Time Immortal

The Curt Jester notices an odd thing indeed in the election results in the United States:

I find it strange that all of the pro-life measures lost and that all of the anti-same-sex marriage measures won. Somehow their is still some idea of what marriage means, but the preciousness of life is another story. Washington State now has doctor assisted suicide like Oregon. So all we need to do is have California join in and we can call it the Kevorkian Coast or simply the Death Coast. In Michigan voters approved ESCR (supported by a Catholic Governor Jennifer Granholm). Modern liberalism means more dead people. If you don’t get them at the beginning of life you can always catch them when they get old or sick. The endless pursuit to make the distance from cradle to grave to be zero. Modern feminism says “Give me liberty and give them death.”

This will only become more true if president-elect Barack Hussein Obama pushes to see made into law things like FOCA, when he takes office in January.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Captain Capitalism has the details, which are frankly shocking. “706 abortions per 1,000 births in [the U.S.] capital, Washington ie-on average 12% of pregnancies in the US end in abortion and in DC over a third.”

Convenience. That’s all this is: convenience. Abortion, in the U.S., is expensive, and procuring the procedure costs over $1,000. Birth control pills, for a year, might cost $500. Condoms probably cost about the same, over the same time frame.

But birth control pills are inconvenient; with a few notable exceptions, most need to be taken according to a rigid regimen, and who has the energy to deal with a hassle like a regular schedule? Condoms, on the other hand, aren’t usually that comfortable — “bareback” just feels better. Besides, it’s like Kleenex, right? You never quite know when that box is going to run out, and it sucks to be caught up short.

So why not just skip the pills and the condoms altogether. Screw now, abort later…no problem.

The triumph of post-Christian sexual Morality. What a world we’ve made for ourselves, eh?

Update: Welcome, WebElf readers!

Are women in America already on a downward arc because of misogynous immigration and multiculturalism? I think so. But there’s no recognition of the problem, much less help in the offing, either from Washington or from Establishment feminists, who remain strangely attached to multiculturalism in spite of the ideology’s innate conflict with women’s rights.

One official feminist who should know better is Katha Pollitt, an opinion writer at The Nation. On one hand, she wrote a sensible response to Susan Okin’s question (later an anthology), “Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?” Pollitt directly criticized cultural relativism: “You could say that multiculturalism demands respect for all cultural traditions, while feminism respects only traditions that indeed deserve respect.” Yet Pollitt recently endorsed Obama, giving as one reason being his support for illegal aliens receiving driver’s licenses, and she criticized David Horowitz for his interest in women’s rights in Islamic countries. She dogmatically refused to believe a conservative would care: e.g. “David Horowitz, Feminist?”, The Nation, Nov 1, 2007. (See JihadWatch.org’s Robert Spencer commenting on YouTube about this matter.)

However, given the precious little attention given to the issue of Third World brutality against women in general, why didn’t Pollitt welcome any publicity, no matter the source? (Ask her at kpollitt@thenation.com)

…

Not only is immigration the new way of war, it is also the spearpoint of the attack on Western civilization’s tradition of liberty and individual freedom.

Geography is a lovely antidote to diversity. If members of backward cultures would stay put we would all be better off, but they don’t. The worst of the worst are headed this way due to the multicultural ideology underpinning US Immigration policy as well as the Refugee Industrial Complex maintaining itself.

In fact, diversity is so extreme that Washington doesn’t even bar criminal cultures like that of Somalia, where 98 percent of residents practice a form of child torture which is a crime in this country — female genital mutilation (FGM).

The State Department supposedly endeavors to keep out individual criminal refugees, but entire societies that normally brutalize children are welcomed. Go figure.

One of the most worrying trends is how quickly women’s rights are discarded by host First World societies in the name of multiculturalism. The recent British dust-up when the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams urged implementation of Islamic Sharia law in order to “maintain social cohesion” in Britain’s rapidly diversifying society is a sad example of the willingness of Establishment elites to eliminate western legal protections for women in order to appease Muslim immigrants.

For all the weakness in Britain’s cultural resolve in recent years, however, the reaction to the Archbishop has been surprisingly intense and widespread. Perhaps the slumbering British people have finally awakened to the threat within. We can hope.

…

In 2001, Oslo professor Unni Wikan lectured her fellow Norwegian women that the “Muslim rape wave” against them was their fault. She said that “Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes”. The professor did not call for violent criminal aliens to shape up. Instead, she said that “Norwegian women must realize that we live in a Multicultural society and adapt themselves to it”.

(Honest observation reveals the burqa is a cloth prison designed to erase the individual personhood of women. If the all-encompassing garments were designed merely to enforce an extreme level of modesty, burquas would not need to be identical. And the lack of an opening for the mouth suggests disapproval of speech and eating.)

…

And Islamic scripture approves of abusing women. As Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer observed in his online Blogging the [Koran], “Wife-beating exists in all cultures, but only in Islam does it enjoy divine sanction.”

Add the failure of Muslim societies to achieve anything of value in the modern world — such as the famously sparse level of books published in Arab countries — and social frustration can become personal. Muslim culture around the world may appear pitiful. But in the castle of the home, a Muslim man can beat the tar out of his wives and feel both powerful and virtuous.

Is this the kind of diversity we should welcome?

In a word? No. No, it definitely is not.

When it comes right down to it, Canada needs to take a long, hard look at inbound immigrants and understand that the degree to which those immigrants profess a desire to live according to the tenets of sharia law is the degree to which they are unsuitable candidates for citizenship in this country. People of any culture wanting to live under sharia are more than welcome, I think, to go to a country like Iran or Saudi Arabia (where sharia is law) and live there. The fact that many such countries are Third World hellholes shouldn’t give us pause when we tell such people that they are, simply put, not welcome here. Because it must be made true that they are not welcome here: their barbaric, backward, misogynistic, 7th century system of rules is incompatible with the rights and freedoms that all Canadians have, even (yes) Canadian women.

(In Soviet Russia, hat tips you: Kathy Shaidle)

Update: Welcome, Steynians! Binks is too unfortunately correct — in Islam, the women of the conquered people are “gifted” to the “brave” jihadist “warriors”. Is this perhaps what we are now seeing take place in Europe?

The Update Strikes Back: Welcome, Dinosaur fans!