Given recent events, I thought it worthwhile to point out gun control opponents sometimes make arguments that do their cause more harm than good. I have sometimes encountered the "gun nut" who argues that self-defense is a personal responsibility, and for this reason that we have the right to bear arms. While I'm a big fan of personal responsibility, this argument has the repulsive implication that everyone should have a gun to defend themselves. Some "gun nuts" will even state this explicitly.
There are many people who do not desire this responsiblity. They see self-defense as annoying chore which they wish evade. Their evasion is not a bad thing for our interest in defending the Second Amendment, if we get them to view it properly.
Let's admit that people vary wildly in their desire for self-defense. Some people, usually men, think all the time about physical fights and self-defense. To be crude, but accurate, they get a hard-on carrying a gun (and probably would be the ones who would most stridently deny this). Other people have little interest in self-defense. We should view the Second Amendment as empowering those interested in self-defense to defend not only themselves, but also the innocents about them. The people who aren't so enamoured by self-defense still get something out of the Second Amendment-a safer society. It is for this reason they should be glad to support the Second Amendment. They receive the benefits of a public service. But if we castigate them as shirkers, they will feel resentful. Nor should any gun owner feel exploited. I'm sure many of the non-gun owners make their contributions to society. It's simply a sensible division of labour.
I myself have little interest in self-defense. Admittedly, my honest conversation about Islam has made it necessary for me to buy a gun. I know how to use it and wouldn't hesitate to wound or kill if I were attacked. Still, it is unnatural burden for me. If I weren't saying bad things about a pack of religious psychopaths, I wouldn't own a gun.
People like me usually don't own guns, but we still vote. There is no reason to annoy us with the argument about responsibility. Instead, we should point out that if many people carry concealed weapons, then criminals can not be certain who has a gun. The guns will deter crime for everyone whether they carry a gun or not. Without explicitly stating it, we should try to encourage non gun owners to be thankful for those who carry guns--just like rational folks are thankful for non-corrupt, non-abusive policemen. Gratitude, not resentment, will defend the Second Amendment.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Monday, April 09, 2007
The 15 Brits Captured by Iran
After a recent post about the need for more manly virtue in our society, I was at a loss to know what to think about the 15 Brits captured by Iran. I don't wish to understate my ignorance relative to this topic, but I have come to some tentative conclusions.
Should I condemn these Brits for caving in too easily to the Iranian government? For instance, Ralph Peters goes so far as to call for their court martial. These detractors compare the mild treatment of the Brits compared to what James Stockdale and John McCain endured in Vietnam. The Brits should be more tough. They also complain that the Brit soldiers should not have surrendered when surrounded by overwhelming Iranian force. These same people think Britain suffered a national humiliation for this soldiers being captured and ransomed.
I have some sympathy for that point of view. I was quite uncomfortable about seeing the Brits smile while in captivity. What ever happened to stiff upper lip? But should one restrain one happiness before cameras on seeing your comrades undamaged? We've never had cameras in such situations before.
Playing into my interpretation of these soldiers is that I've always admired the figure of the trickster, starting with a childhood fascination with the trickster pagan gods, Hermes and Loki. Yes, it may be less than manly in that the trickster uses brain not brawn to get out of a situation. Is that really so bad? Why shouldn't one lie and write meaningless statements to get out of evil clutches?
No, I don't think the problem for the West is the behavior of the Brit soldiers. The Iranians only got some PR of dubious value at best.
The problem is much more the moral myth that it is always evil to kill--the myth that stops us from killing more of the muslims. When we fought World War II, we killed Germans. We bombed German cities causing widespread civilian death. Consider our firebombing of Dresden. We didn't stop to analyze how much a particular German supported the Nazi regime. At most, forty percent of the Germans were Nazi enthusiasts--at least judging from the last vote of the Weimer Republic. We cannot afford to treat muslims any differently. We can't be squeamish and girlish over the slaughter of muslims, but we can forgive a few soldiers who did their best to save their lives.
In the big picture, our actions in World War II were just. Even the Germans who hated Nazism were still instrumental in keeping Nazi Germany going. The same is true for the secretly atheist or Christian, liberal person in muslim lands. They enable the muslim evil to continue and are legitimate targets, as much as we may lament that fact. In war, there is not time for subtle judgments about the enemy.
Should I condemn these Brits for caving in too easily to the Iranian government? For instance, Ralph Peters goes so far as to call for their court martial. These detractors compare the mild treatment of the Brits compared to what James Stockdale and John McCain endured in Vietnam. The Brits should be more tough. They also complain that the Brit soldiers should not have surrendered when surrounded by overwhelming Iranian force. These same people think Britain suffered a national humiliation for this soldiers being captured and ransomed.
I have some sympathy for that point of view. I was quite uncomfortable about seeing the Brits smile while in captivity. What ever happened to stiff upper lip? But should one restrain one happiness before cameras on seeing your comrades undamaged? We've never had cameras in such situations before.
Playing into my interpretation of these soldiers is that I've always admired the figure of the trickster, starting with a childhood fascination with the trickster pagan gods, Hermes and Loki. Yes, it may be less than manly in that the trickster uses brain not brawn to get out of a situation. Is that really so bad? Why shouldn't one lie and write meaningless statements to get out of evil clutches?
No, I don't think the problem for the West is the behavior of the Brit soldiers. The Iranians only got some PR of dubious value at best.
The problem is much more the moral myth that it is always evil to kill--the myth that stops us from killing more of the muslims. When we fought World War II, we killed Germans. We bombed German cities causing widespread civilian death. Consider our firebombing of Dresden. We didn't stop to analyze how much a particular German supported the Nazi regime. At most, forty percent of the Germans were Nazi enthusiasts--at least judging from the last vote of the Weimer Republic. We cannot afford to treat muslims any differently. We can't be squeamish and girlish over the slaughter of muslims, but we can forgive a few soldiers who did their best to save their lives.
In the big picture, our actions in World War II were just. Even the Germans who hated Nazism were still instrumental in keeping Nazi Germany going. The same is true for the secretly atheist or Christian, liberal person in muslim lands. They enable the muslim evil to continue and are legitimate targets, as much as we may lament that fact. In war, there is not time for subtle judgments about the enemy.
Dafur and NASCAR
It has been argued that the murder and mayhem in Dafur is a bad thing, but most people making such arguments want to have it both ways. They also want to condemn cultural imperialism, but it's surely cultural imperialism to stop muslims from their number one favorite hobby.
I suggest channeling all that political energy about Dafur into a better cause. We should attempt to outlaw NASCAR for environmental reasons. How much greenhouse gases are produced in one race? While we could be accused of cultural imperialism towards Southern Baptists, NASCAR is not encouraged by the Bible. Murder and mayhem is encouraged by the Koran. Read the ninth chapter. So, let's stop being busy bodies in the Sudan. Let the muslims be muslims--at least when they aren't killing us.
I suggest channeling all that political energy about Dafur into a better cause. We should attempt to outlaw NASCAR for environmental reasons. How much greenhouse gases are produced in one race? While we could be accused of cultural imperialism towards Southern Baptists, NASCAR is not encouraged by the Bible. Murder and mayhem is encouraged by the Koran. Read the ninth chapter. So, let's stop being busy bodies in the Sudan. Let the muslims be muslims--at least when they aren't killing us.
some hope
I've been worried not so much about Iran trying to get nuclear weapons, but the rest of the world doing nothing to stop them. The idea that a nuclear armed Iran won't use it nuclear weapons goes against the entire history of the Islamic world. (Yes, I know Pakistan has nukes, but Musharraf is reasonable guy. What about Pakistan's next government? Would you want to relocate to New Delhi?)
Well, it seems that at least some common women here in America get what we are up against. A groups of mother's of soldiers, the Moms of Fury, visited Paul Hodes(D-NH) congressional office and talked about the Iraq occupation. For the most part, the talk is about the Iraq war. I'm not in complete agreement. They think we can pacify Iraq. I disagree since genocide is to Islam what vomiting is to a bulimic. But what is more important the Moms of Fury seem to understand the big geopolitical picture. We either fight over there or the muslims will bring the fighting here.
Well, it seems that at least some common women here in America get what we are up against. A groups of mother's of soldiers, the Moms of Fury, visited Paul Hodes(D-NH) congressional office and talked about the Iraq occupation. For the most part, the talk is about the Iraq war. I'm not in complete agreement. They think we can pacify Iraq. I disagree since genocide is to Islam what vomiting is to a bulimic. But what is more important the Moms of Fury seem to understand the big geopolitical picture. We either fight over there or the muslims will bring the fighting here.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
the abuse of racism is a bigger problem than racism itself
I've been reading a leftist humor book, Conservatize Me by John Moe. It's not that good, but there is an occasional observation of interest. In particular, Moe wants to understand why people are attracted to conservative beliefs. Moe is hampered in his efforts, because he decided that some conservative views are bad, while others are tolerable. In particular, conservative views like those expressed by Rush Limbaugh are evil and don't need understanding. Despite that flaw, and it is a major flaw, Moe does shed some insight on conservatism appeal. The one that impressed me was his explanation for the appeal of traditional values. Moe observes that people in small town America are friendlier than people in big cities, like Seattle where he comes from. Moe construes this friendliness as traditional values, and he has a point.
I told a leftist friend, who was extolling big cities, about Moe's observation. His immediate response was that small town America is not a friendly place if you are a racial minority. It was all too typical. Racism has become the all-purpose excuse to disregard the positive aspects of America. No matter what is said positive about America. The leftist response always involves some accusation or racism. Sample conversation: "American won the most gold medals at the Olympics." "Who cares, America is racist."
Thus, making accusations of racism has become an more important excuse to avoid serious political conversations than even making comparisons to the Nazi regime. And it use is every bit as frivolous. One simply labels one's opponents as racists rather than make real arguments. And to be clear, the right is as guilty of this as is the left. Listen to the preposterous "pro-life" arguments against abortion rights on the basis that abortion is somehow racist, and you'll get my point if you haven't already. (Google Margaret Sanger, abortion and racism, & I'm sure you'll get my point. N.B. I haven't done this google experiment personally, but if you get different results than I predict, please let me know.)
There are two important observation to be made in response to the conversation stopper user of racism:
1) Modern America is about the least racist society that the world has ever known. 2) Racism is not the worst thing we can do.
Let's examine both.
In the America where I live, I see black people and white people talking and chatting all the time. I see little black kids playing with little white kids and little asian kids in my neighborhood all the time. I live in a country where it is assumed that the worst crime one can do is being racists. Yet, after talking an "anti-racist", you would expect to see a "colored only" water fountain in every small town in America. Surprising you don't. What you do see instead in small town America is quarrels about gay rights. Some wacky small town high school students who fail to realize America's outrageous racism decide to confront the sexual orientation issue, because while they rarely hear racist comments, they frequently hear homophobic ones. And guess what? These small town high school students win more often than not. Is it too much to admit that no fairer and more decent a nation has existed than America today?
Racism is not the worse thing we can do. It is our duty as human beings to stop horrible abuse of women like genital mutilation, forced marriages, and honor killing, before we worry about subtle issues of racism, like the pain of a black corporate executive who doesn't become CEO. If this means discouraging from living among us racial groups who want to be mutilate, kill, and enslave their own daughters and sisters, we should so. We should not allow their barbarity against women to spread. Civilization's goal is to reduce barbarianism, not permit it to expand. Of course, it's not really a race that does such things but a religion--but a little bit of anti-Arab, anti-Persian racism to stop the evil treatment of women would not be such a bad thing. As long as people backed off from it when the Arab or Persian says they aren't muslim.
I told a leftist friend, who was extolling big cities, about Moe's observation. His immediate response was that small town America is not a friendly place if you are a racial minority. It was all too typical. Racism has become the all-purpose excuse to disregard the positive aspects of America. No matter what is said positive about America. The leftist response always involves some accusation or racism. Sample conversation: "American won the most gold medals at the Olympics." "Who cares, America is racist."
Thus, making accusations of racism has become an more important excuse to avoid serious political conversations than even making comparisons to the Nazi regime. And it use is every bit as frivolous. One simply labels one's opponents as racists rather than make real arguments. And to be clear, the right is as guilty of this as is the left. Listen to the preposterous "pro-life" arguments against abortion rights on the basis that abortion is somehow racist, and you'll get my point if you haven't already. (Google Margaret Sanger, abortion and racism, & I'm sure you'll get my point. N.B. I haven't done this google experiment personally, but if you get different results than I predict, please let me know.)
There are two important observation to be made in response to the conversation stopper user of racism:
1) Modern America is about the least racist society that the world has ever known. 2) Racism is not the worst thing we can do.
Let's examine both.
In the America where I live, I see black people and white people talking and chatting all the time. I see little black kids playing with little white kids and little asian kids in my neighborhood all the time. I live in a country where it is assumed that the worst crime one can do is being racists. Yet, after talking an "anti-racist", you would expect to see a "colored only" water fountain in every small town in America. Surprising you don't. What you do see instead in small town America is quarrels about gay rights. Some wacky small town high school students who fail to realize America's outrageous racism decide to confront the sexual orientation issue, because while they rarely hear racist comments, they frequently hear homophobic ones. And guess what? These small town high school students win more often than not. Is it too much to admit that no fairer and more decent a nation has existed than America today?
Racism is not the worse thing we can do. It is our duty as human beings to stop horrible abuse of women like genital mutilation, forced marriages, and honor killing, before we worry about subtle issues of racism, like the pain of a black corporate executive who doesn't become CEO. If this means discouraging from living among us racial groups who want to be mutilate, kill, and enslave their own daughters and sisters, we should so. We should not allow their barbarity against women to spread. Civilization's goal is to reduce barbarianism, not permit it to expand. Of course, it's not really a race that does such things but a religion--but a little bit of anti-Arab, anti-Persian racism to stop the evil treatment of women would not be such a bad thing. As long as people backed off from it when the Arab or Persian says they aren't muslim.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
How I Started Loving the Apocalypse
I'm not sure everyone is aware of how bad the problem is, so let's review. Iran, controlled by a theocracy bent on apocalypse, is building nuclear weapons. The huge mass of the global population wants peace through appeasement and fantasizes that it is the United States resistance to Islamofascism that is the cause of our problems. Iran also directs Hezbollah a terrorist group with branches on every continent. Eventually, Iran will combine its nuclear threat with Hezbollah terrorism to subjugate other countries. Consider how the cartoon jihad against Denmark would have progressed, if Iran had had nukes. Terrorists would have done assorted evils in Denmark and then Iran would have demanded any suspected terrorists be released or else they would nuke. After all, the Hezbollah terrorists are employees of the Iran government. Notice that my only assumption here is that Iran continues to act like Iran. It's exactly the same assumption that underlies putting serial killers in prison or executing them.
The success of Iran's dual strategy of nukes and terrorists will prompt imitation. I hope that is that there is still enough passion in the West that we fight back, but if we have grown too multicultural and spineless to resist Iranian tyranny, Sunni muslim tyrannies will fight back against Iran. Given that whoever resists Iran at this point is going to be willing to risk it all, the conflict will go pass the brink. Nuclear bombs will fall like rain.
The future appears grim. I blame the peace movement more than the muslims themselves. A healthy sense of self-preservation would cure most of our problems, but basic self-preservation isn't going to get mass support anytime soon. It's enough to make one languish in despair.
And then I realized I'm an environmentalist who would like to see a massive reduction in human population. I had envisioned something like a global one-child policy. When civilization gets around to fighting back against the muslim barbarians, the rain of nuclear bombs will reduce human population to numbers more appropriate for the planet. Even better, we learned after Chernobyl that plants and animals can thrive in the shadows of nuclear disaster. Maybe I should just stop fighting Jihad and advocate an eco-terrorism dedicated to helping this process along. Of course, after the bombs have fallen, I do hope that we will have learned a lesson: that religions that hold a tenet of world domination can not be permitted. Any followers of such a religion should be given the choice of conversion or death.
Well, I suppose the idea in the last paragraph is a plan B. There is still hope that we don't go down that route. The hope is basically boils down to letting the muslims commit a few more atrocities. Perhaps, enough people will wake up. Plan A is still that if I had five million dollars lying around, I'd donate it to al-Queda. Let muslims be muslims.
If there is a lesson for the future here, it is that people who cry peace when there is no peace are not simply false prophets, but the greatest danger. While I abhor barbarianism, I will make one exception. When the war comes that the peace activist have done everything possible to make as horrible as possible, I suggest torturing peace activists to death--a mild torture, like say feeding them unseasoned grits for their last meals. It would be well deserved. In contrast, for the muslims I suggest giving them a honorable death with the meal of their choice, though too many may want goat eyes for their last supper. We'll have to ration them, and perhaps sneak in a few pig eyes.
Why does something as evil and dysfunctional as the "peace movement" even exist? I think it's just yet another example of how we can go wrong. I recently read the relevant parts of Nietzsche's work on this subject. Sadly, Nietzsche's ideas seem to echo the anti-Semites he hated. He blamed the wealthy for not wanting war to interfere with their profits. But to give Nietzsche credit, US immigration policy seems to be accurately described by his model: the wealthy get a few extra bucks and everyone else gets screwed.
A light-hearted coda that in the end fails to be light-hearted: I just got my junk mail for the day. It's from the Citizens for Global Solutions, the ultimate leftist appeasement organization, and the Sierra Club's Blue Green alliance. Are direct marketers usually this far off? Do the Iranian Ayotallohs get sent many tracts on the ideas of Cyrus the Great of Persia? I suppose the mailman would be executed for delivering them. (It's probably worth noting that King Cyrus, who articulated the first human rights laws, would have been utterly ruthless to peace activists. Ancient societies couldn't afford to permit much self-destructiveness. Our condition may less far different than ancient societies than we would like to admit.)
The success of Iran's dual strategy of nukes and terrorists will prompt imitation. I hope that is that there is still enough passion in the West that we fight back, but if we have grown too multicultural and spineless to resist Iranian tyranny, Sunni muslim tyrannies will fight back against Iran. Given that whoever resists Iran at this point is going to be willing to risk it all, the conflict will go pass the brink. Nuclear bombs will fall like rain.
The future appears grim. I blame the peace movement more than the muslims themselves. A healthy sense of self-preservation would cure most of our problems, but basic self-preservation isn't going to get mass support anytime soon. It's enough to make one languish in despair.
And then I realized I'm an environmentalist who would like to see a massive reduction in human population. I had envisioned something like a global one-child policy. When civilization gets around to fighting back against the muslim barbarians, the rain of nuclear bombs will reduce human population to numbers more appropriate for the planet. Even better, we learned after Chernobyl that plants and animals can thrive in the shadows of nuclear disaster. Maybe I should just stop fighting Jihad and advocate an eco-terrorism dedicated to helping this process along. Of course, after the bombs have fallen, I do hope that we will have learned a lesson: that religions that hold a tenet of world domination can not be permitted. Any followers of such a religion should be given the choice of conversion or death.
Well, I suppose the idea in the last paragraph is a plan B. There is still hope that we don't go down that route. The hope is basically boils down to letting the muslims commit a few more atrocities. Perhaps, enough people will wake up. Plan A is still that if I had five million dollars lying around, I'd donate it to al-Queda. Let muslims be muslims.
If there is a lesson for the future here, it is that people who cry peace when there is no peace are not simply false prophets, but the greatest danger. While I abhor barbarianism, I will make one exception. When the war comes that the peace activist have done everything possible to make as horrible as possible, I suggest torturing peace activists to death--a mild torture, like say feeding them unseasoned grits for their last meals. It would be well deserved. In contrast, for the muslims I suggest giving them a honorable death with the meal of their choice, though too many may want goat eyes for their last supper. We'll have to ration them, and perhaps sneak in a few pig eyes.
Why does something as evil and dysfunctional as the "peace movement" even exist? I think it's just yet another example of how we can go wrong. I recently read the relevant parts of Nietzsche's work on this subject. Sadly, Nietzsche's ideas seem to echo the anti-Semites he hated. He blamed the wealthy for not wanting war to interfere with their profits. But to give Nietzsche credit, US immigration policy seems to be accurately described by his model: the wealthy get a few extra bucks and everyone else gets screwed.
A light-hearted coda that in the end fails to be light-hearted: I just got my junk mail for the day. It's from the Citizens for Global Solutions, the ultimate leftist appeasement organization, and the Sierra Club's Blue Green alliance. Are direct marketers usually this far off? Do the Iranian Ayotallohs get sent many tracts on the ideas of Cyrus the Great of Persia? I suppose the mailman would be executed for delivering them. (It's probably worth noting that King Cyrus, who articulated the first human rights laws, would have been utterly ruthless to peace activists. Ancient societies couldn't afford to permit much self-destructiveness. Our condition may less far different than ancient societies than we would like to admit.)
Sunday, April 01, 2007
An Anti-Christain's Defence of Christianity
I've always rejected the idea that is one right answer to the universe. My assumption as always been the universe changes in response to whatever answers or solutions we concoct. As a result of this and my recognition that the Catholic Church and many Protestant Church's ideas about birth control and abortion amount to nothing more than a sure path to ecological devastation, I've long been anti-Christian. I got a kick of Serrano's Piss Christ, though admittedly it is a rather childish form of anti-Christianity.
But, now, I feel the need to defend Christianity. (Is today Easter? Or is it next week? I don't really pay attention to such things.) What so infuriated me was a post on Daily Kos. The author seems to believe that it is ok to offend Christians, because Christ didn't forbid it, but not to offend muslims, because macho Mo had no sense of humour. I proclaim the secular freedom to offend both. I will continue to attack Christianity where it is evil, but for now my attacks on Christianity will be with a recognition of the brotherhood of my pagan Ancient Greek philosophy with Christianity. I wish to hold out my hand in alliance with Christianity against the monstrous evil of Islam. Isn't really too much for our Western pussy leftist to admit the truth of the basic decency of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and their followers? Would it really hurt our Western pussy leftists to examine their hatreds and react to real threats and not imagined ones? Look, I'm a gay atheist, and view the Mexico City policy as evil as anything Hitler or the Communist did (and no that is not hyperbole in my value system). Yet, Jerry Falwell would be perfectly happy to have lunch with me to show his basic decency towards those he disagrees with. He does not want me put in prison. The holy men of the muslim murder cult would want me stoned to death. This is a basic fact. I wish the Left Secularist, the Liberal Christian pussies, and the George W. faux-conservative Christians would deal with it.
The secular leftist, the Liberal Christian pussies, and George W. faux-conservative Christians are simply wrong to equate Christianity with Islam. Let's ask a question of each group in turn. How can secularist who hate Christianity give a free pass to the much more brutal religion of Islam? How can the ultimate religion of pussies--liberal Christianity--even pretend to themselves that pussy liberal Christianity says the same thing as a macho murder cult? How can any conservative Christian reject the clear message of the Bible that Christianity is the one true way?
Can we not admit our superiority to a cult that kills and whips young women for the perception of having had sex, that rips out girls genitalia, stones homosexuals, mutilates people for slight theft, kills people for their freedom of mind, produces a true apartheid states with non-muslims as second-class citizens, and so forth?
But, now, I feel the need to defend Christianity. (Is today Easter? Or is it next week? I don't really pay attention to such things.) What so infuriated me was a post on Daily Kos. The author seems to believe that it is ok to offend Christians, because Christ didn't forbid it, but not to offend muslims, because macho Mo had no sense of humour. I proclaim the secular freedom to offend both. I will continue to attack Christianity where it is evil, but for now my attacks on Christianity will be with a recognition of the brotherhood of my pagan Ancient Greek philosophy with Christianity. I wish to hold out my hand in alliance with Christianity against the monstrous evil of Islam. Isn't really too much for our Western pussy leftist to admit the truth of the basic decency of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and their followers? Would it really hurt our Western pussy leftists to examine their hatreds and react to real threats and not imagined ones? Look, I'm a gay atheist, and view the Mexico City policy as evil as anything Hitler or the Communist did (and no that is not hyperbole in my value system). Yet, Jerry Falwell would be perfectly happy to have lunch with me to show his basic decency towards those he disagrees with. He does not want me put in prison. The holy men of the muslim murder cult would want me stoned to death. This is a basic fact. I wish the Left Secularist, the Liberal Christian pussies, and the George W. faux-conservative Christians would deal with it.
The secular leftist, the Liberal Christian pussies, and George W. faux-conservative Christians are simply wrong to equate Christianity with Islam. Let's ask a question of each group in turn. How can secularist who hate Christianity give a free pass to the much more brutal religion of Islam? How can the ultimate religion of pussies--liberal Christianity--even pretend to themselves that pussy liberal Christianity says the same thing as a macho murder cult? How can any conservative Christian reject the clear message of the Bible that Christianity is the one true way?
Can we not admit our superiority to a cult that kills and whips young women for the perception of having had sex, that rips out girls genitalia, stones homosexuals, mutilates people for slight theft, kills people for their freedom of mind, produces a true apartheid states with non-muslims as second-class citizens, and so forth?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
