Recommended Books

From the The Most Beautiful Libraries in the World blog,
under the category "Modest home libraries."

1. The works of Christopher Alexander are a must. A Pattern Language is the archetypal and most important of the lot, a must have for any designer, builder, or architect. But all his books are important and valuable.
2. John Barrow’s Artful Universe: the Cosmic Source of Human Creativity. Here’s my Amazon review*, which should explain adequately.
3. The Lost Meaning of Classical Architecture. It relates beauty, proportion and ornament in architecture to the sacrificial rite – i.e., to the tragedy inherent in human life. You’ll never look at an old bank the same way again.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
By Kristor J. Lawson "kristor"

This review is from: The Artful Universe (Hardcover)
Barrow, of course, is with Frank Tipler the author of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, which argues that the fundamental constants and initial conditions of the cosmos had to be more or less exactly as they are or life - thus our conscious, self-aware human life - could not have happened.
In The Artful Universe, Barrow explores in great and fascinating detail just exactly how the fine structure of the cosmos bears fruit in the structure of the human body, and in particular the structure of our ideas, preferences, values, aesthetic reactions, ways of thinking; our minds. The primary thrust of this wide-ranging survey is that animal minds and bodies subjected to natural selection are in big trouble if they embody propositions about the world, and therefore about the appropriate way to behave, that are in any important way essentially wrong. He argues that just as the structure of the eye constitutes evidence one way or the other for the correspondence to reality of our ideas about light, so the structure of, e.g., our mathematical faculties constitutes evidence for the mathematical structure of reality.

Barrow is terrifyingly erudite, and a clear, graceful writer. He manages to convey boatloads of highly technical concepts from numerous fields in crystalline arguments accessible to anyone with a basic scientific education. You will learn a ton from this book. You'll work for it - Barrow never condescends - but you will be well rewarded.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted By: Kristor

Camera Exposure

This is a reprint of a post by Jim Kalb who hosts the site Turnabout.

Walking to Manhattan

I noticed a camera lying around the house, and I wanted to try out the imaging features of my blogging software, so I decided to memorialize a walk down Flatbush Avenue over the bridge to Manhattan. It’s about an hour walk, and there’s lots of stuff on the way, so why not give it a whirl?

Here’s a New Deal-era building having to do with public health. It’s actually quite good, although this isn’t its best angle and the stuff added on top doesn’t help:



Things didn’t get better after the New Deal. Here are a couple of mid-70s Skidmore, Owings and Merrill buildings near Flatbush and Fulton that for some reason were supposed to revitalize the area, which had fallen on hard times:



By the late 80s, when Metrotech was built, they realized they’d do better copying what had already been done. The recent building in the foreground copies the old Art Deco building in the background. The older building is a lot more refined, but a somewhat crude copy is better than nothing:



Case in point (seen from the beginning of the Manhattan Bridge):



Really monstrous. It actually makes me physically ill. It might lead to suicides on the bridge if it weren’t so debilitating. It somehow makes everything seem hopeless.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat

Blue Claws

Blue/grey nail polish is in. After all, the First Lady wears it. The waitress who was serving me this afternoon had it as well. She came with the menu and pointed at a new item. I recoiled. Her long, claw-like nails were one thing. But then her fingers looked like they belonged to a corpse: a bloodless blue. And she is a pleasant young woman. At one time, young women wanted be pretty. Now, they want to look like vampires.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat

Beautiful Libraries

Image from the blog Beautiful Libraries. This would be my library
A library is where we find inspiration for ideas. These ideas need not come directly from the books, but also from the objects in the library, and the construction of the library itself. The room's structure, its architectural design, the windows, doorways, stairways, are the preliminary focus for contemplation. The room's interior, its chairs, the wallpaper, the carpet, the ceiling's crown moudlings, provide a sense of order, structure, and aesthetic pleasure which augment those objects of art which it houses. The paintings on the wall, the statues and figures on the desk and other tables remind us of a particular era, a particular artist, and a particular subject, which may inspire us like to follow their examples, or to continue where they left off. Finally, there are the books. And these can be divided into three categories. First, the design of the books, with their ornate covers, or covers of interesting qualities, are like the aesthetic pleasures we would get out of objects of art. Then there is the title of the books, from heavy and serious titles to light and frivolous ones which expand our imagination to where these books wish to take us. Finally, there are the authors of these books, who inspire us to think like them, and who give us their tools and philosophies on how to understand the world better.

Finally, books are meant for reading, and not contemplating. There nothing more superficial than a library of books which have not been read and which sit on the shelves for prestigious show. Even the most precious of books, which at any moment could succumb to the heavy load of dust, are something that have to be opened and read.

Beautiful libraries are hard to find.

A reader sent me a link to a blog titled Beautiful Libraries. Can anyone contemplate beauty in a library like this, or like this? We should nourish our thoughts well.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat

Importing Alienness

Indian dancing at Mississauga's annual multicultural festival,
Carassauga Festival of Cultures.

This photo was taken in Square One Shopping Centre,
the beautifully built mall, which is now going through a
major renovation to accommodate surrounding cities.

The Indian dance may indeed be beautiful and elaborate,
but it is out of context in the Canadian setting. Importing
alienness also means importing an aesthetic which we cannot
relate to, and which cannot merge with, or be influenced by
our mainstream aesthetics. When aesthetic ideologies clash,
it can only, eventually, wreak havoc and ugly confrontations.
Someone has to win.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am blogging this from my local restaurant, Moxie's, which is in Mississauga.

Statistics show that Mississauga has the highest number of new immigrants.

Complicated numeric information issued for government reports may be useful, but simple empirical methods, e.g. looking around, show that indeed Mississauga seems to have more foreign-looking, foreign-language-speaking people than even downtown Toronto.

There is a group of women sitting a couple of seats behind be. They are talking aggressively loudly in Arabic. I think this is what we should expect from now on: loud conversations in alien languages; strange clothing, getting ever stranger (fully covered Muslim women, for example, although there are many turbaned Sikh men around here too); odd accents (I'm hearing a distinct Chinese accent, with language errors such as dropping the article before nouns, omitting the past tense in verbs, and dropping the "s" in plurals, and Indians and West Indians who speak in a type of their own patois, with distinct vocabularies and sentence structures); a general lack of common courtesy, such as avoiding turns in lines; lack of side-walk etiquette; people walking (traveling) together in large and overwhelming groups; conversations where insulting the Western, Canadian culture, and especially whites becomes the norm (as in "oh, that's the way the whites do it" as something negative); and so on.

There was a sincere wish that non-white immigrants would eventually assimilate by white Canadians who tolerantly allowed incredible numbers of alien peoples to enter their country over the past couple of decades. But this assimilation hasn't happened. This is what Geert Wilders is saying in his speech in Australia, although he is specifically talking about Muslims, who are the most pernicious of the immigrants.

Below is his speech which I've reproduced in its entirety. The article is also posted on the View From the Right, where I got it from, and Larry Auster has posted a separate entry on Wildres in Australia, which he titles A wandering Dutchman in Australia.
He writes:

As far as being a target of left-wing fascists is concerned, Jared Taylor has nothing on Geert Wilders. In the run-up to and during Wilders’s recent trip to Australia, no fewer than thirty venues made contracts with him for a speech and then canceled under political pressure or threats. He finally spoke twice, once in Melbourne (here’s the speech) and in Sydney, with massive police protection to allow him to proceed. The Sydney Trads website has an interesting article on the visit. It tells how Tony Abbot, head of the “conservative” opposition party, while affirming that Wilders has the right to speak, distanced himself from him; said that Australia has nothing to learn from the Netherlands regarding Islam because Muslims in Australia see themselves as “Australians”; and said that Wilders’s views on Islam are wrong.

A columnist in the Sydney Morning Herald writes about the enormous difficulties Wilders’s organizers faced from so many venues canceling on him.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Geert Wilders delivered the following speech in Melbourne, Australia, Tuesday February 19, 2013:

Dear friends, Finally, I am here.

I am very happy to be in your beautiful and magnificent country, Australia.

400 years ago, the Dutch were the first Europeans to discover Australia. They named this land after their own and called it New Holland. So, here I am today, a visitor from the Netherlands, with a message from the old Holland to the New Holland.

I am here to tell you how Islam is changing the Netherlands and Western Europe beyond recognition. We are in the process of losing our culture, our identity, our freedom.

I am also here to warn Australia about the true nature of Islam. It is not just a religion as many people mistakenly think; it is primarily a dangerous totalitarian ideology.

I am here to warn you that what is happening in my native country might soon happen in Australia too, if you fail to be vigilant.

And I am here to advice you on how to turn the tide of Islamization. Inform people. Confront them with the truth. Don’t be afraid to speak. Use your right of free speech.

Because if you do not use it, you will lose it. And find and elect politicians who are not afraid to speak the truth about Islam.

Before I start, allow me to thank the Q Society for inviting me to your country. Thank you Debbie, Andrew, Ralf, and all the other volunteers for making this visit possible. Debbie never booked so many conference rooms in her life as in the past few weeks, and never had so many cancellations. Debbie, you are my hero. You have had a very hard time. But I bet you think twice about ever inviting me to Australia again.

The Q Society and its volunteers embody the courage for which Australians are known in Europe.

We, Europeans, owe our freedom in part to the thousands of young and brave Australians who fought, and died, at Passiondale and at Gallipoli.

These Australians—your fathers and grandfathers—persevered against all odds.

And so did the Q Society, despite the efforts of the governing establishment to discourage my visit.

First, Chris Bowen, the then federal minister of Immigration, had me wait five long weeks for a visa, forcing us to postpone my visit from October to February.

Then, the minister implicitly warned people to stay away from my speeches by writing a newspaper article in the Australian saying that I was a fringe figure from the far-right.

Western Australia’s premier Colin Bartnett went as far as to tell the media that I am “not welcome” in his state. I wonder how many public figures in the world have already been told that they are not welcome in Western Australia. Trying to find this out, I googled the words “not welcome in Western Australia.” Guess what? Only two items popped up: “Geert Wilders” and “U.S. nuclear base.”

Private enterprises followed the example by boycotting my visit, declining the booking of venues, turning down adds, and refusing banking services.

But the Q Society did not give up.

Thank you also to La Mirage here in Melbourne, where we are gathered today, for making this evening possible.

So, here I am, with a message that your political leaders do not want you to hear.

But first, let me tell you who I am and how I live.

I am an elected politician from one of the oldest democracies in the world. I am the leader of the Party for Freedom, the largest Dutch opposition party. We have almost one million voters in a country that is known for its tolerance. I am not a fringe figure; I am not far-right either. Political opponents brought me to court, accusing me of hate speech and discrimination. But the court in Amsterdam after an ordeal that lasted two years cleared me of all charges.

Earlier, I have spoken in the premises of the United States Congress, the British House of Lords, the Danish Parliament and other government premises. I participated in conferences in the U.S. and Canada, Germany, Italy, and elsewhere, with people none of which belong to the far-right.

For the past nine years I have been living under round the clock police protection. Wherever I go, plainclothes policemen go with me. I live in a government safe house, bulletproof and safer than the National Bank. I wish I had their money. Earlier my wife and I have even lived in army barracks and prison cells just to be safe from assassins.

Why do I need this protection? I am not a president or king, I am a simple parliamentarian.

I have been marked for death. I was placed under police protection in November 2004 when the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was slaughtered in broad daylight because he had criticized Islam. A few hours later, the police found a letter written by van Gogh’s assassin threatening to kill me and my colleague Ayaan Hirsi Ali as well. We, too, had been critical of Islam, especially through our work in parliament.

Ayaan has since left for America, but I continue to candidly express my views about Islam in the Dutch Parliament and in the public debate around the world.

But it is not I who am important here. What is at stake is the defense of our freedom.

Only two weeks ago, a good friend of mine, Lars Hedegaard, a journalist from Denmark, survived an assassination attempt. A foreigner tried to shoot him through the head. Why? For the simple reason that Lars is critical of Islam.

Europe has become a dangerous place for those who criticize Islam. So many people rooted in a culture entirely different from our own Judeo-Christian and humanist tradition have entered Europe that now Europe’s identity and its culture are in danger.

Australian tourists visiting our major European cities today can still see the postcard views of the Eiffel tower, Buckingham Palace and the Amsterdam canals, but if they are not careful and walk too far, they risk entering a dangerous Islamic ghetto.

Islam has creating a parallel society within our cities. Shortly before her death in 2006, the

well-known Italian author Oriana Fallaci wrote: “In each one of our cities, there is a second city, a state within the state, a government within the government. A Muslim city, a city ruled by the Koran.”—end of quote.

The Islamic presence is changing the outlook and the character of Europe. In some urban neighbourhoods, Islamic regulations are already being enforced. Women’s rights are being trampled. We are confronted with headscarves and burqa’s, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honor-killings.

Five years ago, Michael Nazir-Ali, the Anglican bishop of Rochester, England, who is himself of Muslim descent, already warned for Islamic no-go zones. “Those of a different faith or race may find it difficult to live or work there because of hostility to them and even the risk of violence,” he said.

Last month, a group called Muslim Patrol posted a video on Youtube showing how they control an entire neighborhood of the British capital London. They intimidate people, force women to cover up, harass gays, confiscate alcohol, and forbid non-Muslims to walk past the local mosque.

Two years ago, a high ranking German police officer admitted that no-go zones outside police authority are proliferating all over Germany. We can witness this phenomenon all over Europe.

I used to live in Kanaleneiland, a suburb of Utrecht which, during the 20 years that I lived there, transformed into a very dangerous neighborhood for non-Muslims. I have been robbed. On several occasions I had to run for safety.

The same transformation has happened in parts of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and other cities, in the Netherlands, as well as in cities in Belgium, Germany, Britain, France, Spain, Italy, Sweden and other countries.

In August 2011, a Dutch newspaper sent its war correspondent—yes, you heard right, its war correspondent—to the Dutch city of Helmond to investigate reports that Islamic thugs were harassing local residents. His article detailed terrible abuses suffered by the non-Muslim population, including the sexual harassment of young girls. The locals complained that the police are afraid of the thugs.

In France, the authorities have drawn up a list of 751 so-called “sensible urban areas.” These are the lost territories of the French Republic, even though a staggering five million people, or eight percent of the total French population, live in them.

In Brussels, the capital of the European Union, 25 percent of the population is Muslim. The city has several predominantly Islamic districts. Police officers entering these neighborhoods have been shot at with Kalashnikovs. Three years ago, the police union acknowledged that there are boroughs in Brussels which—I quote—“officers do not dare enter in uniforms.” End of quote.

In my own country, Moroccans are the largest ethnic group among Islamic immigrants. Almost every week there are incidents with Moroccan youths. In the Netherlands, 65 percent of all the Moroccan boys between 12 and 23 years have have already been arrested at least once by the police.

The list of violent incidents involving Moroccans, whether occurring in our streets, our schools, our shopping malls or on our sports fields, is endless. But the victims are almost never Moroccans or Muslims.

I am not exaggerating. I tell it like it is.

Two years ago, Germany’s Family Minister Kristina Schröder advocated—I quote—“an open debate about racist Muslims.” End of quote.

Last September, Jean-Francois Copé, the former French Budget Minister under president Sarkozy, also pointed out that—I quote “racism is growing in our cities.”

Copé, too, was referring to the surge of Islamic violence against ethnic Frenchmen.

Islam has brought us jihad: intimidation, violence.

Then there is the phenomenon of nonviolent jihad. The rise of Islam also means the rise of Islamic sharia law in our judicial systems. In Europe, we have sharia wills, sharia schools, sharia banks. The introduction of elements of sharia law in our societies creates a system of legal apartheid. Sharia law systematically discriminates between groups of people.

Britain now has official sharia courts. One of these courts settled the inheritance of a man whose estate had to be divided between his children. It gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with the Koranic pronouncement that a woman is only worth half a man. This is a disgrace. In our civilization, men and women used to be treated as equals before the law. In contemporary Europe, this is no longer the case.

Sharia law also affects our fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of speech. Sharia law forbids criticism of Islam. This is considered blasphemy. The penalty is death.

That is why I have been marked for death. That is why people like me and Lars Hedegaard are in so much trouble; that is why three years ago a man with an axe tried to chop the cartoonist Kurt Westergaard to pieces; that is why we, and Salman Rushdie and others are living in hiding. Because if you criticize Islam, you pay a very high price.

This brings me to the second major topic of my speech. The nature of Islam.

Is it not strange that we, who are not Muslims, are punished by Islam for breaking Islamic rules? Religious rules do not apply to people who do not belong to a specific religion, do they? Indeed, a religion—every religion—should be voluntary. Yet, Islam imposes its rules on everyone.

Why does sharia law alter our Western secular legal system in such a dramatic fashion? The answer is that rather than a religion, Islam is a totalitarian political ideology which aims to impose its legal system on the whole society.

Islam is an ideology because it is political rather than religious: Islam is an ideology because it aims for an Islamic state and wants to impose Islamic Sharia law on all of us.

Islam is totalitarian because it is not voluntary. It orders that people who leave Islam must be killed.

Contrary to all the other religions—real religions—Islam also lays obligations on non-members.

Your fellow Australian, the theologian Mark Durie has said—I quote: “Islam classically demands a political realization, and specifically one in which Islam rules over all other religions, ideologies and competing political visions. Islam is not unique in having a political vision or speaking to politics, but it is unique in demanding that it alone must rule the political sphere.”—end of quote.

We can see what Islam has in store for us if we watch the fate of the Christians in the Islamic world, such as the Copts in Egypt, the Maronites in Lebanon, the Assyrians in Iraq, and Christians anywhere in the Islamic and Arab world. The cause of their suffering is Islam. Indeed, the only place in the Middle East where Christians are safe to be Christians is Israel. Israel is also the only democracy in the Middle East, a beacon of light in an area of total darkness. We should all support Israel.

My friends, I always make a distinction between Muslims and Islam. Most Muslims are moderate, but the ideology of Islam is dangerous. The moderates are the captives of a totalitarian system. If only they could liberate themselves from the Islamic culture of fatalism and apathy, then the most beautiful things could happen to them and the whole world.

I have travelled the Islamic world extensively. I have visited countries such as Turkey, Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia. I was overwhelmed by the kindness, friendliness and helpfulness of many people there. They are often good people, but they are the captives of Islam. These people are not free; they live under the yoke of Islamic sharia law. If they leave Islam, they sign their own death verdict.

Thirty years ago, I travelled from Israel to Egypt. This trip made a huge impression on me. Israel and Egypt are neighbours, with the same climate, the same natural riches, similar resources, the same potential. And yet Egypt is poor, while Israel is wealthy.

Freedom is the key to prosperity; and Islam deprives people of it.

However, as long as Islam remains dominant, there can be no real freedom.

Just look at what is happening in the Arab countries. The so-called Arab Spring quickly degraded into a freezing Arab Winter. The situation of women and non-Muslims, such as Christians, worsened dramatically.

In Islamic countries, democracy does not lead to freedom. Islam keeps people entrapped in a mental prison. A survey by the American Pew Center found that even though 59 percent of Egyptians prefer democracy to any other form of government, 84 percent want the death penalty for apostates.

Despite the presence of many moderate Muslims, the growing Islamic presence in Europe is causing huge problems. Europe’s Islamic lobby is increasingly assertive.

It has successfully pressured European politicians into implementing pro-Islamic policies, institutionalizing sharia practices, adopting anti-Israeli positions, and restricting freedom of speech under the pretext that telling the truth about Islam is a hate speech crime.

In the Netherlands, we have prison cells with arrows on the floor directing towards Mecca; prisons where only halal food is served; Islamic lawyers who do not have to rise when the judge enters the courtroom; schools that close on Islamic holidays; works of art that are removed from public buildings because they might offend Islam; separate swimming hours, separate theatre performances, separate courses for men and women; nurses in homes for the elderly who are exempt for treating men because Islam forbids women to touch men; etcetera.

Islamic and pro-Islamic groups drag people to court simply because they exercise their legal right of freedom of speech. This is called legal jihad. People like myself, Lars Hedegaard in Denmark, and countless others from Canada to Austria have been subjected to endless time, energy and money consuming trials for speaking the truth.

07To understand the nature of Islam, one also has to understand its founder, Muhammad, the author of the Koran. It is uncomfortable for people to speak about it, but we must because he is the example of 1.5 billion people. According to Islam, Muhammad is the perfect man whose life must be imitated. The consequences are horrendous and can be witnessed on a daily basis.

Islam presents Muhammad as the role model to 1.5 billion people. Fortunately, the majority of them do not follow this example. The fact that Islam presents him as the model man obliges us, however, to talk about his character and the things he did.

Islamic texts such as the Sira, Muhammad’s biography, and the Hadiths, the descriptions of Muhammad’s life from testimonies of his contemporaries, show that he was the savage leader of a gang of robbers from Medina. Without scruples they looted, raped and murdered.

The sources describe orgies of savagery where hundreds of people’s throats were cut, hands and feet chopped off, eyes cut out, entire tribes massacred. An example is the extinction of the Jews in Medina in 627. Muhammad himself participated in chopping off their heads. The women and children were sold as slaves. As you know, Muhammad married the 6 year old girl Aisha whom consummated when she was 9 years old. In our countries today, such a pedophile would be sent to jail for a very long time.

Islamic violence does not spring from social and political grievances, as politically-correct sources claim. Islamic violence springs directly from Islam and Muhammad’s example.

Because Muhammad lied and cheated in order to advance Islam, some followers feel entitled to do the same. Islam even has a word for this kind of lying. It is called taqqiya.

Because Muhammad spread Islam through acts of terror, some of his followers do the same.

Because Muhammad established an Islamic state, some of his followers see it as their duty to do the same.

Because Muhammad had his critics and the critics of his Islamic state murdered, some of his followers regard it as their duty to kill everyone who speaks his mind about Muhammad and Islam.

It is no coincidence that all the Islamic states in the world demand that freedom of speech be curtailed and that criticism of Islam and its prophet be forbidden. And yet, it is our duty to speak out and tell the truth.

Anyone who voices criticism of Islam and Muhammad is in grave personal danger. And whoever attempts to escape from the influence of Islam and Muhammad risk the death penalty. We cannot continue to accept this state of affairs. A public debate about the true nature and character of Muhammad is badly needed how uncomfortable it might be to some people.

Understanding Islam and Muhammad, also learns us important lessons about our present situation. That is the third major topic I want to address: the lessons for Australia.

It is important that you realize that in our present days Islam is spreading predominantly through the method of immigration from Islamic countries. Muhammad himself conquered Medina through the method of immigration. Or Hijra as it is called in Islam.

Hijra is an instrument of jihad. It is an instrument that Islam uses to dominate the free world.

So, in order to stop Islamization, we should stop as we try to do in the Netherland where my party sees it as its first priority to stop immigration from Islamic countries. Enough is enough.

I realize that this may be a difficult message in a country such as Australia. Your country was built on immigration. Over one in four of Australia’s 22 million inhabitants were born overseas.

They came to Australia from many countries and continents. They were welcomed because they contributed. They have strengthened Australia.

Dutch immigrants, like countless immigrants from other countries, have helped to turn Australia into what it is today. Australia is home to over 300,000 people of Dutch descent.

These Dutchmen never caused any problems because they did not bring along an ideology which prohibits friendship with non-Dutchmen, which commands them to hate non-Dutchmen, and to submit or kill non-Dutchmen.

My countrymen did not come to impose their own culture upon the non-Dutch Australians; they assimilated into Australian society and, in doing so, they enriched it.

Today, Europe, too, is confronted with millions of immigrants. Unfortunately, many of these immigrants are not strengthening nor enriching our societies, because many of them refuse to assimilate and they create a parallel society within our nations. A very large number of these immigrants have moved to Europe from Islamic countries. Europe is in the middle of an Islamization process, driven by immigration from North Africa, Turkey, the Middle East and other parts of the Islamic world, such as Somalia.

The Islamic countries belong to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. It is the largest voting bloc and the biggest Israel haters in the United Nations. In 1990, it adopted the Cairo Declaration on human rights in Islam, in which human rights is bound by Sharia law. It also calls for the death penalty for people who leave Islam or insult Islam, Muhammad or the Koran.

There is a second priority which we have in our party platform. This is to counter Sharia or Islamic law in our own country.

Let me explain. When people move to another country, they integrate, they blend in, they assimilate. That is the natural order of things.

When immigrants from Islamic countries settle in Western countries, they move from an unfree society to a free society. People always prefer freedom over tyranny. That is human nature.

In the normal order of things, immigration from Islamic countries would weaken Islam.

Their contact with Western freedoms, would lead Islamic people to abandon Islam. However, through the creation of a Sharia-based parallel society—we see it happen all over Europe, be careful that it does not happen in Australia—Islam manages to continue its control over its captives.

Islamic societies—including Islamic enclaves in the West—exert tight social control that is indicative of the totalitarian character of Islam.

My friends, I am here to warn Australia. Learn from the European lesson. The more Islam you get into your society, the less civilized it becomes and the less free.

How did the Europeans get into their present situation? It is partly our own fault because we have foolishly adopted the ideology of cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is far worse than multiculturalism. Cultural relativism is the biggest political disease that we face in our countries today.

I am proud to say—I do not care whether people like it or not—that our culture which is based on Judeo-Christian and humanist values such as liberty, democracy and tolerance, is far better than the Islamic culture. I am proud of it.

We should not close our eyes to the fact that all over Europe and Australia, new mosques and Islamic centers are under construction. In any major city in Europe you will encounter halal shops and women in headscarves and burkas.

Two years ago, there was the case of Carnita Matthews, the Islamic convert in a burka, who escaped a jail sentence in New South Wales because the authorities could not prove that she was the person in a burka making a false statement to the police.

Open the pages of our newspapers and you will read horrific stories of women being trampled, female genital mutilation and honor killings in our own back yards.

We have to speak out, because it is the only tool we have got. We stand for our convictions, but we never use violence. We abhor violence. The reason why we reject Islam is exactly Islam’s violent nature. We believe in democracy.

We cherish the tradition of Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, Jelena Bonner, Lech Walesa and Ronald Reagan. These heroes defeated a totalitarian ideology by the power of their conviction and by using no other means than their words.

As the ex-Muslim and Islam-critic Ali Sina said: “We don’t raise a sword against darkness; we lit a light.” So it is. We lit the light of the truth. And the truth will set us free. The truth that while Muslims can embrace freedom, Islam cannot.

Let no one tell you that Islam respects freedom. Freedom and Islam are incompatible.

Let no one tell you that Islam is a religion of peace. Islam is an ideology of violence.

Let no one tell you that you should tolerate the intolerant. We should not tolerate the intolerant and start becoming intolerant to those who are intolerant to us.

We should stop the building of new mosques. Enough is enough.

We want no more immigration from Islamic countries for we have enough Islam already.

If you are a criminal immigrant you should be expelled! If immigrants do not commit crimes, they are equal to anyone else. But if they commit crimes, they should be sent packing.

Very often, the appeasers are the governments who are afraid of Islamic radicals threatening violence and riots against anyone who dares to confront their intolerant ideas.

What we are witnessing today is how freedom dies. It dies because the political elite is cowardly unwilling to defend it. We must not accept that.

Indeed, my friends, we must change course.

We must struggle every single day against the rising tide of Islamization, even when our opponents brand us as extremists, even when they take us to court, and treathen to kill us, we should continue speaking the truth.

If we do not oppose Islam, we will lose everything: our freedom, our identity, our democracy, our rule of law, and all our liberties.

We must end the disease of cultural relativism and proudly proclaim: Our Western culture, based on Judeo-Christian and humanist principles, is far better than the Islamic culture. Only when we are convinced of that, will we be willing to defend our own identity.

You must demand that immigrants accept Australia’s values, and not the other way round.

We must support the persecuted Christians in the Islamic world. We must also stand with Israel. Israel is in jihad’s frontline. Because by helping Israel to survive, we help ourselves.

But most important of all—and this is the final message of my speech—most important of all, we must defend freedom of speech. Everything else depends on it.

We cannot correct our mistakes if we are not allowed to talk about them.

There is reason for concern if the erosion of our freedom of speech is the price we must pay to accommodate Islam. There is something badly wrong if those who deny that Islam is a problem do not grant us the right to talk about the issue.

Public discussion should not be stifled by threats; On the contrary, public discussion should be promoted. And everyone should be allowed to freely express his opinions. That is why Europe and Australia are in desperate need of an equivalent of America’s First Amendment which guarantees us a maximum of freedom of speech.

Friends, there is hope if we overcome our fears and begin to speak the truth.

If we remain silent, we are certain to go from defeat to defeat; But if we speak the truth, we will be able to turn the tide and it will be our first victory of many.

Yes, my friends, there is hope. But only if we outgrow our fears and dare speak the truth.

As Ronald Reagan said “The future doesn’t belong to the fainthearted.”

The future freedom of Australia, the liberties of your children—they depend on you.

The ANZAC spirit helped keep Europe free in the past; the ANZAC spirit will keep you free in the future. Be as brave as your fathers, and you will survive.

There is hope because we are not alone. We still speak for the majority. While the elite has largely fallen for cultural relativism, the people have not.

In my country, the Netherlands, 56 percent of the population see Islam as the biggest threat to our national identity.

In Britain, a survey last month showed that the public regard immigration as the biggest issue facing British society.

In Germany, 64 percent hold that Islam is violent and 70 percent that it is fanatical.

In France, 74 percent are convinced that Islam is intolerant and not compatible with French society.

These people are not wrongheaded, they are not extremists; they stand for decency, common sense and liberty. We must speak on their behalf. We must encourage them. We must tell them not to give up and not to lose heart.

My friends, always remember that our voice is the voice of liberty; it is the voice of liberation.

Let us defend our own freedoms. And let us support Muslims—and especially the suppressed Muslim women—who want to free themselves from the yoke of Islam.

Let them join the worldwide community of freedom, renounce Sharia and Islam. And be free, as we are free.

It would be good if Muslims leave Islam for Christianity or atheism or whatever they want, as long as it is not Islam.

Friends, though we live thousands of miles apart, we—Australians and Europeans—belong to a common civilization. We share the ideas and ideals of our common Judeo-Christian and humanist heritage. We must help each other in the struggle for this heritage, because Islam is a threat to Europe as well as to Australia.

If we want to preserve our nations—our homes—and our freedoms and pass them on to our children, we must stand together, shoulder to shoulder, with Israel and the other nations in the West.

We have to rely upon each other and help each other in the struggle against a common adversary. We must stand together. Otherwise we will be swept away by Islam.

I believe, my friends, that we will stand together, that we will stand firm, that we will not submit, and that we will survive. Why?

Because we stand for the truth.

And the truth will prevail.

Thank you

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: KIdist P. Asrat
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shadows of Glamour at the Oscars

The Art Deco stage at the 2013 Oscars
I watched the whole Oscar's show last night. It wasn't for the movies, since the only one I've watched is Anna Karenina (which I blogged about here). I don't go to the movies anymore. We are made to watch violently ugly films in claustrophobic theaters with unbearably loud speakers. Movie going (even the popcorn) is an unpleasant experience.

I have read some articles and reviews on a few of these movies. Based on what I'd read, and the interviews I watched of the filmmaker and actors, here is what I wrote about Django Unchained, the (evil) film that Quentin Tarantino directed.

So why watch the Oscars? I find it fascinating that actresses who will act in sado-masochistic, nihilistic or (I should probably write "and" since these films usually encompass the whole gamut of ugliness) violent films want to still show up all glizted-up. As one actress said at the "red carpet" interview: "It's like dress-up."

But it is more than that. Some of the gowns I saw were reminiscent of the glamorous movie stars when Hollywood was at its filmmaking peak, which was also its glamorous peak. I think this era is from around the thirties to the mid-fifties. These 21st century actresses want to evoke that spirit: of beauty, of glamour, of style and of stardom. None qualify. I really cannot think of one actress who personifies any of these movie star qualities. Many are talented, but they cover up that talent with those horrible characters and roles they play. Of course, one can blame the real big-shots, the writers, directors, producers and the whole army behind a film. The actresses have no choice but to oblige, unless they want to sit at home without a job.

Before I go into fashion critique, here are a couple indications that Hollywood is trying to return to its glamorous image.

- The musical numbers were from old Broadway musicals, replete with men in tuxedos and women in ball gowns dancing elaborate stage productions.

- The funny, diminutive host, Seth MacFarlane, sang a couple of those songs in a very good voice. Here is MacFarlane's muscial background:

MacFarlane is a skilled pianist and singer who, in his early years, trained with Lee and Sally Sweetland, Barbra Streisand and Frank Sinatra's vocal coaches. In 2009, he appeared as a vocalist at the BBC Proms with the John Wilson Orchestra in Prom 22 A Celebration of Classic MGM Film Musicals.[69] In 2012, it was announced he would again appear at the Proms with the John Wilson Orchestra in a concert celebrating Broadway musicals.[70]

His day job is designing cartoons for TV shows, a skill he acquired after many years in art and design schools.


Comedian host Seth MacFarlane.
- The stage was designed in Art Deco, old Broadway style.

So what did these shadows of movie stars come up with, that showed me they really want to look beautiful and worthy of the noble Hollywood tradition?

Below are the styles of dresses that I saw. This is 21st century Hollywood, so the nihilistic, anti-beauty was fighting to get through.

1. Structured Black and Gold Art Deco Style Dresses
- Naomi Watts looks like a Rolls Royce figurine (see below)
- Nicole Kidman's dress was a less structured, but she looked pretty with her curly hair (but whose wispy style didn't really go with the formal dress).
- Halle Berry's front opened up almost down to her belly, but she (or her designers) covered the exposed area with additional material. (see below)
- Selma Hayek showed up in what looked like a medieval metal girdle, all the way up to her neck. She usually shows up with exposed breasts. She recently married a French business man, so he probably told her to shape up.
- Sandra Bullock tried with her lacy black gown. But the dress designers were too smart to go with pure, sheer lace, and put a "nude" - as the fashion commentators kept saying, but which really means skin-colored - slip underneath. It looked cheap and improvised.

The Best of the Art Deco:
Naomi Watts looked like a Rolls Royce figurine

Naomi Watts

The Most Like Art Deco:
Halle Berry Could have been a human form of an Art Deco building

Halle Berry

2. Ball Gowns
- Jennifer Aniston in a coral/red Cinderella dress. But I wish she would return to her famous "Rachel Hair" from Friends. (see below)
- Amy Adams in a feathery grey (see below)
- Jennifer Lawrence wore a crumpled white gown. "Edgy" is how one commentator desribed it. Yes, an "edgy ball gown." Perfect fit for an "edgy" modern girl.

The Best of the Ball Gowns:
Jennifer Aniston came in a full-blown ball gown

Jennifer Aniston

The Most Whimsical Ball Gown:
Amy Adams in a light grey Cinderella dress

Amy Adams

3. Gowns with Trails
- Zoe Saldana in variations of grey (see below)
- Jennifer Garner with a ruffled trail (see below)
- Reese Witherspoon in electric blue
- Helen Hunt in another one of those crumpled, "casual" looks. But she did make that horrible "sex" (read pornographic) movie, of which she is "very proud." What we do affects who we are, and who we become. How do these smart women not realize this?

Wave-like trail:
Zoe Saldana's beautiful gown with variations of grey and white. The belt was unnecessary though.

Zoe Saldana

Trail with ruffles:
Jennifer Garner in a plum gown with ruffles at the back

Jennifer Garner

4. Gowns with Applique
- Kristen Stewart with applique leaves on chiffon. Even "vampire girls" want to look pretty.
- Ditto (in film and fashion choices) Amanda Seifried (see below)
- Catherine Zeta Jones trying too hard in gaudy gold (at least she's lost that fake American accent, although it's more chic to sound British these days).


Amanda Seyfried

5. Gowns with Jewels
- Jessica Chastain in a crystal-bedecked peach gown
- Kerri Washington in a coral gown with a beaded bust
- Jane Fonda in a canary yellow dress, with a wide belt of jewels. I don't know how Jane Fonda manages to look so young. It is probably a mixture of plastic surgery and her famous exercise routines. (see below)


Jane Fonda

6. Gowns in Silver or Gold
Renee Zellweger all in gold. But, she could have left out the clumsy bracelet.

Renee Zellweger

And who was the Oscar fashions "designer" commentator? Vera Wang was video taped making commentary on the best dressed of Hollywood stars at the Oscars over the years. She showed up looking something like this (the video, for some reason, is not online).


Vera Wang

Georgian Champan, of the beautiful Marchesa line, was also making commentaries. What a contrast from the aggressive Wang.


Georgina Champan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat

Expansion Is In The Air

Walter Withers
Born England 1854, Arrived Australia 1883, Died 1914

TRANQUIL WINTER, 1895
Oil on canvas 75.7 x 122.6 cm
National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne
Mark Richardson at Oz Conservative has re-done the look of his site. The heading background looks like parchment paper. I'm constantly surprised at how blogger allows us to make clean, professional-looking sites.

Richardson posted about my Reclaiming Beauty site, and he has referenced a new project by another blogger. He writes:

Laura Wood has announced at her site that planning is underway for an American Traditionalist Society.

He concludes:

It would be great for traditionalists everywhere if this American venture could take hold.

Richardson also has started an Australian traditionalist group which he calls the Eltham Traditionalists, which he named after a suburb of Melbourne.

It is good to see that bloggers are thinking in big, societal terms.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat

The God Of Wine

Cabernet Sauvignon Vista Point, which my local
restaurant sells for $6.5 (half price on Tuesdays).

Here is how it is described:
Vista Point Cabernet Sauvignon from California.
Intense blackberry and currant, a smooth easy
drinking wine for any occasion.

I go to my local restaurant (Moxie's in Mississauga) to read C. S. Lewis' Mere Christianity or Roger Scruton's Beauty. They also have WiFi, so I can take my laptop and work on my projects, either this Reclaiming Beauty weblog, or my own chapters of my book Mere Culture. The 5oz glass of red wine is enough where: "Under [Dionysus, the Wine god's] influence courage was quickened and fear banished, at any rate for the moment...[W]hile it lasted it was like being possessed by a power greater than themselves" as Edith Hamilton writes in Mythology, (the fuller quotation is below).

Below are photos I took recently of Dionysus at the Toronto Royal Ontario Museum:


Dionysos: God of wine
Marble head and torso
Roman copy after Praxitelean work of the 4th Century B.C.
His appearance matches descriptions in classical literature:

"A magical enchanter..., his bond hair smelling of perfume
his cheeks flushed with charms of Aphrodite in his eyes"
Euripedes, Bacchae 192-194

[The above description is from the information plaque beneath the sculpture]
[Photo by Kidist P. Asrat]


Protome of Bearded Dionysus
The wine god is shown here holding an egg and a drinking cup (kantharos).
The handsome face shows stylistic influences of the great Attic sculptor Phidias
[The above description is from the information plaque beneath the object]
[Photo by Kidist P. Asrat]

Phidias, according to Wikipedia was:

Phidias, or The Great Pheidias (c. 480 – 430 BC), was a Greek sculptor, painter and architect, who lived in the 5th century BC, and is commonly regarded as one of the greatest of all sculptors of Classical Greece. Phidias' Statue of Zeus at Olympia was one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. Phidias designed the statues of the goddess Athena on the Athenian Acropolis, namely the Athena Parthenos inside the Parthenon and the Athena Promachos, a colossal bronze statue of Athena which stood between it and the Propylaea, a monumental gateway that served as the entrance to the Acropolis in Athens. Phidias was the son of Charmides of Athens.

The ROM has no online photo or description of this bearded Dionysus, and the museum's research and Greek department experts were unable to help ("it's Friday," "it's Friday afternoon," told me the telephone responder - as though people don't work on Friday's, especially in museums. Finally he just told me to come over. Until then, I will provide the information above which I hopefully reached correctly through deduction).

According to the great female historian Edith Hamilton, whose book Mythology I've used as a reference for many antiquity-related material, Dionysus was the Greek version of the Roman god Bacchus (actually, that should be the other way around, if we are to follow chronology).

The Greek Dionysus was a much more interesting and imaginatively created god than Bacchus. Hamilton is enchanted by the Greeks, whose fertile imagination she admires much more than the staid Roman personality. The Greek gods were equally imaginative, but often harsh and cruel, both to each other and to their human proteges.

Hamilton writes about Dionysus:

The ideas about Dionysus in these various stories seem at first sight contradictory. In one he is the joy-god -

He whose locks are bound with god,
Ruddy Bacchus,
Comrade of the Maenads, whose
Blithe torch blazes.

In another he is the heartless god, savage, brutal -

He who with a mocking laugh
Hunts his prey,
Snares and drags him to his death
With his Bacchanals.

The truth is, however, that both ideas arose quite simply and reasonably from the fact of his being the god of wine. Wine sib ad as well as good. It cheers and warms men's hearts; it also makes them drunk.The Greeks were a people who saw facts very clearly. They could not shut their eyes to the ugly and degrading side of wine-drinking and see only the delightful side. Dionysus was the God of the Vine; therefore he was a power which sometimes made men commit frightful and atrocious crimes. No one could defend them, no one would ever try to defend the fate Pentheus suffered. But, the Greeks said to each other such things really do happen when people are frenzied with drink. This truth did not blind them to the other truth, that wine aws "the merry-maker," lightening men's hearts, bringing careless ease and fun and gaiety.

The wine of Dionysus,
When the weary cares of men
Leave every heart.
We travel to a land that never was.
The poor grow rich, the rich grow great of heart.
All conquering are the shafts made from the Vines.

The reason that Dionysus was so different at one time from another was because of this double nature of wine and so fo the god of wine. Hewwas man's benefactor and he was man's destroyer.

On his beneficent side he was not only the god that makes men merry. His cup was

Life-giving, healing every ill.

Under his influence courage was quickened and fear banished, at any rate for the moment. He uplifted his worshipers; he made them feel that they could what they had thought they could not. All this happy freedom and confidence passed away, of course, as they either grew sober or got drunk, but while it lasted it was like being possessed by a power greater than themselves. So people felt about Dionysus as about no other god. Hew was not only outside of them, he was within them, too. They could be transformed by him into being like him. The momentary sense of exultant power wine-drinking can give was only a sign to shwo men that they had within them more then they knew;"they wold themselves become divine."

Hamilton then continues a fascinating thesis that Dionysus was the precursor to Christ (which many other scholars have also discussed:

To think in this way was far removed from the old idea of worshiping the god by drinking enough to be gay or to be freed from care or to get drunk. There were followers of Dionysus who never drank wine at all. It is not known when the great change took place, lifting the god who freed them through inspiration, but one very remarkable result of it made Dionysus for all future ages the most important of the gods of Greece.
[...]
The greatest poetry in Greece, and among the greatest in the world, was written for Dionysus. The poets who wrote the plays, the actors and singers who took part in them, were all regarded as servants of the god. The performances were sacred; the spectators, too, along with the writers and the performers,were engaged in an act of worship. Dionysus himself was supposed to be present; his priest had the seat of honor.
[...]
The strange god, the gay reveler, the cruel hunter, the lofty inspirer, was also the sufferer. He, like Demeter, was afflicted, not because of grief for another, as she was, but because of his own pain. He was the vine, which is always pruned as nothing else that bears fruit; every branch cut away, only the bare stock left; through the winter a dead thing to look at an old gnarled sump seeming incapable of ever putting forth leaves again.. Like Persephone Dionysus died with the coming of the cold. Unlike her, his death was terrible: he was torn to pieces, in some stories by the Titans, in others by Hera;s orders. He was always brought back to life; he died and rose again. It was his joyful resurrection they celebrated in his theater, but the idea of terrible deeds done to him and done by men under his influence was too closely associated with him ever to be forgotten. He was more than the suffering god. He was the tragic god. There was none other.

He had still another side. He was the assurance that death does not end all. His worshipers believed that his death and resurrection showed that the soul lives on forever after the body dies. This faith was part of the mysteries of Eleusis. At first it centered in Persephone who also rose from the dead every spring. But as queen of the black underworld she kept even in the bright world above a suggestion of something strange and awful: how could she who carried always about her the reminder of death stand for the resurrection, the conquest of death? Dionysus, on the contrary, was never thought of as a power in the kingdom of the dead. There are many stories about Persephone in the lower world; only one about Dionysus - he rescued his mother from it. In his resurrection he was the embodiment of the life that is stronger than death. He and not Persephone became the center of the belief in immortality.

Around the year 80 A.D., a great Greek writer, Plutarch, received news, when he aw far from home, that a little daughter of his had died - a child of most gentle nature, he says. In his letter to his wife he writes: "About that which you have heard, dear heart, that the soul once departed from the body vanishes and feels nothing, I know that you give no belief to such assertions because of those sacred and faithful promises given in the mysteries of Bacchus which we who are of that religious brotherhood know. We hold it firmly for an undoubted truth that our soul is incorruptible and immortal. We are to think (of the dead) that they pass into a better place and a happier condition. Let us behave ourselves accordingly, outwardly ordering our lives, while within all should be purer, wiser, incorruptible."

Of course, there is also the Eucharist:

Matthew 26, verse. 27-28
And he took the cup, and gave thanks , and gave it to them, saying , Drink ye all of it;
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

The bottle has a small poppy flower as its motif.



According to this list of epithets, Dionysus is also called "Dionysos of the Poppies."

Of course, the poppy produces a drug which, like alcohol "Under [whose] influence courage was quickened and fear banished, at any rate for the moment...[W]hile it lasted it was like being possessed by a power greater than themselves."

I will conclude with a happy note that some amongst modern folks may have still some understanding of our history and our inheritance, and are able to bring it subtly into the forefront.

A $7/glass of a 2009 Cabernet Sauvignon [pdf file] carefully crafted so that its taste and its appearance has some poetic and cultural significance is something to wonder at.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat

Tom Selleck's Second Act, Surrounded by New York Landmarks

It doesn't really matter if Tom Selleck isn't the best of actors, but he somehow holds together a motley crew of a family of cops in Blue Bloods, the very apt title for a show of NYC cops (and a lawyer daughter who turned to law rather than order), which has become something of a TV royalty.

Selleck isn't given big parts, but he plays a very big role as the staid patriarch. During his officer duties, we see him arguing with his assistant, giving advice to his law and order family at the weekly Sunday dinners in his New Jersey home, warding off blood thirsty reporters at press conferences who could ruin an investigation with one article, and generally trying to right wrong from his lofty position. But it is his volatile cop son Danny (from the former boy-band New Kids on the Block - he has come a long way), and his elegant lawyer daughter Erin (played by Bridget Moynahan) who do the legwork, and take on gritty cases. The show, like all New York shows, is a backdrop for the city, which means going into all the borough, and not only the Manhattan that has become synonymous with the city. . Last week it was in Brooklyn investigating a Hasidic Jewish murder. Before that it was at Battery Park with views of the Statue of Liberty. This week it was in the Bronx.

We are always taken down to City Hall with its beautiful rotunda, and of course the New York County Court House in Foley Square.

Somehow in this episode, Danny ends up in Rockaway, Long Island, showing us the effects of hurricane Sandy.

In the end, good (according to CBS - the channel which airs the show) always wins, even if it means if Chief Commissioner Reagan has to also make sure that social justice also gets its due. As the black actor who wanted to revive a cold case said to Erin, who told him that maybe he needed to forgive: "I prefer justice." His justice was to give due justice to the father of his daughter's boyfriend who was white, for killing his daughter for going out with his son.


The quote on the frieze: "The True Administration of Justice is the Firmest Pillar of Good Government"
is attributed to George Washington
The New York County Courthouse (or the Manhattan Supreme Court), in Foley Square

The pediment on the New York County Courthouse:

Fourteen pediment figures: female figure of Justice (center), male figure of Courage (on her right), and male figure of Wisdom, (on her left). Courage holds sword of justice and a shield as protection against the forces of evil, represented by three figures to his right. Wisdom is represented by a winged female figure lending Justice the torch of wisdom. To her left are three figures representing forces of light, including figure of Philosophy, a figure who bears the robes of Authority, and a youthful figure bearing garlands. At either end of the pediment there is a group guarding the Record of the Law. On top of the pediment is a figure of Law represented by a male figure dressed in Roman robes. He holds a book in his proper left hand and his proper right hand rests on a fasces, the Roman symbol of authority. A bald eagle is by his proper left foot. On top of the right end of the pediment is the figure of Truth represented by a female figure who holds a bouquet of flowers in her proper left hand. On top of the left end of the pediment is the figure of Equity represented by a female figure who holds a book in her proper right hand and a small disc in her proper left hand. [Source]

New York City Police Commissioner Frank Reagan, played by Tom Selleck

N.Y. Assistant D.A. Erin Reagan (Bridget Moynahan) getting ready for a case

Det. Danny Reagan (Donnie Wahlberg) in Rockaway Beach, at Hurricane Sandy site

Frank Reagan's Brooklyn Home

Sunday Family Dinner

New York City, City Hall

New York City, City Hall: Vestibule Ceiling

New York City, City Hall Subway
(although not functioning, it is open for viewing)

New York City, City Hall: Mural of New York Harbor in Jury Room 452
From the Historical Society of the New York Courts
The show was apparently slated to be filmed in Toronto. Thank God the New York City Film Commission film managed to salvage that. I'm getting really tired of trying to identify what Toronto building or neighborhood is being passed off as in NYC. This time, it is the real thing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat

Administration Notes

In the near future, I will be changing the address to this blog from a blogspot.com to something a little more sophisticated like Reclaimingbeauty.com, or some similar domain name. The site will still function like a blog, with daily (close to) posts, and readers' comments. This way, as I continue with my plan to have it function like a Frontpage Magazine or a Huffingpost (I do like her set-up, though I seldom read her site!) and so on, it will make the site look serious for bigger fund dollars. I also hope to eventually generate enough so that I may be able to pay a fee to contributors.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat

Why You Are Demorilized

Mississauga City Centre, Mississauga, Ontario

Below is an excerpt for Alan Roebuck's June 28, 2012 article at the Orthosphere on ugliness.

The full article is posted under Why You are Demoralized and What You Must Do About It. It is long, but worth reading, since it expands on the moral, intellectual and aesthetic deficiencies that have brought ugliness into our modern world. Roebuck also attempts to tell us how to rectify this (deep) existential problem of ugliness. This "what to do about it" is an usual approach to the nihilistic doomsday reporting of contemporary writers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ugliness is not just an unpleasant fact of life. Under the current system ugliness is relentlessly promoted, and those who speak out against the promotion and even worship of ugliness are branded troublemakers.

Based on the three transcendent values of truth, goodness and beauty, we can divide ugliness into the intellectual, the moral and the esthetic. Intellectual ugliness is primarily the notion that we cannot know anything for certain, in which case discourse is only an occasion for ego assertion or manipulation. An apparent exception is made for science, at least physical science. But physical science, important thought it be, is the least important form of knowledge. Science at best only tells us non-ultimate truths about what is. Moral, philosophical and religious knowledge are more important, for they tell man what ultimate reality is and how he ought to live. Contemporary man is therefore left hungering for a knowledge he is told does not exist.

Men worship and spread intellectual ugliness mainly because it eases the pain of thinking one might be mistaken. If there is no truth that can be known for certain, then one cannot be held responsible for being mistaken.

Moral ugliness is expressed primarily in the doctrine of moral relativism: the belief that there are no objective moral rules, that is, rules that are valid at all times and for all people. According to this belief, people articulate moral rules mostly to manipulate others or to fortify their egos by telling themselves they are virtuous. As a result, contemporary man is left with no moral guidance except the bare minimum that one should not “harm others.” To the greater questions of how a man ought to live and what constitutes virtue, the authorities permit no answer, for fear of spreading “intolerance.”

Men worship and spread moral ugliness because it eases the pain of thinking that their actions may be immoral. Instead of seeking the true remedy for sin through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, men seek to assure themselves that they have not really sinned.

Esthetic ugliness manifests itself more obviously than the previous forms, in ugly artifacts, ugly works of fine art, and slovenly personal appearance. Widespread esthetic ugliness spreads the subliminal but powerful message that the world, or at least the existing order, is bad. Demoralization is the natural result.

The widespread acceptance and promotion of esthetic ugliness are also important phenomena. Through a personal display of esthetic ugliness a man confesses the disorder in his soul; through the acceptance of this ugliness he gains a measure of comfort by apparently having his confession accepted and absolved; through the promotion of ugliness he gains the feeling of dragging the rest of us down to his level, in which case his disorder is apparently not a disorder at all, but just an innocuous lifestyle choice. For these reasons it is no wonder that many worship ugliness. For the aschemiolator, ugliness is not an unpleasant occasional fact of life. It is a way of life and a god who protects its devotees from the threat of normality.

We must reiterate that many whose spirits have been broken do not know it. Some demoralized persons cover their sickness with ego assertion. These people, in fact, often enjoy the new dispensation wherein anything goes as long as you don’t claim that your beliefs are universally valid or that your actions ought to be emulated by everyone. They can be selfish without incurring a social penalty.

The enthusiasts and activists generally fall into this category: They find meaning in life through fighting for a personally-meaningful cause: environmentalism, sexual liberation, more political power for their tribe, and so on.

But permit us to point out the obvious: Unless the competing egos of society are coordinated by some shared conception of the good, the result is exactly the social disintegration we see all around us. And anarchy always prepares the way for tyranny.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Kidist P. Asrat

The Life of a Lesbian

I like Camille Paglia. I have three of her books:

- Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson
- Sex, Art, and American Culture: Essays
- Vamps & Tramps: New Essays

The titles are provocative, but the essays are sound. Paglia clearly loves Western culture, and is willing to take its highs and lows.

I think Paglia started off writing interesting and provocative essays on our modern world, its art and its personalities. But, as time wore on, I began to realize that she wasn't offering us anything better. Her writing, and her views became a repetitive "we have to put sex back into our culture" mantra. Perhaps that is what atheistic aesthetes finally evolve (devolve) into: pure sensualists. There is nothing higher than man for them, so they start to idolize something of man: his mind, his body, and even his spirit. But when the humanness of man becomes apparent, they have to sensualize him, and their reaction to him. What better aspect to grasp on to than sex?

There is no areligious person. Everyone eventually succumbs to some kind of higher order. If it is not God, then it could just a well be a tree. But sophisticates like Paglia go for the most God-like creature in the universe, and elevate him to an undeserved pedestal. Man becomes their god. Or better yet, woman becomes their goddess.

Below is Paglia's eulogy for Elizabeth Taylor, where she elevates her into a goddess.

From the Chapter: "Elizabeth Taylor: Hollywood's Pagan Queen" (pp14-19 in Sex, Art, and American Culture):

In 1958, Elizabeth Taylor, raven-haired vixen and temptress, took Eddie Fisher away from Debbie Reynolds and became a pariah of the American press. I cheered. What a joy to see Elizabeth rattle Debbie's braids, and bring a scowl to that smooth, girlish forehead. As an Italian, , I saw that a battle of cultures was underway: antiseptic American blondness was being swamped by a rising tide of sensuality, a new force that would sweep my sixties generation into full force.

Paglia groups Debbie Reynolds with "that trinity of blond oppressors!" of Doris Day and Sandra Dee in her latest article Taylor Swift and Katy Perry are Ruining Women.

These chirpy, young white women become the Debbie Reynods (though nothing as innocent as the young Debbie Reynolds) of our modern world, while the black pop star Rihanna is the Elizabeth Taylor.

Paglia writes about Rihanna in Taylor Swift and Katy Perry are Ruining Women - which of course implies that Rihanna is saving women:

Rihanna...was born and raised on Barbados, and her music...has an elemental eroticintensity,a sensuality inspired by the beauty of the Caribbean sun and sea. The stylish Rihanna’s enigmatic dominatrix pose has thrown some critics off. Anyone who follows tabloids like the Daily Mail online, however, has vicariously enjoyed Rihanna’s indolent vacations, where she lustily imbibes, gambols in the waves and lolls with friends of all available genders.

I've written about Rihanna's nihilistic performances under the title: Rihanna Sings to the Anti-Christ:

Rihanna, the pop star, was sporting some kind of leather jacket with crosses printed on it at a recent event. That's nothing unusual in pop fashion. Madonna made the cross into some kind of pop fashion statement, and many follow her example.

But Rihanna's cross is a new evolution. I can only see two imprinted on her jacket. One is right-side-up, the other is upside-down...

This...is a new development, at least in the mainstream pop world. It is one thing to "ironically" wear an exaggerated cross as part of a fashion statement. That still leaves some room for true belief. But it is another to unashamedly display an inverted cross, because its meaning is nothing but demonic.

The original meaning of the inverted cross is related to St. Peter's humility. But, it has been appropriated by Satanists. Here is a brief explanation:

An inverted cross is the cross of St. Peter, who, according to tradition, was crucified upside down because he felt unworthy to die the same way as Christ. As Catholics believe the pope to be a successor of St. Peter, the inverted cross is frequently used in connection with the papacy, such as on the papal throne and in papal tombs [photo]. It also symbolizes humility because of the story of Peter. The inverted cross has more recently been appropriated by Satanists as a symbol meant to oppose or invert Christianity. [Source: Religionfacts.com]

I doubt the perverse Rihanna is thinking of her salvation when she sports this symbol, Her intentions are much more nefarious.

It is the dark Elizabeth Taylor who snatched blonde Debby Reynolds' husband from her. But Reynolds, forgave her and became friendly with her in later years? Would the volatile Taylor have accepted such a relationship if she had been the aggrieved party?


Elizabeth Taylor, in 2007, three years before her death at age seventy-six.
She was in a wheelchair, unable to walk. But like true divas, managed to
Reynolds today, with her chirpiness and unwrinkled forehead, continues unabated with her persona, and her life. She appears on television shows and films, performs in one-woman comedy shows and in Broadway musicals, and is cast as a formidable (former-blonde, now dyed blonde) mother on various sitcoms. Wiping off scowls and other dark expressions has made her into a survivor. Taylor, inflated by her memories of the dark vixen, reverted to reviving the persona of her younger days, but ended up looking weak and pitiful. No-one pities Reynolds. We admire her instead.


Debbie Reynolds at the Beverly Hills Hotel
100th Anniversary Weekend in 2012 (age, 80 years)
Finally, below is Paglia in 2013. A washed out beauty-chaser, who ends up looking like the drag queens she eulogizes so much in her writings. What happens to a lesbian as she ages? I think the guilt and emptiness fills itself up with something else.


Paglia on the cover of Vamps and Tramps in 1994 (she's no Debbie Reynolds)
and in 2013, over-rouged like Elizabeth Taylor

Distinguishing the good from the mediocre

Left:
The Church at Greville
Jean-François Millet
Between 1871 et 1874
Oil on Canvas
28.7 x 23.6 inches
Musee d'Orsay, Paris, France

Right: Évry Cathedral
[more views of the building at linked site]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Evry Cathedrale was begun in 1992 and completed in 1995. It was controversial from the start because government funds were used to partially finance the project. The same controversy goes on today over mosques.

It is difficult to know how to have good taste, but some are born with it while others learn by doing, by trial and error and by comparing two things, say two rooms, one mediocre and one with successful decor. I think showing comparisons is very important. Compare Rita Hayworth and Jennifer Lopez, for example. The fabulous Rita, a great dancer, who held her own with Fred Astaire. And the teen-idol Jennifer, whom I would never recognize in the street, because there is so little that is noteworthy. I know we are hard on the young girls today, but unfortunately, they deserve it.

And look at the new Catholic churches built in France - they look more like Soviet prisons, compared to a charming old church somewhere in the countryside.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By: Tiberge

Larry Auster and Reclaiming Beauty

Lawrence Auster at work on View From the Right

Although Larry Auster didn't directly write about beauty, his work is infused with the desire to bring beauty back into our world.

One of the most memorable posts he did on art (and beauty) was his reaction to a bust of George Washington. The image of the bust he has posted is huge and takes up the whole screen, so that we, like him, can have as close a look at it as possible.

Here is his post, published at VFR on February 20th, 2004 (nine years ago today!), titled Washington's Birthday:

Happy Birthday, G. Washington! This Sunday we celebrate the 272nd birthday of the man who is justly known—though so few have an adequate understanding why—as the Father of our Country.

That the Father of the United States of America was one of the greatest men who ever lived, who impressed on this country his character, his prudence and far-seeing political wisdom, his extraordinary personal force modulated by his mildness and self-control, his dedication to classical ideals of honor and patriotism combined with his future-oriented grasp of an expanding America, his profoundly felt sense of America’s reliance on the protection and guidance of Divine Providence (and not just Providence, but Jesus Christ, as can be seen in his 1789 proclamation of a national day of thanksgiving), and his deeply experienced vision of the national Union, is something that we are still receiving the benefits of to this day, in myriad and incalculable ways, even in the midst of our current decadence, and even if we ourselves don’t know it and don’t care.

We are so accustomed to the Gilbert Stuart portraits, painted in Washington’s sixties when he was already showing premature signs of age (though his firmness of character was not diminished), that it can be a shock to see a more vital Washington. Here is a marvelously life-like image of the then 53-year-old Washington rarely seen by Americans, one of the heads sculpted by Jean Antoine Houdon from the life mask he cast when he visited Mount Vernon in 1785, now at the Museum of the Louvre in Paris. Houdon told a friend he was in awe of “the majesty and grandeur of Washington’s form and features.” One has the same awe at Houdon’s genius; it is to be doubted that any photograph could make us feel that we are as close to the living man as he really was:



Here is another head made by Houdon from the same life-mask, enabling us to look directly into Washington’s face as though he were standing before us:



In the moving final verse of Byron’s “Ode to Napolean Bonaparte,” the poet turns away in disgust from that vain French tyrant and looks westward to find a man who embodies true political virtue:

Where may the wearied eye repose
When gazing on the Great;
Where neither guilty glory glows,
Nor despicable state?
Yes, one—the first—the last—the best,
The Cincinnatus of the West,
Whom envy dared not hate,
Bequeath’d the name of Washington,
To make men blush there was but one!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------