Reason, Responsibility and Choice

Vote every day, on any issue.

2011-08-25T07:48:00.000-07:00

over at Sultan Knish:

All the politicking is besides the point. And you've touched on that point: it's the change brought in by digital technology. Empowerment of the individual is the true goal and highest value. Not "capitalism" which is nothing but a meaningless label.

Capitalism has its own poison in it: it is the enlargement process. Success brings growth brings monopolies and cartelization of markets. Not to mention coalescence with the state.

Here's the fixer: vote every day. We have computers now, we can do it. Vote on any issue; or if you rather don't, delegate your vote: entrust others to use your vote as per their understanding. That's what we do now, with no recompense for the misuse of our votes by cheaters politicians. Why wait 4 years to put them out of office? Do it right away.

Oscillation damping is very simple: you need 85% majority to overturn a gov't or a specific decision in its first 3 moths; 65% after 1st year; normal 50%+1 after four.

Simple. Just. At any point in time true will of the people is known and is exactly represented. No more cheats in office. No more broken trust.

Earmark your taxes. Let every taxpayer decide how their money gets spent.

Simple. Just.

. . .

And the fixer for "capitalism" is similar as the above fixer for "democracy". Just like fixing the "heart of democracy" i.e. the voting process in order the true will of population be known and represented truly at any point in time, we need to fix the "heart of capitalism" in order true value of anything, and true contribution of anyone, is known, at any point in time.

And that is money.

That's right. Just like static voting every 4 years is inherently broken, static money and its cheating and bidding (more like, betting) nature is inherently broken too.

Make traceable contracts instead. Let computers trace our record of deals we make and their conditions and how we've kept our end of the bargain on each deal we make (i.e. each contract we enter). Share truly in true profits (and losses) you've participated in creating.

Thus the true value of anything will be known, and true contribution of anyone will be known as well.

Constantly changing, instantly true.

---

No Coercion (freedom of the choice)
Freedom to Think (to reason, hence to know, speak, etc.)
Do No Harm (except to guard the first two, and in (self-)defense)

The Arab Imperialism is the Root Cause

2011-06-10T01:06:00.000-07:00

The root cause of the "conflict in the ME" is plain for all to see. It stares back at us from the Arab-IZED World's maps yet the "West" refuse to see it. It is Arab Imperialism, which is alive 'n kicking in all of its remnant 22 "Arab-IZED" countries, going on 23rd, God forbid!

JEWDEA is the Land of the Jews, literally. The word for Land and People is ONE: Yehudah, i.e. Judah, i.e. Iudea, renamed by the Roman Empire in 135 CE using a name of the Jews' long gone enemies the Philistines, whose name literally means INVADERS, in Hebrew, and has NO MEANING in Arabic.

It is only fitting that the INVADERS from Arabia, the Imperial people of the Lost Vast Arab Jihadi Empire, the "Arabs in Philastyn", would take this name for themselves in conjuring up this fake identity, the name which actually has NO MEANING in their true native tongue, the ARABIC.

The proof IS in the pooding, erhm, in the NAME.

The English are native people of England, not Ireland. The Russians are natives of Russia, not Uzbekistan. The Arabs are natives of Arabia, not Israel, renamed Philistine by the conquering Romans whom they stole it from in 638 CE. And the Turks are not natives of Greece, though it was too occupied by a foreign Empire, just like Ireland, and Uzbekistan, and Israel...

This is not about ethnicity. Any forcibly islamized descendants of the conquered people of Judea, would be welcome to join back in with the returning People of Israel. But they can't well hold on their Imperial "Arab" identity at the same time as claiming their nativity to the land conquered by the Arabian invaders, can they?

On mind over matter, Marx was wrong.

2011-02-11T12:12:00.000-08:00

Over at Sultan Knish's:

Yes, the central problem of human development is that society's culture defines society's life. Rigid dogmatic schema's of social construction change nothing until "the psyche" of a nation is changed - its CORE MORAL VALUES, it's ETHICS system.

The Arab/Moslem societies of today are autocratic - self-oppressing: their oppression is innate, ingrained in their fabric of day-to-day life, not a consequence of any external "dictator" who's rule is often a counterweight to it and a guarantor for some limited form of personal rights (like it was for women in Saddam's Iraq for instance, and of course the Egypt's Mubarak).

Of course we can define the cultural assumptions behind Freedom in a little bit more explicit terms than just "the Englishmen rights". It is the rule of Law - equality of all before Law; and the most importantly, the Law being a manifestation of *Negative Golden Rule*:

Do No Harm!
(i.e. do not do unto other that which you wish were not done onto you).

Plus, the Imperative of Individual Freedom:

Freedom of Thought and Choice!
(viz., the Right to Know, to Think, and to Choose for yourself), and

NO COERCION!

Any ethics system based on these three moral axioms can not but lead to a Freedom Society, of free and responsible individuals.

A specific governance scheme is less important then. A responsible citizen will even refrain from voting on issues with which she is less familiar.

The most dangerous crime in such a system would be conscious spreading of LIES, half-truths and omissions of facts in order to influence the thinking process of individuals. That is of course widespread today.

The problem of false perception remains (to wit, the Rachel Corries, the Daily Kos's and HuffPo's of today), but Rational Thought is not an easy and passive endeavor.

Ethics the roots of everything

2010-12-27T06:19:00.000-08:00

Why does modern economy works better than previous ones? More efficient division of labor. What makes it possible? Money. What is the money's function? Price discovery. What is price? An approximant to value. What is fair? Fair compensation for the true contribution. What is value? A fair measure of true contribution.

Is money a fair approximant to value? Not necessarily. Why not? It lets you cheat; it forces you to bet; it lets you forfeit the original conditions of the contract if the true value has changed afterwards. Money forgets.

Whatever you "own" have any meaning only inasmuch as you can sell or lease it to others.

There is only so much produce an "owner" can grow on "his" "property" without inviting day laborers and taking away from them 90% of the value they produce, all by mutual "free" concent. It's a great deal for him, but hey they have families to support. So that's the exploitation of despair.

So, as long as society has money in its modern form, and unconditional property ownership, it has exploitation of despair and less-than-optimal value-discovery. The only true value of free markets system with competition and trade is that it serves for a decent value-dicovery mechanism (in guise of price-discovery). Of course any statist coercive system is worse in that sense, and as consequence the whole society becomes more inefficient and decapacitated.

Plus, "ownership" fixates the production structure. It's great that the inventor of sliced bread got rewarded for his ingenuity, it's only fair; but why should he get for that the sanctified ability to extract and appropriate the others' fruits of labor (after becoming an "owner" of sliced-bread corporation), and why should his grandchildren have that ability also? What is that a fair compensation for? And how useful is that for the creation of most appropriate production structures in a society according to its present needs?

Fairness is fair conpensation for true contribution. Your true contribution can change with time.
Without fair compensation an individual won't labor; and economy won't function.

Fair compensation - true reward for true contribution - could only be through tractable contracts, tracking and re-evaluating every condition at any point in time. It's like instead of money you get a proper share of gains and losses in a mutual enterprise. But hey, it's only fair. It's the Truth System. The society which has the truest value discovery mechanism + the most flexible production structures, will win out, will be most conducive to individual fulfilment.

Can tractable contracts be relied upon without some kind of an enforcing agency? Not likely. Enforcing is a part of a contract. You enter into a contract voluntarily, but then you are bound by it, by definition.

As for labels, does a state agancy provides this mechanism or an independent Law Courts system, what does it matter. Whatever the given society develops that will function in that regard, will be fine. It's all in the Culture, and that has its roots in ETHICS.

Culture's roots, the society's customs and mores, lie in Ethics - the moral choices and attitudes of the Individual member of given society. It's little things mostly, finding their expression in grand differences between various cultures in the end.

So focus on ethics, on morals, on choices of the Individual. The structure will form by itself, if it is the TRUE structure - i.e. one that grows by itself, not ENFORCED, not COERCED on anyone. Even state is good when it functions properly, is conducive to each member's advantage, and restrains itself otherwise.

What if an individual's goals are contrary to others'? That shall be evaluated by correspondence with the CORE VALUE SYSTEM accepted by that society. Anyone who desires and acts contrary to it will have by definition excluded himself from that society. You are free to join in, or opt out, but while you're in, you're IN.

The only thing left is to decide the ETHICAL AXIOMS.

Ethical Axioms define CORE VALUE SYSTEM defines Culture defines Customs Mores and Laws define the Society.

It's a little things in your everyday life - what you value, what you despise. Do you hold dear the Fairness and Compassion, empathy and good will, or the Supremacy over the weak? That kind of thing. Then you get a "Western" society of Law, or Eastern Hierarchialism, or Arab Autocracy, or Russian Despotism.

Today nothing in the West stops you from actully creating your own structure and living inside it by its Laws. Today.

As for the ethical axioms, my own personal preference is

The Right to Think,
The Right to Know,
The Right to Choose.

NO COERCION.

DO NO HARM.

(in that order).

Sanctity of the Individual/Consciousness, Equality before Law, No Arbitrary Power of anybody over anyone else.

When everyone acts according to these in their everyday life, everything will follow.

2010-09-12T17:10:00.000-07:00

Monopolies can easily eliminate competition and free enterprise without any use of naked force, just by lowering prices to drive competition to bankruptcy.

Big and diverse business conglomerates are equally dangerous as they acquire too much power in setting trends through advertising and media, themselves becoming substitute government, again without using any kind of naked force.

Free markets should be protected by government enforcing anti-monopoly laws (and possibly protecting freedom of the press - the right to speak, for everyone). Ideally the Ministry of Truth (sic!) should be a government agency which would check every piece of published material and provide the public with full evidence to its veracity or otherwise.

The roaring 20-s came after a period of active monopolies-breaking by the US government, it seems (by the other Roosevelt, was it?).

As for elections, they should be made permanent. Why wait 4 years to withdraw the president who acts contrary to his election promises? We have computers now, we can vote each and every day, and the votes will be totaled every day, and so the will of people will never be abused by the elected elites just because they got immunity to do whatever they please for 4 years.

Plus, any voter should be able to directly vote on issues too that are especially important to him, instead of delegating his vote to a representative.

To prevent too fast government changes which would be impractical and chaotic, simple dampening mechanism can be used - 65% majority required to overturn the govt in the 1st year, 55% in 2nd, then 50% + 1 vote, as usual.

2010-09-06T06:19:00.000-07:00

"Meritocracy works when the system has objective laws that provide equality for all." And that works by setting up conditions for fair competition which is the only available mechanism right now for merit to be the deciding factor.

But capitalism has seeds of its own destruction in it. It is the enlargement process, the coalescing of small businesses into large corporations, the cartelization and monopolization of markets which prevent the fair competition.

So, capitalism is not the value in itself, it is not a totem, but only has value as long as it serves its purpose of setting the stage for fair competition making meritocracy possible.

The state capitalism with large corporations controlling the markets, is no different from the state socialism with monopolistic state ministries (industrial conglomerates) controlling production of goods. Both are antithetic to free markets, to fair competition of producers of goods, and fair competition of ideas - the backbone of democracy.

Large corporations which engage in cartelization and monopolization of markets must be broken for the free competition to be preserved, as the only guarantor of democracy - the society of Freedom and rule of Law.

2010-09-06T02:07:00.000-07:00

Declare JIHAD illegal, not "Islam". Nobody knows exactly what "Islam" is anyway, there are too many varieties of it. But Jihad, is a clear cut definition - the "fight" for political domination of Sharia law. The ideology of Muslim Supremacy.

And that should clearly be made illegal, as it strives to overthrow the Constitution and the very Freedoms on which our life is based.

Right to Know and to Think
No Coercion
Do No Harm

-- Stop All Trade with Muslim Nations NOW! --

the essence of society/business

2010-08-27T09:25:00.000-07:00

business as folding of people structures into useful production-chains (trees, nets),

money a useful local indicator of usefulness

initiator of a fold becomes its proprietor, "owner",
the decider, the "one on top", point man in negotiations with other production-chains

each member in a production-chain partakes in the global societal division of labor

when the production-chain loses its utility, the business goes bankrupt

society decides what (whom) it values in itself more, what less, and sets prices accordingly

economy --> field (net, support-medium) of
- money-flow ; product-flow ; value-flow ; appreciation-flow ; compensation-flow

society as a whole may only deal with self-sustaining i.e. BEING,
or it may strive at some goals concrete or abstract -
- to establish space colonies,
- to conquer neighbors,
- to produce works of arts,
- to produce science, ability to understand, to reason about the world, people, society
- to reduce internal crime/strife/{sum total of grief}
- to preserve rigidity of internal folding structure
- to ensure fluidity of internal folding structure
- to flatten the internal folding structure (minimize the societal pyramid height)
- to maximize utility of production, of realization of its goals
- to maximize welfare of its constituents
- to maximize governability of masses by a small cast of rulers
- to maximize self-realization of its constituents
- to restrict and control information flow
- to ensure total and full information/knowledge availability for everyone
...

2010-08-25T14:25:00.000-07:00

Over at Wikipedia's page on Stanislaw Lem's Eden:

... An indistinct image emerges of doublers' Orwellian information-controlled civilization that is almost self regulating, with a special kind of system of government created with the use of a fictitious science Lem dubs Procrustics (cf. memetics): a dictatorship that denies its own existence and is thus impossible to destroy, a discipline of molding groups within a society and ultimately a society as a whole to behave as designed by secretive hidden rulers, in order to create a hideous form of social control in which the very existence of the governing powers is denied and each individual appears to themselves to be free yet is being manipulated and controlled (achieved, for one thing, through a controlled dissemination of different information to different social strata - as revealed by the astronomer doubler). One example described in the novel is the above mentioned settlement, kind of a "concentration camp" without any guards which is designed so that the prisoners stay inside apparently of their own "free" will. ...

God help us

2010-04-12T00:13:00.000-07:00

(over at the Belmont Club ...)

People, please! Look past the elephant in the room, it's full of other people and animals.

It's not Obama that governs the US by himself. It's not even about the "admin people".

It is about the US *governing elite*. Look at Washington Post's David Ignatius article about Obama's bid to impose "new peace plan" on Israel, afer consultations with the elite security figures from the past and the present. It is Petraeus, and it is Jim Jones, and it is all (?) the previous National Security Advisers from Brzezinski though Scowcroft to Sandy Berger and Powell - they are all promoting the policy of pushing Israel to the indefensible pre-1967 Arab aggression borders, in order to placate the Arab/Muzlim revanchism. Every functionary in the American Establishement knows, that if he tows this bipartisan line, keeping to the pretenses of "peace process" - he or she will be richly rewarded by the "private sector". And so it goes on.

Why? Because it is in their interests. It is not what most Americans want, but then again who's asking them? After all, the US is governed by the government apparatus of secret servicies, CIA and the State. All serving the interests of Big Business. And it just wants to trade. With whomever.

Now compare the "Jews" market and the "Arabs/Muzlims" market.

Plus, they want stability. With or without Israel.

The real cause of this travesty is of course that America has long lost its way, its calling, its Destiny - to serve as the core of the World's Federation of Free Nations. Yes, really.

But that would require allegiance to the Truth, and Will to Fight for what is Right. But the populace just wants to be entertained - or is it the Big Business that prefer it that way. So instead, the generals "manage" the situation, relying on their Arab "moderate" "partners". And of course, Israel issue is no help in *that*.

It was long in the making, but the anti-Israel coup in Washington came about in 2007 with the Baker-Hamilton report. The forged NIE of 2007 letting Iran off the hook came after that.

Nothing Obama does, Bush didn't do before him. Well, almost nothing.

As for the "Communist" menace - the USSR was no Communist, whatever that may mean. It was a state monopolistic system. And the bigger they get, the more big business monopolies become indistinguishable from the government-run monopolies. And it is not a coincidence that even in today's USA we see the convergence - or be it overtake - of big business and government.

That is a recipe for disaster of course, an anti-dote to Freedom. And it must be stopped.

Capitalism is good not in itself, but as long as it serves to enhance personal freedoms and meritocracy through free competition. But cartelisation/monopolization/excessive government control brings an end to that. The only legitimate form of control is to fight the excessive centralization forces, be it in government or in the "private" business - which is for the most part publicly owned anyway, and only controlled by a few functionaries on top.

Obama is just a front man. Even if he's angling to provoke Israel into nuclear war, enabling himself to declare marshal law and postpone elections indefinitely. That might be his personal agenda, but still he doesn't govern by himself. It is the elite of Brzezinski and of Jimmy "f**k the Jews" Baker III, of profs. Mearsheimer and Walt and of Generals Petraeus and Jones that push for anti-Israel policies. Some of them not even from their personal animus. They just value their good living over the Israeli Jews' lifes.

American "interests" ... is it the interests of American People, or the American business/government elite?

America has to decide what she wants more - to have good trade with the revanchist eliminationist Arab and Muzlim powers, or to stand by the people who are her friend, share her ideals and of whom she proclaimed herself an "ally".

Or was it all just an election-time rhetoric for these past 30 (50?) years?

The unfortunate answer today is, yes - but might that yet change?

science is repeatable verifiable observations

2009-10-26T11:37:00.000-07:00

science is not blind faith nor is it an absolute certainty. It is repeatable observations verifiable to a discernible degree. And predictions thereof.

The overstretching of reason is precisely a departure from scientific method which prescribes degree of certainty to every knowledge; a measure of fitness for each pattern match. Human intelligence is largely about pattern matching (automatic mode) and pattern creation (learning mode). Mis-application of previously learned patterns often leads to overstretching, but that's the trade-off that was apparently advantageous to the previous 100,000 years of human evolution or so as a sociable animal. IOW it is much easier for us to believe than truly understand, maintaining the proof base for each and every one of our assumptions.

Obviously some trade-offs had to be made, for efficiency's sake. Which might yet prove fatal at some point in the future.

True intelligence/reason is like a self-aware Bayesian network, constantly re-checking assumptions at base of its knowledge. It's when we stop this re-checking when we overstretch our patterns, or as we call them, "understanding". Assumptions should not be confused with certainty.

So this mis-understanding is not necessarily erratic.

The world is very complex so over-reliance on assumptions might lead to wildly distorted visions of reality, that nevertheless maintain good degree of local match to the data selected (unconsciously) by the individual(s) interested in maintaining said vision (i.e. denial of fact). IOW it will be successful until a sudden break-off point where the force-fit mismatch finally ruptures, leading to a seemingly erratic break-down event.

Inadequate vision of reality will lead to wrong policies, which will fail, eventually.

As for the second law of thermodynamics, it only speaks of closed systems. Ours has an energy influx which pumps it up, so that natural selection provides for ever growing complexity.

Free World Federation

2009-04-11T06:44:00.000-07:00

At Atlas Shrugs:

If you're not going UP, you are GOING DOWN.

The US betrayed their historic destiny and purpose of being a CORE of The Free World Federation.

YES, this means expanding the Union and accepting new members - THOSE who subscribe to the same ideals (and Constitution) of

FREEDOM of the Thought (and Choice)
DO NO HARM (except against those who intend and do)
NO COERCION

extending protection to those who choose Freedom, standing up firmly against those who act against the Right of others to Freedom (including any coercive society with state ideology/religion that wouldn't allow free emigration with proper compensation, or would deny its subjects' inalienable right to free and unimpeded access to full and unlimited, unfiltered and undistorted information).

But the rot have set in, from within. The lies and propaganda took hold in universities, and spread to the society at large, now formally taking over Washington.

This may have been financed by the Arab/Muslim enemy, but the Decent Americans obviously didn't put up a worthy fight, made lazy and complacent with their material comforts, as it's always happened in history, so far.

Defending Reason

2009-02-12T07:01:00.000-08:00

... yes, politics are usually vague, but it doesn't have to be so, it is not inherently vague, it's just that we've built these extensive belief networks in our minds and we won't easily let them be opened up for scrutiny, to be re-examined, because this might force us to reconsider the beliefs we hold dear, and that is usually a painful affair.

So we might opt to continue the intellectually vague life, or we may choose to be AWARE of our beliefs, to try to reexamine them constantly in light of the facts old and new, that become available to us, to question them constantly as any man of Reason ought to.

Nothing precludes any political statements to be statements of fact and not some shamanic ritual of vague incantations of popular and accepted beliefs widely held by the general public, like in Old Europe that Israelis are ruthless occupiers who bomb UN schools at will. But to question that accepted dogma we ought to have a bit of intellectual bravery in our pursuit of the factual truths - and yes THERE ARE factual truths, they might not have nice and short formulations, they might involve doing a substantial factual research, going into various diverse statistical details of the situation on the ground AS IT IS, and not as it "ought to be" to fit nicely to the preconceived notions we have so laboriously built in our minds - which in reality we usually just do to fit in with the groups we care to fit in with, anyway. We are the group animal, after all, we thrive in groups and whither in isolation.

But facts are facts, and it is usually our faults at having failed to pose a proper question that make us incapable of discovering them. It's like in Prolog to formulate a problem correctly is to have a solution for it.

IOW, when we don't know what we're talking about, it's hard to ask the right question, and even harder to understand an answer, even when you hear it. :-)

So we ought to work hard at formulating our beliefs rigorously, tracking "support structure" of evidence for each, ready to re-evaluate whether we were giving too much trust to unreliable sources, and whether we have ignored truth just out of inconvenience. And we must do it all the time. It's like an automatic theorem prover in uncertain environment. Or we can choose to be cats. Totally immersed in their immediate surroundings, acting on a whim, totally unaware of themselves, having a life of it.

Being "natural". I.e. savages.

But it looks to me more and more that people don't like to think for themselves. We like to understand, yes, but we'll do anything to avoid actual hard factual thinking.

That is because "human intelligence" is little more then pattern recognition, simplistic views of simplified Reality. To "recognize" old known patterns, to force the situation to fit the vaguely familiar images it revokes in us, even when poorly fitting, is easy, but to learn new ones is hard. Each of us have already assembled our respective compiled recognizers, and to install new ones into the system is costly if at all possible.

That's just the way we turned out to be at the end of 100,000 years of evolution.

---
learning new patterns trough Reason - deducing the hidden realities - backward chaining - the Unnatural way - using cortex -

human creativity - the Natural way - using deeper, older brain structures - creating patterns in advance - forward chaining of sorts - building up models TOWARDS possible realities - in massively uncertain situations of massive factual deficiency - imagination a crutch until we've got facts and statistical analysis and full scientific comprehension - selecting and thus learning few new patterns out of the generated (imagined) lot - when the fit is discovered and utility is clear.

thus the great responsibility and danger that comes with unrestrained imagination and creativity when it refuses to put a check on itself of correspondence with Reality, when it runs amok, runs free from Reality - away from Reality.

To put it simply, beware the Artists who've turned to politics. Prefer Logicians instead.

American Thinker Comment - Jihad Terror in Mumbai

2008-12-11T02:48:00.000-08:00

American Thinker - Jihad Terror in Mumbai Comments - Jihadi terrorism's cause is ISLAM - an Arab ideology for looting, plunder and WAR. LIBERATE Muslims from evil clutches of Islam!

Babu Suseelan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Andrew Bostom has provided a clear, correct
> and comprehensive analysis of **Islamic Jihad**. Bogus
> intellectuals, phony secularists, misguided media
> pundits and left over leftists who are in cohort
> with Jihad terrorists promote bogus
> economic-social science-and political theories to
> justify [[self-confessed]] **Jihad terrorism**.
_____________________________________
> The root cause of Jihad terrorism is Islam.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> There can be no solution to Jihad terrorism except
_________________________________________________
> liberation of Muslims from the clutches of barbaric Islam.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> we need <...> the social energy, intellectual might
> and moral courage to **see Islam as it is**. Dr.
> Bostom has reminded us that it is time for us to
> overcome our self-imposed denial.

(emphasis mine, comments in brackets too).

One correction though - we must liberate them from the evil
clutches of POLITICAL Islam --

the believe in any religion's - or ideology's - WORLD DOMINATION
must by STRICTLY FORBIDDEN

if they denounce THAT, they can believe any noncence they want
but to be allowed to believe that noncence, they
should be required to EXPLICITLY DENOUNCE any claims
for political DOMINATION , for their being RULERS over others.

Let them congregate freely and choose rulers among themselves,
but the DEATH PUNISHEMENT for APOSTASY must be FORBIDDEN --
the only allowed punishement is EXILE with FULL COMPENSATION,
plus, if there are a NUMBER of EXILED they are allowed to congregate
themseves and reclaim a proportional PART of the LAND which they
formerly occupied (lived in).

This is in accordance with the Golden Rule Ethics of

DO NO HARM
NO COERCION
FREEDOM OF CHOICE, and
FREEDOM OF the THOUGHT and an inalienable right
to full and truthful information

Any culture which violates these principles has NO RIGHT to exist being an oppressive force that it is.

One thing Bush got wrong is that people don't have to be ruled by dictators to not be free. Some peoples/cultures are auto-oppressive by their very nature. Just look at Iraqi Muslims, liberated from the evil dictatorship just to impose the harshest oppression on their fellow Cristian or secular citizens, and on themselves as well.

( also see: political islam: an Ethical Basis for War )

We must liberate the Muslims from evil clutches of their political ideology of Islamic Supremacy and Domination which causes them to be such an aggressive and destabilizing force in the World today.

Any culture that violates the Golden Rule ethics of NO COERCION by having apostasy punishable by DEATH has no right to exist and to deny its subjects' inalienable Right to Freedom of Choice and Thought, and to free and unimpeded access to full and truthful information.

An Anthem

2008-12-02T03:16:00.000-08:00

Free People of the World, Unite!
Against Jihadi Genocide
Free Will and Candor will Prevail
Against the bloody Muslim Hell

We Choose the Freedom of the Thought
To Muslim Beast we Bow Not
Each individual is precious
Responsible he’s and courageous

Let the Thousand Flowers blossom
Fear Not the vile Colossus
We will smash it into dust
Overcome the Lies we must

Against the darkest of the Nights
We Choose our Might and we are Right
We’re Free as long We Do No Harm
We care and tend for our young

We stand Opposed to the Oppression
To weak and gentle our Protection
The wicked Lies reject we must
In God of Truth we put our Trust.

a reply

2008-11-09T02:04:00.000-08:00

1. Increased Black turnout was motivated by Obama's being Black. That's just a democracy thing. Normally I wouldn't care but Obama looks like a deceiver. And he ran on a platform of appeasement of Arab Supremacism (in my words). He'd bring the US military down, he said as much himself.

2. I never claimed a majority of muslims are militant. Majority is usually silent, and will follow whoever gets the upper hand in inner societal struggle for power and control. Germans were not all genocidal, but they followed their silver tongued Glorious Leader and his pack of wolfs. Right now the militants have upper hand in almost all Islamic / Arab societies, with their intolerance and the ingrained Arab Supremacism.

3. Hitler's central gospel was "to break free from the constraints" (to use Obama's words about Constitution) of Christian morals. His central grievance against the Jews was that they "invented Christianity" with its non-resistance ethics in order to subdue "the gentiles".

Yes, that's what he really believed. He was all for "social Darwinism", "survival of the fittest" - and his was a "master race". The Nazis' was a scientific antisemitism, it was a "racial" "science" now, not a religion, following a great 19th century tradition of "scientific" racial "theory" and antisemitism in France (following on some comparative linguistics discoveries of previous decades leading to the rise of a concept of Indo-European language group, and hence, group of ethnoses, or peoples - i.e. "race").

Of course the Nazis used the Christian antisemitism history to gain followers, but that was not their creed.

Hitler was NO Christian. In fact he said, if he HAD to pick a religion, it would've been Islam, because it's a warrior creed. Grand Mufti Hajj Amin (his name be destroyed) Huseini was his ally, a friend, and some say a central instigator of mass-killings of the Jews.

I don't mean no disrespect, but you ought to read more. You're just connecting the dots obviously ( Europe's thousand years of Christian antisemitism ... Nazi antisemitism) but it's not good enough. You have to have facts, in order to reach a proper conclusion.

4. Bible/Koran difference is theory vs. practice. In Bible it's all theory, in Islam the supremacy of Islam is the TODAY's commandment. And it IS followed, TODAY.

5. Israel may have been thought of as dumping point by European masters, but the Jewish people have dreamt of returning to their Historic Homeland for the last 2000 years, each and every year of it, saying each day in their prayers about going back to Jerusalem (i.e. Zion). The creation of Jewish state in the Land of Israel is an affair of the Jewish people. The Jews never demanded the displacement of the Arabs, the one and only thing they demanded was freedom of immigration. But the Arabs fought off because they weren't ready to become just free and equal citizens, they wanted their Supremacy preserved. It's the Islamic Supremacy thing.

BTW there were some tolerant Arab factions who wanted cooperation and peaceful coexistence, but the British had aided the most violent and intolerant ones, headed by the same Mufti (whom they themselves installed on his post in 1925). In the 1936-39 Arab revolt they killed more tolerant Arabs than they killed Jews, but after that the only surviving political thought in Palestina was of the most militant, intolerant kind - that's the "divide and control" British policy in action. The British had also aided the fanatical intolerant Wahhabi king of Saud over the tolerant and more progressive and peaceful Hashemite royal house in Arabia (which since then became the Saudi, Wahhabi, Arabia).

The very first Arab anti-Jewish riot and slaughter in 20th century Jerusalem was in 1920. Look it up under "1920 Arab riots". Their chant - as they brandished their swords and put them to good use slaughtering some Jews - was "Falastyn aradna, yahood kalabna", meaning, Falastyn's our land, Jews are our dogs. They might've accepted some Jewish immigration, but only as a second class citizens, the "dhimmi", as is demanded by the Sharia code, and was always the practice of Muslims over the conquered lands/peoples.

The point is, it ain't no "palestinian" land. It is the Land of Israel (Judea), renamed by the Romans in 132 CE into Palestina after the Second Jewish Revolt was crushed with mass murders and deportations. The Arabs invaded only in 638 CE. Since the 16th century it was part of Ottoman Empire. It was never an "Arab" land, there were no "Arab" country in it, and Jerusalem was never no capital of no Arab entity, EVER. It isn't even mentioned in the Koran, ONCE. These Arab claims to Jerusalem are a bogus invention in support of the Arab Supremacy ideology which is the real heart of Islam/Arab culture.

> That’s like the Germans dumping Koreans in California and expecting Americans not to complain.

That's very unfair thing to say. I cry foul.

The proper analogy would be "the Americans dumping the Irish in Northern Ireland and expect the English not to complain".

6. Islam does mean "submission". Internally, it's submission of the believers to GOD. Since no-one has access to HIM, it's the submission to clergy and/or the "sacred" books. Externally, it's the submission of all the unbelievers left alive, to the believers, in the name of rule of GOD on Earth, the Sharia Law.

The heart of Islam is COERCION into this submission. The believers aren't allowed to tolerate "mischief" in the land. There should reign "submission" to the will of GOD on Earth - as they see it, of course, according to the Koranic teachings - and that means, the submission of all the unbelievers to the rule of the believers, in the name of GOD, in accordance with HIS rule book of Law - as is preached in Islam.

If this submission was left to the personal choice of any individual, it'd make it a religious thing - and yes, it is in the Judaism/Christianity too, simply because Judaism is the source for all the rest of them - historically. But the COERCION makes it into a political thing, a thing of war and conquest, and of resistance to this war and that conquest.

The point Islam is making, it's not about to leave such an important thing to the personal choice of no "individuals". No, Islam takes charge.

It's no "Be good, Do no evil" like it's in Christianity, the personal commandment.

It's "Command good, Forbid evil" in others as well as in yourself (if not more so) - a collectivist, tribal creed.

See? The COERCION.

BTW it is so in Judaism too, it's just that in Judaism it is all turned ONLY INWARD, for the Jewish community only. That's what you're citing, it's the commandment for the Jewish community, inside the Land of Israel. Christianity has abolished all that. Judaism shuns on conversion and wants nothing to do with the "gentiles". Also, Judaism has much evolved since then, and is weak now internally in the Israeli society, tolerating the ruling secularism. Even if that commandment were followed it would only be a problem for the Jews themselves, and not for anyone else.

But Islam by its very definition of following the perfect example of "the last prophet" isn't allowed to evolve, and wants everything to do with everyone else in its reach. To evolve would be a heresy, at least to the today's winning fundamentalist faction in Islam. And Islam is obsessed with converting everyone, with Islam ruling the whole world, turning it into the Dominion of Islam, Dar-el-Islam.

Everything else is Dar-el-Harb, the Realm of War.

Some "peace" religion THAT is.

First one

2008-10-29T02:47:00.001-07:00

This is a test.