Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Jennifer Lawrence and Kate Upton, Exposed and Humiliated

Feminists today should be up in arms about the sexual abuse of children in Rotherham, England. Over 1,000 white girls were raped and abused and prostituted by gangs of Pakistani Muslims in England over a period of more than a decade.

They have not weighed in on this one, because it does not fit the narrative. Which narrative might that be? Why the one about white privilege and the oppression of people of color. By this narrative, the rage of the oppressed justifies their humiliation of white males? The best way to humiliate the white patriarchs is to violate their daughters with impunity.

As I say, nearly all feminists have been notably silent about this one.

Not so with the great hacking scandal. By now you know that an anonymous hacker got into the Apple iCloud servers and exposed private nude photos of female celebrities like Jennifer Lawrence and Kate Upton.

Other celebrities were involved, but the nakedness of Jennifer Lawrence, everyone’s sweetheart and a great actress, coupled with semi-pornographic photos of Kate Upton, everyone’s favorite swimsuit model, with her boyfriend, Detroit Tigers pitcher Justin Verlander caught the greatest attention.

Funnily enough, no one is making too much of a fuss about the privacy of Justin Verlander and the close-ups of someone’s (Verlander's?) virile organ. In fact, Sarah Miller, an indomitable feminist does not understand why there are no photos of anyone’s penis. Apparently, Miller does not understand why there is no market for penis pictures.

It isn’t sexism; it’s reality. One suspects that feminists will never grasp the difference.

Ideology aside, I have it on good authority that the uploaded celebrities naked selfies do include photos of a penis. As it happens, no one much cares. Apparently, Miller did not even notice.

Of course, this scandal is grist for the feminist mill. Many young American women have taken naked pictures of themselves on their iPhones. Many American girls have done the same. Many of these same women and girls have passed these photos on to other people, most especially to men and boys. And some of those men and boys have shown the photos to their friends.

You would imagine that every mother in America has told her daughter to be very, very cautious about taking and sending naked selfies. Why incur an unnecessary risk? What can be gained by risking humiliation?

Is there anything wrong with a mother telling her daughter to err on the side of caution? Is there anything wrong with a mother telling her daughter not to drink too much and risk being violated or abused at a party?

Surely, the people who exposed the celebrity naked selfies are criminals. Surely, the people who abuse and assault drunken coeds are criminals. And the people who post revenge porn ought to be considered criminals. All deserve to be prosecuted.

But, why tell a girl or woman that she can and should do whatever she pleases, because the fault for her violation will entirely be the man’s? Isn’t the point of motherly advice to ensure, as much as possible that the abuse not happen?

If you allow a woman to believe that there is nothing she can do to protect herself against male predators, aren’t you disempowering her?

In the meantime, normal motherly advice is generally denounced by feminists, because, after all, they believe that the root of all evil lies with the male of the species. They believe that telling a woman to be more judicious with what she posts online or even what she wears is blaming the victim.

It isn’t, but try telling that to the feminist.

British comedian Ricky Gervais made the point and was so widely attacked that he took down the tweet. For those who missed it, Gervais said:

Celebrities, make it harder for hackers to get nude pics of you from your computer by not putting nude pics of yourself on your computer.

Does this advice really blame the victims? In fact, it does not. It counsels caution. It offers the advice that any sensible mother gives to her daughter. And it is factually true that if you do not put nude pictures of yourself online you are at less risk of having your privacy compromised.

The fact that Gervais was denounced for having committed a thought crime means that, from the feminist perspective all evil resides with men and there is nothing a woman can or should do to protect herself. Unless, of course, she becomes a feminist and tries to bring down the patriarchy.

By this feminist ethic, women should be able to do whatever they want. If anything bad happens, the fault lies entirely with their abuser.

True enough, up to a point. But only up to a point. There is nothing empowering about taking unnecessary risks. If you, by nature of your sex, are more vulnerable and physically weaker, the better part of caution tells you not to pick fights.

If you do and you lose, the fault lies with the person who beat you up. But, what virtue lies in taking an unnecessary risk. You might, from your hospital bed, feel consoled by the fact that your attacker will be prosecuted. But wouldn't you prefer that it had never happened at all?

The feminist critique of this event is directed at women who have engaged in sexting. And who have been hurt by it. As I said, it’s a recruiting tactic.

Yet, the celebrities whose privacy was violated did not, as best we know, send their naked selfies to anyone. They kept them to themselves. Storing them on the cloud does not count as sharing them in public.

So, the situation is different from that of a teenage girl who sends her boyfriend a naked picture one night. I hope that most teenage girls are not learning from the feminist response to this episode that they can share whatever they like with their boyfriends, secure in the knowledge that if said boyfriend shares the pictures with the hockey team, he is at fault.

But, the act of the hacker who exposed the naked pictures is more like the work of a peeping Tom and less like oversharing. Clearly, it is a criminal act.

And yet, ask yourself this. Assuming that a peeping Tom is a criminal and that nothing you do mitigates his crime, does that mean that it’s OK to undress in front of an open window? Don’t most people pull the blinds before they disrobe? And if you are a major celebrity, wouldn’t you want to be even more cautious?

Should celebrities show a greater level of caution about what pictures they save on their computers? Should two of the most photographed women in the nation, Jennifer Lawrence and Kate Upton exercise more than usual caution?

Of course, Jennifer Lawrence and Kate Upton are not really the same kind of celebrity.

Jennifer Lawrence is an actress… and an excellent actress at that. She has never, to my knowledge, done a nude scene and has never exposed herself on film. She does not incite, excite, invite or delight the dread male gaze.

Like it or not, we feel more sympathy for her than we do for some other celebrities.

Kate Upton is a fashion model. In particular, she is a swimsuit model. She graced the cover of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition. In case you missed it, here’s a SFW gallery.

Upton has never appeared fully nude, but, to say the least, she has mastered the art of the suggestive pose. In more than a few of these shots she is a twitch away from naked. This talent, if you like, is not within the skill set of all high fashion models.

There is no such thing as a heterosexual male who is not at least curious to see what is behind the veil. One might denounce men for being men, but the fact is that Kate Upton’s career has been built on her ability to attract the male gaze and with male desire.

It’s a career choice and she has done very well with it. To imagine, as the dour Jessica Valenti suggests, that all men and presumably all women should look away when offered a chance to see Kate Upton naked is simply unrealistic. At the least, it shows that Valenti knows nothing about men.

Does this mean that Upton has sacrificed her right to privacy? Absolutely not. She retains it as much as does any women who wears a skimpy swimsuit on the beach.

It does mean that she should be abundantly cautious when doing semi-pornographic pictures with her boyfriend.

Celebrity in America pays very well. Unfortunately, it also exacts a high price.

One is saddened for all of those who were exposed in the data breach at Apple’s iCloud service.

And yet, one lesson should be that all women should be far more cautious in sexting images that they do not want in public circulation. Cell phones get stolen. Computers get hacked. Even the cloud is not immune.

Obviously, there is a distinction between a nude picture that is intended for public viewing, the kind that appears in a movie, and one that is taken for personal consumption.

Like it or not, one aspect of the distinction is that you are paid for the one and not the other.

Still, young people should come away from this unfortunate episode knowing the sexting is dangerous behavior. And it is dangerous even if we know, with great clarity that the person who distributes such material without authorization is committing a crime.

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

Matt Walsh has and interesting way at looking at this issue

http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/09/01/what-if-we-just-held-men-accountable-for-their-own-behavior/

Ares Olympus said...

The New York Times has an article now, interestingly says the men have Pakistani heritage, but doesn't mention their religion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/world/europe/reckoning-starts-in-britain-on-abuse-of-girls.html

In regards to mass media obsession over stolen nudie photos, that seems to be the nature of media.

In regards to Feminists, I still don't get the obsession of saying what they should our shouldn't be doing, or what they are doing.

Maybe the President of the United States should rise the occasion and condemn the sexual abuse of minors, and then everyone would be sure which side is right.

Is there anything else Americans can do to raise awareness of this shameful neglect of underage girls in England?

Maybe we should start splashing ice water over our head in viral videos calling on the resignation of the Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. OH, they've already resigned.

Well there must be something we can do to make sure the English start getting their act together!

Ares Olympus said...

p.s. It does look like England could use some revising their rape laws. It looks like no real protection above age 13.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1

Sexual activity with a child.

(1)A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—.
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),.
(b)the touching is sexual, and.
(c)either—.
(i)B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or.
(ii)B is under 13.

JKB said...

What if it turns out the iCloud hacker are Pakistani Muslims? Would that make it all right to share the naked infidel photos?


I used to work ships. You memorize and inculcate the COLREGs which govern who has the right away when ships and boats encounter each other.

One, unwritten, rule we kept in mind was the Rule of Maximum Tonnage: Regardless of who has the right of way, nothing in these rules will keep you alive if you are run over by a larger vessel.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Ares, perhaps the New York Times will call them the "white Pakistanis." 96.4% of Pakistanis are Muslim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Pakistan

Do you have to have things spelled out so as to eliminate possibilities that are three standard deviations from the mean?

To your comment yesterday, I think we can all agree that people resign from their positions when there's no truth to the allegations. This is not an academic exercise.

This had been going on from 1997-2013... that's 16 years! There were Pakistani, Bangledeshi and Afghans involved. Pakistani gangs "groomed" these girls. Police ignored or lost evidence. There seems to be an indifference to rape. No one's hands are clean on this one.

What do think would've happened if these same Pakistani men found out their own daughters were subject to this? That is the crux of the story: the idea that "honor killings" are reserved for Muslim women who bring shame to their family, often by no choice of their own (rape, divorce, refusing an arranged marriage).

The tie to feminism is very simple: feminism tightly follows a postmodern narrative of oppressor and oppressed. The way the narrative is politicized is that all minorities are assumed to be under the left-wing umbrella. But narrative is turned on its head when a supposed oppressed is oppressing an "oppressor." It doesn't fit. No rage, no demonstrations, no academic articles, no media vultures, nothing. So a reasonable person concludes that it's because all this commotion is manufactured to fit a specific worldview. This one doesn't, hence the lack of coverage.

It's also how Maj. Nidal Hasan's rampage gets characterized as "workplace violence."

What on earth are you defending or seeking to clarify, Ares? Don't you see that people are turning themselves into pretzels to preserve a narrative about how the world works? The age of consent or rape qualifications aren't at issue here... what we have is a traditional culture that domesticates women as virtual slaves while doing everything to protect their "purity." Then they don't extend the same courtesy to other ethnicities. Why are people trying to sanitize this? There is something seriously wrong with Muslim culture in how it views women, and it doesn't fit with Western tradition. People are alarmed by this, and our me-too media running around screaming "racism!" at every turn is partly to blame. "If it does not fit, you must acquit!" Must we?

Ares Olympus said...

Below is another article, a personal story from a UK woman of Pakistani heritage who was also abused.

Myself I have a number of people from my childhood (of both genders including my brother) that had stories of sexual contact/abuse/rape by family and friends that I only learned as an adult, even after most of the perpetrators were dead, and enough to wonder how I was oblivious, and only concluded that I hadn't been needy for adult attention like those who were abused. And I had a high sense of physical boundaries, and did defend my autonomy vigorously, not to say my style needs to be taught as good, but it did apparently protect me.

I'm not sure how therapy can or can't help people, or I can see there are two ways of healing, first just needing to be heard and believed, and secondly justice.

But OTOH, even ignoring denial by family and authority figures, I can see a desire in victims to forget after they feel safe, and the only clear reason to do otherwise is if they see others may be in danger.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/29/-sp-untold-story-culture-of-shame-ruzwana-bashir

"Much has been made about the religious background of the offenders in the Rotherham report. But this problem isn’t about religion race: it’s about a culture where notions of shame result in the blaming of victims rather than perpetrators.

"Although painful to read, the Rotherham report presents an opportunity. It’s an opportunity for leaders in the British-Pakistani community to stand up and speak out about the sexual and physical abuse in their midst. The Asian community isn’t unique in having evil-doers, and the overwhelming majority of its men and women are good people who care about protecting others.

"I am and always will be proud of my Pakistani heritage, but I firmly believe community leaders must take responsibility for the fact that the taboos that prevent others from identifying perpetrators and supporting victims enable further abuse. And those taboos must be challenged."

n.n said...

The feminist response is: don't look, while the NYT's response is shift responsibility; which is similar to the Left's response to criminals: don't use guns; which is similar to the pro-choice response: don't accept responsibility, abort. There is an underlying theme here. Dissociation of risk is the opiate of the masses... and elite. And they say religion (i.e. moral philosophy) is passe.

Ares Olympus said...

OK, I see, when bad things happen, things where blame is clear and wide, everyone who has nothing to do with it (free from personal blame) then indulges themselves in their self-righteous pet blame game issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual problem suddenly have a chance to be expressed fearlessly.

So in this case, the Feminists deserve bashing, because well, they started the bashing unfairly long ago and think they're all innocent in their self-obsessed vanity concerns while the rest of us goodly folk care about real injustice. Yay!

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/29/reaction-to-rotherham-typical-british-blame-game

"Never has universal agreement looked more adversarial. If there is a single soul in Britain willing to suggest that the sexual abuse of 1,400 girls in Rotherham is not a societal failure of great seriousness, then they are keeping pretty quiet about it. Unfortunately, the people who are talking the loudest seem mainly to be interested in drawing attention to their own long-standing rectitude and by extension the long-standing lack of rectitude of their real or imagined ideological enemies."

Sam L. said...

"Apparently, Miller does not understand why there is no market for penis pictures.

It isn’t sexism; it’s reality. One suspects that feminists will never grasp the difference."

They refuse to accept reality, so...difference from what?

Ares, I think you have missed the point. It is not that the Feministas COULD do something about this, but that they refuse to condemn this when they condemn so many minor things.

Ares Olympus said...

Sam L, re: Ares, I think you have missed the point. It is not that the Feministas COULD do something about this, but that they refuse to condemn this when they condemn so many minor things.

I don't see any Feminists individually or collectively refusing to condemn anything.
All I see straw-feminists being imagined by embittered people needing their daily scapegoat to feel better about themselves.

While us enlightened folks of worldly attention have our current #1 evil in the world sitting in England, there 100,000 other equal evils ongoing and silenced by denial and neglect, and apparently we're REFUSING to condemn them all quick enough.

If I ever find that "Feminists united" website, I'll ask them to update their webpage with a proper prioritization of evils in the world that need condemnation. I'll make sure to get them to promise to update the list daily, so every new evil can be evaluated in comparison to the rest.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Courage is always in such short supply when the feminists have to protest Muslim society. And it's not just the feminists... the late-night comedy shows are conspicuously frightened of fatwas. Actually, come to think of it, the whole of Big Media is like that.

None of this is humorous. It's quite sick. When our political, academic and media cultures serially pity groups of people, and treat them as ignorant savages not responsible for their actions (while claiming they're just like the rest of us), the members of such groups start to get the drift and learn there is a certain blanket permissiveness to do... lots of things.

This Rotherham mess isn't quite so simple or media-worthy as the Duke Lacrosse case was. That's the difference.

Ares, you seem peculiarly unglued today, and about this topic. Why? What do you want us to see or not see?

Ares Olympus said...

Here's a story that makes Rotherham sound like a strange parallel Ferguson's poverty, although I don't know who the "Fascists" are supposed to be.

Apparently every country has their forgotten places of decline where the least functional people collect while the best leave, where have their silence suffering until something gives them their 15 minutes of fame or infamy, until the next somewhere arises into the news cycle.

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/english-fascists-have-descended-on-rotherhams-child-abuse-scandal-537

"Rotherham is a town with an identity crisis. The coal pits are all closed, unemployment is high and investment is low. Having been a reporter here for a few years now, I’ve come to the conclusion that Rotherham feels like a town lacking confidence in itself, unsure of its place in Britain. Unfortunately, it has now taken a place – as the most shamed town in Britain, maybe the world, with news that 1,400 local children were abused by British Pakistani gangs while police, councillors and social workers stood idly by."

Anonymous said...

Another part of the lefty narrative: poverty, and an Oprah-worthy "loss of confidence" (let me grab my Kleenex) are now reasons for 1,400 rapes. I know the first thing I'd do if my coal pit closed... go out and rape an English white girl right after afternoon tea, just to be back in time to get home and see the latest beheading beamed in from back home.

I don't know about you, but the Muslim beheadings are much better than the Christian beheadings. They should sell the "Headless Sunday Ticket" on DirecTV!

I'm sure when West Virginia suffers from Obama's moves against coal, the West Virginians will go on a rape rampage on Muslim girls. Dies that reasoning make sense to anyone? Anyone? Anyone?

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

A well-considered piece by philosopher Roger Scruton illustrating the depravity in this Rotherham mess, necessarily arising from sociology's doctrinaire obsession with political correctness:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerscruton/2014/08/30/why-did-british-police-ignore-pakistani-gangs-raping-rotherham-children-political-correctness/

It is political correctness, and its ties to Marxism and postmodern nihilism, that unites all the usual suspects (feminists especially) in this farce of inaction, although farces are meant to be funny. There's nothing funny about the serial raping of 1,400 girls and the cruel indifference of authorities who have full-time jobs designed to protect them.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Ares Olympus @September 2, 2014 at 3:27 PM:

Now that you've referenced an article that calls Rotherham protesters "fascists" (fascism: a form of radical authoritarian nationalism), I suppose we can place you squarely in the column tying racial/religious criminal patterns in the targeting and raping of 1,400 young girls to a political movement from the 1940s. Who's the one drawing looney equivalency? You think people who are upset about this complete systemic breakdown of child protection and corrupt municipal authorities are fascists? Really? Wouldn't fascists have had to be the authoritarians in power who said it would be okay to rape people because of their ethnicity and religion? That's not what's in play here.

References to Niall Ferguson's economic theories on poverty don't explain what we're pointing to in Rotherham. Quit trying to look smart and informed by bringing irrelevant theories into this discussion. It doesn't work because the references don't fit what we're talking about here, and what Schneiderman originally referenced in his two posts. Enough of the smokescreen.

Cultural depravity explains this, and it's not racial... it's indicative of cultural rot in the Muslim community and philosophical rot in Western society.

The racial reference you object to is being used to tie the population to the religion. 96.4% of Pakistanis are Muslim. Pakistan is an Islamic state, and was founded as such, after being a part of colonial British India. The country's capital is Islamabad, for goodness sake! That's the tie. But again, my argument is not racial. It has nothing to do with race. That's why you don't see Pakistani Christians conducting beheadings in the name of Jesus Christ. Pakistani genetic makeup isn't on the radar screen...

This Rotherham story is about the Islamic socio-religio-cultural framework that tolerates or excuses infidel raping, if it is not outright permissible. Do your reading... there is no separation of church and state in Islamic culture. Turkey tried it, and it's not going very well these days. Rotherham is about a Muslim culture that subjugates women and infidels with impunity, using direct references to sacred texts to justify actions that treat the most vulnerable infidel females as pleasure animals.

This Rotherham story is about a Western Orwellian philosophy of "multiculturalism" that excuses certain people from their antisocial and criminal behavior because they belong to "oppressed" groups. That's the tie to the usual suspects on the Left. Lefties run around conducting "direct action" rabble-rousing using simplistic philosophy and narrative. But what happens when the narrative no longer fits? Then you go to the old reliable: they're "fascists." No doubt you'll bring "the patriarchy" into the argument soon enough... that the girls were victims of something like "the patriarchy's civil power structures that were ostensibly in place to protect them, but merely serve the patriarchy's needs to abuse, subjugate and rape." Or something like that. After all, that's what patriarchal fascists do, right?

Not sure how to make it clear for you, Ares. The more you respond, the more you make our point.

Anonymous said...

A country that won't protect its girls won't protect anything.

I've read about "grooming" (are we talking rapes or haircuts?) for years. I'd bet the ranch there are more Rotherhams.

Islam has not been twisted, perverted, misinterpreted, rotted, distorted, or otherwise misused by people who have memorized the Koran, studied the Hadiths, and have prayer bumps on their foreheads.

When the Prophet was weak, he was a meliorist. When he was strong, he was a tyrant. He fought 30 significant military battles.

He is the beau ideal for every Muslim man. Many sleep in the exact position attributed to him.

Islam is a distinct Civ. I dislike it, but I respect it on it's own v different terms.

Sun Tzu: 1. Know yourself. 2. Know your enemy. -- Rich Lara

Ares Olympus said...

Anon, and IAC, the only point I care to make is that humanity is fallen, and has always been fallen, and while we're looking in the mirror admiring our good looks, there are other places that have been abandoned and neglected and those who remain ultimately give up standing for the common good, and only look after their own personal interests. And there uncivilizing forces apparently go uncorrected much too long, because they can.

Blaming multiculturalism is preposterous, suggesting if we could just keep out the degenerates who are not like us, all would be well. This is such nonsense. Degenerates look like us too.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Ares Olympus @September 3, 2014 at 10:47 AM:

Degenerates do look like us. Man is fallen. Agreed.

There is nature and there is nurture. The question is this: what ideals do a people pursue? Are they aligned with the ideals in the country in which they live? That's the problem with these terrible revelations in Rotherham. The negligence of the Rotherham authorities is no different than the betrayal of pedophile priests in the Catholic Church. It's a betrayal of community trust. That's the issue with the authorities in Britain -- a betrayal of public trust. But what about these Pakistani gangs, these syndicates and groups of older men who ostensibly protect their own girls' virtue at such great lengths, but rape those of other ethnicities? What does that say? What does that mean? Where do people learn to make choices like this? This is all self-evidently dehumanizing.

I make good faith efforts to understand the Islamic world, and I walk away more vexed than before. Sure, it's different than Western Christendom, and the secular Western culture we live in now. But the differences aren't indicators of barbarism just because there are differences -- barbarism comes into play when we see people treating other people in extremely cruel and brutal ways, and that brutality follows a conscious pattern. "Grooming" is a cruel, calculated means to achieve a specific result. Grooming is not impulse crime... it is a premeditated crime. Somehow, these sick criminals think this rape strategy is okay. Now the clarifying question: do they think it is okay to do this to girls of their own family, their own community? I cannot imagine that is the case. That would be dehumanizing. That's barbaric.

All human beings are capable of barbarism. So what keeps these barbarous impulses in check? Culture.

Ares Olympus said...

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD, I'm glad we can accept some common ground.

I debate with the atheists too (while agnostic myself), and most are sure that Humanitarianism is the future, and all religions are hateful, even if modern Islamic fundamentalism is the easiest to despise.

In contrast it does seem Christianity does contain something unique, something too suicidal and self-hating to be practical, but the challenge of loving your neighbor as yourself. So at least Christians can be honest hypocrites.

I collect writings that challenge me, or mystify me, one that comes to mind is from Dostoyevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov".

He does bother to depend on culture to civilize. He lived in a world of senseless repression and violence by the strong, and a lack of justice, except in the voice of the individual conscience.

So I can see what we call culture arises from individuals who surrender personal gain, and stake their sense of self on something hidden that we all otherwise forget.

This gives me hope, the idea that the least successful among among us may yet make the greatest teachers, because they given up protecting themselves.

I'm not sure how that helps Rotherham or Ferguson, but those lost people, seeing the worst around them, things we don't want to see have things to teach, once they find their voices.

So we shouldn't deconstruct early grasping narratives of who they are and what they want too quickly. We need 1000 stories brought out, and then we can start to see what they're saying. That's my blind hope of what arises from shameful tragedies after they are finally exposed.

Ares Olympus said...

Here's my Dostoyevsky quote, 1880.

"That life is heaven," he said to me suddenly, "that I have long been thinking about." And all at once he added, "In fact, I think of nothing else." He looked at me and smiled. "I am more convinced of it that you are, I will tell you why later on."

I listened to him and thought that he had something that he wanted to tell me.

"Heaven," he went on, "lies hidden within all of us - it lies hidden in me now, and if I will it, it will be revealed to me tomorrow and for all time."

I looked at him. He was speaking with great emotion and looking mysteriously at me, as if he were questioning me.

"And we are all responsible to all for all, apart from our own sins. You were quite right in thinking that. And it is wonderful how you could comprehend it in all its significance at once. And in truth, so soon as men understand that, the Kingdom of Heaven will be for them not a dream, but a living reality."

"And when?" I cried out to him bitterly, "When will that come to pass? Will it ever come to pass? It is not simply a dream?"

"Then you don't believe it." He said, "You preach it and don't believe it yourself. Believe me, this dream, as you call it, will come to pass without doubt. It will come, but not now, for every process has its law. It's a spiritual, psychological process. To transform the world, to recreate it afresh, men must turn into another path psychologically. Until you have become really, in actual fact, a brother to everyone, brotherhood will not come to pass. No sort of scientific teaching, no kind of common interest, will ever teach men to share property and privileges with equal consideration for all. Everyone will think his share too small and they will be always envying, complaining and attacking one another. You ask when it will come to pass; it will come to pass, but first we have to go through a period of isolation."

"What do you mean by isolation?" I asked him.

"Why, the isolation that prevails everywhere, above all in our age - it has not fully developed, it has not reached its limit yet. For everyone strives to keep his individuality, everyone wants to secure the greatest possible fullness of life for himself. But meanwhile all his efforts result not in attaining fullness of life but self-destruction, for instead of self-realization he ends by arriving at complete solitude. All mankind in our age is split up into units. Man keeps apart, each in his own groove; each one hold aloof, hides himself and hides what he has, from the rest. He ends by being repelled by others and repelling them. He heaps up riches by himself and thinks, 'How strong I am now and how secure.' And in his madness he does not understand that the more he heaps up, the more he sinks into self-destructive impotence. For he is accustomed to rely upon himself alone and to cut himself off from the whole; he has trained himself not to believe in the help of others, in men and in humanity, and only trembles for fear he should lose his money and the privileges that he has won for himself. Everywhere in these days men have ceased to understand that the true security is to be found in social solidarity rather than in isolated individual effort. But this terrible individualism must inevitably have an end, and all will suddenly understand how unnaturally they are separated from one another. It will be the spirit of the time and people will marvel that they sat so long in the darkness without seeing the light. And the sign of the Son of Man will be seen in the heavens. ... But, until then, we must keep the banner flying. Sometimes even if he has to do it alone, and his conduct seems crazy, a man must set an example, and so draw men's souls out of their solitude, and spur them to some act of brotherly love, that the great idea may not die."

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Help. I'm out of ammunition. I cannot concede a point, and cannot accept the proposition of Ares Olympus. I see this argument has gone many rounds, and is no doubt very exciting. But I cannot continue. I welcome other options, but I myself am done. If I cannot kill an argument, I must accept in impasse.

If no one else will stand for the greatness of Western Civilization as a cause in this case, then I know not what to do.

In the end, in conclusion, Ares, I cannot expect that you'll care a whit about the result. That said, I will listen for their cries of horror as the victims revisit the shock of their very real experience... again and again. Regardless of whether the authorities view them as harlots.

Call me cynical, Ares, but I question whether you'll follow-up on the exposure of this case, so far as it fuels your uses.. And this calamity will be yet another example of collateral damage.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

And congratulations on being agnostic. That explains a lot... if not everything.

Good luck with "humanitarianism" without Christianity. Enjoy that.

"Ummm... I think it's good to be a humanitarian."

"Great. Why should I care?"

"Because it makes sense."

"I don't care."

"Oh."

[Beheading.]

Ares Olympus said...

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD, I'm not sure what you said, but I understand you're concerned about the excesses of Islam, and believe what happened in Rotherham is a direct product of the perpetrator's religion.

I wasn't confessing agnosticism out of pride, but a simple fact. I find equal difficulty confronting fundamentalistic atheists even under their humanitarian ideals as fundamentalistic Christians under their Christian ideals.

And you would seem to be in agreement with the atheists, that there's nothing redeemable about Islam or its faithful (or it faithless deceivers), and the best we can do is keep them out of your country, and as far away as possible.

I can say I don't know. There's something dangerous about all fundamentalists, but maybe there's also something dangerous about society that reduces people to passive consumers and unaware of anyone outside of their bubble-protected world.

Jonny Wand said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

http://sultanknish.blogspot.ca/2014/09/moderate-islam-is-our-new-religion.html

vabna islam said...

Great post. I think it is good for visitors. I like this kind of website where has a lot of real information, It proved to be very helpful. Thanks for admin, His creativity, Presentation, Information and all is good.
Jennifer Lawrence

Ulisse Di Bartolomei said...

http://www.millennialantichristianity.com/