Thursday, April 18, 2019

Cher’s Moment Of Enlightenment: Los Angeles ‘Can’t Take Care of Its Own, How Can It Take Care of’ More Immigrants

She's getting conservative with age. About time

Pop icon Cher said Sunday that Los Angeles, California, “can’t take care of its own” residents, much less newly arrived illegal and legal immigrants.

Cher said she failed to understand how the city of Los Angeles in the sanctuary state of California could afford to admit and take care of any more immigrants when city officials have failed to care for homeless, veterans, and poverty-stricken Americans.
Breitbart Reports:

“I Understand Helping struggling Immigrants,but MY CITY (Los Angeles) ISNT TAKING CARE OF ITS OWN.WHAT ABOUT THE 50,000+Citizens WHO LIVE ON THE STREETS.PPL WHO LIVE BELOW POVERTY LINE,& HUNGRY? If My State Can’t Take Care of Its Own(Many Are VETS)How Can it Take Care Of More,” Cher said.

The post came after President Trump threatened to bus border crossers and illegal aliens into sanctuary cities and states, like California, if the country’s asylum laws were not changed. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders confirmed that the White House is considering the plan.

In response, Democrat mayors across the country — like New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Oakland, California Mayor Libby Schaaf — have welcomed bringing illegal aliens and border crossers to their cities.

While left-wing mayors say they will continue to admit any and all illegal and legal immigrants, Los Angeles is home to the second largest homeless population in the country, second to only New York City. About 50,000 residents of Los Angeles are homeless and about 7.5 percent of California’s American Veteran population is homeless.

As the city remains crippled by homelessness and skyrocketing housing costs, Los Angeles metro area is also home to the second largest illegal alien population — with nearly a million illegal aliens living in the region, according to Pew Research Center.

Last year, economists at Deakin University found that immigration — both illegal and legal — drives up housing prices


The Plague of Radical Feminism Descends upon the Nation

Despite its many falterings and regressions, the Judeo-Hellenic-Christian West over the long and tortuous course of its evolution has produced the most advanced civilization known to history. Characterized by the rule of law, scientific discovery, technological invention, educational opportunity for the masses, economic prosperity, individual autonomy and relative freedom from the harsh exactions of nature, it is now collapsing under the attack of forces rising from within its own existential frontiers.

Its internal assailants are myriad: domestic Marxism, “social justice,” global warming, Islam in its various avatars, anti-Semitism and hatred of Christianity, anti-white bigotry, educational decline, media malfeasance, and economic illiteracy leading to the willful accumulation of unpayable debt. But perhaps the most sinister and destructive of its homegrown adversaries is radical feminism, which seeks the ruin of motherhood and the breakdown of the relation between the sexes. It is a plague the Pharaoh was fortunately spared.

“Almost overnight,” writes Carrie Gress in The Anti-Mary Exposed: Rescuing the Culture from Toxic Femininity, “our once pro-life culture became pro-lifestyle, returning to an epicurean paganism that embraces everything that feels good.” How is it, she asks, that the women’s liberation movement “has demolished so decisively the moral and social structures of American society?” “There must be something more,” she answers, “than simple human vice behind the fact that millions of women have betrayed the most sacred and fundamental of relationships, that of mother and child,” leaving “husbands wondering what happened to their wives, fathers wondering what happened to their daughters, and children wondering what happened to their mothers.”

Never in history, she continues, “have mothers been so willing to kill their children”—3000 per day in the U.S. in an abortion frenzy of more than Herodian proportions. The biblical template of Mother and Son, subsumed in the sacred nexus of Mary and Jesus, has been shattered. Gress concludes that a demonic force—the anti-Mary—is at work, sundering women from their God-given roles as mothers and caregivers. Evil is neither a construct nor a concept; it is real, according to Gress, and the Prince of Darkness is among us.

Her central focus is Marian, the Catholic emphasis on hyperdulia (veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary) and the sacrament of motherhood. Gress sees the moral and social chasm between life and lifestyle in the feminist West as precisely an aspect of the conflict between good and evil. On the one side, there are the “marks of anti-Mary—rage, indignation, vulgarity, and pride”; on the other, the true female gifts of “wisdom, prudence [and the] ability to weave together the fabric of society,” associated with the Virgin.

We recall in this connection that the poetic kenning for “woman” in the Anglo-Saxon literature was “peace weaver” and the word “lady” derives from the Old English hläefdige, or “loaf, bread”—a metaphor for nourishment. The cognate word for the opposite gender is hläford, or “lord.” One provides sustenance, the other prepares it; one is, so to speak, the breadwinner, the other the bread baker. Men kill for the larder and women cook for the family. Custom and culture from time immemorial, with few exceptions, establish the distinction between distaff and spear—a distinction that is now being erased and overthrown. Feminism represents the very antithesis of both history and reality. Coventry Patmore’s famous, albeit somewhat treacly, poem about wifely devotion The Angel in the House was savaged by Virginia Woolf, a feminist and lesbian, who wrote in The Death of the Moth that “Killing the Angel in the House was part of the occupation of a woman writer.” This is, in effect, feminism’s default position.

Gress’ Catholic conviction about womanly nature may not persuade all readers. How is it, after all, that millions of women in the civilized West were so dramatically susceptible to the feminist message if they belonged to the caring and nurturing half of mankind? Not all women make good mothers—indeed, many do not. The Medea complex in its various forms is by no means anomalous—a bitter woman who has been wronged can kill her father, poison her lover’s wife and slaughter her children.

In today’s feminist world, however, a woman need not be wronged to create havoc; she has merely to nurse not a child but a grievance, whether legitimate or not, and act as she chooses to rectify what she conceives as a collective right. She can cut off her husband’s penis, with little punishment and full legal and societal support, can justify the killing of allegedly abusive male partners, can put out a contract on her husband, and can bankrupt her spouse and deprive him of child custody—all within the purview of the law.

Moreover, it is not only strident and embittered women responsible for the calamity we are witnessing, but the vast sodality of compliant men, aka beta males and “white knights,” who have surrendered their manhood and paved the way for the feminist takeover in government, in the media, in schools and universities, in the military, in corporate culture and in the legal system, at the expense of both their well-being and the nation’s political and economic vigor. Relying on both masculine chivalry and culturally induced guilt, feminists have conscripted their enemies into an army that would destroy them, attesting to the infusorial virulence of the feminist campaign. The spear has been duly blunted.

Further, one need not adopt a Catholic or Marian perspective to acknowledge the multifarious ways in which feminism is devastating the civic culture of the West. From a traditionally conservative point of view, the abandonment of the feminine for the feminist with its visceral hatred of the male, its penchant for aberrant sexuality, and its passionate advocacy for abortion carries out the Marxist agenda for the destruction of the family, the linchpin of civil society. It leads inexorably to social upheaval and cultural decay. It is no accident that many feminists are Marxists, whether professedly or as “social justice warriors.” Very few seem even remotely familiar with the virtues of kindness and charity, and very few seem capable, obviously, of celebrating the love between a man and a woman. They are, in the words of novelist Joris-Karl Huysmans, “Against Nature.” They are also, in the estimation of most people of traditional faith, against God.

And yet, despite countervailing instances and skeptical arguments, the traditional relation between mother and child, wife and husband, holds for the most part in the human imagination and the historical register and remains firmly in place as a biological imperative. Biology determines that men inseminate and women give birth, that in the normal course of events men hunt and women breast-feed, and that men remain potent far longer than women remain fertile. It is foolish to resist the hegemony of genetics. But there is more to it than that. There is something called love, a spiritual reality that cannot be refuted—except perhaps by those who have not experienced it.

The belief in the sacrificial divinity of love between the sexes is accepted literally by votaries like Gress, for whom the anti-Marian spirit unleashed by the Father of Lies has corrupted the human spirit as well as the culture of the West, with feminism clearly a demonic force eviscerating the vitals of romantic and sexual reciprocity—the modern expression of expulsion from the garden. The Devil is indefatigably at work and Moloch is back in business. The “woman clothed with the sun” whom we read of in the Book of Revelation is now quailing before the “great red dragon” that would devour her child. For my part, I recognize a powerful metaphor, and while I do not consider myself a believing member of any faith or communion, I cannot deny the human truth of love as an amalgam of caritas and eros between a man and a woman, the obligations it entails, and its bedrock necessity for human flourishing and social continuity.

I acknowledge Gress’ concern not merely with the social and economic aspects of marriage and the intact family, but with the mysterious and sacramental nature of love itself. One thinks of the ancient Jewish saying that from the loving union of a man and a woman an angel is born in heaven.

There are no prenups in the genuine marriage bond; the man trusts his wife, the woman honors her husband. It is a vow between a man and a woman that survives in the face of all the odds, threats, disruptions, frustrations and political forces ranged against it. Admittedly, such commitment is at a premium in today’s feminist climate of suspicion, cynicism and outright hate, but that does not alter the nature of love, only the difficulty of finding it.

The love of a man and a woman, blessed in the marital union, despite the rigors of life, the distractions of the commonplace and the tragic circumstances of existence, can be said to have something of the divine in it. In the words of poet William Blake, love “builds a Heaven in Hell’s despair.” Anyone who has experienced true love can attest to both its power and its necessity.

Of course, love can take many different forms, but it is the bond between a man and a woman solemnized in a viable marriage that is productive, ensuring posterity, preserving the social order, and in Augustinian terms rendering the City of Man, however imperfect, a simulacrum of the City of God. Harmony between the sexes is what guarantees a measure of happiness in a troubled world and fosters a sense of fulfillment that keeps life livable and culture vibrant.

In this respect, feminism is, as Gress writes, the promoter of “confusion, twisted thinking, decadence, sacrilege and viciousness descend[ing] ever deeper with every passing day.” An agent of anti-love, social disorder and, ultimately, of human misery, it will most likely run its course until the inevitable social and cultural collapse. Meanwhile, hope against hope, it must be fought with every resource at our disposal.


Italian restaurants in Britain should only employ Italians in the kitchen, says chef Aldo Zilli

Italian restaurants in Britain should only employ Italian cooks, chef Aldo Zilli has said as critics say this would be discrimination.

The leading restaurateur has waded into the debate over Gordon Ramsay's "cultural appropriation" row, during which the celebrity chef was accused of disrespecting East Asian culture with his new restaurant, Lucky Cat.

Ramsay defended his new venture, saying that head chef Ben Orpwood has spent several months in south Asia studying the region’s cooking.

However, Mr Zilli has said that it is usually better for the chef to have been brought up in the country where the food is from.

"I'm involved in a restaurant chain that is called San Carlo and we employ just Italian chefs for example," he told Good Morning Britain.

"You grow up in Italy, you grow up with your parents, you grow up with those flavours and I don't think anyone else from outside that country is going to understand that food.

"If you want to serve what people in this country want to eat, that's up to you, but if you open an Italian restaurant it's got to be an Italian restaurant. If you go to China town no restaurants have an Italian chef, they all have Chinese chefs. If you go to Brick Lane, you have Indian chefs everywhere."

Employment Solicitor James Watkins from Slater and Gordon said that advertising for roles that only accepted Italians would be against the law.

He told The Telegraph: "That's direct discrimination, if the advert says they only want Italian people then that means that people who are of some other nationality are being treated less favourably on the basis they are on a different nationality."

However, there is a loophole. Mr Watkins explained: "Something that might discriminate against those with certain protected characteristics on its face can be justified if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

"So for example, it would be a legitimate aim for the Italian restaurant to want to serve authentic, traditional Italian food and proportionate to include this in a job advert. This sort of requirement is perfectly acceptable, even though it’s likely to attract more applications from Italian chefs, giving rise to a higher chance of an Italian being hired."

When approached by The Telegraph about his comments, Mr Zilli said that if he found a British chef who was good enough at cooking Italian food, he would be happy to hire them, and said he employs English staff across his five restaurants.

He added: "Anyone can apply for a job in our restaurants.

"It is usually better when someone is from the culture and they cook the food but in this country it is  hard to find people from the culture so we have to find other people. We train them up to cook the food. It is better to go to Italy first to learn the food. I have been in England 42 years so if I went to cook in an English restaurant and cook fish and chips that would be fine."

British chef Ben Tish, the culinary director at The Stafford London, who are soon to be opening Sicilian restaurant Norma, has rubbished Mr Zilli's comments.

He said: "The bonus of not being Italian is that you can generally have a different take on the food. Italians generally keep to what they know and what their mamma taught them. On the flip side, some of the best 'authentic' Italian food I've had has been by non-Italians! River Cafe anyone? Theo Randall? I think the point is that the argument doesn't stand up."

Italian chef Francesco Mazzei, proprietor of Sartoria, Fiume & Radici, said: "Anyone is welcome to cook Italian food but it must be treated with respect, especially if you’re serving traditional dishes like Bolognese, carbonara or cacio e pepe. There are some excellent Italian restaurants in London not owned by Italians, and we’ve recently seen a huge influx of pasta bars opening up which I think are doing good things. However do they serve authentic Italian food? Just as I wouldn’t dare mess with La Boheme or Tosca by Puccini, I don’t think the classics of Italian cookery should be messed with and served up with the same name."


Australia: Militant vegans are charged with trespassing and drug offences after they 'stormed an abattoir and a feedlot' on a national day of action

A group of militant vegans have been charged with trespassing and drug offences after they allegedly stormed an abattoir and a feedlot on a national day of action. 

A total of 11 animal rights campaigners have been accused of staging protests at the Yangan abattoir and a Millmerran feedlot in Queensland in March and early April.

The activists, who were arrested on Tuesday, are facing 18 charges.

Detective Superintendent Jon Wacker said the charges followed formal complaints from the owners of properties targeted by unauthorised protests.

'The Queensland Police Service respects the right of people to protest in a peaceful manner, however we have a duty to ensure the safety of protesters, farm workers and property owners,' he said.

'Unauthorised protests in and around farmlands and industrial areas create significant personal and workplace safety risks.'

'We will take enforcement action whenever necessary to ensure the safety of the community and to protect the rights of people to feel safe in their homes and at their place of work.'

The protests were part of a national campaign by vegans against the treatment of animals.

In March, about 150 activists stormed the Millmerran Lemontree Feedlot in March as a distressed farmer looked on. Lot feeder David McNamee later told Daily Mail Australia the vegans were threatening the safety of his livestock and family. 

About 20 animal activists allegedly chained themselves at the Yangan abattoir in early April. 



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: