Notra Dame, Paris, is Burning

The French revolution murdered tens of thousands of people. Many of them were priests -- even priests who had supported the revolution fell to The Terror. But they knew enough to not destroy Notre Dame.

In 1944, Adolf Hilter wanted Paris burned as his forces were driven out.

The military, however, knew better, and did nothing. If they had burned Paris to the ground, they feared that their lives would be forfeit. Considering the conclusion of the war, it was a smart play on their part. The Nazis knew not to destroy Notre Dame.

Modern day is not so smart.

2019 has seen a rash of destruction of Catholic churches throughout France. It's countrywide. 

There are only two real culprits.

The first is the same people from 1792. I don't care if you call them Robespierre or "Occupy" or whatever form the commie bastards are choosing this week, they're all the same pricks. They're anti-theist, they're nasty, and they have no qualms about destroying the past to further their agenda. In fact, the destruction of the past and the Church itself is part of their plan for success.

The second group of the usual suspects .... is exactly who you're thinking they are. If you're one of the few people who can't guess, some hints.

• They like destroying other people's iconography (like big Buddhist statues)
• They're responsible for trashing parts of Germany (like Hamburg on New Year's)
• They've gotten a free pass in Europe for years because to arrest them for their crimes would be "racist against migrants."

That's right! The Amish!

No, of course not. I kid. I mean the Jews.

Oh, did I say that out loud? Sorry. I've been listening to Congresswoman Omar lately.

I meant Muslims.

There is a potential third group. There are more than a few dickheads lately who call themselves "Nordic" are anti-Christian dickheads who are your standard Incel, but feel the need to destroy things and pick on Christians so they can feel like a man. Look at Varg Vikernes. Of course, these dicks will usually pick on women. Charming, right?

I wouldn't define them as "Norse" though, since I have friends who worship Loki and Thor et al who are three times the human beings these cocksuckers are.

Either way, there are suspects. Fairly obvious and loud suspects.

Coincidentally, Notre Dame of Paris is on fire.

Now, it must, of course be too soon to declare arson, right? The fire only just happened within hours of my writing this. (Okay, the place is still on fire as I write this.) Anything could cause fire in a building that old. It's even under construction.

Look at that blaze and you tell me that went from zero to sixty before the fire department could reach them, and you tell me with a straight face that it's not arson.  Given how many churches have been trashed this year alone in France, to ask me to consider that it's NOT arson is an insult to my intelligence.

To the people who did this, I ask that you read these books and learn what your fate will be. You want to play by these rules? I war gamed the outcome.

Whoever did this will burn. We know the French are too cowardly to arrest the real perps (with luck, they'll have a quiet accident).

But that's what Hell is for.

#MakeItStop -- please, make the stupid stop

The other day, I hammered out a blog on all the reasons why the stupidity around the Orlando shooting was stupid. It was an ISIS moron, he was NOT using an AR-15, an AR-15 is basically the same as your standard hunting rifle only it looks cooler.  You can't even believe the ways in which an AR-15 is really used.

Really, a word to the stupid: an AR-15 that look like an M4 is still an AR-15.

Everyone decided that a total gun ban would work, even though that the Paris attack happened in a country where guns ARE COMPLETELY ILLEGAL, EVEN FOR THE COPS.

But now? Thursday was the day where sanity completely went out the window. Talk of secret abolition of gun rights? Talk of getting rid of due process because it's a threat to security? Yes, really, I heard a Senator talk about that (Sen Joe Manchin, D-WV). Right after the other idiot talked about the AR-47.

Seriously, we went from a shadow ban on the second amendment to talk of suspending due process in the course of a week? This has reached the level of parody--if we were parodying the worst fear of every tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist. Congrats, politicians, I'll be looking up the nearest gun store.

The stupid, precious, it burns us. We hates it. We hates it forever.

Also, yes, the second Amendment means individual people.  Even Penn and Teller can tell you that.

And apparently, shooter Omar Mateen was reported to the FBI by a gun shop because he was being shifted and asked about body armor. Last time I checked, coworkers even told the FBI that Mateen was a freaking psycho. A background check that goes back to grammar school insists that Mateen has always been nuts, and cheered the 9/11 attackers.

But let's talk about guns, not about terrorism.

Some idiots like to talk about Australia's gun grab. Here you go. This is how safe Australia is now. On the left is the usual spin. On the right is the truth.

No pun intended.

Oh, and did we mention that France's terrorist attack happened where guns were completely illegal? It's almost as though murderous terrorist bastards will break the law to get the required weapons. What a thought!

But hey, I'm certain there's some idiot out there saying "well, that's just Paris."

How about this?

Then of course, you have the morons boasting that "a gun wouldn't have stopped this!!!!!"

Except here's Michael Z. Williamson dissecting the entire argument. He goes on for a while, but I think this boils down to the following section.

The defensive shooter engages the hostile. The hostile must choose to ignore, take cover, or return fire.

If he chooses to ignore it, he remains a target and the odds of him being shot increase, and if he is shot, the engagement ends, and no further lives are lost. If this happens before he quits or runs out of ammo, it is a NET POSITIVE for the group..

If he takes cover, he is not shooting for a few moments, and in that few moments, more people can escape or formulate an attack. (Barstools can be as deadly as bullets, when thrown or swung.)  NET POSITIVE.

If he returns fire, anyone not in the cone near the defensive shooter is not being shot at. This is a NET POSITIVE for all those people, and a slight negative for those in the defender's immediate position.

It is possible the defender will hit a bystander in the process.  However, as he is deliberately choosing a single hostile target, the odds still improve for the remainder, and if the hostile is hit, the engagement stops. This is probably still a net positive.

The defender may be hit. Negative for him, but he accepted that risk. And in those few seconds, the fact is that more victims can escape or respond. This is still a NET POSITIVE for the GROUP.

Yes, the defender may decide his best course of action is to flee. If so...there is no negative nor positive for the group. They remain as they were.

But, this assumes an engagement takes place. Knowing certain areas contain a lot of defensive shooters, attackers tend to avoid them. NET POSITIVE for the group.

Gee, it's almost like shooters go where the guns aren't. Funny that.

And wasn't there an Uber driver who stopped a mass shooting back in April?

And aren't guns soooo much of a problem?

As I said yesterday: No. But let's have more of a breakdown.

Meanwhile, in another part of the universe -- also Florida -- the same place that hosted the Blind Sheikh, terrorist mastermind behind the first World Trade Center attack, decided that a homosexual British conservative was far too divisive and terrifying, and possibly hostile. Does anyone else see a problem here?

We won't even go into the little weakling reporter who went to a gun store, fired an AR-15, and claimed PTSD afterwards. He's a man with the appropriate name of Kuntzman. Can't even make this one up.

Even Larry had fun with him.

Who am I kidding, everyone did.

Seriously, all of the anti-gun people need to step back, take a deep breath, and try not to cry into your non-alcoholic, vegan approved fake milk. Try going out to a gun range, and firing off a few rounds. And if you don't listen to the range master, at least try not to deafen yourself or shoot yourself in the foot. And eat some bacon while you're at it.


Other links:
A former Navy SEAL defends the AR-15.

Vlog: reviewing Dan Brown.

You've probably read my review of the Da Vinci Code, if you're a long time fan of the blog. If you're not, well, this will be entirely new to you. There's additional content at the end, by the way. Just for fun.

Science and Religion … Stupid Catholics.

Every time I hear that all of religion is against science, I just sigh.

They want to cite Galileo. You can read about him in my evolution article. Short version: Considering that he found himself on trial by insulting the Pope, he was lucky, and merely put under house arrest. The charges basically amounted to being a jerk without a license … I should note that Richard Dawkins has such a license. He's British.

Well, I'm Catholic. I think I'm part of the only religion that has it's own observatory. Two of them. One of them is parked outside the Pope's summer home of Castel Gandalfo. We also have a very odd blessing … in 1924, the Church has a blessing for a seismograph.

My church is weird.

Then they whine: evolution!!!  I reply: the Church gave it its "blessing" in 1926 -- meaning that if it is true, that's merely the mechanism of God's action, and it's perfectly okay for Catholics to believe in it.

The major cry about religion being against science amounts to a cry of “Oh, what about embryonic stem cells. Waaaahhhh!!!!!” The short version on embryonic stem cells is that they have been portrayed as a potential miracle cure for practically everything from cancer to paraplegia, and the evil religious people are against it, because all religious people are against science, and progress, etc.

The stated position of most religions I've kept up on has been “Can we have a scientific advancement that doesn't involve killing infants in utero? Thanks.”

However.... Considering that, in 2007, Kyoto University researcher Shinya Yamanaka has already been able to transform skin cells into any other type of cell, I don't think stems cells are really relevant, do you? (Nature, June 6, 2007).

But, what do I know? I'm only the stupid Catholic. Richard Dawkins says that all religious people are stupid, and Dawkins is an educated man.

Let's go through a brief history of scientific research. However, I have a little list … actually, it's a long, long list, and a good chunk of them are here.

I think I'll cover the big names to start with. Below the break

Europe Has Some Problems.

Europe Has Some Problems.

[Before reading this blog, I would to ask readers to go through it with a critical eyes. I would prefer it if someone could supply me with numbers for or against anything I am saying here. I am relying heavily on anecdotal evidence and half remembered details. I retain a lot, but that doesn't help much. In short, I'm flying blind. Any numbers for or against what I'm saying would be appreciated.]

In the Brooklyn museum, during the reign of Mayor Rudy Giuliani, there was an issue involving two piece of “art.”

One, was an image of Jesus Christ, symbol of the entire Christian faith, in a jar of urine.

The other was a statue of the Virgin Mary, symbol of at least the Catholic church, smothered in elephant dung with photos of female genitalia plastered all over.

While Giuliani went postal, and complained about the museum, nothing really happened. No one was assaulted. There were no riots. Nothing was burned down. The “artists” were not hunted down and burned at the stake by a horde of angry Christians. Though I think the “artists” should be forced to stare at their own creations for a week.

Let's go to Europe.

There was a Danish political cartoonist who wanted to note how much Muslims self-censor any condemnation of Islamic terrorists, and that you can't even do a critical analysis of Islam like you can of, say, the old testament.

And, to show that Islam could tolerate criticism and would not censor anyone ... they had weeks of riots in reaction to the criticism and tried to censor the danish cartoonist.

I will grant you that political cartoons aren't funny, but this is like Norway having a riot over Hagar the Horrible. Were the cartoons worth the lives of over a hundred and thirty nine people and over eight hundred injured in the international rioting?

Imagine if it wasn't a cartoon, but a movie. Then you can imagine Theo Van Gough being knifed to death in an alley.

Not long ago, Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel has said that creating a multi-cultural society has completely failed.

Apparently, this little bon mot was started by central bank board member saying the country was being made “more stupid” by poorly educated and unproductive Muslim migrants.

Merkel's comment: “Multikulti”, the concept that “we are now living side by side and are happy about it,” does not work. “This approach has failed, totally,” she said, adding that immigrants should integrate and adopt Germany’s culture and values.

“Subsidising immigrants” isn’t sufficient, Germany has the right to “make demands” on them, such as mastering the language of Goethe and abandoning practices such as forced marriages.....

I'm going to agree that Europe's idea of multiculturalism is stupid. Multiculturalism on the continent is more Balkanization than anything else. The Balkans were held together by Empires and dictators for centuries; there were multiple groups, with separate cultures and identities, who did not want to associate with each other, hated each other's guts, and wanted to kill each other for about a thousand years.

In France, they keep their Muslim immigrant population in glorified slums.

In Holland, government officials have suggested making sharia law officially part of the legal system of the Netherlands (sharia: stone female adulterers, cut off the hands of thieves, and a legal defense for rape ).

I live in Queens. We have 167 ethnic groups speaking 117 different languages. We get along fine. I am the whitest guy I know, yet can walk through the Barrio, Harlem, three Chinatowns, and Brighton Beach, without anyone looking at me like I came from another planet. Then again, within four miles of me, I have dozens of flavors of Christianity, a Bhuddist temple, a synagogue, and a cultural mix of Hispanic, Asian, Indian, Italian, Irish, and those are just the restaurants. We generally all speak English, or we at least attempt to, and if we can't understand each other, there is usually someone who will translate nearby.

So, what the hell is Europe's problem?

They have several. France, for example, insists on a cookie-cutter policy. If you deviate or stand out in anyway, you're a target. The only place for hajibs or yarmulkes are in Catholic schools. Wearing a cross is also banned. Most of these policies were passed under Jacques Chirac, and don't seem to be going anywhere.

Then you have the Netherlands, where the growing Muslim population are mostly young, the first generation born in country (mostly young folk) are growing up with extreme feelings of identity—to their religion. This could just be their version of being a teenager, but instead of being Goth or Emo, it's extreme religion. Unfortunately, until recently, for over ten years no one objected when they assaulted groups of Jews, or committing assorted other hate crimes.

And, recently, one of their politicians was put on trial for … being politically incorrect in a film. Since I haven't seen it, I can't say how offensive it is, but in America, CAIR could have just filed a lawsuit, and made money. People would have boycotted the film. Life moves on. In the Netherlands, you can't even say bad things about Muslims, even when there is a segment of the population that is becoming an issue?

I'm not 100% certain about Germany's problems, if their Islamic population has any specific grievances, or what trouble, if any, they may have caused in Germany in order to spark Merkel's comment.

So, I agree with Merkel that Europe has no idea what they're doing. Time for them to come to Queens.

Then there is Merkel's next line … “We feel tied to Christian values. Those who don’t accept them don’t have a place here.”

Wait, what? I'm sorry, I'm going to hit the brakes right here. Christian values? This is the same Europe that rejected anything religious in the European Union, right? The EU founded on anti-religious Enlightenment ideas? When Pope John Paul II suggested that Europe even had Christian roots, he was told to stuff it. So, Chancellor, you're a little late.

Here's where I seriously start developing problems: A recent study by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation think tank showed around one-third of Germans feel the country is being “over-run by foreigners” and the same percentage feel foreigners should be sent home when jobs are scarce. And nearly 60 percent of the 2,411 people polled thought the around four million Muslims in Germany should have their religious practices “significantly curbed.”


Now my BS detector is going into red alert.

Germany has already banned something labeled as a religion. Scientology has been outlawed as being fascist. But I'm assuming that there were not four million scientologists in country when they passed the law.

If this new German thought process is an indication of where Europe's policy is going, I'm worried. It is one thing to ignore, kowtow, or be afraid of a problem, it is another to blindly lash out at a whole group only because a percentage of the group is being a problem.

Maybe if Merkel's “Christian Values” are more like France's Catholic schools, we can talk. But would anyone want to place money on that?  In Europe's past, they have shown only two settings: cower in a corner, or go fascist.  I'm hoping for something in the middle.

Maybe the Brooklyn museum would like to make an image of Muhammad and cover that in excrement. If anyone complains, it can always be covered by free speech.  Should there be a riot in America, like there was in Europe, I wonder if the NYTimes would refer to it as fascist censorship, (like they said about Giuliani) or if they would call it "freedom of religious expression."