe specifically to be involved in the process of abortion.
They even released a statement saying that the 4 items they do not provide through their health care plan are generally quite cheap and readily available, and any of their employees can certainly purchase these on their own dime if they do not intend to use any of the other 16 methods that range from the classic Jimmy Hat to vasectomies & female sterilization surgeries (The Blaze).
But some people are still not satisfied because of the four things they cannot buy — most notably, the morning after pill, for this is where they have decided to draw their line in the sand, believing that abortion is an immoral action, and they do not want to spend any of their money on it.
There is a really simple line of argument for the right of Hobby Lobby to not do this:
(1) People should be able to negotiate their terms of business.
I simply believe that private enterprise has the right to come up with their own contracts.
If person A agrees to work for person B for 40/hours week for X-amount of money, and they put in the contract that person A also gets one bottle of Jack Daniels every Friday night, that is their business; if person A agrees only to work for person B if he is paid in Swedish Krona because he plans on returning to Sweden at the end of the summer and he wants his money in that, so be it; if person A wants to be paid exclusively in foodstuffs, that is also their business.
it seems remarkably silly that a person wouldn’t be able to negotiate the terms of a health care plan.
(2) People Should Be Able To Express Religion / Ideology, Even In Business.
Is it the best idea for a major chain store to advocate a religious or ideological standpoint? Probably not. But if the local Hallal butcher wants to talk about how great of a Muslim he is, or a Hallal grocer wants to insure the Hallal-ity of his groceries, why not?
Let’s say we even have a private Buddhist school, and it only has about 100 students… They only need about 10 teachers and a few other staff, and they want every employee to be a devout Buddhist because of the environment that they try to foster, and they give special priority to Buddhist monks or nuns to be teachers…
Can we be upset with them if they hire only Buddhists? Can we be upset with them if they hire only monks & nuns, and for these people they have zero plans for birth control?
Follow this logic t its natural conclusion.
(3) Personal Responsibility & Strength
I am responsible for everything that I do. if I were to ride my bicycle without a helmet consistently, who could I blame if I suffered a head injury? My employer who didn’t buy me a helmet even though he knew I was a cyclist?
If my employer doesn’t buy me a helmet… I guess if I want to cycle, I just have to use a portion of my own income to buy my own helmet. If my employer doesn’t want to give me abortion pills but still offers to buy me condoms, should I really complain if they do not buy me my abortion pill?
(4) If You Want Universal Health Care So Bad, How About You Universalize Health Care?
I want universal health care in the sense that I think everyone who doesn’t make a certain amount of money should have affordable and essentially free health care provided by the state.
I have no idea why we would just fight for businesses to provide some sort of… vast health care plan. Then we are denying health care to loads of unemployed people. Then we are denying health care to people who will just go to jobs that will cut their hours below X-amount so they do not qualify for certain health care costs…
I thought there was some goal for this generation of young Americans to universalize the health care system…
… Instead, they are taking the fight to make hobby lobby buy them abortion pills, as if this is the new frontier of a meaningful healthcare plan.
Whatever happened to the campaign for universal health care? How did the Left suddenly see this Red Herring, and then go barking up this tree?
They are just being duped by super-liberal organizations capitalizing off of anti-religious & anti-conservative sentiment.
This really should all be addressed in calm, quiet terms and be an issue about private enterprise and its rights to negotiate their own terms of service…
If this was really about health care, why would we focus on getting private businesses to buy abortion pills for people while the far greater injustice is the fact that many people are without viable health care plans?
I think the whole thing is a distraction from real issues & being discussed in entirely the wrong way.
Perhaps we should all go sit on some ice for a minute and re-think our priorities.
I am not sure how I feel about the Washington Redskins debacle because I understand that it is a dated & potentially pejorative term. Not only that, but I feel that the topic itself is somewhat of a distraction — it is a specific instance whose details are irrelevant about a bigger question. The bigger question being: to what extent are these things racist, and to what extent do we have to act to curb them?
The foremost part of the discussion: to what extant are they racist, is the least of my concerns. The sensitivity of peoples varies incredibly. The second part is more interesting because it discusses the idea of the government’s role in an official capacity of interfering with the free speech & independence of the people.
Currently, pornography can be trademarked & copyrighted, but offensive / racist things cannot be trademarked. I think this just about sums up political correctness of the day: it is completely OK to be a pornographer or do whatever you wish with your sexuality, even if it is considered offensive and degrading to significant portions of the population, because that has something to do with exercising your liberty. But if you have a football team that has what we perceive as a racist symbol we shall revoke it.
So it does bring up a great question of to what extent the government can go to pursue vendettas. Because that is what they are: personal campaigns with government office to advance a specific outlook or ideology in the face of people who, as private citizens, embrace something different.
It should be clear: if we wanted to pretend our democracy / republic was truly freedom orientated and insured the expression of whatever, we wouldn’t let the government push any agenda on free peoples, and we wouldn’t even allow the government to advance political holidays or political agendas within our schools. But, of course, all that is incredibly laughable and that is why I am not a libertarian. Simply stated: our democracies & our republics are perpetually subject to interference & degradation at the hands of politicians supported by the masses of people who have no real regard for the liberties & duties bestowed unto us by the Founding Fathers and their Constitution.
The whole thing has become a moot point, and incredibly purposeless. What is the point of us trying to prove the point that, objectively, there cannot be these pushes for the government to interfere with our total & complete independence…. there is none. And that is why we should just toss the idea of democracy right out the window and understand it for what it is: perpetual ideological warfare within the United States with each side attempting to use the media and government as a tool to silence and destroy the other.
The Left Wing is trying to create an environment where their sacred cows are supreme. If anyone stands in the way of the GLBTQ / Critical Race Theory agendas they advance they are subject to being branded a thousand terrible things and ostracized, for one, but in other cases they will be boycotted or fired from work.
In my opinion, this is the real story — one where government offices become political tools of warfare, turned against the people to advance the ideological positions of private individuals.
II think that there was a time when people would certainly say well, I believe this is unacceptable, but I can take no legal action against it because it would be taking away their freedom of speech… We would be running into the John Stuart Mill scenario where, while we disapprove, we are not able to take any action because it falls outside of the boundaries of governmental intervention…
& due to whatever reason, this has been slowly & surely eroded within America and an environment of perpetual ideological warfare has been launched that will only end with bitterness & uncivility.
That, my friends, is the real story, and not the distraction of the Washington Redskins symbol.
It furthermore stands as a proof that no one actually wants to live in a free & democratic society… Unless it is defined closely with their own perceptions of it.
So, again, it goes back to the fact that the point is moot, and we are damned to this idiot slugmatch over political issues where government power itself has become a cudgel, and the entire intent of our democratic society is lost.