Tag Archives: France

by - 0 comments

Notre-Dame matters and it doesn’t

Notre-Dame de Paris has stood for over eight hundred years.  During that time, Paris has been sacked, occupied, or bombed four times.  During the Hundred Years War, The Revolution, the Franco-Prussian War, and the Nazis.  Notre-Dame had rough moments, but essentially stood firm.  Now’s it’s gutted by flame.  What society and culture could accomplish and protect over eight centuries, we cannot.

In separate but unrelated news, the Washington Monument’s reopening was delayed until this August.  It was damaged in an earthquake in 2011 and has been mostly closed since.  It took America less than four years to win the Second World War.  It will take over twice that length of time to repair a single monument.

Here are two clear shining examples of the failures of modern society and government.  We have fancy little smartphones in our pockets, we can access all the knowledge of humanity, but we can’t seem to do anything right anymore.  This is more than just failed government, it’s society’s failure in general.

Does Notre-Dame even still matter?  I think like probably 13% of French attend church each week.  I wonder how many Americans beneath the age of 25 could write say one page about George Washington and why he’s important?

We’ve lost the big picture, we’re without purpose.  Notre-Dame defined a civilization.  The smartphone is ours: and it’s shallow, baseless, and ultimately nothing more than future environmentally damaging landfill.

In this sense, Notre-Dame matters because it reminds us of what we lost, and what we can no longer even protect.  But in another more dark sense, Notre-Dame doesn’t even matter.  Let it burn to the ground, and in the end sadly nothing about us is going to change.

_106469308_hi053453863

by - 3 Comments

It’s either all okay, or none of it is

I’ve been rather disturbed at the number of professional publications and folks on this blog site who have stated something along the lines of “I am not Charlie”. Their general idea is that they do not support the violence but state they don’t support offensive behavior and so choose not to republish Charlie Hebdo images.

Freedom of speech is an all in proposition. It’s either all okay, or none of it is. The New York Times or people on this blog site may not desire to offend or believe that Charlie Hebdo is in bad taste, but I suspect they have no desire to live in a world where ultimately anything they publish can be called into question over whether it’s offensive or not.

The New York Times will not publish a cartoon of Mohammed because it’s considered offensive. Does that mean they also won’t publish a picture of a gay man because some people find that offensive? What about a picture of former President Bush or President Obama? Lots of people find that offensive or in poor taste. Whatever you write you’ll eventually get to a situation where what you put on paper is offensive to somebody.

So when you draw a red line and say “I’m not going to publish this because I find it offensive” you are accepting the premise that there are limits on free speech. And then “free speech” is replaced by “proper speech”.

When you accept that speech must have limits, there’s no limit to how much folks can limit speech. Governments, corporations, religion, cultural bullies, etc are all interested in limiting free speech because it suits their interests. When we the people self-regulate, self-censor, we are placing barriers on the greatest tool the individual has to fight power & money and maintain our liberty.

You may personally find Charlie Hebdo offensive. Or you may find that folks like me are infringing upon your liberty by mandating you publish things you find offensive.

But make no mistake, I’m not saying you must publish anything. You’re a free person too. Make your own decision. Republish or not, it’s your call.

You can say you find Charlie Hebdo offensive and refuse to republish the images. Or you can say you support freedom of speech. But you cannot do both. You have to make a choice. Sorry. You may find this inaccurate or unfair, but life’s a cruel nightmare. If you don’t stand up for freedom, even if at times it requires you to do things you find offensive, then be prepared to see your liberty progressively eroded by the forces of darkness (whoever they might be).

To alter wise words somebody else once said:

You might not be interested in offending men like this, but I assure you, they are interested in offending you.

hates freedom

This is not just about Charlie Hebdo or Mohammed or religion. This man represents a force that wants to take your freedom. There are many like him across all aspects of our Earth. We have to fight back, wherever and whoever they are.

It’s either all okay, or none of it is. Make your choice. I’ve made mine. I hope you’ll join me in choosing liberty first. Even if by doing so, you are guaranteed to offend somebody. Even if that somebody, is yourself.

by - 0 comments

Arcturus News Muster – 05 August 2014

Every day we get together in our hovel and produce the finest and most professional news product this side of the Crab Nebula. There are two smart things you should do with this breathtaking creation:

a) Don’t read it; never visit this site again

b) Read it; enjoy yourself

Accomplish both (a) and (b) simultaneously and as a reward my guests will demonstrate upon your brain their version of the mind meld. Warning, unless you desire to spend the majority of a full weekend screaming, I’d advise you to defer this award. Instead, I’ll just buy you a case of beer.

1) Arrest of Canadian couple illustrates consequences of lunacy

The Arcturus Project News

Chinese police officials are deeply concerned by the circumstances of their recent detainment of a Canadian couple suspected of espionage. Kevin and Julia Garratt ran a coffee shop in Dandong, located at the main border crossing with North Korea. The official provincial charging document called their establishment, Peter’s Coffee House, a “running-dog-imperialist-haven of the evil, corrupt, & degenerate West”.

Yet a senior Dandong police official, whose identity we cannot divulge as he was not authorized to speak with the media, expressed caution, “Nothing about this makes sense. Until we know all the facts, we’re treating this with latex beating gloves. Either these two individuals are the dumbest people on the planet, or they’re so damned good at spy craft they make James Bond look like a teenage heroin addict.”

Undaunted by criticism, China’s Foreign Ministry stated the Canadians were “suspected of collecting and stealing intelligence… related to Chinese military targets and important Chinese national defense science research programs”. When asked by reporters how a humble Canadian coffee shop couple could have access to, let alone engage in the theft of such information, a Foreign Ministry spokesman eloquently & methodically responded, “shut your fucking mouth!”

“I just can’t understand how this came about,” said Captain Hindsight of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, “I can think of about a billion places that are safer to conduct your business than the border of freaking North Korea and China. It’s probably safer to set up a liquor stand right next to that al-Baghdadi Caliph guy’s gilded palace”.

The Canadian Embassy in Beijing issued a strongly worded statement, indicative of a country that honored its values and obligation to its citizens, that it stood “ready to provide assistance as required”. Canadian officials are said to be weighing whether it would be considered inappropriate to Chinese officials if Ottawa offered assistance to comp the couple’s solitary confinement costs as a means to increase the possibility that China might purchase additional tar sands oil.

Back in Dandong, the anonymous police official struggled to predict the outcome of the situation, “If they can round up these folks there’s no limit to who they can arrest. On the other hand,” he hesitated, “sometimes you’re such a lunatic, you’re just asking for bad things to happen to you.”

05AUG 1

2) Hack director urinates upon entire generation in order to make his name

The Arcturus Project News

Oscar winds already surround the much anticipated and heralded upcoming World War II film Fury by unknown writer and director David Ayer. Starring leading metrosexual and unemployed housewife phenomenon Brad Pitt the movie intends to show the closing days of the war in a “relentlessly authentic portrayal”.

“What I’m really looking for here is moral equivalency”, said Ayer, “I want to show Americans murdering civilians, executing prisoners, drunk, and generally behaving like a bunch of assholes. Only by portraying them in such a shocking, disgusting way can I stand out and make my name touch upon the tongues of all of Hollywood’s leading power brokers. Because this is how they really want to remember that war anyways.”

Ayer built upon his extensive and relevant combat experience as a sonar operator on a Cold War attack submarine to guide his writing of ordinary men forced to make hard decisions during history’s deadliest war. “When I was in that steel tube, hitting on my bunk mate, eating ice cream and watching movies after watch, I think I really got a good idea of what it was like to stare down the barrel of a Panther’s 88mm gun.”

Fury is grounded in intricate detail, Ayer ensured that all the film’s supporting aspects in camouflage, weapons, and equipment were accurate to the greatest extent possible. A concept found ironic by Tom Brokaw, author of The Greatest Generation, “I spoke to Ayer, know his work, I just don’t understand a movie where you get the uniform pattern right but miss the overall point of the entire war. Remember, they were fighting a hardened enemy that glorified the SS. It was a long, brutal war, up close and personal,” he added. “A number of veterans I interviewed alluded to behavior they weren’t proud of, but neither did they apologize.”

Yet Ayer remained undeterred. “I think it’s really important to show, on screen, a patriotic American brutally murdering an unarmed man. It’s karma. It shows us all how we really are. I want to live in a world where we’re all honest about how we’re all the same. Plus, I want to make a shit ton of cash too, which mandates that I provide as much shock value as possible. It’s like I’m making a horror movie. Every additional chainsaw kill scene I include increases the budget value of the film by $7M.”

Sony officials were deeply concerned that the film might not debut on schedule, however. “We’ve received a number of random threats from unknown individuals”, said one Sony marketing manager, “federal officials are investigating.”

It took TAP News twelve minutes to find one Melvin Anderson of Columbus, Ohio, a 93 year old retired accountant, who offered this brief statement: “Yeah, I threatened his life, I told him if he wanted a demonstration of authentic knife skills, I still had it in me. Or, I can still get behind the turret and ride again. One last time for justice, truth, and honor. I could break him in half with the coaxial gun. It’d be one last kill in the name of glory. Then I can go home in peace.”

05AUG 2

3) French defense contractor STX France to sell surveillance kit to child molesters

The Arcturus Project News

In response to recent announcements that France will not suspend the sale of two Mistral class amphibious assault ships to Russia, and its recent decision to bottom line a contract to sell drones to NAMBLA, The Arcturus Project News sat down with Saint-Nazaire STX France union delegate Christophe Morel for a brief discussion.

The Arcturus Project News: Monsieur Morel thanks for agreeing to speak with us.

M Morel: My pleasure.

TAP: So, let’s go ahead and start with your pro-child airways murder agenda…

MM: [chuckles] I was warned about you, that’s not who we are, we’re in favor of free trade, the middle class, and good hard working jobs.

TAP: And child murder.

MM: [chuckles] That has nothing to do with us, we just make ships here.

TAP: For Vladimir Putin.

MM: For the Russian Navy, the Russian people, and in fact, nothing about these ships has anything do with Ukraine or the Malaysian airliner. The Russian Fleet intends to base them in the Pacific.

TAP: Where they’ll never be able to drive to the Black Sea. Ever. 

MM: We have their word.

TAP: I see.

MM: What’s your problem?

TAP: We have many. Which one are you specifically referring to?

MM: Britain gets rich off Russian bankers and German machine tool makers love the Moscow market, but you pick on us?

TAP:  You’re selling warships to a brutal aggressive dictator. The banker thing isn’t quite the best idea, but you’re off the edge. It’s like providing flamethrowers to the SS.

MM: That’s ridiculous. President Putin’s body count is nowhere near as high at Hitler’s.

TAP: …

MM: Something like 8,000 people make a living off this deal. They have families. What would you say to them?

TAP: Sorry, you can’t butter your bread with cash you got from Satan’s acolyte.

MM: That’s not good enough!

TAP: Why not?

MM: They’re not even warships, they’re like big ferries. They only have a few weapons onboard.

TAP: They introduce mechanized Russian Marine brigades ashore onto hostile shores.

MM: Exactly! So you see, this has nothing to do with Ukraine. Russia is not attacking Ukraine’s shores. And a ship didn’t shoot down the Malaysian airliner.

TAP: You’re just as delusional and foolish as your forefathers who supported Vichy.

MM: You pig! What would you have us do, we need jobs!

TAP: Don’t sell kit to evil.

MM: [hysterical laughter] Don’t you understand how the world works? We need to eat, we don’t give a fuck about Ukraine or the airliner. If it comes between my rich union job, and all of Eastern Europe? Let Putin nuke them all! I need work.

TAP: Then what about the news that you’re selling the video equipment and drones to pedophiles?

MM: Jobs are jobs you dick. Pedophiles need drones to track small vulnerable children. We need jobs. It’s win, win.

TAP: The breadth of your evil is instructional.

MM: Everybody’s got a price. Mine was $1B per warship. You have one too! I assure you.

TAP: Not a chance.

MM: Oh yeah, how about it? We checked up on you. We want your guests to put some of their advanced weaponry on the first ship. Then we can jack up the Russian price to $2B. You take a cut. Name that cut.

TAP: Not interested.

MM: You don’t care about Ukraine either…

TAP: Not true…

MM: What do you even do for a living? You’re just a shitty blog author. It’s time to get into the real games of life, fool. Time to make your mark and stop ranting in textual form to a bunch of folks you don’t even know.

TAP: …

MM: …

The Arcturus Project News is pleased to announce the creation of The Arcturus Project Shipbuilding. In collaboration with STX France the company will focus upon advanced shipboard weaponry. The newly designed “Arc Matrix” technology will allow the owner of the new Mistral ship (whoever that might be) to concentrate his or her enemies in a specific location where they can be controlled, counted, and things can be done to them in an efficient, orderly, and cost effective manner. Union delegates from STX France are thrilled and will join The Arcturus Project Shipbuilding in a celebratory mind meld bash at an undisclosed location in the Sahara desert. Said STX France union delegate Morel, “We’re so excited to celebrate this new collaborative venture. We can’t wait to see what this party has in store for us!”

05AUG 3

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-28654125

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/movies/fury-starring-brad-pitt-a-raw-look-at-warfare.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/22/world/europe/a-french-port-welcomes-an-intervention-by-russias-military.html?_r=0

by - 1 Comment

Don’t eat at Il Giardino, it’s the place to avoid

Yet again some loser has used the courts to crush free speech. Instead of, you know, improving their product and/or service. It’ll happen to you soon enough, because it would seem the courts no longer defend liberty, they assault it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28331598

I’ve never eaten at this restaurant, but I can tell you based upon their immoral behavior, that they suck. You should never eat there.

I stand by the title and content of this blog post. Sue me, assholes.

JACKBOOT

by - 0 comments

Religious freedom goes both ways

At times you’d think we were back in the year 1640 or 1780. It seems we’re revisiting the same religious debates again. Only this time we’re generally not settling them with swords and gunfire. Today it’s a war of ideas.

Yesterday, the US Supreme Court ruled, I think, that you cannot compel a mostly private corporation to provide a benefit that violates its religious beliefs. I say that ‘I think’ because honestly who knows what these rulings mean anymore. The law has become so convoluted and obscure that even talented and experienced Supreme Court lawyers can’t agree on what the ruling means.

So let’s just generally agree for our purposes here that a corporation is not required to provide benefit (x) if it goes against its religious belief (y). Also, please just presently ignore the for or against arguments about corporations being ‘people’. I’ll get to that topic many posts down the road. I guess.

Today, the European Court ruled, I think, that the French ban on face covering religious clothing is legal. I found this rather surprising as usually the European courts are all about enabling multiculturalism to the point of cultural suicide. It seems the court sided, I think, with the idea that the law’s intent was based upon the concealment of the face for security purposes vice the religious connotation.

Only a judge or a lawyer could make such a distinction with a straight face. I’m pretty sure if I wore an old white hockey mask in an elementary school somebody would call the police in about eight seconds. I’m not so sure you’d get such an instant reaction if you wore the hijab. Or maybe you would, it probably depends on where you are, and who sees you.

Now a number of folks will claim this ban is necessary because it protects these women from their husbands who will demand that they wear this garb. First off, that takes a fairly negative view of the confidence of Muslim women. Second, if somebody’s in a marriage where the husband can order what clothes the wife can wear, I’m pretty sure there are bigger problems in the marriage than a law on clothing can solve.

As much as folks may try, you cannot command all human behavior by legislation. We already have rules on unlawful imprisonment and spousal abuse. We also do not have laws that prohibit a spouse from being a dick to the other.

Another number of folks will claim that the future of all women is detonated by asking them to spend twelve bucks a week to buy their own morning-after-pill. I have no idea what it actually costs, I’ve never bought it, but I’m pretty sure its pennies on the dollar compared to how much cash people blow on smartphones, fancy coffee, and the zoo. This argument isn’t about women. It’s about winning elections, control, and demanding that one side agree with your beliefs. Or else.

Kindly observe however, the manner in which the world’s talking-face-hypocrites will hold up one ruling as:

a) Hobby Lobby’s a paragon defense of religious freedom; the anti-burka law is a sensible defense of Western values

OR

b) Hobby Lobby is against women’s rights; Muslim women should have the freedom to wear whatever they want

Neither argument is coherent.

Hobby Lobby does not want to hand out the morning-after-pill on its dime to their employees. It violates their religious beliefs. Okay. A Muslim woman desires to wear the full length nijab in public. It supports her religious beliefs. Okay.

Reasonable people will have very severe problems with both of these scenarios. But I challenge you to legitimately claim that both players aren’t exercising their own version of religious freedom. So when you try and ban one, or both, either way you are assaulting religious liberty. You either have both, or neither. Sorry.

And take your extreme scenarios elsewhere. Hobby Lobby is not about to produce a creepy black cloaked doctor to examine the genitals of its female, and male, employees. The hijab wearing woman’s husband is likely in fact not designing and building a nail bomb in his basement. Grow up or calm down. Or hopefully do both.

We’ve blogged extensively on the growing theft of freedom. Soon, the right to avoid being offended anywhere by anybody or anything will overpower your freedom of speech. Soon, the right to avoid being in any kind of danger anywhere from anybody or anything will overpower your freedom against unlawful search and seizure.

But for those who are about religious freedom, you’d better circle the wagons. As far as inalienable human rights go, religious freedom is the one that modern society can dispense with the easiest. Just look at today’s hyper-modern consumer cities. In Tokyo or London or Shanghai or New York I figure around 5% of people attend some kind of religious service on a weekly basis.

So those who support Hobby Lobby or the nijab had better become allies. They’re going to need each other to survive. Either it’s all okay, or none of it is. This blog and its degenerate author are hoping that all of it is.

burqa-eiffel

I personally desire to revoke this guy’s man card, but respect that this woman is an adult and deserves her choices in freedom of religion