| Home | About | Contact | Books | Links | Search |
 |
|
|
ASAP
Daniel Pipes, referring to Oriana's new book (see Below) explains why, "Christianity's ancient stronghold of Europe is rapidly giving way to Islam," in his article, "Muslim Europe."And speaking of Oriana, here is another gem from the Italian firebrand for truth: "The Soliloquy of Dakel Abbas"
Even if you are using the drugs to relieve severe chronic pain and prosecutors know you are not a drug trafficker, if you happen to have more than the alloted number of pain killers, like Richard Paey, you will receive a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years for drug trafficking, according to this Jacob Sullum story. More freedom and conservative compassion from big brother.
"In the past year, eight formerly polio-free countries have been hit by outbreaks traced to the virus originating in northern Nigeria. The Ivory Coast, where a child came down with paralytic polio on Dec. 17, is the latest. It was the first case there since July 2000," because of Nigeria's rejection of the polio vaccine. Make that nine. "Botswana has reported its first case of paralytic polio since 1991 as spread of the disease from northern Nigeria further jeopardizes efforts to eradicate it." Why? Because of Nigerian Muslim superstition. Another Muslim gift to the world.
Turin Shroud Back Side Shows Face Well, I guess that clinches it. We now know what that rag was really used for.
Dr. Chris Matthew Sciabarra his given The Hijacking of a Philosophy a very nice plug on the comments section of Diana Hsieh's Noodle Food Blog.
Of course the reference was in relation to his own book, Ayn Rand, Homosexuality, and Human Liberation, but was a very positive one. (Thanks Chris!) He actually made two references to the book, one directly about the book (Thursday, April 8, 2004), the other oblique (Friday, April 9, 2004), in which he jokingly referred to his own voluminous replies to Diana's Blog as, "Hijacking Noodle Food." Ha ha!
Guns are the great equalizers. Before there were guns, personal safety depended on one's individual skill and strength. A brute, however stupid, could easily overpower a smaller individual however intelligent or clever. But the advent of guns, especially handguns, made it possible for the weakest individual to defend himself against the strongest of louts. We would expect the egalitarian liberal/socialists to be all for this great equalizer. The fact that they hate guns with a ferocity almost equal their hate for truth is proof their real aim is not equality, but subjugation. Their idea of equality is to reduce everyone to the lowest possible level of existence. A Test
"If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you." Why are guns the test? Read his article, "Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?." No Such Politician
We would be wrong if we believed that however, because there is. Here is what he recently said: "- As your president, I will not ask Congress to renew or extend any of the 20,000 unconstitutional "gun control" laws which currently exist. As a matter of fact, I will veto any such renewal or extension, and I will veto any new laws passed with the intent of disarming law-abiding Americans. "- As your president, I will direct the departments of the executive branch to cease enforcement of all such laws -- and I'll direct the Solicitor General to defend that order in court, on Constitutional grounds, if Congress attempts to compel their enforcement. "- As your president, I will direct the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division to take to court any state which passes or enforces laws in any way infringing upon the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. The Constitution clearly places these rights in the hands of the people and makes them inviolate; and my duty as president extends to enforcing the Constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government to the states, the right to keep and bear arms being an essential characteristic thereof." That author of those words is Aaron Russo from his article "The Security of a Free State". Aaron Russo is candidate for the Libertarian Nomination for the U.S. Presidency. Will Aaron be nominated? Possibly. Can he be elected. Not a chance. Why? Because all your neighbors vote, and the last thing they want is for you to be free. They definitely do not want you to have a gun. They want you to pay for their children's education and guarantee them health care, cheap medicine, and support in their old age. If you have a gun, you might resist when they come for your money and property.
Oriana Fallaci has a published a new Book: The Force of Reason (La Forza della Ragione)
She is one of my real life heroes. Here are links to two more reviews: Author throws new force of words at Islam. If you read Italian, here is a source for the book: La Forza della ragione.
If you haven't read it yet, get The Rage and The Pride here. You won't be sorry. Or read more about here. If you would like to learn more about Oriana:
Kathleen Parker's April 5 Manchester Union Leader column is titled: "U.S. must remain steadfast in its resolve to help Iraqis" It is a wonderful example of the liberal, "save the world from itself," mindset that now dominates every political strata. Remember, our original reason for going into Iraq was to insure there were not WMD which might ultimately be used against the US, or even US allies. But, "we’ve seen the sort of chaos we’d be leaving other Iraqis—the good, decent Iraqi people who trusted us once again—to face alone. We have no choice but to stay the course and fulfill our commitment," is nonsense, because that never was our commitment. And just who are these, "good, decent Iraqi people, and how many of them are there? There is no reason to believe the typical Iraqi is not exemplified by those in Fallujah. But, even if they were all the most wonderful people in the world, why would that obligate the US to help them? "Until Sept. 11, we couldn’t imagine that people purposely would fly airplanes into our buildings. Until Tuesday, we couldn’t imagine that people we’re trying to feed would murder and mutilate us," she said. Evidently Kathleen has not yet learned it.
George Archibald of the The Washington Time Documents the blatant obfuscation of the truth in the government propaganda called "textbooks," in his article: "Textbooks flunk test" "Social studies textbooks used in elementary and secondary schools are mostly a disgrace that, in the name of political correctness and multiculturalism, fail to give students an honest account of American history, say academic historians and education advocates." There is a reason why. It is part of the socialist program to brainwash the youth of America to adopt the world socialist program of the United Nations. We are well on our way. For those interested in what your government is doing to your children, check out these links: Underground History of American Education Education Freedom Links, especially Separation of School and State.
More anti-culture Muslim nonsense: Muslims angry at plan to bring back historic statue of wild pig, the Florentine Boar statue that stood from 1840 until 1942 in England's oldest public park. We have no objection if Muslims want to deprive themselves of ham and bacon, but what's this business of everybody else having to bow and scrape to their preferences? Just in case you think this is a UK problem, you better have a look at Robert Spencer's March 11 article, "American Jihad".
After pointing out the importance of establishing what, "normal" is with regard to the question of homosexuality, I was taken to task for the double sin of moralizing and equating normal with "common." "Fred: is the ficticious name of my challenger. Here is the exchange:
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= Me: By normal I mean appropriate to the nature of the organism in question, in this case, appropriate to the nature of human beings. Fred: 'Appropriate' is a term of judgment. Me: Technically, it is only an adjective, but, I suppose it is a judgement to say something is appropriate, if it is, just as saying something is red, is judgement. Fred: Saying something is appropriate just says it's good, and saying it's inappropriate just says it's bad. Me: That is incorrect. According to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language appropriate is an adjective meaning, "suitable for a particular person, condition, occasion, or place; fitting; set apart for a specific use." Fred: You're talking about morality. You're just equating "normal" with "moral" here. Me: I specifically said, normality has to be determined before the question of morality even comes up. Normality is a completely different concept from morality. For example, it is abnormal for a fish to be out of water, not immoral, and it is abnormal for a bird (except for certain aquatic birds) to be under water, but not immoral. Normality is determined by the nature of the organism, morality pertains to choice.
In the philosophical sense, normal means fitting the requirements of an organism's nature. Every organ has a specific function or set of functions determine by their nature. Human beings must discover what those functions are, in most cases. To use one's organs in a way contrary to their nature is abnormal. In the process of learning what the appropriate use of one's organs are, simple abnormalities are only inconvenience, such as when a child puts small objects in their nose or ears. More serious abnormal uses of one's organs, such as pica, eating things not appropriate to a human stomach, such as dirt, ashes, chalk, hair, soap, toothbrushes, burned matches, are frequently deadly. For example, a French man recently died as a result of his very abnormal behavior; xrays revealed hundreds of coins in the patient's belly. Fred: Also, you say: "aware of this question of normality, or, in Objectivist terms, identity." Not so fast. None of your uses of "normal" have anything to do with the Objectivist term 'identity'. Appropriateness has nothing to do with identity, which says what is. Me: On the contrary, it has everything to do with the Objectivist term, identity. "To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes." [Ayn Rand, "Galt's Speech," For the New Intellectual, p125] Now the odd thing is, most Objectivists understand their mind has a specific nature which determines how it must be used, what is appropriate and what is not, a thing most other people do not understand, but Objectivists seem to have forgotten, all aspects of their beings have a specific nature with specific functions and requirements, which determine what is appropriate to them and what is not. "Man's consciousness is his least known and most abused vital organ. Most people believe that consciousness as such is some sort of indeterminate faculty which has no nature, no specific identity and therefore no requirements, no needs, no rules for being properly or improperly used.... Men abuse, subvert and starve their consciousness in a manner they would not dream of applying to their hair, toenails or stomachs. They know that these things have a specific identity and specific requirements, and, if one whishes to preserve them, one must comb one's hair, trim one's toenails and refrain from swallowing rat poison." [Ayn Rand, "Our Cultural Value-Deprivation," The Objectivist, April 1966, p 1] Fred: Arguments from "normalcy" are just arguments against "being different". Me: Hardly. Normal means, "true to identity." It is certainly conceivable a single individual might be the only normal person in an entire community. It has nothing to do with what is "common" or "customary." Fred: One cannot act against one's identity. Not in any literal sense. My nature as a human being makes it impossible for me to spread my wings and fly. It wouldn't be "abnormal" to do it. It'd be impossible. That's the Objectivist meaning of identity. Me: I mean Objectivsm as Rand meant it. She does not believe it is impossible to "act against one's identity," or to use one's organs in a way contrary to their identity. She said, speaking of "hair, toenails or stomachs," for example: "these things have a specific identity and specific requirements, and, if one whishes to preserve them, one must comb one's hair, trim one's toenails and refrain from swallowing rat poison. It is certainly possible for one to swallow rat poison which would certainly be against the requirements of one's stomach determined by its identity. If one could never act contrary to the requirements of their nature determined by their identity, no one would ever act in ways which are harmful to themselves. In fact, we know many people do act in ways which are both harmful to themselves and contrary to the requirements of their nature, both psychologically and physiologically. According to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, the second meaning of normal (which pertains to exactly what we are talking about) is: "2. Biology- functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies." Even the dictionary recognizes the relationship between a things nature, that is, its identity, and abnormalities, which are contrary to that nature. =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= I've added the following interesting picture of a practice which is obviously not, "immoral," and in the society in which it occurs, it is also the "common" and "usual" thing. This use of one's lips and ears, however, can hardly be considered normal.
Surma and Mursi tribes in southern Ethiopia
Since writing, "Not So Objective Objectivists", Lindsay Perigo, in his inimitable gracious style, personally posted the entire article on SOLOHQ, to prove there was no intent to, "censor," anyone's postings. If I had accused them of that, I would certainly apologize. What I said was, after having my brownie points removed, my posts did not make it. Even though I didn't accuse them of censoring, and did begrudgingly apologize, I received tears and complaints from the management about my expression, "established SOLO religion," here and here. What I said (in case you don't want to scroll down to read it) was:
"Now this may surprise you, but SOLOHQ is now run by Sunday School rules. If you never say anything the established SOLO religion disagrees with and all the other boys and girls "like" you—you get a star... I mean, "Atlas," But there was more crying: I never used the words deliberate or suppression, and actually suspected there might be a software glitch related to the brownie point thing, which I still suspect. The fact is, when I actually got 10 brownie points I was a bit amazed. I do not write anything with the intention of being liked or approved. Fortunately, my brownie points dropped back to 3, which greatly relieved me, since it means I must be doing something right after all. I am very suspicious when more than a few people agree with me. One hardly knows what to think of these emotional outbursts, but my wife suggested the following, since it is their forum after all:
It's their potty and they can Well, maybe you and I wouldn't.
As hard as it is to believe, I'm afraid I offended someone. I posted a response to an interesting article by David Bertelsen on SOLOHQ, entitled "Giving in to the Terrorists: Spain says, 'You Win' to Al Qaeda," and what is especially interesting about the article is, David lives in Spain. David's view is reflected pretty much in his title. Some of those who responded did not agree, and my response was actually in support of one of those (Logan) who disagreed with David and Lindsay Perigo (Linz).
Here is my offending post:
Logan: Spanish citizens had no moral obligation to do anything whatsoever to alleviate the suffering of Iraqis or ease the burden of U.S. troops or meet the demands of "allies." A government exists to protect its citizens interests. Linz: Protecting the interests of its citizens will often, properly, lead a government to enter coalitions with other governments. Regi: Such coalitions are almost never in the interest of the people. How many Spanish people have been protected by Spanish troops in Iraq? Logan: Necessary wars are fought in response to clear and indisputable threats, not "arguable" or conjectured ones. Linz: ... there was absolutely no reason to give Saddam the benefit of a smidgeon of doubt. Regi: I am still waiting for the first piece of evidence that suggests Saddam was a threat to the United States in any way. "The source of the government's authority is 'the consent of the governed.' This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens: It means that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose." [Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 110] A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man's self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. [Ayn Rand, Galt's Speech, For The New Intellectual, p. 183] There is no Objectivist grounds justifying the invasion of Iraq, much less obligating the citizens of other countries to support that invasion. If by some convoluted reasoning, Iraq is supposed to have been a threat to America, justifying the invasion as, "self-defense," the much more plausible and likely threat is North Korea. Is there something about North Koreans that makes them less worthy of being freed of oppression, murder, and torture by their government? I am sure many of Iraq's people are pleased that we deposed Saddam, (though not all are), but he is not the only evil tyrant in the world. Since when was our government formed to ensure other people's governments treated them well? If we are so worried about how governments treat citizens, maybe somebody needs to invade the United States to free us from the despots that steel our money and economic future and send our gullible young men off to die in foreign countries? I'm sure the citizens of the United States, and their children, the U. S. government burned to death at Waco would appreciate it; if they were alive to do so.
That was the post, but it never got posted. Here is why:
Now this may surprise you, but SOLOHQ is now run by Sunday School rules. If you never say anything the established SOLO religion disagrees with and all the other boys and girls "like" you—you get a star... I mean, "Atlas," I am not making this up. You can see for yourself in the SOLOHQ AtlasFAQ For example: "If you read an article or see a review of a book or movie or any gallery item, and you like it, you can "sanction" it by clicking on the check graphic. ... This will award an Atlas (brownie) point to whoever wrote the article...." When you have 10 brownie points, you are no longer moderated. Here's where it get's interesting: "Users may also give forum posts a 'non-sanction' vote, which subtracts half an Atlas (brownie) point from the poster. So if any poster repeatedly posts inanely (read, what the thin-skinned or ignorant do not like), they could drop back down into moderated status. Then, you discover, you cannot post anything, as I discovered. (Of course you can be as potty-mouthed as you like, and you will have no problem.) I still recommend SOLOHQ. There are some very interesting, if somewhat controlled, discussions, and interesting postings, if somewhat limited. In time SOLOHQ will mature and become a really important influence for the ideas of Objectivist philosophy. Until then, I guess, it will have get along without my, "offending," contributions.
|
Diana was the subjective of our 2/21/04 article, 
Guns are the true test of any politicians integrity. As 
You are probably inclined to believe, as I am, there is not such thing as a politician who honestly, decently, and actively defends the rights of every American individual to purchase, own, and carry any kind of gun they choose without getting anyone's permission or approval.
"Europe becomes more and more a province of Islam, a colony of Islam. And Italy is an outpost of that province, a stronghold of that colony," the book says. "In each of our cities lies a second city: a Muslim city, a city run by the Quran. A stage in the Islamic expansionism."
If this book is anything like 
Normal also does not mean "natural," as many seem to imply. Nature produces and endless supply of abnormalities, such as this three-headed frog.
which indicates how many brownie... I mean, atlas points you have."
[WARNING: Lindsay frequently attempts to express skyscraper ideas in gutter language. I have not included any of that, but it is in the original postings, if you read them.]
|
|
All trademarks are the sole property of their respective owners.
Copyright 2004 The Autonomist & HPAmericaTM All rights reserved.
|