A Ruby Script to Go From Raw Source of Emails to Something I Can Put On My Blog

I wanted to take an email from Apple Mail and paste it to my blog.

If I copy/paste from the normal email, I lose the > marks you need for proper quoting in Markdown.

Ah but there’s the option to view the Raw Source of an email in Apple Mail (Opt-Cmd-U).

But if you paste from that you get something like this:

British=E2=80=94again, really English=E2=80=94society remained defined =
by a national culture that Orwell would have recognized. In that year, =
however, Tony Blair=E2=80=99s just-elected first Labour government =
launched a demographic=E2=80=94and, concomitantly, a =
cultural=E2=80=94revolution, a revolution that historians and =
commentators of all political stripes now recognize as by far Blair=E2=80=99=
s most historically significant legacy.

ewww what are those =E2=80=blahblahs 🙁

Turns out Raw emails are encoded in Quoted-Printable. Ok cool, so how do we deal with that?

First we will need a gem.

Let’s go!

gem install clipboard
gem install mail

Clipboard lets you easily interact with Mac clipboard, and Mail has a thing that lets us decode Quoted-Printable text to normal text.

The workflow is: I view Raw Source on an email I wanna paste, and select the body of the email, and copy it into the clipboard. Then I run the following script:

and now I have the plain text of my email with the appropriate > marks. Nice!

However, this would be a lot better if I could set this up as a system wide service I could summon with a shortcut key….but I’m not sure if its possible to use an environment besides the system default Ruby to set such a service up in Automator.

¡Adios, Britannia!

(Adapted from an email I posted on the Fallible Ideas list some time back)

Unmaking England

Very long/interesting article. Very interesting on historical details of UK immigration policy. Says some bad stuff about capitalism but overall pretty solid.

Some highlights:

By 1997, Britain’s ethnic minority population had grown, thanks to immigration and the children born to immigrants, to about four million. That population had certainly leavened what had formerly been a strikingly ethnically and culturally homogenous country. Nevertheless, British—again, really English—society remained defined by a national culture that Orwell would have recognized. In that year, however, Tony Blair’s just-elected first Labour government launched a demographic—and, concomitantly, a cultural—revolution, a revolution that historians and commentators of all political stripes now recognize as by far Blair’s most historically significant legacy. New Labour greatly relaxed or entirely eliminated previous restrictions on immigration, with the aim to convert Britain quickly to a polity as fully exposed as possible to the apparent social, cultural, and economic advantages of globalization.

The government never systematically laid out its rationale for pursuing this radical policy. It emerged from a convoluted set of ideologies, shibboleths, slogans, and aspirations that celebrated the dynamism of global capitalism and that rejected what was regarded as a stultified and insular traditional British culture. Although rooted in an economic vision, the policy derived its energy and appeal from its cultural, even aesthetic aspirations: “diversity,” “inclusiveness,” and “vibrancy” were its watchwords. Cook’s “Chicken Tikka Masala Speech” was New Labour’s most famous pronouncement of its vision of this policy, a feat of social engineering designed to forge a new national identity by means of“the changing ethnic composition of the British people themselves.” In a fit of consumerist enthusiasm, Cook disdained the former “homogeneity of British identity,” dismissed older Britons who clung to that antiquated and stodgy identity, extolled the ways mass immigration had “broadened” lifestyles, and enthused over the prospect of a pulsating and ever-changing “immigrant society” that would continue “enriching our culture and cuisine.”

Note: even allegedly “centrist” left-wing types like “New Labour” engage in radical, utopian social engineering based on vague ideas about how nice “vibrancy” is. You really can’t trust any modern leftists with control of government at all, ever. Even the moderate-seeming ones are either dangerous radicals or fools.

I also find the big focus on cuisine diversity by leftists very peculiar (its a common theme, gets brought up tons). Are there no higher values to consider than the proximity of Indian or Thai? Very strange.

In significant respects, the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis form a metaphorical foreign encampment, rather than an immigrant neighborhood, within a country in which a significant minority of them feels in fundamental ways incompatible. A Home Office report on the standoffish Pakistani and Bangladeshi districts in the northern mill towns found that “Separate educational arrangements, community and voluntary bodies, employment, places of worship, language, social and cultural networks, means that many communities operate on the basis of a series of parallel lives.” Less abstractly, Andrew Norfolk, the self-described liberal London Times investigative reporter who methodically uncovered the Rotherham sexual grooming scandal, concludes that “It is possible for a Muslim child to grow up—in the family home, at school and in the mosque and madrassa—without coming into any contact with Western lifestyles, opinions or values.”

!!!!
Big parts of Britain are occupied by completely foreign cultures. Maps showing one continuous country are basically a lie. And it’s getting worse.

Muslims, the refrain goes, don’t speak with a single voice. The particular makeup of Britain’s overall Muslim population, though, renders that population’s aggregate voice particularly harsh. Since 2001, news organizations, opinion-research firms, and groups such as the Pew Research Center have conducted surveys of the undifferentiated group “British Muslims.” Although any one survey can be misleading or poorly conducted, the findings of various such surveys over a lengthy span of years have regularly disquieted the British public and government because those surveys have consistently shown that a significant minority of British Muslims hold views that could be generously characterized as unsympathetic to the ethos of their adopted nation. Those surveys have found that 24 percent of British Muslims believe British security services played a role in the 7/7 attacks; that 23 percent believe the four men identified as the 7/7 bombers did not actually carry out the attacks; that 45 percent believe the 9/11 attacks were a conspiracy of the U.S. and Israeli governments;

!!!
And btw probably a big chunk of those 45 percent simultaneously feel something like “and they deserved it”, which of course is completely incoherent in the context of their false-flag conspiracy theory.

that 56 percent believe those identified by the U.S. as the 9/11 assailants were in fact not involved in the attacks; that 37 percent believe British Jews are “a legitimate target as part of the ongoing struggle for justice in the Middle East”; that 46 percent believe British Jews “are in league with the Freemasons to control the media and politics”; that 68 percent want the prosecution of British citizens who “insult” Islam; that 28 percent hope Britain will become a fundamentalist Islamic state; that significant majorities believe that the populations of Western countries—including the British—are selfish, arrogant, greedy, and immoral.

Conspiracy theories, violent anti-semitism, and theocracy. Seems bad. Maybe stop the flow?

Historical Ignorance

In commenting† on recent violent protests, Daniel Greenfield says:

But nobody is that historically ignorant that they don’t know what a red flag with a hammer and sickle or a swastika stands for.

Theodore Dalrymple, author of Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass, disagrees! Some quotes

A considerable number of the auto-tattooed inject themselves with swastikas. At first I thought this was profoundly nasty, a reflection of their political beliefs, but in my alarm I had not taken into consideration the fathomless historical ignorance of those who do such things to themselves. People who believe (as one of my recent patients did) that the Second World War started in 1918 and ended in 1960 – a better approximation to the true dates than some I have heard – are unlikely to know what exactly the Nazis and their emblem stood for, beyond the everyday brutality with which they are familiar, and which they admire and aspire to.


I cannot recall meeting a 16-year-old white from the council estates that are near my hospital who could multiply nine by seven (I do not exaggerate). Even three by seven often defeats them. One boy of 17 told me, ‘We didn’t get that far.’ This after 12 years of compulsory education (or should I say, attendance at school). As to knowledge in other spheres, it is fully up to the standards set in mathematics. Most of the young whites whom I meet literally cannot name a single writer and certainly cannot recite a line of poetry. Not a single one of my young patients has known the dates of the Second World War, let alone of the First; some have never heard of these wars, though recently one young patient who had heard of the Second World War thought it took place in the 18th century. In the prevailing circumstances of total ignorance, I was impressed that he had heard of the 18th century. The name Stalin means nothing to these young people and does not even evoke the faint ringing of a bell, as the name Shakespeare (sometimes) does. To them, 1066 is more likely to mean a price than a date.


My patient was intelligent but badly-educated, as only products of the British educational system can be after eleven years of compulsory school attendance. She thought the Second World War took place in the 1970s and could give me not a single correct historical date.


A few days earlier I had met a publisher for lunch, and the subject of the general level of culture and education in England came up. The publisher is a cultivated man, widely read and deeply attached to literature, but I had difficulty in convincing him that there were grounds for concern. That illiteracy and innumeracy were widespread did not worry him in the least, because – he claimed – they had always been just as widespread. (The fact that we now spent four times as much per head on education as we did 50 years ago and were therefore entitled to expect rising rates of literacy and numeracy at the very least did not in the slightest knock him off his perch.) He simply did not believe me when I told him that nine of ten young people between the ages of 16 and 20 whom I met in my practice could not read with facility and were incapable of multiplying six by nine, or that out of several hundreds of them I had asked when the Second World War took place, only three knew the answer.

† A link to the Daniel Greenfield article at http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/267569/if-youre-marching-armed-communists-or-nazis-youre-daniel-greenfield removed because it no longer worked and the URL was excluded from the Wayback Machine.