I will be stopping this blog for a while, until I have more time.

I will be back in a couple of months.

Russell Kirk (h/t Bradley J. Birzer, “The Awful Humanity of Russell Kirk”:

“The enlightened conservative does not believe that the end or aim of life is competition; or success; or enjoyment; or longevity; or power; or possessions. He believes, instead, that the object of life is Love. He knows that the just and ordered society is that in which Love governs us, so far as Love can reign in this world of sorrows; and he knows that the anarchical or the tyrannical society is that in which Love lies corrupt. He has learned that Love is the source of all being, and that Hell itself is ordained by love. He understands that Death, when we have finished the part that was assigned to us, is the reward of Love. He apprehends the truth that the greatest happiness ever granted to a man is the privilege of being happy in the hour of his death. He has no intention of converting this human society of ours into an efficient machine for efficient machine–operators, dominated by master mechanics. Men are put into this world, he realizes, to struggle, to suffer, to contend against the evil that is in their neighbors and in themselves, and to aspire toward the triumph of Love. They are put into this world to live like men, and to die like men. He seeks to preserve a society which allows men to attain manhood, rather than keeping them within bonds of perpetual childhood. With Dante, he looks upward from this place of slime, this world of gorgons and chimeras, toward the light which gives Love to this poor earth and all the stars.“

Joseph Massad (via Electronic Intifada):

In his recent book, Welcome to the Desert of the Real, famed Slovenian socialist intellectual Slavoj Zizek tackles the Palestinian question in a most unoriginal manner. What concerns him most is not the foundational racism of Zionism and its concrete offspring, a racist Jewish state, nor the racist curricula of Israeli Jewish schools, the racist Israeli Jewish media representations of Palestinians, the racist declarations of Israeli Jewish leaders on the right and on the left, or the Jewish supremacist rights and privileges guiding Zionism and Israeli state laws and policies – all of which seem of little concern to him – but rather Arab “anti-Semitism” which should not be “tolerated”.

Zizek makes Zionist-inspired propagandistic claims that have no bearing on reality, namely that “Hitler is still considered a hero” in “most” Arab countries, and that The Elders of the Protocols of Zion and other anti-Semitic myths are found in Arab primary school textbooks. While he seems to note Israeli discriminatory policies against Palestinian citizens of Israel and Israeli daily terror visited upon the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, the conflict, for Zizek, seems like one of competing nationalisms and can be solved by possible NATO intervention. It is not Zionist Jewish colonialism and its commitment to European white supremacy in Jewish guise that the Arabs are reacting to and resisting; rather, it is Islam’s rejection of “modernity” triggered by a Jewish “cosmopolitanism” that characterises this conflict. “Israel’s stand for the principle of Western liberal tolerance” is attenuated in his essay by noting its neocolonial role, but this clearly does not prevent Zizek from visiting the racist Jewish state where he was a week ago delivering four lectures in which, according to Ha’aretzhe never mentioned the Palestinians or Israeli racism and terror once. Such is the legacy of Jean-Paul Sartre on many European leftist intellectuals.]

[Lila: I couldn’t find any proof that Sartre himself was of ethnic Jewish descent, although several websites referred to him as Jewish. However, at the end of his life, this infamous apologist for communist atrocities and outspoken atheist, whose theories poisoned the lives of millions of young minds, converted to Messianic Judaism, allegedly under the influence of his Jewish secretary. Again, my point in bringing up Judaism or Jewish ethnicity is not a racist one. It is because the Anglo-American Zionist establishment very often uses Jewish people and their concerns as the front behind which they operate. Thus it is important to identify mouthpieces of the Central Controllers. Sartre was one such mouthpiece.]

If Sartre failed to see how European Jews who left Europe as holocaust refugees arrived in Palestine as armed colonisers, Zizek’s approach is more insidious. While he insists that the holocaust is not connected to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, he proceeds in viewing the Jewish colonists as still remaining holocaust refugees and possible victims of some alleged Arab anti-Semitism. Herein lies his obsession with opposing the alleged anti-Semitism to which these Jews are subjected by those who resist their racist violence. n,Zizek’s own anti-Semitism which manifests in reducing Judaism to the anti-Semitic notion of a “Judeo-Christian” tradition and which identifies Jews anti-Semitically as “cosmopolitan”,

[Lila: Of course, Judaism cannot be reduced to Judeo-Christian, but neither can Christianity. Indeed, there is a far better defense for Christianity being the legitimate development of historical Judaism, then there is of current Judaism being the antecedent of Christianity.]

is never clear to Zizek who projects it onto the Palestinians.

While suspending the status of European Jews as holocaust survivors, these European intellectuals fail to see that much of Zionist colonialism began half a century before the holocaust and that Jewish colonists were part of the British colonial death squads that murdered Palestinian revolutionaries between 1936 and 1939 while Hitler unleashed kristallnacht against German Jews. Zionism’s anti-Semitic project of destroying Jewish cultures and languages in the diaspora in the interest of an invented Hebrew that none of them spoke, and in the interest of evicting them from Europe and transporting them to an Asian land to which they had never been, is never examined by these intellectuals. Nor do they ever examine the ideological and practical collusion between Zionism and anti-Semitism since the inception of the movement.

Zizek seems observant enough, in another essay, to note that Zionist Jews are employing anti-Semitic notions to describe the Palestinians. His conclusion is not, however, that Zionism has always been predicated on anti-Semitism and on an alliance between Zionists and anti-Semitic imperialists, rather he perceives the alliance that today’s Zionists have with anti-Semitism might as the “ultimate price of the establishment of a Jewish State”.

When these European intellectuals worry about anti-Semitism harming the Israeli settler’s colony, they are being blind to the ultimate achievement of Israel: the transformation of the Jew into the anti-Semite, and the Palestinian into the Jew. Unless their stance is one that opposes the racist basis of the Jewish State, their support for Palestinian resistance will always ring hollow. As the late Gilles Deleuze once put it, the cry of the Zionists to justify their racist violence has always been “we are not a people like any other,” while the Palestinian cry of resistance has always been “we are a people like all others.” European intellectuals must choose which cry to heed when addressing the question of Palestine.”

On various end-times websites, the meme is being floated that Satan (the evil one) is Shiva, the third figure in the Hindu trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.

Except that Hindus understand Shiva as the destroyer of evil.

His exact parallel is Jehovah Sabaoth (Jahweh leading the battle or Christ with the sword destroying evil or the flames of the Holy Spirit).

He is not the defiant, vain-glorious fallen angel at all.

This is a false gnostic equation.

Agamic Hinduism has no equivalent for Satan that is precise because it does not give the same significance to evil as Christianity does.

The closest figure to Lucifer would be Rahu and Ketu, who are in fact regarded as malevolent deceivers cast down from the heavens just as Satan was.

Rahu is the head  (north node of the moon) and Ketu is the tail (south node of the moon) of the dragon (which is the eclipse of the moon).

Rahu-Ketu can be identified with the evil serpent called Satan (Shaitan in Islam) or adversary in the Bible.

Shiva in the Hindu pantheon is the equivalent of Yahu Sabaoth.

He is the part of  Godhead. that destroys evil.

Now, there are certain left-hand paths that involve the occult that can be fairly characterized as demonic and which have been attached to some forms of worship of Shiva and Kali (a form of Shiva’s consort).

The evil murderous thuggee cult was one such wicked form. But to equate that with Saivism as such is completely mistaken. Left-hand paths (tamasic practices) are forbidden to traditional Hindus.  We don’t equate the orgiastic rites of heretic Christians with Christianity nor the excesses of Sabbatean Frankists with Orthodox Judaism.

In the same way, the occult practices of heretics shouldn’t be equated with the Sattvic worship of Shiva.

Guillaume Faye, allegedly an important voice of the European right, gets it spectacularly wrong:

“Although Mr. Faye is a man of words and ideas, he stresses that “one doesn’t fight for ‘ideas,’ one fights for a people.” And for what people do identitarians fight?

An Antwerpian of Belgian nationality, a Catalan of Spanish nationality, a Lombard of Italian nationality . . . are my compatriots. They are fellow Europeans. But a West Indian, an African, an Arab, or a Chinese who possesses a French Nationality Identity Card are not my compatriots, though in strictly judicial terms they may be considered French.

Mr. Faye notes that immigrants may sometimes call themselves “French” or “Belgian” but never manage to become Scots, Bavarians, or Sicilians.

The tragedy of the struggle is that Europe “is at war and doesn’t even know it.” So long as their shopping carts are full, Europeans will not wake up to the crisis of dispossession. For those who see clearly, however, traditional European distinctions of Left and Right are petty distractions. The only distinction that matters is who is, and who is not, part of the European struggle against oblivion.

To be sure, there are questions of strategy. Should a French identitarian hope to return to a France that is authentically French, or should France cede sovereignty to a strong, self-conscious Europe? Should a European patriot try to use the powers of the European Union to hurl back the Third World or should he try to undermine those powers in the expectation that racial consciousness can arise only at the national level? These are legitimate questions on which identitarians may disagree.

They should all agree, however, that traditional Christians and non-believers must work together to preserve Europe. Mr. Faye is not a Christian, but believes that a traditional Catholic should be able to say “I respect all the Christians of the world, but nic et nunc [here and now] I fight for my people above all, whatever their religion.”

He notes that neither Judaism nor Islam has ever been “masochistic” like Christianity, but points out that Christianity itself is not the source of our collapse: “We shouldn’t forget . . . that the egalitarian virus is also found in non-Christian conceptions of the world and that Medieval Christianity knew how to protect itself from it.” As for liberal, mush-minded Christianity, he sees no salvation for it, and wishes it would disappear.

Historical ignoramuses

Mr. Faye is slashingly contemptuous of the mentality of the elites who are herding Europe into the abyss, calling them “historical ignoramuses” and “stargazing intellectuals.” He wonders if they can really believe we will live happily ever after in the multi-culti utopia, for there is no “mixing of cultures,” only conquest:

India, China, Black Africa, the Arab-Muslim or Turkish-Muslim world, etc., are affirming their identities, tolerating neither a colonising immigration nor a cultural mélange on their soil. Only our pseudo-European elites defend the dogma of a ‘mixed planet,’ which is pure illusion.

Nor can Mr. Faye excuse the naiveté (or duplicity) of those who would open the West to strangers in the name of Western values those strangers will never adopt. Our rulers say that because Europe accepts pluralism and celebrates differences, it should welcome millions of Muslims or Hindus—who despise pluralism and hate differences. Mr. Faye concludes that “it’s absurd to demand the right to differences for those who would deny it to others.”

My Comment

Somebody should inform the ignorant Mr. Faye that exactly what is happening to Europe has already happened to other countries. They’ve already had an alien culture imposed on them (European) long before Europe began to get a taste of it.  Or do new-right thinkers crack open the history books only after their birth-dates?

As for using the EU – which is a prize of the globalist project-  to dismantle it, only a fool or a tool would suggest it.

File, along with Raspail, as another NWO front and diversion.

One can learn something from racists. But   propagandists  are another matter altogether.

The mob mind is characterized by ten things:

1. Inability to ask and answer any but the simplest of questions – “for” or “against”  – about anything.

Inability to accept answers such as “maybe,” “this, as well as that,” “true and also true,”
“we don’t know,” “who knows” and “so-so.”

2.  Inability to read or cite people with whom they fundamentally disagree. Inability to learn from their enemies.

3. Inability to understand that one can believe a religion without condemning every other religion.  One can accept one own’s faith and yet be honest and see how one’s faith is seen by others.

4.  Inability to understand that in a time when the vast media conglomerates behind the establishment and alternative press are spewing one-sided declarations, exposure of the opposite side of the argument is a necessity and a virtue.

5. Inability to see through labels, such as “Hindutva,” “Islamophobic,” “Zionazis,” etc. even when the labels conform to their own perceptions.

6 Inability to  respect process more than results; adherence to truth rather than achievement of political goals.

7. Inability to grow or change an opinion when confronted by new facts.

8. Inability to understand differing contexts or historical situations.

9. Inability to understand different levels of power and address them accordingly.

10. Inability to rise above their own personal preferences and beliefs and give due measure to others.

From a comment at Scienceblogs.com:

You may have noticed that evolutionists often attack the scientific credentials
of any scientist who rejects the theory of evolution.

There is no question that some of the most famous scientists of all times believed in creation. Ann Lamont has written a book entitled 21 Great Scientists
Who Believed The Bible.

She devotes chapters to Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Linnaeus,
Euler, Faraday, Babbage, Joule, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell, and Werner von Braun.

These men weren’t dummies, and they believed in creation.

Here are a few more “academics” to add to the list.

Dr Raymond V. Damadian – Inventor of the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging)
Dr. John R. Baumgardner (Geophysicist)
Dr Ian Macreadie (Molecular Biologist and Microbiologist)
Dr. Raymond Jones (Agricultural Scientist)
Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (3 Doctorates and a 3-star NATO General)
Dr. Robert Gentry (nuclear physicist)
Emeritus Professor Tyndale John Rendle-Short – From (theistic) evolution to creation
Charlie Lieberts – (Chemist)
Dr. Gary Parker (Biologist)
Dr. D. Russell Humphreys (Physicist)
Dr. Alan Galbraith (Watershed Science)
Dr. Donald Batten (Agriculturist)
Dr. David Catchpoole (Plant Physiologist)
Dr. Robert V. Gentry – (Physicist)
# Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)

# Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)

# Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info]

# Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info]

# Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the
calculating machine)

# Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)

# Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info]

# Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)

# Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)

# David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)

# Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info]

# Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info]

# Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate
paleontology)

# Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)

# Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and
astronomy) [more info]

# Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)

# Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the
Field Theory / invented the electric generator)

# Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info]

# Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic
valve)

# Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info]

# Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]

# John Grebe (chemist) [more info]

# Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered
self-induction)

# William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered
double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)

# George F. Howe (botanist) [more info]

# D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info]

# James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)

# Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the
Ephemeris Tables)

# John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

# Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]

# Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

# Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology /
developed the Classification System)

# Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)

# Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info]

# Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)

# James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)

# Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)

# Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)

# Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of
calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)

# Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]

# Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the
barometer)

# Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of
Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and
immunizations)

# William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered
inert gases)

# John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)

# Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)

# Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)

# James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of
chloroform)

# Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)

# George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)

# Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info]

# William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and
energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the
Trans-Atlantic Cable)

# Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info]

# Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)

# Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)

# A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info]

# A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info]

# John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)

University of California law professor, Phillip Johnson, who holds an endowed
chair at Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley.”

http://www.creationists.org/outstanding.html

Fox News reports:

“Novartis is now working on a new treatment where a harmless virus carries a gene into the inner ear to stimulate new growth of hair cells.

“Once the virus injects the DNA into the cell it then takes over the cells machinery to make the new protein and that protein will now cause the non-hair cell to become a hair cell,” Lustig said.

Klickstein said that the new gene therapy promises to be much better tolerated and less cumbersome and one day render cochlear implants and hearing aides obsolete.

“What we hope to do with this therapy is restore hearing as normal as possible,” Klickstein said, “no device maintenance, no complications— just normal hearing.”

The treatment was successful in animals and is now being tried in humans. It is promising, but there are stlll obstacles. For one thing, the treatment washes out of the ear, so the effects may be temporary.

“The delivery might be one of the biggest problems we face,” Klickstein said. “The inner ear is encased almost completely in solid bone and getting the gene therapy to the right cells was one of our biggest challenges.”

Otonomy, a biotech company, has invented a gel that is injected into the ear and allows medication to stay in place longer. Experts at Otonomy and Lustig both indicated that they see the treatments being combined to provide a cure. Jay Lichter, founder of Otonomy, told me in an interview that “if you are trying to regrow hair cells for a patient who is already deaf to give them the ability to hear again, you want the drug on board as long as possible so those hair cells continue to regrow and can continue to send signals to the brain that they can hear.”

Lustig said that Big Pharma’s growing interest in the new treatments signals that there is great promise. The goal is to restore hearing without aides or surgery and have the effects last.”