When Morals Become Bad Habits

In Which We Again Find Tales of Oppression Are Wrong

2007-09-29T07:01:00.000-07:00

We have been told again and again that there is a gender wage gap--that women are somehow underpaid in our economy. For instance, here is 1998 paper from the Clinton administration Council of Economic Advisers on the subject. I mention the Clinton Administration because in personal conversation a 1999 Clinton appointee to the Council of Economic Advisers,Kathryn Shaw, told me that the gender gap in wages is nonsense. Shaw is a labor economist. But it still get perpetuated. And today, I found an exciting new fact about the issue & it was hidden in the fashiion section of the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/fashion/23whopays.html?_r=4&pagewanted=1&n=Top%2f&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

It turns out that "for the first time, women in their 20s who work full time in several American cities — New York, Chicago, Boston and Minneapolis — are earning higher wages than men in the same age range, according to a recent analysis of 2005 census data by Andrew Beveridge." Yet, no doubt that in the coming months the alleged gender wage gap will be trotted out by the Democrats.

Then End of Senator Brownback's Presidential Bid

2007-06-26T10:07:00.000-07:00

The presidential bid of Senator Brownback(R-KS) was always a longshot, but Brownback today basically called it quits. He voted for amnesty and we have seen how Republican primary voters feel about supporters of amnesty in Senator McCain's plummet in the polls. Brownback is not so stupid that he couldn't be aware that his vote sinks his unlikely campaign.

Why his vote? I suggest his vote simply reflects Brownback principles as a convert to Catholicism. This would surprise many people if thought about it. Most people think of Catholics as those normal people around us all the time who say they are Catholics. We forget these normal people Catholics knew next to nothing about Catholic doctrine and aren't interested in learning more. For instance, my fitness instructor calls herself a devout Catholic. We talk about gay romance often. I asked her if she felt any conflict between being open to gays and her Catholicism. Her pitiful attempts at answering indicated that the question hadn't even occurred to her. She ended up saying "you can't take all that stuff seriously." However, when people convert as Brownback did, they take the values seriously, and this means following Catholic moral teaching--even at the cost of a long-shot presidential bid.

I wish to pursue further the theme of what Catholicism may inspire people to do in further posts, but let me tell you where I'm going. Catholicism becomes a suicidal ideology when confronted with a jihadist religion like Islam. Catholicism has lost it Medieval survival instinct. Obviously, the Catholic Church did a lot of evil back during the Middle Ages, but we should always be conscience that the Crusades were not one of them. The Catholic Church finally decided to fight back after a few centuries of Islamic aggression. The decision to fight back against evil can only be considered good--even if Christiandom implemented the decision to fight back rather poorly.

Since Catholicism will not save us, we need either conservative protestantism or a militant secularism to save us. I hope we can pursue both paths, because both conservative protestantism and militant secularism have done so much to make the West a great place to live. Yet, as a militant secularlist, I'm forced to admit that at the current time secularism, like Catholicism, is failing to defend us from the Muslim savages. Conservative protestantism may be our best hope for decent societies for the future. It brothers me not at all to say,"Onward, Christian Soldiers". Really, Pat Robertson's America is not that bad of a place. The Christian Broadcasting Network has some great recipes!

The Empty Minds of the Political Elite

2007-06-21T13:46:00.000-07:00

Senator Trent Lott must have been trying to make some point when he illustrated immigration issues with his troubles in keeping his goats on his property, but no one is quite sure what it is. The honours committee that selected Salmon Rushdie for knighthood claims to be startled that the selection of Salmon Rushdie caused a furore in the Islamic world. There is of course the well known lack of subtly and depth in U.S. president George W. Bush or the socialist French President candidate Ségolène Royal, who was luckily defeated, but still got 47% of the vote. Utter cluelessness transcends nation and political philosophy in Western nations. Why?

The ability to think about political issues is intimately related to the ability to think about moral issues. Morality addresses the question of how we are live together in a shared world. Sadly we are not taught to think about morality. Instead, we learn the morality consist of simple rules. On the left, we have "All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten" by Fulghum and such feel good rot. On the right, we have simple-mindedness posing as intellectual depth in discussion of "objective morality". Let's pause for a second on the "intellectually deep" right talk about objective morality. Objective morality is the idea that morality consists of the simple minded application of a small set of rules without any consideration of context. It sounds intellectually to me. In discourse, the right loves to criticize the left for having a relative morality, yet leftist "anti-racism" is as objective as morality gets. Furthermore, the right does think about moral context, except when it doesn't. It depends on the context. We are lucky that the right gets over it objective morality insanity that killing anything homo sapien--even fetuses--when it comes to war.

Instead, of simple mindedness, we need honest conversation about morality so we can have honest political conversation. Of course, part of this is simply get over simple minded hatefulness like assuming that either George Bush or Hilary Clinton are wrong about everything. (I do believe both are wrong about almost everything, but I'm aware of how hard it is to be right.)

For us to have serious political conversation where we address the many complex facets around each issues, in which we admit that have to compromise and that some bad as will as some good will come out of the compromise, we need to start by learning to talk about morality. We should teach logical argumentation about morality in our high school literature classes. Most literature has serious moral components and people can learn to enjoy talking about them. Obviously, high school students will come to many bad answers, but once they learn to think about the questions, they can do a better job as they age. It will take a long time for this program to change society, but the empty headedness of our political elite suggests we can only go up.

Immigration and What the Voters Want

2007-06-18T12:24:00.000-07:00

Since it looks like the Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty bill will get through the Senate, I just called Congressman Doyle's office to express my opposition to the Amnesty Bill. I asked if there had many calls about the Amnesty bill. The intern girl said she had received many, many calls. I asked her how many she had received in favor of the Amnesty bill. She said none. Doyle is a moderate Democrat who will probably vote in favor of the amnesty bill.

The intern girl mentioned the issue of families. In her mind, it seems because one child was born on American soil that an entire family is entitled to live in America. She says we can't break up families. I asked why the child couldn't go back with the parents to Mexico or wherever. She said because the child is an American. Now, I'm a patriotic American, but I can't help but notice that people have someway managed to survive in other countries. It's not like Mexico has some horrible government that routinely tortures its citizens to keep its grip on power, like say Cuba is. Yet, we sent back Elian Gonzoles. I supported sending back Elian Gonzoles to Cuba, and so my feelings about reuniting families in Mexico is even stronger.

Acts of War Are not Terrorism

2007-05-09T10:40:00.000-07:00

Some muslims in New Jersey are accused of terrorism, because they wanted to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey. I strongly object to describing their plans as terrorism and don't think they should face any trial. These muslims are simply soldiers attacking a legitimate military target. As such, they are prisoners of war and should be treated as such.

These Islamic soldiers should not pay the price for our refusal to listen to the clear muslim declarations of war. Instead, this would be a good time for us to start listening to muslims. And in the process of listening, we may observe that we have a large number of enemy combatants on our soil. We need to encourage these combatants to find countries more suited for their lifestyle, like say, Sudan.

A Division of Labour Argument for Defending the Second Amendment

2007-04-20T08:15:00.000-07:00

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.

The 15 Brits Captured by Iran

2007-04-09T11:42:00.000-07:00

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.

Dafur and NASCAR

2007-04-09T10:46:00.000-07:00

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.

some hope

2007-04-09T10:32:00.000-07:00

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.

the abuse of racism is a bigger problem than racism itself

2007-04-08T10:56:00.000-07:00

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.

How I Started Loving the Apocalypse

2007-04-03T07:56:00.000-07:00

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.)

An Anti-Christain's Defence of Christianity

2007-04-01T14:12:00.000-07:00

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?

Let's Celebrate Manliness

2007-03-28T10:08:00.000-07:00

I worry about being perceived as ridiculous, but I’m going to advocate manliness despite being an effeminate homosexual. How effeminate? Your grandmother could pick me out as gay. Obviously, I'm not holding myself out as a role model. I can only encourage. When twenty year old boys whine about slight physical exertion or their suffering from being in a house heated only to 60 degrees, I insult them like a drill sargent would. So please don't lisp with me as I say manliness does matter. The decline of Rome, a very complex decline, was certainly aided by a decline in manliness in Rome. As a result, the Romans became less willing and able to fight for Rome.
I have stories about how this is happening in America. I went to watch the band Savage Republic. The band is full of macho posturing and displays a manly joy in banging on things. A current song of the band is titled 1938 with the implied observation about World War. The band is not part of the decline, but I went to watch the band with a 22 year old gay boy who is part of the problem. He's not particularly effeminate, as the stereotypical 22 year old gay boy would have nothing to do with a band like Savage Republic. It's his job. He’s working in Whole Foods grocery market stacking vegetables into neat piles. I told him he is a fucking faggot for doing such a job, but I smiled as I said it, because he wasn’t going to be shamed into giving up his ridiculous toy poodle of a job and because he’s quite an attractive boy. Being an attractive man does require some sinuous sinews, and those sinews could be put to use roofing a house, doing landscaping, but his biceps are for beauty only—not very different than his fucking earring. So he does a job that an 80 year old women could do, and Whole Foods’ pussy clientèle get their tidy piles of vegetables. His pussiness is why we are stuck with lonely old women with nothing to do and mexican illegal immigrants doing the work that this boy should be doing. Illegal immigration is an issue because American boys in their early twenties aren’t willing to do a man’s work. To be non-sexist in a non-pussy sort of way, I’d also like to see American women in their early twenties do some hard physical labor.
Even more of disaster than the flood of Mexicans into America is the pussy peace movement and its attack on manly self-defense. John Lott has shown gun control increases crime. (Though looking somewhat like a space alien, John Lott is a great guy who does excellent research. I meet him when was doing research on voting in Congress instead of gun control, and I will vouch that he does quality research.) But gun control is a minor issue. One of the two great challenges of our time is how we confront the imperialist religion Islam. The peace movment want us to follow the fucking pussy Gandhi, who was murdered by a muslim. The fucking pussy pacifists don’t seem to get the implication of Gahndi’s murder: while pacifism will sometimes work against decent chaps like the Brits, it’s not going to work against savages like Nazis or Muslims. And yet what do we hear from peace activist but that we should do nothing to stop Iran from making nuclear weapons. What exactly do the pussy activists think Iran is going to do with nuclear weapons? What do Iranians mean by “wipe Israel from the map?” I wonder what other countries the Iranians hate?

The Right Wing Moonbats

2007-03-25T13:23:00.000-07:00

Most conservatives have no difficulty identifying the common moonbat who can't fly because his has only a left wing, but they tend to be blind to the right-wing moonbat. I pay attention to this fascinating but dangerous species. When I heard that Mark Cuban, a billionaire entrepreneur and owner of a sports team, is funding the 9/11 conspiracy theory film "Loose Change", my suspicions about his motivation were immediate, an instantaneousness reflex on my behalf. Yet when I ask other people the most probable reason for Cuban's funding of film that claims 9/11 was a government conspiracy, instead of muslim conspiracy, they draw a blank.

My guess was that Cuban is a libertarian and perhaps a libertarian of the Ayn Rand denomination called Objectivism. (Technically, Rand and the Objectivists hate the Libertarians, but it is one of those Judean People's Front vs the People's Front of Judea fights and not easily understood by outsiders.) To test my theory of Cuban's belief, I went to the Wikipedia and, gosh darn it, I was right. If my understanding of Cuban's thinking is correct, Cuban is being slippery when he defended his decision to fund "Loose Change" on the O'Reilly Factor by saying "its better to have the film out in the open than lurk in the shadows." Cuban hints that we should understand his funding as similar in motive to those of former Senator Alan Cranston (D-CA) when he translated Mien Kampf into English. Yet, if I'm right about how Cuban thinks, his funding of "Loose Change" is in fact out of sympathy for its message. Many Libertarians have the moonbat perception that the United States government is a bigger threat than Islamic terrorist. Thus, Cathy Young, the editor of most important Libertarian magazine, Reason, holds that Islam is no threat to us. And like the moonbats of the left, libertarian views of the Iraqi can descend to hopes of US defeat just like what you would see in the Kucinich moonbat cave. The current Liberty Unbound journal features an article this month on why the surge in Iraq will fail.

At first glance, it makes no sense that the Libertarians would undermine the United States in the fight against Islam. Why would Libertarians hate the United States, one of the most stalwart defenders of capitalism in the world? In fact, the United States ranks fourth world-wide in Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. Part of the problem is simply the United States is not a libertarian utopia, and American democracy stands in their way. Thus, as always with fanatics, the US government is evil. Permit to pause my anti-Libertarian rant to observe that we make more reasonable decisions when we view decision making as balancing between different values, when we think economically in terms of costs and benefits rather than when we pursue a true faith. Without this pluralism of values, we observe creatures like one libertarian I met who compared a publicly funded library to a Nazi death camp. I have found that my friend's over the top comparison of a public library is only slightly more unhinged than what you will encounter in the average discussion with a libertarian about the government, but there is no reason to listen to me. Please read up about libertarianism yourself, here's a link which will help you find many Libertarian sites on the web: http://www.rlc.org/Libertarian.html. And remember even if the idea seems a joke, they mean it. I had a discussion with a guy who had been an intern at the Cato Institute, a Libertarian think tank. He believed we could solve the Greenhouse Gas problem by painting Canada white with the stuff that makes toothpaste white. He was completely serious! I asked him what we would do if Canada got dusty. There are other amusing libertarian "solutions" to climate change out there if you google around, and while you're googling try "blue libertarian candidate Senate Montana" for more wacky libertarianism. And I once rented an apartment from a libertarian whose blue in the last story was orange! It was the magic of beta carotene, completely excessive amounts of beta carotene. The Libertarians are a colorful bunch.

In fairness to libertarians, I should point out that libertarian ideas about economic policy are in almost every case are the best ideas (e.g., the Cato Institute's ideas about Social Security) and that not every libertarian is anti-American. For instance, the Ayn Rand Institute has good ideas about how to deal with Iraq. In fact, I was too glib in my earlier statement about the lack of real difference between Libertarians and Objectivists. Some Objectivists do seem willing to defend the West. I welcome their aid. However, despite the exception of some Objectivists, we should view Libertarian organizations--despite being right wing--as every bit as disloyal to the West as John Murtha's congressional office.

faulty logic

2007-03-25T05:37:00.000-07:00

Rational political dialog is a necessary step to solve our problems. It's too bad we have Sean Hannity instead. Of course, Hannity is just my example of the day. Just about any political commentator would do as well, but I just saw Hannity being egregiously irrational to people on both his left and his right. On his left, Hannity did a presentation of the top ten instances of liberal hate speech. For the most part, the liberal "hate speech" was wishful thinking on his part. He should ask himself if his interpretations are reasonable. Even worse was his conflation of race-mentioning speech with racism and hate speech. Hilary Clinton made some utterly harmless remark about asian Indians and Hannity used it as an example of hate speech. I suppose Hannity would also call hate speech something I said at age 18 years when I was trying to be seductive. I told a black boy that his skin was the most wonderful shade of chocolate. Send me to rehab, now!! And wait, I just committed another crime, I called a black boy of age 19, a "black boy"!! I'm worse than David Duke. I'm even worse than Ann Coulter!

And then there was Hannity arguing with someone to his right. Yes, there are people to Hannity's right. It was Reverend Thomas Euteneuer of Human Life International. Reverend Thomas Euteneuer thinks Hannity is a "heretic" for not fully supporting the Catholic Church's teaching on birth control. Now there was a chance for a rational conversation here. One could talk about the role of reason in the faith of the lay Catholic. Instead, Hannity went off on some attack on the Catholic Church for its sex scandals. Hannity would have accused any liberal of hating religion, if the liberal would have talked to a Catholic priest like he did. On the other hand Euteneuer, whom I hate in the same way I hate Osama bin Laden[*], tried to have a rational conversation. I wish Colmes would have tried to get Hannity to let Euteneuer talk more. Though I don't agree with Colmes often, he at least tries to be more rational than Hannity does.

[*]Both Euteneuer and Osama bin Laden spend every ounce of their energy attempting to recreate the Earth as a hell world. Euteneuer wants to lead us to environmental disaster and bin Laden to sharia.

What the Right Gets Right about Al Gore

2007-03-24T10:09:00.000-07:00

I'm not clear whether I watched the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee's Climate Change Hearing on 3/21/2007 or MTV's Real World-DC. All I know is that Al Gore was there with a couple of Senators not intimidated by cameras into phony niceness. Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer(D-CA) and the ranking member James Inhofe(R-OK) kept it real with their petty bickering. Jerry Springer's idea of becoming a Senator from Ohio may be a natural job progression. I suppose it is a weakness on my behalf, but my reaction to petty nastiness is to turn away in disgust.

Despite Boxer and Inhofe challenging my resolve to watch Al Gore testify, I was able to make it through with the occasional use of the mute button. To give Gore credit, he talked with the gentility we would hope to observe in the Senate, which gets called "august body" for some reason. Yet, I was unimpressed by Gore's testimony. He almost certainly overstates about the effects of Global Warming and thus gives deniers like Inhofe the openings that they need to attack doing anything about Global Warming. There is another more subtle problem with overstating Global Warming. Our environmental problems are far greater than the carbon dioxide in the air. We face a collapse in the number of species on this planet as great as when a meteorite struck the Yucatan peninsula and caused massive devastation. It's somewhat delusional to think that this is not going to cause difficulties for homo sapien.

My disappointment with Gore began to crescendo with Inhofe's cross-examination. While I find Senator Inhofe a contemptible maggot, he really honed into Gore's tragic flaw in his bid for secular eco-sainthood. Inhofe hammered Gore's personal consumption of electricity at his home. Talking about the consumption of electricty at Gore's home is fair. I have seen attacks on Gore based on his airline travel, which is wrong as Gore does need to travel to publicize this issue--even if air travel is a major source of greenhouse gases. Gore's response to Inhofe was to simply repeat some silliness about carbon neutral energy. There is only form of carbon neutral energy that will amount to much in the short run. It's called nuclear power. It's not the windmills and pious hopes of the wine and cheese liberals. We should all remember the Second Law of Thermodynamics when people start suggestimg we need more research into alternative energy. Except for nuclear energy, virtually all the rest of the energy on this planet ultimately comes from the sun. The basic implication of this is that Gore is paying a little more for energy to assuage liberal guilt without the chance that his solutions will have any impact. Actually, Gore reaction is worse than hypocrisy. If one wants eco-sainthood, one should be able to consume less energy than the average America not twelve times as much. Unless Gore is running some sort of commune and his household is twenty times the average American household size, I can't even begin to understand how Gore's energy consumption is reasonable. If he is running a commune more power to him.

An Orwellian Note from the Sierra Club

2007-03-16T09:37:00.000-07:00

I continue to be a member of the Sierra Club so that I can take the occasional hike, though my feelings towards the commissars who head the Sierra Club is little short of total loathing. My loathing is not that we disagree, as I strive to be tolerant about disagreement.

The issue instead is that the commissars sabotaged democracy within the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club used to have vibrant elections where different viewpoints were expressed. The elections were real elections about policy--not the rubber stamp events that typically occur when a major corporation elects a board of directors or when a leftist dictatorship holds an election. Sadly, the Sierra Club Board of Directors decided that debating real issues was not appropriate for a Sierra Club election, because some people wanted the Sierra Club to support efforts by right-wing politicians to reduce immigration in the United States and thus keep the population relatively low. Meanwhile, the Board of Directors want to walk the path of leftist political correctness with their blue/green alliance with labor. So, they made it much more difficult for non-approved candidates to become a candidate for the Board of Directors, and then proceeded to lie about their opponents in the media, and in Sierra Club meetings. The Board of Directors called their opponents "racist" and "far right". Peculiarly enough, I found out about these charges just after a phone call to the leader of Sierra Club dissidents, Alan Kuper. He struck me as a typical leftist pussy--not nearly the man Ann Coulter is. While he wants to keep down the population of the United States, he didn't even seem to get my ideas about how we can have ecologically useful economic growth and he certainly didn't like my idea that it would be environmentally useful to allow to chemical warfare and forbid instead huge traditional bombs.

Anyway--to get to the punchline--the envelop for this year's Sierra Club elections have the slogan "Make Democracy Work" on them.

Further note: Alan Kuper someway managed to get on the ballot this year. Last year, he had a whole slate of candidates to run with him. I shall send Alan an email and find out how he managed to get on the ballot. If he has anything interesting to say, I'll add it to this post. Alan Kuper has my full support, even if he is a leftist pussy.

The Lynn Woolsey Counseling Center for Battered Women

2007-03-14T18:19:00.000-07:00

I watched the latest C-SPAN interview with Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) about Iraq. She is a co-founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus in the House, but didn't manage to sound as crazy as one would guess. She admitted that it would take six months to withdraw, but Iraq is not the issue that concerns me.
It is the portion of the interview about Iran, which starts about 18:40 minutes into the interview. Congresswomen Woolsey doesn't consider Iran to be a particular threat--"not if we use some diplomacy". I was truly impressed by this statement. If I had the funds, I'd would start The Lynn Woolsey Counseling Center for Battered Women. It would teach battered women to return to their spouse--of either gender--and deal with their batterers through diplomacy. Discussion can solve all problems!

Religion, Politically Correct Lies, & the Environment

2007-02-08T10:33:00.000-07:00

Reuters published yesterday a short gushing piece titled "World's Churches Go Green and Rally to Cause" by Paul Majedie. Majedie fantasizes an ecumenical movemnt by Christians, Muslims, and Jews to fight global warming and other environmental causes. The handicapping for the muslims is pretty obvious. After spending a sentence or two on the environmental ideas of the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, leader of the Anglican Church, and Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew, the spiritual leader of Orthodox Churches, Majedie goes on provide concrete examples of synagogues being environmental. We then get to the muslim bit. Majedie quotes Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra, "We believe that we are God's deputies on the planet and we have been given the responsibility to ensure we use God's gift in the correct manner and leave it in a fit state which can be passed on to future generations." Who is this Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra? A major muslim religious leader? No, he is chairman of the Muslim Council of Britain's inter-faith relations committee. In other words, he is the Muslim paid to the lie to the infidels about Islam, in accordance with the muslim practice of taqiya.

I started wondering how Majedie found Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra for this quote. Obviously, there are all sorts of possibilities, but the most likely is that environmental liberal Christians suggested Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra. The liberal Christians would have got to known him from the inter-faith relations committee, where he lies to them. Not that Mogra's lies are unwelcome. The liberal Christians need them so the basic tenet of their faith that all religions say the same thing can be validated. No matter that the idea of all religions saying the same thing is an idea more closely related to Hinduism than anything in the Bible. The liberal Christians will determine the Muslims aren't all that different than Quakers, and Mogra is there to help them. Mogra makes the liberal Christians happy and if the liberal Christians need someone to say muslims are concerned about the environment, I'm sure Mogra is happy to oblige. Everybody gets to feel good.

Then, there are those other times when the liberal Christian feels that fundamentalist Christian say something very different than they. The liberal Christian may even sneer at the fundamentalists for believing in nonsense like Creationism. Yet, isn't the fact that religions say different things a tab bit more obvious than biological evolution?

Here's the problem with lying to yourself as the liberal Christians and politically correct are doing. You actually start telling your lies to other people, which is a sin in Christianity, even in liberal Christianity. Lying is even a sin for the secular media's political correctness. So what about this sentence in Majedie's article, " And for Muslims, the issue[environmentalism] is just as pressing"?

To be fair here, Majedie also had to work hard to ignore obvious facts about Catholicism when he reported that "Catholics are also very much singing from the same hymn sheet with Pope Benedict making protection of the environment one of the keynotes of his papacy." Majedie did not mention birth control in the next sentence.

The End Racial Profiling Act

2007-02-05T12:01:00.000-07:00

I have an amusing story relevant to the End Racial Profiling Act (EPRA), which would de facto make it illegal to question a muslim about terrorism. Before the amusing story, I thought I should review that logic of how ERPA would make it illegal to question muslims about terrorism, as obviously, the bill doesn't state that explicitly. Pretend you are a screener at a airport and an obvious muslim comes up and acts suspicious. If ERPA passed and you search the muslim without finding evidence of bad intent, you would be accused of racism and possibly fired and even fined! Islamic terrorists are smart enough to send out a few suspicious decoys until the airport screeners learn to just not question muslims.

Now, the promised amusing story: I talked to a homeless man already taking advantage of leftist sentiment about racial profiling. The University near where I live is using its police force to chase the homeless out of the area. I'm not wise to know whether I should condemn this or support this. So the homeless man's response is to wear one of those wretched Arab scarves. The University police now leave him alone. The actions of the University police are a weird, but altogether expected, leftist mixture of political correctness and disdain for the actual poor.

Islam and the Green Left

2007-02-03T18:26:00.000-07:00

When I accuse the left of being in a de facto political alliance with Islamic fascist, I often encounter doubt. I've been suggesting David Horowitz's book, Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left, but David Horowitz is hardly the guy to convince someone on the moderate left—even if Horowitz is right. Thus, I needed to come up with a better argument. I now have some talking points about the left/muslim alliance in Europe. I only learned these details yesterday, when I was inspired by Snouck's blog which I found at the Infidel Blogger's Alliance to read the Wikipedia about Dutch political parties. It was the GreenLeft Party—a left-wing environmental party that I found particular disturbing. While the GreenLeft's Party economic policy is considerably more sane than the Dutch Socialist Party, a Marxist Party, it surprisingly seems to exceed it in attracting Islamic radicals.

The GreenLeft party has had two radical Islamic terrorists as members of parliament. I suppose one could be overlooked given the randomness on Earth, but two is too much when the GreenLeft currently has seven members in the lower house and five in the upper house. This is after an election in which the GreenLeft did relatively well. One GreenLeft party member and so called “human rights activist”, Farah Karimi, disclosed in a book her participation in the Iranian Revolution. Her revelation was greeted with silence as she had already told the party board. In November 2005, the GreenLeft party board asked Sam Pormes to give up his seat in the Upper House of Dutch Parliament, because “continuing rumors about his involvement with guerrilla-training in Yemen in the 1970s and the 1977 train hijacking by Moluccan youth and allegations of welfare fraud were harmful for the party.” When Pormes refused to step down, the party board tried to expel him from the party. In March 2006, a general party meeting sided with Pormes, and party chair Herman Meijer resigned. In other words, the GreenLeft party activists weren't only just fine with having a member of the Iranian revolution as a member of the party, they approved of having a known terrorist and welfare cheat as their representative in government—over the objection of their party's leadership. I don't know what could say de facto alliance better than that.

As an avid environmentalist, this radical Islam/Green alliance puzzles me. Of course, as I have ranted for ages, Green parties are actually Red parties who have appropriated environmentalism much to the determent of environmentalism. Still, Green Parties have some residual concern about the environment--even if misdirected--as in this instance: how do people who worry about greenhouse gases oppose nuclear power? Admittedly, the Green energy solution relies on renewable sources, but it is peculiar that a group of people who sneer at Creationism propose an energy policy every bit as magical. To give the Greens the benefit of the doubt, my wanting to look at the details is such a weird anal-rententive fetish. Anyway, I suppose the more urgent question here is why do people who oppose nuclear power think it is just dandy for Iran to have atomic weapons?

The flip side of this question is why are muslims willing to join Green parties. Blowing stuff up hardly strikes me as an expression of concern for the Earth. I suppose there has been some environmental terrorism--which may make sense internally--but its motivation is far different than Islamic wars of conquest. There is something about imperialism (and especially of the Islamic variety) that just doesn't jibe with environmentalism. Why wouldn't jihadists join the Dutch Socialist Party, which received more than three times as many votes as the GreenLeft party. Marxist romanticism about revolution is similar to muslim sentiments about jihad. Also, I can't help but note that one of the important environmental issues is greenhouse gases, and muslim holy men tend to come from countries with a strong interest in doing nothing about reducing greenhouse gases.

My suspicion the reason for this Green Left/Muslim alliance is that the multiculturalism cult has done most damage among the type of environmentalists who considers themselves trendy and intellectual. Sadly, this bizarre alliance seems to be spreading to the United States. The Democratic National Committee at their winter meeting had a pro-Hezbollah iman speak. I bet this iman claims to think the environment is an important issue.

Why Morality Shouldn't Be a Matter of Fetishes

2007-01-29T16:32:00.000-07:00

Morality is a means to create a better world, but too often we make a fetish out of some past event such that the future is made worse. The simple moral narratives we tell are more often wrong and outdated than not. As an example let's consider the media's decision not to make front page news out of three muslims who were beat up at Guilford College in North Carolina and their alleged assailants were charged with ethnic intimidation. This would appear to be the sort of news that the mainstream media loves. What could be more delightful to them than a story in which they can cast white Southerners as bigots? After all, didn't white Southerners have terrible, bigoted laws in their past? And isn't that Pat Robertson fellow from somewhere in the South? And what could be a better display of a reporter's moral purity than to portray muslims as victims? Sadly for the mainstream media, they couldn't make a Duke rape case out it. USA Today covered it in their college football section. Tragically, the alleged assailants were racially mixed.

I'm not trying to make a point about the bigotry of the mainstream media against the Southern Whites--though it certainly exists. I'm trying to say we need to move on from the crimes of now mostly dead Southern white men and stop fetishizing the historical South. This is not to Southern White Men or rednecks aren't without their faults. The anti-environmental ethos of NASCAR disgusts me. Rednecks haven't caught on how to defend deer hunting in this century, and I would be glad to give them some rhetorical advise about the issue: the environmental arguments for deer hunting are overwhelming. But let's compare these contemporary redneck moral issues of NASCAR and deer hunting to the heinous cruelty of foie gras production in France or Muslim mutilation of girl's genitalia or the anarchy in Somalia or Sudanese slavery or Chinese prison camps or random abuses of people in Nepal or countries enslaving people to go to the UN and listen to deadly boring speeches and so forth. (I'm so glad that John Bolton was emancipated!) We must get beyond the moral stories we tell ourselves and think about the world as it is and how it could be. Nothing is helped by making a moral fetish of the wrongs of the South over half a century ago.

Nor are our moral fetishes particularly accurate. I harbor the suspicion that the worst crime by whites against another people was what the Belgians did in the Congo, but someway that never gets mentioned. Nazism is name of evil in the 20th century. Yet, if one looks at the actual killings, the actual torture and so forth, the Communists were far worse.

Since our moral fetishes are both out-dated and inaccurate in their historical account of evil, I suggest that we shelf them and talk earnestly about what type of world we'd like to have using the facts of the world we see today. I think two facts in particular need addressing: an imperialistic religious cult that is obtaining more and more nuclear weapons and the destruction of our natural eco-systems by human overpopulation--global climate change or no global climate change due to greenhouse gases. (Greenhouse gases are quite likely to have serious effects on the Earth's climate, but if someone wants to doubt them, there is a smörgåsbord of other environmental risks we are taking.)

the ultimate dhimmi

2007-01-09T20:51:00.000-07:00

Because of my relatively unusual position in society, I encounter the most freakish dhimmis in America. I thought I had meet the ultimate in a transsexual squatter dhimmi who liked to discuss from a "Christian perspective" how cool is muslim commitment to jihad. Today, I meet someone even more insane. He's a extremely effeminate black gay man and he wants to have the word "Jihad" tattooed over his heart, because he thinks "the word sounds so great." And my social needs are such that I have to pretend that he's not completely fucking insane. So there I was listening to him congratulate himself on his fashion sense in wearing one of those horrid Arab scarves in support of those oppressed Palestinians. I wonder if I'm in Hell having to pretend that he is sane.

(note of explanation: My life is happy despite the loons that I encounter. I suppose someone sane has to verify their existence for those who may doubt such people exist.)

what black muslims learn in prison about islam

2006-11-13T19:46:00.000-07:00

I sometimes let a recovering heroin addict street person sleep in my basement. He's somewhat scary looking with his prison muscles. I gave him my Jihad Watch t-shirt that says "Save Civilization Defeat Jihad", because I decided I was afraid to wear in public, since I'm not a scary looking thug. While wearing the Jihad Watch t-shirt, he ran into a group of black muslim ex-prisoners with their ho's. They accused him of being racist for being opposed to Jihad. He told them he was only opposed to muslims oppressing other people like women. The ho's actually responded very positively to his statements--which completely shocks me, but it does give me much hope that women may yet save us from Islam. My thug then went on to talk about the ninth chapter of the Koran and quote the verses that I told him. The black muslims admitted that they didn't know much about the Koran. They even admitted that they got his point. If only all of Islam could be defeated this easily!

I wonder if Jihad Watch gives out an award for the best use of street people in counter-Jihad?

I'm an atheist myself, but I see a potential here for Christian missionaries to black muslim ex-prisoners. It's just that the missionaries would need to be like my basement thug. Such people are not in short supply. They just need to be directed.

tomorrow's election

2006-11-06T13:56:00.000-07:00

Sadly, a lot of politics involve issues that are more symbolic than the real. This is bad, because elections are decided on issues that have little to do with the everyday of life of the people and thus democracy is thwarted. Let's consider an election decided by the death penalty in the United States. The death penalty has negligible impact on this country. It would make no difference to the lives of our non-vicious criminal citizens if the death penalty were eliminated tomorrow or if its use quintupled. Admittedly, one could argue that the death penalty is proxy for toughness on crime, but I doubt that is what is going on. At least, most death penalty opponents get annoyed for me for suggesting that.

The election tomorrow is said by so many people to a referendum on Iraq. The reason for the opposition to the war in Iraq is largely symbolic. There are about 1.5 million people(*) arrested each year for drunk driving, and several times that many more drunk and high drivers who evade arrest. This leads to more than 17,000 death per year. If one were worried about unnecessary death, I'd suggest drunk driving would be a good place to start your political action. Instead, people quote the number of deaths in Iraq like it were so terrible a calamity. They feel empowered by condemning those deaths as a senile old woman is empowered saying her rosary.

Let us pause and reflect on the problems of the world before saying killing is bad in the Iraq War or abortion or the death penalty or whatever. We face a murderous Islam and deep environmental problems. Let's tackle these issues first, before deciding tiny moral problems. Is it worth to fundamentalist Christians to ban gay marriage, if the cost is that Islam wins and Christians become second class citizens? Is it worth to leftist, if the victory of their anti-Iraq stance empowers countries unconcerned about greenhouse gases and the result is climate change which destroys our environment? These are not empty questions.

Let me go further and reclaim both killing and even cruel joy in killing. I had mice living under my stairs and I killed two of them yesterday using glue traps. Actually, I drowned them on the glue strips. I'm glad I took an active stance kill and reduced their suffering. Mice are nice creatures, and I don't really blame them as I kill them. But if the traps had had rats instead of mice, I wouldn't have mercifully killed them by drowning. I would have delighted instead in the suffering of the rats. Rats are evil, mean things and when they suffer when they die, they get what they deserve. I would enjoy a restrained cruelty towards them.

(*)I tried to make out sense of the FBI statistics, but couldn't so I just choose the highest figure I could find in the manner of the typical journalist. Obviously, a fair minded would do just the opposite and provide a number like 800,000.

negative one, or why poverty isn't history

2006-10-29T08:55:00.000-07:00

Maybe I have a negative point of view, but I think our political focus should be on the threats to the possibility of people living good lives. In particular, I fear Islam and environmental devastation, but we shouldn't forget socialist ideology is still up to evil. The obvious socialist evil today is North Korea, but I would like to address the more subtle One Campaign.

The One Campaign which "wants to make poverty history" combines socialism with liberal Christian do-goodism. I suppose it is a moral imperative for some people that every family on this planet have a black walnut dining room set and a big screen HDTV. The question I have for such people is how to create this utopia and what will it cost? If we truly want the most people to get wealthiest the quickest, the clear answer is free markets. Of course, the socialists and liberal Christian do-gooders would not be happy with anyone who points out that fact. Instead, they call for "fair trade", though not even "fair trade" plays much role in their plans to "make poverty history." Their ideologies require their giving to the poor and even those who don't agree with their harebrained ideas to give also. The disastrous consequences of their past givings has proved that "it is more blessed to give than to receive (Acts 20:35)" in ways not quite intended by Saint Paul. Anyway, wealth is more a set of habits than material possessions. You could give a million dollars to most Americans living in what passes for poverty in the United States. After five or so years of living it up, they'll be living in poverty again. The same is true in most of the world. If we really want to help, we need a way to promote decent values in places of poverty. Now, of course, it is pretty impossible to teach decent values in many places of the world, because there are just so many orphans due to AIDS.

The One Campaign has an answer for that also, we should eliminate not just poverty but also AIDS, and not just AIDS but TB and Malaria also! They also want "fair trade", every child in school, and a genetically engineered tooth fairies to leave money under every child's pillow. This leads to the key weakness of the One Campaign. How much environmental damage is acceptable in the pursuit of their goals? Their answer is as always to ignore that we even face making a decision, which is consistent with their basic ideological belief that humans don't make decisions. Instead, human actions are forced upon them by evil corporations run by reptilian space alien advocates of free trade.

Anyway, let's think through the results of the elimination of disease. There would be huge growth in human population which in turn would have huge impacts on the environment. The environmental concern beloved by Socialist and liberal Christians is the greenhouse gases issue. There are of course other more urgent environmental issues out there, but they love the greenhouse gases issue because most of the blame can be placed on the multi-national corporations managed by the reptilian space aliens. Now, if the greenhouse gases will lead to the Global Warming they warn us about, then their efforts to increase the human population by disease elimination is only going to worsen Global Warming. Admittedly, the nuttier one claim that we just need to consume differently and everything will be ok, but I assume that the saner ones reject that bit of magic. I may be presumptuous in assuming saner ones, but to them I would address the question how much Global Warming is tolerable in the pursuit of the elimination of poverty? I only ask that you make an honest choice, and don't play the silly game that it is not the impoverished consuming the oil. Have you looked at the growth in fossil fuel usage in China recently? As countries become wealthier, huge increases in fossil fuel and/or nuclear fuel use will occur. You can't logically escape answering the question by blaming America's usage of fossil fuels, as habitual as that behavior may be for you.

There are some other little issues for the One Campaign. If we make muslims wealthier, what are they likely to do? More wealth means you can buy more guns and nuclear bombs. Why should we spend the effort to raise people up from poverty only so that they can commit terrorism against us? And it's not just muslims. I would suggest any culture made wealthy artificially is going to have dark habits that the new wealth will merely exacerbate. We do well here in the United States to keep our "pro-life" and animal rights loons under control, and we've had a long time to try to instill civilized behavior into people.

Black Cat Adoption and Halloween

2006-10-28T19:25:00.000-07:00

Controversial issues tend to obscure more than enlighten. People react reflexively rather than reflect on their political habits. I wish to illustrate leftism through an issue which has not been even a minor issue in any election: black cat adoption and Halloween. In this issue, we see leftism acting to cause pain in the real world out of some misguided commitment to a bizarre principle--that black cats should be treated like other cats. To prevent the torture of black cats, animal shelters have not permitted the adoption of black cats near Halloween. Some leftists say that this practice harms black cats more than protects them.

From the AP arcticle "Black cat adoptions banned on Halloween" by Rebecca Boone posted on Sat Oct 28, 2006 5:19 PM ET:

"Black cats already suffer a stigma because of their color," said Gail Buchwald, vice president of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals shelter in New York City. "Why penalize them any more by limiting the times when they can be adopted?"

Black cats tend to be adopted less often than other felines, Buchwald said.

"Behaviorally, there's no difference from the color of the cat. It's tied into this whole mythology about the animal — don't let it cross your path or some foreboding or foreshadowing of evil — and that's an outdated superstition," she said.

Basically, Buchwald is arguing for the torture of black cats in the name of removing their social stigma. The basic problem with freedom of speech is that people like Buchwald never have to take responsibility for the evil they advocate. In a just world, people would have to take responsibility for what they advocate when there are clear consequences. In this case, I advocate putting Buchwald in a prison cell. On the walls of her cells, there would be all day projections of films of black cats being tortured to death in the most gruesome ways. To get out, she wouldn't just to have to admit that permitting the adoption of black cats before Halloween in our actual society where there are sadist is a bad idea. She would also have to admit that the leftism that lead her to advocate the adoption of black cats before Halloween is utterly wrong. She would have to promise to forsake "rights"--human or cat--and think of consequence. No human or animal "right" makes a damn bit of difference when its only result is only to empower the most sadistic torturers. I continue to advocate freedom of speech despite leftist political frivolity.

This framework applies equally to people who call Islam a religion of peace. Sadly, freedom of speech also means that they too can be as irresponsible as Buchwald.

Travel Writing or Denial

2006-10-27T10:35:00.000-07:00

The most popularly emailed article at the New York Times this morning is from the Dining and Wine section. The article opens with a celebration the greatness of Italian pork products. I suppose people are in deep enough denial that they are capable of reading this article without wondering how soon will the muslims get pork banned in Italy?

What Muslims Say in the West

2006-10-21T08:08:00.000-07:00

In conversations, we should listen to what other people say and try to interpret in the best light possible. What we should never do is interpret people's ideas like congressmen's vote are interpretted in attack ads in the United States. The worst possible interpretation of a vote is given--even when common sense dictates that the intent of the congressman's vote was something entirely different. It's hard for me to understand any person stupid enough to fall for these ads. For instance, when any person in their right mind is told that their far right congressmen voted to help the Chinese military, they should have doubts about the fairness of what is being said. Since this sort of ad exist, we must assume that many people are falling for them. I suppose I am being elitist here, but I'm not sure what other response is appropriate.

In conversations, we should also be careful about claiming people are lying. Before I would claim anyone is lying, I think it is important to claim that the liar has malicious intent in making a statement that he knows is contrary fact. This definition would, for example, exclude Bill Clinton during the sexual inquisition since even if he did perjure himself, he did not lie under this definition since he didn't have malicious intent. (Another important issue about lying is that the word "liar" should almost never be used, except as I used it before in this paragraph. Hollering "liar" at others impedes serious conversation and is uncouth.)

I bring all this up, because I have been watching Muslims on YouTube such as Ahmed Bedier and Imran Siddiqui. They make statements about civil liberties that they do not believe in the least. They know that they don't believe it, because what they say blatantly contradicts their religion. I should probably include the sources here, but if you read JihadWatch or LittleGreenFootballs, you should easily be able to find examples of Western muslims saying contradictory things in English and Arabic. Further more, the muslims say their counterfactual statements with the malicious knowledge that if they have the chance they they will make members of other religions second class citizens or worse. In short, even a fair minded person must admit that muslim spokesmen lie continually.

A Protest by Hindu Apostates

2006-10-15T08:10:00.000-07:00

An important commentary on Islam is being made indirectly in India, yesterday (October 14, 2006). The BJP party, a Hindu nationalist party which overall I tend to support, has made a huge mistake in making it difficult to change religion in several Indian states. The Dalits, the polite terms for untouchables, protested this law by converting in mass to another religion, mostly Buddhism, though a small number converted to Christianity. That no one converted to Islam in this ceremony tells volumes about Islam. Islam is the second largest religion in India, and the protesting Dalits are able to assess whether Islam and its level of tolerance for apostates would be appropriate for their protest. They clearly did not think so. The next time Christianity is morally equivalenced to Islam, it’s worth bringing this incident up. It shows in small way an important difference between Christianity and Islam.

I am slightly concerned by the shortsightedness of the BJP. It needs to enlist the small religious minorities in India as allies against Islam and stop looking so intolerant. When the muslims are at the door with knives and nukes is not the time for petty bickering between traditions that are capable of mutual respect.

Media bias works in strange ways. Reuters showed a bias towards Christianity in its reporting of this protest, which is understandable as it is the more familiar. The reporting mentioned Buddhism and Christianity equivalently in the article and the accompanying photograph was of a Christian baptism. But, the number of converts was 9000 for Buddhism and 500 for Christianity.

Next Steps

2006-10-03T11:58:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking about what we can effectively do about the war with Islam, and not coming up with any answers. Today, I was handed a Falun Gong newsletter and I thought that this is exactly what we need to do. You can see similar material to what was in the newspaper at http://www.faluninfo.net/.
A newpaper would work wonders because so many people are catching on to Islam that just a little push will send them our way. Seeing a professional looking newspaper will provide many the reassurance that they need to feel comfortable saying we need to deal with the problem of Islam. A newspaper could also create some buzz in other media. Finally, if we could develop a cadre of people working on this newspaper, we would also an infrastructure for other projects and have spokesmen for the media.

The newspaper should discuss the whole gamut of Islamic evil: killing of apostates, burning of churches, execution of homosexuals, genitial mutilation of women, stories about wearing burqas, stories of being whipped for alcohol, stories of being punished for sex, honor killing, wife beating, and so forth. In order to counteract the unhappy tenor of the newspaper, there would have to a few happy human interest stories. For example, there could a story about escaping muslim slavery in Sudan in which the angle is on the happiness of getting away. As much as it pains me to say this, we should avoid talking much about Jews or Israel. We must avoid the appearance of being propaganda for Israel or being Christian fundamentalist propaganda or else the newspaper will be a waste of time in terms of advancing our views. It is essential to win hearts and minds in groups beyond Jews and fundamentalist Christians. It is also essential to present the main stream media with nothing that they can really attack. Thus, the newspaper should be careful not to attack Islam or Muslims directly. The newspaper should claim to advocate peaceful solutions--just as CAIR does.

The two obstacles are getting funding and getting people to hand out the newspapers. I'm almost certain that there is some wealthy person who be willing to fund the whole thing or that we could even round up the funds ourselves. The bigger problem I think is getting people devoted enough to spend three or four hours a week handing out these newspapers. How do we develop a network? I suspect that right-wing Christians groups have the best organization to start the network. Hopefully, they will be willing to outreach to other groups, like gay people and the few feminists actually concerned about the fate of women in Islamic countires. We must be able to present ourselves as a coalition.

We also need a website like http://www.faluninfo.net/. I believe I've seen some sites going this way, but we need a really encyclopedic site--not a blog--about muslim evil including history.

Feingold

2006-09-14T18:58:00.000-07:00

The important ideas in this post can gleaned by reading the bolded paragraphs.

According to an AP news article, on Tuesday Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) told a meeting of the Arab American Institute, "We must avoid using misleading and offensive terms that link Islam with those who subvert this great religion or who distort its teachings to justify terrorist activities." Feingold continued, "Fascist ideology doesn't have anything to do with the way global terrorist networks think or operate, and it doesn't have anything to do with the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world who practice the peaceful teachings of Islam." My interpretation of what motivates Feingold's speech is that Feingold believes that if we lump all Muslims together under some label of evil, they will fight back as a group, which means more support for terrorism.

Now, I think we are at war with the whole of Islam and that Feingold is in denial. Feingold does admit the terrorism is real and he is proposing a strategy to deal with it. Choosing between Feingold's strategy and my more aggressive strategy for dealing with Islamic terrorism seems to me to come down to some fairly simple empirical questions:

1.Is Islam a religion of peace?
2.Is terrorism a distortion of its teachings?
3.Can saying nice things about Islam make it play nice with the rest of us?

I believe that the answer to first two question is a resounding no, but I have no interest in rehashing what you can read on Jihadwatch. I also believe that the answer to the third question is no. Once again, you can read in many places is that an aggressor's response to appeasement is more demands, but I want to go two additional issues here.
One additional issue with Feingold's appeasement strategy is if we don't attack Islam for its viciousness, how can any moderate faction even get enough influence to become part of the conversation. Currently, there are no moderate factions with any influence. They are only likely to get even mild influence if we force them down the throat of an unwilling Islamic world. Admittedly, I don't think moderate Islam has any chance at all, but if non-muslims want it to have some influence, we will have to demand and fund its influence.
A second additional issue with Feingold's appeasement approch is that it would need to be part of a coordinated strategy to win the hearts and minds of the Islamic world. Such a strategy would also require efforts to improve the image of America in the world and promote capitalism and tolerance. Feingold would vehemently oppose any effort to do any of that. The man spends virtually every waking second doing what he can do to hurt America's image and promote socialist fantasies and political correctness—which is the opposite of tolerance. So, yes, while there is a chance that Feingold's strategy could work in tune with other strategies, there is no chance they work would given Feingold's other objectives.
A third additional issue is we have to consider the time that it takes social change to occur. Social change is rather slow. Iran will have nuclear weapons soon. I don't think any nice guy strategy to Islam stands a prayer under that tight deadline.

Good Logic

2006-09-13T14:22:00.000-07:00

I just read the most amazing op-ed in the today's Boston Herald by Jules Crittenden. One paragraph in particular asks just the right questions:

But enough about me.Some questions for you: Do you actually think our own president is a greater menace to world peace and stability than our opponents would be with nuclear weapons?Are we to accept the word of tyrants that they were well-intentioned and not engaged in weapons programs when all the evidence has convinced our leaders and intelligence agencies that they are? Has history given us any indication that sanctions without a credible threat will have an effect? Even among our own allies, we’ve found nations that tout humanitarian action and seek to avert war, while cynically pursuing corrupt financial arrangements with the same tyrants. Do you believe it is acceptable to have nations of demonstrated murderous intent in a position to control large portions of the world’s strategic resources? Tinpot dictators busy killing their own people can become brass-hat dictators and start killing other people. If we were to walk away from all of this, do you believe they would leave us alone?

It's question like these that have helped me win over half way to moonbathood people to a more realistic view of the war with Islam.

Thoughts on 9/11

2006-09-11T16:53:00.000-07:00

Warning: The start of this post contains material that some people on the political right will find objectionable. I suggest people on the political right read the whole post, because they will find my change of heart most gratifying.

In the Islam War blog industry, one is required to make some comments about September 11 five years ago. In honesty, I didn’t really realize the problem five years ago. The stock market was doing so well that I thought everyone would be rich. Paradoxically given my love of capitalism, I was hanging out with leftist kids who cheered the fall of the WTC. I loved these kids rejection of normalcy, but still the leftist kids shocked even me by saying they didn’t care if businessmen died at the WTC. When they went into the woods to burn flags that night, I warned them not to let anyone see them. In one of their few outbreaks of good sense, they said they would be discrete. When they started stealing flags in the patriotic aftermath, I urged them to sell them. It was the time of the flag shortage, but they didn’t want to violate their socialist purity. I even offered to sell them and give them a 50-50 cut, but they realized that I am Capitalism's demon, even when fencing stolen goods.

A couple of weeks after 9/11, I invited the leftist kids for dinner. My dishes rivaled the art in many museums of modern art: World Trade Center Flambé and Ground Zero Tabouli. In retrospect, it was probably a mistake to use chicken, instead of pork for the flambé. I used red tomato, red pepper, and red onion in the tabouli. My leftist retard friends still laugh at those dishes, and I suppose I do too, but I no longer seek to trivialize September 11. I have learned about Islam since then and it scares me what we are up against.

We confront a murder cult that has been trying to kill off our Western Judeo-Christian/Secular society for the last 1400 years. We cannot sit around pretending everything is alright or indulge in fantasies that Bush is the cause of all evil. On the other hand, I do wonder if any person in a position of power who says Islam is a Religion of Peace should be tried for treason and executed. Do I, too, have Bush Derangement Syndrome?

Thinking back on human history, it was ok for us to ignore the threat of Islam before September 11 in the United States. It really wasn’t affecting us enough, though we should we should been picking up hints since the events in Iran in 1979. After 9/11, there is no excuse for how we have ignored Islam. We have had ample time to honestly evaluate Islam’s goals and aims and react accordingly. Since Islam has declared war on us, we should begin to fight back. President Bush has wished to escape this logic with his hopes to secularize the Islamic countries, while ironically pushing theocracy here in America. While many bad things can be said about Bush’s approach, let us concentrate on the good. Bush’s intentions are honorable. I don’t think that last sentence can be repeated too often given the amount of outrageous lies flung against Bush. Bush is a decent guy who hopes to avoid the War the Muslims have declared, but Bush is naïve to believe that people brainwashed into a murder cult are going behave civilized because he gives them the opportunity to have a democracy. I suppose we had to try Bush’s nice guy approach first. Perhaps, we were even morally obligated to do so, before we go in and do what we need to do: slaughter them all. It's just that we need to explain much better how the War in Iraq represents an effort to be a loving, gentle people. I haven't even seen many conservatives many conservatives make this point, which is the best defence of what Bush has done. Ironically, I'm probably better positioned to see the necessity of making this defence of what is happening in Iraq than the conservatives, because I'm a political moderate who hates Bush. (There is no contradiction between hating a political figure and saying the political figure as a person is a decent man. We forget this all too often.)

In this anniversary of 9/11, we should honestly consider the probability that Muslims will act like anything besides murderous savages. Let’s consider at the behavior of fundamentalist Christians. For instance, would Pat Robertson ever admit that Creationism is nonsense? Though evolution is a proven fact by any reasonable criteria and Creationism is not essential to Christianity, we can be pretty certain that Christian fundamentalists aren’t going to renounce their Intelligent Design nonsense. How can we then possibly expect the Muslims to give up one of the key teachings of their religion, the obligation to kill or enslave everyone else in the name of Allah? It’s not like you prove them wrong by any objective criteria like Creationism/Intelligent Design can be shown wrong.

(I suppose I should come clean with a weak spot in my argument above. I believe that fundamentalist Christians will over the long run accept gay marriage, since there is so little discussion of homosexuality in the Bible and fundamentalist mothers of gay sons will demand gay marriage in their churches. On the other hand, jihad is a central tenet o the Koran and no powerful group internal to Islam with an organic interest to oppose it.)

If we harbor hatred towards any politicians, hatred towards Bush should be kept at rational level. If we feel a need for demonification, our demons should be the European political elite who gave away Europe to the Arabs. While I oppose torture for virtually every other human being, I would support torturing in barbaric ways Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, Jacques Chirac, the entire leadership of the all European socialist parties, and similar traitors in other parties for how they enabled Arab immigration into Europe. Of course, Bush’s response to immigration is not in the any better than d'Estaing’s. Luckily, we have a civilized country to our south. I may strongly oppose the flood of Mexican immigrants, but permitting them in isn’t the suicide of our civilization.

Unrelated thoughts about Ahmad Shah Massoud illustrating why this is not a hate blog
I read up recently on Ahmad Shah Massoud who Al-Qaeda deliberately killed before the 9/11 attack. He seemed rather reasonable for a muslim, despite the whining by human rights groups. I would like to see a human rights activist ninny be appointed head of a political faction in a muslim country (and many other countries). He would get to decide whether he wants to die maintaining his human rights purity or live. As I continue to argue, we have to judge people in context and not simply according to abstract rules. This does not deny the importance of the abstract rules when making moral judgments. It is just to judge in a way suitable for living on Earth, instead of the ethereal, geometric kingdom.

Massoud has such perfect teeth, like he had braces. Where in his Afghan childhood, could one get braces? Anyway, in some of his younger photos, he’s really quite sexy. Sadly, there are no shirtless photos of him on the web. For that matter, why not mujahidin porn? It may not be Islamic, but it sure would be Afghan culture. Oh well, here I’m calling for the genocide of all who believe like the attractive Massoud, but I fear it is necessity in the era of cheap WMD. And there will always be other attractive men.

The Scurrilous Argument Challenge

2006-09-10T10:13:00.000-07:00

One popular illogical argument in political forums like LitteGreenFootballs and DailyKos goes like this:

An allegedly evil figure, X, supports political candidate, Y
Therefore, Y is evil.

I challenge anyone to come up with an argument of this form to discredit the moderate Senator Olympia Snowe(R-ME), because I donated a small sum to her campaign. To make it easier, you should know that Olympia Snowe is Greek and has been hostile to the Turkish government as I think we should be.

Let Me Be Your Paragon of the Evil

2006-09-09T12:48:00.000-07:00

Ralph Peters is concerned about Islam haters who advocate the genocide of all 1 billion muslims on the planet. The nice, Christian people at jihadwatch are pointing out that what Peters says doesn’t apply to them, and they are right. As far as I know, I'm the only person with a large vocabulary and a sense of humor to call for the genocide of all 1 billion muslims in a socially progressive and ecologically sensitive way. My Doctrine of Benign Genocide will enable us to kill a large population of religious crazies & have our society remain a decent, pleasant place to live. Indeed, our post-genocidal society can be a better place than now! The soldier will return from slaughtering thousands of muslims to lifting an earthworm from the sidewalk and throwing it in the grass so it won't be stepped on. There is no contradiction. One may be careful about butterflies but be bloodthirsty about guinea worms and bed bugs

It's true that I have Coulter syndrome and articulate my statements as extreme as possible. I know that most "muslims" aren't dangerous crazies, simply because in all religions, most people follow the religion in only the most superficial manner. Muslims are only evil when they take the step of taking their religion seriously. We shouldn't let Peters know that the whole point of Coulter syndrome is to aggravate people like him.

So here I am, the paragon of the “rotten core of American [right-wing] extremism.” Let's be clear that Peters is right in claiming I am “bent on discrediting honorable conservatism.” After all, I’m a political moderate who roots for politicians like Senators Lincoln Chafee(R-RI) and Joe Lieberman(D-CT). It’s also true that I am bent on discrediting honorable liberalism. I advocate people thinking for themselves and not following simplistic political packages. Let me be clear that I'm not trying to get people to give up on big ideas in politics like liberalism and conservatism. There is much to admire in conservatism and liberalism as political philosophies. It’s just that the contemporary baskets of unrelated ideas known now as conservative and liberal are both nonsense. Further, it's not clear what the bulk of right-wing positions in the United States have to do with conservatism and what the bulk of the left-wing positions have to do with liberalism. Because of our refusal to think, we deserve the approaches the left and right give us.

I do have to object to Peters' entirely predictable claim that “when you read between the lines, that all Muslims are evil and subhuman.” I hope that I don’t come across that way. If someway I haven’t been clear, muslims are typical humans corrupted by an evil ideology—just like Nazis and Communists are. And people acting on the influence of evil ideals do evil things like terrorize their fellow citizens as Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar did on March 6, 2006 in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, as Naveed Afzal Haq did on July 28, 2006 in Seattle, Washington, as Omeed Aziz Popal did on August 29, 2006 in San Fransisco, and so forth. Despite Peters's implication otherwise, it is only a matter of time until some muslims “have strapped on bombs and walked into Wal-Mart.” To repeat myself, individual muslims not strongly influenced by their religion can be nice people. The trouble is that people may turn to their religious faith at any time in their life. For instance, I saw reference in the press to two of the three above named terrorist not being devout at some point in their life, though I’m not willing to put full faith in such news without more research. Still, you should know that the nice muslim guy you knew two years may have become a bloodthirsty terrorist since then. I wonder about the Palestinian boy I dated five years ago. The atmosphere was always tense when Islam was brought up, and this is long before I realized how Islam threatens human survival. Back then, I believed we could fuck our way to peace with the Palestinians. My orgasm was my present to mother Israel.

I’m over my silly leftism of fucking=peace now, but Peters is not over my silly leftism: “Once free of the maladies of the Middle East, Muslims thrive in America. Like the rest of us.” In fact, the Islamic terrorists have come from Westernized, middle class back ground like my ex-boyfriend with his MD/PhD. I’d be more concerned about a random muslim from the middle class of the United Kingdom being a terrorist than a muslim from any other country or economic class. Other middle class Western Europeans would be next on my list. We do not corrupt muslims as fast as Peters thinks. Hell, I’m not even sure if Palestinian boyfriend was gay. He is more likely to have been a straight man dealing with Islamic segregation of sexes like a prisoner. I always played the woman’s role not just in our sex, but even in our flirting. He would be annoyed otherwise, and I would put up with it because he had an amazing body. If we can’t even get muslim straight men who have been here over seven years to fuck girls not guys, getting muslims to act like the “rest of us” will not be a quick process.

Robert Spencer has much more to say about about why Peters is wrong at JihadWatch.Org.

I had another thought related to making arguments that the ideas above can illustrate. The right-wing often prides itself on its embrace of an "objective morality" and condemns its opponents for not having an objective morality. I think that this is wrong on many levels. Most obviously, the far left, like the far right, often has a small number of rules that they apply to every situation, and so the left's morality is every bit as objective as the right. But there is a sense in which objective morality disarms us in arguments. We lose the ability to say better or worse. Some examples:

1. Civil libertarians who can't tell the difference between keeping enemy combatants in Gitmo and police arbitrarily imprisoning American citizens
2. So-called pro-lifers who claim to be unable to tell the difference between killing an adult and killing a fetus.
3. Leftist who can't tell the difference Israel defending itself against Islamic terrorism and Islamic terrorism.

At the risk of my being boring, let's make me make some obvious moral judgments to illustrate how I think we should think about things. If I am correct that my Palestinian ex-boyfriend was straight, he would hardly be the only heterosexual muslim man to practice sodomy. Islamic societies are societies where straight boys leave the natural use of the woman, burn in their lust one toward another; men with straight men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet (Romans 1:27). I'd like to make the moral claim that it is wrong to pervert desire from it natural course for any ideological reason, though to avoid an unnecessary argument with the left here let me grant that some experimentation may be exempt from this criticism.
Thus, we should condemn Christian Right Reparative Therapy leading gay men to unnatural sex for them, Muslim misogyny leading straight men to sodomy, and the postmodern nonsense of bisexuality which leads to both bad outcomes. In regard to the last, studies of the human brain activity in young men provide the empirical evidence that there is no bisexuality, but don't expect gay rights groups to drop demands for bisexual rights anytime soon. The least bad of these three causes of perverted sex is bisexuality, because it is freely chosen and people have a easy time getting over it. The overwhelming common pattern is a person has a few encounters in their early twenties and they get over claiming to be bisexual. I have observed this in every bisexual I've known for a long time. The second least bad is Christian Right Reparative Therapy, because like bisexuality it is freely chosen and people get over it at probably the same frequency as bisexuality. The trouble with Christian Reparative Therapy is that encourages people to feel bad about themselves for being guilty while bisexuality makes people feel good about themselves for being open-minded, different, and original--just as punk rock kids feel so different and original for cutting their hair like kids did in the late seventies. Muslim misogyny leading straight men to sodomy is by far the worse of these three causes of perversion. It is a system you can't escape--more like a prison than a fashion statement. There are many people who would attempt to morally equivalence the Christian Right Reparative Therapy with Islamic misogyny which leads to sodomy or even more likely with Islamic homophobic, but we should attack back. Christian Right Reparative Therapy is one's own choice, while leading a lifestyle with prison like segregation of the sexes is not. Nor is being stoned to death for sodomy optional under sharia.

ambigious feelings about far right political activity

2006-09-03T09:50:00.001-07:00

As a gay Jew who loves the West, I'm delighted that white racist extremists in UK are waking up to a real threat, instead of traipsing along in their usual paranoia. They are releasing video threats against Islam immigrants. It's about time some group takes at least a feeble step to make the muslims feel unsafe. The muslims have made me have reasonably fears about my safety as a gay Jew. Jews in the Western Europe now must fear for their personal safety at levels unknown since Hitler. Why is it that the Muslims get a free pass to terrorize everyone else and no one gets to fight back?

It's also great they are actually doing something that may discourage a few immigrants. A majority of Western people have views on immigration more similar to the white extremists than with the West's political elite. I wish there were some way to beat the political elite at the ballot box, but its hard to defeat an idea shared by George W Bush and John McCain as well as by Jacques Chirac and Ted Kennedy. There is no political avenue open on this issue. In the absence of political avenues, I worry about these right wing extremists getting too popular by finding ways to air a popular opinion that will be even more popular when the muslims succeed in their next mass murder. It is not in my interest as a gay Jew for these extremist groups to get too powerful. I was partly motivated to start this blog out of fear that if the far right is the only group to defend the West, then the support for the far right will become uncomfortably strong. More moderates should join me in defending the West. Look, I'm not asking here for them to agree with me that genocide of Muslims is necessary. I'm just asking my fellow political moderates to state that our culture and its people are worth preserving. I realize that even saying that will earn you the label of racists from the PC police, but can't you stand yourself a little?

I also worry that the main stream media will use the white extremist groups' activities to discredit doing anything about the tidal wave of immigration. There is a strong need for people who these white extremists group respect to tell them to do everything they do with propaganda impact in mind. They should supplement other political efforts rather detract from them. Now is a good time for reasonable people on the far right to converse with the white extremists. Of course, I realize that there is as much hope for sane political activity from extremists as there is for sane poltical discussion in the mainstream media.

At least, we know we are completely safe from the mainstream media using jihadi videos to discredit muslim groups.

math nerd post script: I wonder how much the political inability to combat massive immigration is due to a lack of understanding of exponential growth. Could we be doomed by our fear of math?

Why We Should Listen

2006-08-26T18:26:00.000-07:00

Old fashioned genocidists were impatient men of action, but a post-modern effete gay jew proponent of genocide, like me, advocates careful and respectful listening to other people. And who isn't looking for the sensitive side of our genocidal friends? Not only does listening to others show our desire for love and peace when they are an option, but also helps us avoid pointless arguments. In rhetoric and hermeneutics, careful and respectful listening is formalized by the Principle of Charity. Following this simple formulation of Principle of Charity will improve your life and make sure your arguments are interesting and relevant.

I bring up the Principle of Charity for three reasons. First, too often political arguments caused by people being determined to see the worst in others rather than the best. For instance, on Friday, August 25, 2006, Jeff Goldstein in his Protein Wisdom blog attacks Greg Mitchell’s editorial attacking right-wing bloggers for exposing fake war photographs by muslim reporters in Lebanon. Jeff and his readers attempt to turn an unimportant story about a nineteen year old Greg Mitchell slacking off on the job into some cosmic statement about how the MSM is biased. A careful and respectful reading of Mitchell’s 2003 account is that Mitchell is struggling with how to combat media bias even on unimportant issues. If Jeff had only used the Principle of Charity in reading Greg Mitchell, he could have used the time devoted to his post on Mitchell to something more convincing. Why is it bad if people make bad arguments? The more bad and pointless arguments people have to read through, the less time they will have to ponder the good arguments.

The second reason I bring up the Principle of Charity is that it is a formula for paranoia free political discussion. Let me suggest to the Political Left and the Political Right places where they exhibit paranoia. The Left pervasively views George W’s foreign policy through the lens that it must be evil. For instance, we are told the wars in the Middle East are wars for oil—which is as patently absurd as it is popular. If we just wanted oil from Iraq, it would have been much cheaper to just end the Oil for Food program. Of course, the Right was equally insane about President Clinton when he was president. I don’t how many people remember the lunacy about the President (or Hilary) actually murdering Vince Foster. I kept thinking then that if the Republican would just channel their anti-Clinton hate into explaining why minimum wage laws are bad ideas—just taught basic economic common sense—we could have gotten rid of those evil laws ten years ago. Instead, Clinton was impeached, which advanced no rational right-wing interest. If the Left and the Right were to apply the Priniple of Charity we wouldn't have to listen to these paranoid attacks on these two presidents. This would free up our time for more rational political discussion.

The third reason I bring up the Principle of Charity is because if you apply the Principle of Charity and what you are intrepretting still seems to be up to evil, then you are probably onto something. Let's remember here that active, open listening does not guarantee that agreement will be reached. The parties to disagreement may have interest that too far to reach agreement. Consider Hamas and Hezbollah versus Israel. Haman and Hezbollah want the utter destruction of Israel, while Israel, for some reason, opposes that.
In this regard, I do wish to assure the reader that I try to follow the Principle of Charity in everything I do including the study of Islam. As far as I am able to determine, my understanding of Islam is the same as 95% or more of muslim religious leaders. It is quite likely that my understanding of Islam is similar to the understanding of the leaders of your local mosque. I suggest looking at random muslim websites to get an understanding of what Islam is all about. There are a few websites by organizations created by Saudi oil money that pretend Islam is a warm and fuzzy little puppy, but these websites are pretty obviously intended not for muslim consumption but for non-muslim consumption. Look for website by muslims for muslims. I won't suggest any because you could say I'm giving a biased sample. If you look for Islamic websites yourself, you can't blame my biases for the viciousness you find. Let muslims make the case for their genocide by speaking in their own fascist, barbaric words, and doing their typical evil acts like stoning, slavery, and honor killing. It ultimately lies not with me, but with them, to make the case for why we must slaughter them. And, as always, keep in mind their words and actions exist in a world in which weapons of mass destruction are become more easily available.

I will suggest a few good websites that explain Islam for what it is:
Islamic Evil

Jihad Watch

Hot Air (not always about Islam)

LittleGreenFootBalls(not always about Islam & some of the contributers have rather unreflective understandings of the world)

Infidel Bloggers Alliance(my favorite, but some contributers have greater intellectual subtlety than others)

The Morality of Slaughter

2006-08-23T15:45:00.000-07:00

I know it seems extreme when I advocate the slaughter of all muslims. We have to consider how realistic is the only alternative given that Islam is a wide spread murder cult. The alternative we could pursue is a policy of de-Islamification like the de-Nazification of post-Hitler Germany.

There are several reasons to suspect that this won't work. First, how do we subdue the Islamic countries to attempt this? Would it not be much easier and much less costly of terms of our own soldiers if we just committed slaughter rather attempt to subue the enemy? Second, occcupation after our conquest would be make Iraq now seem a peaceful place. Third, pre-Hitler Germany had many people of diverse views about the Nazi issue. The opposition to Hitler was a firm base of support for de-Nazification. There simply is not that base of support for de-Islamification in the Islamic countries that there was in the de-Nazification of Germany. Fourth, to successfully de-Islamify we would need at least thirty years of Inquisitorial courts to make sure the effort was successful. I can't see decent societies being able to sustain such an effort, and I believe it is less of insult to human dignity to simply kill people than to create courts that rule about belief and that would probably have to resort to torture. On the other hand, after a slaughter we can just get back to normal.

Permit me to stray here slightly from my topic, but it's important here to consider "getting back to normal". Normal in the future won't be normal now, because the ease of access to technologies of mass destruction is going to continue to increase. We are going to have to think more clearly about how humanity can survive technological progress. I suspect some genetic engineering of homo sapien will be required to prevent the success of people who will release diseases deadly to our current genes. But will that be enough? Will nanotechnology be death of us all? The answer is beyond my knowledge.

Like a Monotone Policy Wonk In Love

2006-08-22T22:22:00.000-07:00

A funny thing happened on my trip to the extreme right from the left. I didn't actually make it there. I'm here sipping tea and thinking about Senate elections in New England. I rejoice that Olympia Snowe (R-ME) is coasting to easy victory and hoping that Joe Lieberman(D-CT) and Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) win reelections. I'm hopelessly moderate, and we all know how uncool and boring moderation is. I'm practical forced to announce that I desire to slaughter all muslims—every man, woman and child—or else people fall asleep when I discuss politics like they would for any monotone policy wonk in love. My moderation is involuntary. I want to believe shit as extreme as it is irrational and cool.

I can sound at least as out there and as annoying as Ann Coulter or Eve Ensler, the author of the Vagina Monologues. Thanks to the anonymity of the internet I can claim to be a gay Jew and talk about my hopes to parlay my attempted political extremism into hot sex with muscular skin head boys. It's like that Dead Kennedy's song, Nazi Punks Fuck Me. My more boring friends have sneered at my plan for Nazi dick. They say that claiming to be a gay Jew boy isn't the way to get fucked by Nazi punks. I beg to differ. My trouble isn't the Nazi punks, it's finding the Nazi punks. They're quite elusive if you hunt them. If one listens to the left, one would think Nazi racists are everywhere: the house next door, the trucker bring the microbrew beer to your local bar, the boardroom of Walmart, but no! When you want hot fascist sex, it's harder than hunting leopards in Central Park. When I encounter racism in America, it leftist anti-Semitism

I'm reading the right-wing blogs because the right-wing has good ideas about Islam and terrorism. The left is clearly wrong on these issues, because the left concocts a fantasy Islam that has nothing to do with any Islam that anyone actually believes, ignores what muslims have to say, and ignores what the right has to say. But the right-wing listens to muslims! It's always good idea to listen to people. If you listen, then you can attack fair and square.

I suppose my next post should be to attack the right-wing, as I am listening very carefully to them. There are some serious right-wing intellectual tics that annoy anyone as hopelessly moderate and dull as myself. I feel a little guilty attacking the right as I hate the left more than the right, but it is moderate way to attack those with whom you believe there is a possibility of serious dialog. The left really lacks anything like a sane idea on the threat of Islam.

Excuse me, I'm off to eat a small serving of vanilla ice cream.

Challenging the Patriotism of Muslims

2006-08-09T05:34:00.000-07:00

I suppose that anyone who struggles seriously with ideas accepts that the main stream media (MSM) is biased. How exactly does that bias work to morally disarm us before the Islamic threat? A particularly insidious example of pro-muslim MSM bias is an article about muslims in the military in the NYT. It works by portraying the muslims as one of us, just regular guys. This propaganda is written to makes us seem mean spirited to attack the article and by extension, the people in the news story.

There are, of course, many ways that article attempts to make us identify with the muslims starting with the good photography. Sadly, I can't address all of them, but wish to address the intellectually most difficult one for many people. The article appeals to the rule we've been taught that a person's religion doesn't matter--which certainly is a valuable way to help people get along in the workplace and in social situations. We may even feel noble about protecting this rule as one of our civilization's greatest treasures, our learned habits of religious tolerance. We are thus left defenseless when we should be combating an evil imperialist religion like Islam. We must reflect deeply on our Western practices of religious tolerance and see how they apply in the case of Islam.

Let's revisit how we came to value religious tolerance. After a long period of religious warfare, Europe was exhausted. In England, John Locke wrote the foundational essay on religious diversity and tolerance, A Letter Concerning Toleration. Locke explained how permitting religious diversity can prevent civil unrest. A part of his essay that has received less attention is the part where he argues that Catholicism should not be tolerated because Catholics are "soldiers against his own Government." Locke's argument was right at his time, but Catholicism has changed since then. Islam is like Catholicism back then. As the Islamic community has made clear over and over again, for Muslims in Western countries, the Muslim loyalties lie with the Ummah (Islamic community), and not with Western Civilization.

At this point, there will some readers who will if Catholicism can change, why can't Islam change? They hope for an easy way of our current war. Sadly, there is no way Islam can change quickly enough. One muslim country already had nuclear weapons and other crazier muslim countries are seeking nuclear weapons. Catholicism's changes took a long time and we don't have a long time. There is also the detail that muslims kill people who try to reform their religion with much more ferocity than Christianity has usually shown. These murders greatly slow any process whereby Islam could grow to be more peaceful--if there is any such process.

Let me return to the muslim Marines in the New York Times article. The reporter doesn't distinguish between someone who happens to born in muslim family and someone who is a devout muslim. The Koran is absolutely clear about the need to fight the infidels, and that would be us! As long as a muslim hasn't thought seriously about Islam, I'm sure he could make a fine soldier. But the moment he starts thinking about his faith and consulting his faith community, he becomes a potential traitor who is unsafe to have in the military. Just ask the parents of Scott Seifert, who lost their son to grenades thrown by muslim in the Army in Kuwait in 2003. We must challenge the patriotism of Muslims or there will be many more deaths.

Respecting Diversity for Our Victory

2006-08-06T17:32:00.000-07:00

A religious war like our current war with Islam is not usually considered to be the raw material for creating a more tolerant society, but this war could be different. Our religious diversity is one of our strengths against Islam. Islam makes it easy for us to be united, as Islam preaches war against all non-muslims. That the fundamentalist Christian and the atheist are forced to be comrades in arms has a certain beauty. If we rejoice in that beauty and fight this war united against Islam, we can come out of this war a better civilization, despite the unpleasantness of having to slaughter the muslims. Sadly, not everyone gets this. Bleu Copas, a decorated sergeant and Arabic language specialist, was dismissed from the US Army for being gay. We face a war and the Army is wasting time firing gay people from positions the Pentagon describes as critical.

There is an issue deeper than gays being useful manpower for the Army. Gays, like Jews, Christians, atheists, women, Buddhists, Hindus, muslim apostates and so forth, are singled out for special hatred by the muslims. Gays have a human right to defend themselves and slaughter muslims like everyone else. Think of it in this way, the idea behind the Second Amendment is that we have a basic right to self-defense. The way we defend ourselves against a force hostile to our country is the military. This implies a Second Amendment right--and I consider a Second Amendment right to be basic human right--to join the military. Obviously, that right must be balanced against the cost of training a soldier to be effective. The military must be able to reject an eighty year old women with arthritis who wants to enlist, though an alternative would be to weed them out on the first day of boot camp. On the other hand, we know young gay men and women are effective workers in virtually every job in our society. We also know that many gay men and women have in fact made excellent soldiers in our military. The military leadership should overturn the ban on gays in the military because of these facts and to respect the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, the courts cannot do this, as it could be disastrous for the courts to second guess the military.

I admit I have strong feelings about this issue One of my neighbors is a young, black, Buddhist drag queen. I tell him about how the muslims kill gay people and kill Buddhists in Thailand. My stories fill him with the anger as they should. This strange fruit has had to defend himself against bullies in schools and understands Islam for what it is—a doctrine for bullies. He told me he would gladly join the military. I'm sure he's saying this partly because he knows the military won't accept him and partly to get back at his hippie parents—that most authentic behavior of the young. Still, I believe there to be a genuine core to his desire. Surely, we can find it in our hearts to tolerate him enough to permit him the glory of battle.

Let Me Commit an Act of Branding

2006-08-05T10:56:00.000-07:00

I thought I'd put up an image for my responses to other post. One can't escape the pressures of branding. I thought I'd use a pretty flower, the winecup. It's a plant in the mallow family native to North America.

To point out the obvious, I'm not using a photo of myself. I have the suspicion that it would not be in the best interest of my health. After all, I'm advocating the slaughter of a humourless gang known for their delight in murder.

No New Dark Age Is Necessary

2006-08-04T20:19:00.000-07:00

I'm sorry I've had to take a few days off from the fun of advocating massacres. I have to admit I quite enjoy my new hobby. There is a great thrill in being able to speak a forbidden truth. Of course, one should always be sure that it's the truth and not that thrill that motivates you. I do want to assure me readers that while I don't see any reason to doubt that Islam confronts us with a huge problem, I do try to think of easier approaches to the problem than genocide, but given the corner that muslims have talked themselves into, I just do see an alternative. And it's not just the muslims have talked themselves into being a murder cult by thinking like a high school gang. Older, more mature, muslims direct killing any fellow muslim who attempts to push Islam onto a saner path. No change in Islam is possible within a timeframe to avoid disaster.

The good thing about my genocide solution it that it will work after much bloodshed and maybe Pakistan launching a few nukes. Better a few nukes now than the many more nukes that the muslims will launch later. One may be absolutely certain that Muslims will use nukes within the next thirty years because they decide someone has insulted their prophet or some equally ridiculous reason connected to honor. It's the way of thugs and muslims.

I remain optimistic in face of the current circumstances. We can get through this ok. I just read a blog A New Dark Age Is Dawning, about Islam in the West. The blog takes such a dour view that I feel the need to dissent. I want to help that dour blogger to turn his frown upside down. We have the option of simply slaughtering the muslims and getting on with life. People may whine that such a a slaughter will some way make our society more barbaric and unfit to live. That is false. Throughout history, societies have been guilty of all sorts of horrible crimes and still been in many ways fine. Consider the United States and the "benevolent assimilation" of the Philippines. The United States killed many Filipinos in 1900, though how many is the subject of debate, but higher estimates in the Wikipedia are more than 10% of Filipinos either directly or indirectly. Still America in 1900 was a fairly decent country for many people, and has became an even an better country.

So even if the slaughter of the muslims were a bad thing, we could kill all the muslims now and everything quickly return to normal. Decent human societies are resilient, but the overwhelming point here is that we should not feel the slightest guilt about killing off a gang of insane religious fanatics that kill their own sisters for having sex without parental approval and their own brothers for being gay or renouncing their religion. Let's just slaughter them all and be done with it.

There is also a potential environmental issue that the cheap gasoline resulting from the slaughter of the muslim could increase greenhouse gas, but the many environmental pluses of killing one billion muslims will no doubt make up for it.

Why We Need to Slaughter the Muslims

2006-07-25T17:37:00.000-07:00

My inspiration for starting this blog was to consider how to deal with a militant Islam in the age of nuclear weapons. We may have to consider the slaughter of the muslims, as they represent too much danger with their perpetual intense anger and their apocalyptic bent. I prefer the ancient word "slaughter" to newer word "genocide", because "slaughter" was the word used by groups who had the courage to do what needed to get done. I’m aware that many people will think I’m not a nice guy for advocating such a course. Perhaps, I'll even be compared to Hitler. Sadly, I'm too much of a nerd to have Hitler's level of charisma, but I can be obsessive about facial hair grooming and do tend to eat a diet on the unhealthy side of vegetarianism. (Eating excessive cheese clogs the arteries.) In truth, I’m a nice, liberal guy with a desire to help oppressed people. I suppose that this blog will be labeled a "hate blog" by PC thought police, muslim apologists and assorted do-gooders. Strangely enough for a "hate blog" I will attempt to to appeal to a diverse audience: fundamentalist Christians and atheists, gay rights activists and pro-family activists, members of the National Rifle Association members and Buddhists. My appeal is based on the common self-interest of these groups and all other non-muslims to confront an imperialist Islam. Muslims are oppressors, not the oppressed, because Islam teaches that muslims should kill, enslave, or make second-class citizens out of everyone else. Muslims have a long history of doing exactly that. Nor do Islamic societies treat their own people well. It is hard to foresee any positive outcome of nuclear weapons in the hands of Islamic imperialists. It is better that we kill them off first, because our societies are so much more humane place to live. For documentation on the evil of Islam, I suggest these websites:

Jihad Watch,

Little Green Footballs,

Gates of Vienna,

Islamic Evil,

Religion of Peace. There are many other sites, as many people are catching on to Islam. Islam isn't subtle.

The evil of Islam begins with its creation of a culture where the smallest slight is a pretext for murder. Consider the death threats against the Danish cartoonists who drew the Mohammed cartoons. It is the muslim stewing over the slightest insult that makes them so dangerous to everyone else and even to themselves. Any decent religion and society attempts to discourage petty anger in people. I opposed the proposed anti-flag burning amendment to the US Constitution because it struck me as effort to encourage overreaction to petty provocation in American citizens. We certainly don't want to become like Muslims. We should be mellow. I advocate the slaughter of Muslims in as mellow a way as possible. Chill, dude. Chill, my gentle reader.

Petty anger is not the only psychological issue that makes Muslims dangerous in the era of easily available nuclear weapons. Islam encourages a deadly controlling attitude. Famously, muslims want to kill Salmon Rushdie who lives in the Anglican United Kingdom, but there is a long history of similar incidents that you can find in the blogs suggested above. And it is just non-muslims that are the victims of controlling behavior. Women and gay people are treated brutally. Daughters in muslim families often are victims of heinous forms of genital mutilation. If they still have normal human sexual desire after mutilation, they must fear that their family will kill them for the slightest sign of their sexual desire. One example is a thirteen year old girl who was killed for simply riding a bicycle with a twelve year old boy. And let’s not ignore the sickness of the controlling instinct that forces Islamic women to dress in clothing that so covers them that women in sunny areas have vitamin D deficiency. Women who don't want go along with this dress code that makes them anonymous in normal human interactions are harassed and beaten both by legal authorities and by male thugs acting independently of the law. Nor should we ignore that gay people are stoned to death. The stoning is meant to cause as much suffering as possible. Which isn’t simply sick in itself, but also teaches cruelty to the populace that commits the stoning. Nor should we ignore that Muslims who decide that they want to follow another religion, like Christianity, are killed. See Faith Freedom International or Apostates of Islam for more information.

If Islam only created horribly cruel societies and taught values that lead to anger and bitterness, it would be sufficient reason to refuse Islam the respect we accord other religions and secular values systems, but Islam also has a core tenant of Jihad or the violent conquest of non-Muslims. Islamic Imperialism : A History by Efraim Karsh is a good book on the subject. In the past, Western military might was able to keep Islam in check, but in the era of easily available atomic weapons that is no longer enough to guarantee peace.

Given that the muslims are evil imperialists and will use nuclear weapons at the drop of a hat, our moral fantasies of peace through international cooperation and laws against the slaughter of civilian populations fail us badly. We can no longer afford to be overly indulgent of a murder cult with a large following. We should admit that Islam is in the process of starting a world war and it followers will launch nukes. In making this claim, I rely on both the history of Islam and the statements of Iranian religious leaders. Muslims represent a clear danger to human survival, even if we are willing to overlook the daily acts of terror they commit. From our experience with communism, we know how hard it is to rid a people of their religion. The Soviet Union was a total failure in eliminating Christianity and Islam. If Islam is going to continue be a murder cult, we have no choice but to slaughter the muslims. (Perhaps the small Ahmaddiya Muslim sect should be spared as that sect uniquely doesn't preach conquest and slaughter of infidels as the core value of Islam, though they still treat women horribly.) Yes, Slaughter is a bummer, but nuclear Armageddon and living as second class dhimmis or even slaves in a muslim sharia society are both worst fates than us having to kill the muslims. We’ll get over the slaughter pretty quickly and have societies that are at least as loving and as pleasant as we have now. Normal people don’t sit around feeling guilt about what is necessary for too long.

Ideas Have Consequence

2006-07-25T14:12:00.000-07:00

Western civilization has a problem that could lead to not just its own death but also to the death of Asian cultures influenced by Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, and other ideas and to the death of other indigenous cultures around the world. I label that problem "liberalism". The word “liberal” has been used in so many ways that I must be precise about what is this “liberalism” I denounce. By “liberalism”, I mean the value that no idea is to be taken seriously--which is fairly common among people who call themselves liberal and sadly among many people who call themselves conservative. One indication of this is that while there are histories of conservative thought, there is no liberal equivalent. Ask a liberal to name a prominent liberal intellectual from 1940 and you'll get blank stares. Even the brightest and most informed will be able to say Eleanor Roosevelt and leave it at that. (And does Eleanor truly count as an intellectual?)

As an example of this definition of liberalism, I offer the “liberal Christian", because he illustrates the idea well. (Before continuing, I must point out that I have no interest in taking a pro or con side on Christianity here as my goal is to defend the Western values that make freedom of belief and Christianity possible. I wish to argue in a way to appeal to both atheists and fundamentalist Christians and I don't want even to offend the few actual Christians who label themselves "liberal"). The most minimal definition of Christian that can be taken seriously is a Christian holds that Christianity is the truth and the best belief system. A "liberal Christian" avoids such a claim, because a "Liberal Christian" believes that you can't hold any religion better than any other religion or belief system. I have searched the Bible extensively for the quote where Jesus suggests that it doesn't matter what believe and have someway failed to find it.

To be a Christian, a Christian should be willing to say that Christianity is a force for good, and that it is possible for a non-Christian religion—which is, by definition, a false religion--to be a force for evil. "Liberal Christians" explicitly deny that an religion or belief system can be force for evil. (Of course, there is a slight contradiction in “liberal Christian” beliefs as Nazism in Germany and Republicanism in America are recognized as evil, but the "liberal Christian" seeks to avoid thinking and so such contradictions are inevitable.) Now, I am not saying that a Christian is required to hold that all other religions and non-religious beliefs systems to be evil. Most Christians do hold some other religions and non-religious belief systems are almost as excellent as Christianity. Christians are on the whole a tolerant people. (I know many Christians who think of themselves as fundamentalist believe everyone not saved is going to hell, but they are probably a minority among even fundamentalists.) On the other hand, “Liberal Christians” aren't so much tolerant as thoughtless. They deliberately misinterpret, “Judge not, that ye be not judged” into the greatest commandment that no one is allowed an opinion beyond the opinion that Republicans are evil. Because Liberal Christianity is an anti-intellectual view, it forbids us from talking about how to best improve the world or what threats we face, beyond a few environmental ones which they admittedly address more honestly than the right. I attribute their ability to deal more honestly with environmental threats to the large number of College professors who are both "liberals" and deeply knowable about science. (The world is a complex place and it is hard to completely demonize any group.)

Of course, there are also "liberal Buddhists", "liberal Muslims", "liberal Hindus", "liberal atheists", and so forth. Where all the forms of “liberalism” go wrong is their frivolousness towards leads them to ignore that ideas have consequences and some beliefs have evil consequences. For instance, Marxism, the champion evil belief system of the twentieth century, had many evil consequences and none good that I am aware of, though “liberals” overlook Marxism's evil because of some insane notion of power in relationships that is irrelevant to the current conversation. As I previously alluded to, “liberals” are willing to admit that Nazism in Germany and Republicanism Party in America are evil, but those are exception sfrom minds that don't care about contradiction. We should also defer to some other occasion discussion of the ridiculousness of the “liberals” considering the Republican Party to be one of the two avatars of evil in the twentieth century. The problem we face in the twenty-first century is that one major religion is pervasively evil and it could damage the human spirit for centuries in ways that Marxism didn't even come close.

The major religion I hold to be that evil is Islam. I will provide reasons.