Friday, June 22, 2007

The Judeo-Christian
The Obliteration
Of The Self

A very wise post from Phanarath over at Gates of Vienna:

What are we as human beings?

We can only ponder and try to get the most from our situation here on Earth. There is a spiritual reality beyond this existence that we cannot fully comprehend as long as we are in these forms that we are in now.

So what can we do?

We can try to be good. We can try to let ourselves grow to include our families, our friends and our fellow human beings.

When I was a child I read something in school that impressed me. It was the philosophy of an Indian — as in Native American — tribe. It said that we as humans start out with an understanding of our selfish needs. Later in life this understanding can grow and we can understand the needs of and feel a oneness with our family, and, as our empathy continues to grow, our tribe, mankind, all life, mother earth, the universe and all existence.

I think that was the most important thing I ever learned in school, and I also think that I learned it by accident. I don’t think I was supposed to learn that the self can grow. I was supposed to learn not to be arrogant about my own culture.

I learned not to be arrogant about my own culture, and I learned it well. For many years I believed everything from other cultures was automatically better then what my own could provide. I lost many important moments with my grandfather, arguing silly things that he didn’t have patience for, nor could he understand how I got them into my head.

I enjoy reading Fjordman’s articles, and how he speculates about how political correctness and Multiculturalism might be connected to or descended from Communism.

But I don’t think that there is a connection, other than the rejection of the self.It’s like having a monkey running amok in our garden with an axe. If you break the axe and the monkey picks up a saw, it doesn’t mean that the saw is somehow a descendant of the axe. It just means that the monkey will do anything to create more destruction.

The monkey here is the rejection of the self. When the self is rejected, there cannot be empathy for others. Instead of letting the self grow naturally, it has been rejected as evil to begin with, and we are left with a hollow human being without the potential for growth.

It’s a Utopian idea: the selfless people of a dream about a perfect world. It must have somehow been inspired by an idea of very spiritually developed people, but when the primitive newborn self was declared evil, this was soon forgotten. And then all manifestations of the self were seen as evil. Love of self, love of family, love of one’s tribe or race, nationalism and so on.

I think Panarath has hit on something very important here. When you think about it, all totalitarianism relies on the rejection of the self.

The Judeo-Christian tradition, on the other hand, teaches that the person is so important, as an individual self, that all should be granted equal rights; the right to free speech, to own property, and to equal protection under the law.

The Bible tells us that we, as individual selves, are so important that God would lay down the life of His only begotten Son so that, if we believe in Him, we may have everlasting life, and share it with Him. Jesus, himself, fretted over the one lost individual so much so that was said,

What man among you, if he has a hundred sheep and has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open pasture and go after the one which is lost until he finds it?

When he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing.

And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them,

'Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!'

Our Declaration of Independence tells us, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We are the inheritors of such a tradition. We ought to protect it. It is precious.

Alan Johnston
In His Plight

I'm sure Alan Johnston feels good about all the support he's getting from his fellow journalists as he sits, somewhere, in some small, dark room, with guns pointed at his head. From No Pasaran:

At roughly 1315 UTC, at the same time the BBC was having an on-air "silent vigil" for the release of kidnapped BBC correspondent Alan Johnston, a clan member of the group holding him had his head blown off by masked men.

Munir Dughmush was shot while standing outside a building in Gaza
City's Zaitoun neighborhood, sources in the Gaza Strip said. They said masked
gunmen opened fire at him, killing him instantly.

Following the incident, foreign journalists were advised to stay away
from the Gaza Strip for fear of reprisal.

They recently said they were willing to talk about releasing Johnson.

How then does a highly influential subculture of fantasists with moral uncertainty and journalism degrees defend its’ own against another highly influential subculture of fantasists with amoral tactics and small arms? It doesn’t.

I‘m sure those who participated in the big BBC-staffer group hug believed that their vigils, websites, sign-bearing, and pot-banging will somehow appeal to the compassion of those who hold Johnston and get him released. This would only be possible if there was a way in Gazan militant society to actually act with compassion (if one was capable of it), and even yet not get shot by someone else if you try.

All their “campaigning” has done is raise the man's stock.

The more of a pointless a stink they make about Johnston’s captivity, the more he's worth as a captive.

Which brings us to the the accompanying photo. Journalists without borders who seem to want to conceal their identity to even show empathy for one of their kidnapped fellow journalists. Even if they are just kids imagining their hearts are with him - Indeed they’re displaying the fear that they themselves have sewn by the over-reporting and giving too much importance and credence to the causes of Johnston’s captors.

Thursday, June 21, 2007

The Left Front:
The Left
Will Try
To Revive The

Air America failed because no one wanted to listen to it. It is possible that this is because it was just a particularly bad example of left-wing radio. Or, it is possible that left-wing ideas just do not translate well through the medium of talk radio.

Whatever the case, the left, as per usual, can not sit idly by and accept the results of the market. Instead, they must regulate the market to make sure that everyone (meaning everyone on the left) has a "fair" chance.

Oh sure, they say they don't want a return to the Fairness Doctrine, but watch as they deftly move the shells:

Two common myths are frequently offered to explain the imbalance of talk radio:

1) the 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine (which required broadcasters to devote airtime to contrasting views), and

2) simple consumer demand. Each of these fails to adequately explain the root cause of the problem.

The report explains:

Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management.

Ultimately, these results suggest that increasing ownership diversity, both in terms of the race/ethnicity and gender of owners, as well as the number of independent local owners, will lead to more diverse programming, more choices for listeners, and more owners who are responsive to their local communities and serve the public interest.

Along with other ideas, the report recommends that national radio ownership not be allowed to exceed 5 percent of the total number of AM and FM broadcast stations, and local ownership should not exceed more than 10 percent of the total commercial radio stations in a given market.

Read the full report here.

No, no Fairness Doctrine hiding there, huh?

What a joke.

Anyway, I do think it is arguable what percentage of radio stations a corporation like Clear Channel ought to be allowed to own in a given market. However, attempting to ensure a certain percentage of minority and local ownership is racist in nature, and an a socialistic restriction of free trade to boot.

The Left's solutions are always the same, aren't they? More and more government restrictions under the guise of trying to help minorities and women.

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Jimmy Carter:
Father Of The
Iranian Revolution

Jimmy Carter, the George Washington of the modern terrorist state. Congratulations to him on his proud legacy. Asshole:

We just don't get it. The Left in America is screaming to high heaven that the mess we are in in Iraq and the war on terrorism has been caused by the right-wing and that George W. Bush, the so-called "dim-witted cowboy," has created the entire mess.

The truth is the entire nightmare can be traced back to the liberal democratic policies of the leftist Jimmy Carter, who created a firestorm that destabilized our greatest ally in the Muslim world, the shah of Iran, in favor of a religious fanatic, the ayatollah Khomeini.

Carter viewed Khomeini as more of a religious holy man in a grassroots revolution than a founding father of modern terrorism. Carter's ambassador to the UN, Andrew Young, said "Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint." Carter's Iranian ambassador, William Sullivan, said, "Khomeini is a Gandhi-like figure." Carter adviser James Bill proclaimed in a Newsweek interview on February 12, 1979 that Khomeini was not a mad mujahid, but a man of "impeccable integrity and honesty."

The shah was terrified of Carter. He told his personal confidant, "Who knows what sort of calamity he [Carter] may unleash on the world?"

Well, we see now, don't we? Carter is even willing to support Hamas, and their calls for genocide, and their coup d'etat in Gaza, as Democracy.

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Is Not

President Bush tells us we must work with Mahmoud Abbas because he is a man of moderation.

This is total and utter bullshit.

Mahmoud Abbas wrote his Doctoral Thesis on the idea that the Jews of Germany collaborated with the Nazis to commit the Holocaust, so that they could engender the sympathy they would need to take the land of Israel away from the Arabs.

Here's more stunning information about Mahmoud Abbas and the history of Fatah.

Here's some stuff that I harp on all the time, but which I never seeanywhere else:

Yasser Arafat's original name was also al-Husseini, and many peoplebelieve that he was the Grand Mufti's nephew.

In fact, there, Time Magazine directly said it; Arafat was relatedto the Grand Mufti.

Additionally, Arafat said that the Grand Mufti was his inspiration.

And finally, the PLO Charter, which is listed on the officialwebsite of the United Nations, clearly calls for the destruction ofIsrael:

Here are some key phrases:

Article 16: The liberation of Palestine, from an international viewpoint, is a defensive act necessitated by the demands of self-defense as stated in the Charter of the United Nations. For that, the people of Palestine, desiring to befriend all nations which love freedom, justice, and peace, look forward to their support inrestoring the legitimate situation to Palestine, establishing peaceand security in its territory, and enabling its people to exercisenational sovereignty and freedom.

Article 17: The partitioning of Palestine, which took place in 1947,and the establishment of Israel are illegal and null and void, regardless of the loss of time, because they were contrary to thewill of the Palestinian people and its natural right to itshomeland, and were in violation of the basic principles embodied inthe Charter of the United Nations, foremost among which is the rightto self-determination.

Article 18: The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate System,and all that has been based on them are considered null and void.The claims of historic and spiritual ties between Jews and Palestineare not in agreement with the facts of history or with the truebasis of sound statehood. Judaism, because it is a divine religion, is not a nationality with independent existence. Furthermore, the Jews are not one people with an independent personality because theyare citizens to their states.

Article 19: Zionism is a colonialist movement in its inception, aggressive and expansionist in its goal, racist in itsconfigurations, and fascist in its means and aims. Israel, in itscapacity as the spearhead of this destructive movement and as the pillar of colonialism, is a permanent source of tension and turmoil in the Middle East, in particular, and to the internationalcommunity in general. Because of this, the people of Palestine areworthy of the support and sustenance of the community of nations.

Article 20: The causes of peace and security and the requirements ofright and justice demand from all nations, in order to safeguardtrue relationships among peoples and to maintain the loyalty ofcitizens to their homeland, that they consider Zionism an illega lmovement and outlaw its presence and activities.

So, in other words, the Palestinians Liberation Organization, which is the party upon which is the parent organization of Fatah, does not accept the existence of Israel at all.

How moderate is that?

Additionally, I would like to point out that while the above linkwhich explains that Arafat was indeed related to al-Husseini doesindicate that Arafat was part of the man's original name, I have never seen that claim made elsewhere.Here's why that might be interesting.Mt. Arafat is the mountain which overlooks Mecca. When Muslims makethe Hajj, they spend their last evening on Mt. Arafat and then descend into Mecca.

This is remiscent of the story of Moses looking down on the promisedland from Mount Nebo on the night before he died.

Here's the story from Deuteronomy 34:

1 Then Moses climbed Mount Nebo from the plains of Moab to the topof Pisgah, across from Jericho. There the LORD showed him the wholeland—from Gilead to Dan, 2 all of Naphtali, the territory of Ephraimand Manasseh, all the land of Judah as far as the western sea, [a] 3the Negev and the whole region from the Valley of Jericho, the Cityof Palms, as far as Zoar.

4 Then the LORD said to him, "This is theland I promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob when I said, 'Iwill give it to your descendants.' I have let you see it with youreyes, but you will not cross over into it."5 And Moses the servant of the LORD died there in Moab, as the LORDhad said.

I believe Arafat may have taken his name because he believed himself to be the Moses of the Palestinian people.

A Series Of Clarifying Moments

I think the past week or so has provided us with a number of clarifying moments. I would define a clafirying moment as a time when something happens which forces people to come down on one side, or the other of the line between good and evil.

This week, we have seen the Muslim world react with furor because Britain had the audacity to give a knighthood to author Salman Rushdie. There is the inevitable call for Rushdie to be executed. A burning of Queen Elizabeth in effigy. Fear that the world of the Religion of Peace become violent because of this provocation.

"This is an occasion for the world's 1.5billion Muslims to look at the seriousness of this decision," said Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq, Pakistan's religious affairs minister.

"The West is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism," he told his country's parliament.

"If someone exploded a bomb on his body he would be right to do so, unless the British government apologises and withdraws the 'sir' title."

Yep, that's the Religion of Peace for you. Salman Rushdie is a great writer. He writes a book critical of some of the violent elements of Islam. He is knighted for the contributions of his entire body of work to British culture, which is an act of inclusion, considering the man is not native British. And, for this, the Religion of Peace threatens to blow people up.

That's clarifying.

It has also been clarifying to watch events unfold in Gaza and to see how our own Western policians are dealing with them.

Hamas has taken over Gaza entirely, evicting members of the Fatah political party from the offices to which they were elected by the will of the people. Hamas has performed a coup d'etat.

Jimmy Carter calls for the U.S. and the West to recognize this coup d'etat in the name of Democracy.

Now remember, Hamas Charter calls for the genocide of Jews. Here is an actual excerpt to be found in the Hamas Charter:

... the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.

So now we know, Jimmy Carter, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, is openly in support of the genocide of Jews; a second Holocaust.

That's clarifying, isn't it?

Jimmy Carter Is Now Openly Pro-Hamas

Jimmy Carter has come out as being, unequivocally, in favor of Hamas:

The United States, Israel and the European Union must end their policy of favoring Fatah over Hamas, or they will doom the Palestinian people to deepening conflict between the rival movements, former US President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday.

Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who was addressing a conference of Irish human rights officials, said the Bush administration’s refusal to accept the 2006 election victory of Hamas was “criminal.”

Carter said Hamas, besides winning a fair and democratic mandate that should have entitled it to lead the Palestinian government, had proven itself to be far more organized in its political and military showdowns with the Fatah movement of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

Let's look at what the Hamas political party stands for. Here are some excerpts from the Hamas Charter:

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."

The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders. It goes back to 1939, to the emergence of the martyr Izz al-Din al Kissam and his brethren the fighters, members of Moslem Brotherhood. It goes on to reach out and become one with another chain that includes the struggle of the Palestinians and Moslem Brotherhood in the 1948 war and the Jihad operations of the Moslem Brotherhood in 1968 and after.

Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

The Slogan of the Islamic Resistance Movement:

Article Eight:
Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.

The openly stated goal of Hamas is to kill Jews. Therefore, Jimmy Carter is now clearly advocating for genocide; the second Holocaust.

Sunday, June 17, 2007

U.S. Would
Nuke Afghanistan:
British Children
Tell Themselves
Ghost Stories
Around The Campfire

Well actually, they aren't children. Instead, they are a former British diplomat to the UN, and the makers of a new documentary:

Britain joined the United States' invasion
to oust the Taliban in 2001 because it feared America would "nuke the shit" out
of Afghanistan, the former British ambassador to Washington reportedly told a
television documentary to be screened Saturday.

In comments printed in advance in the
Daily Mirror tabloid on Monday, Christopher Meyer said that fear explained why
Prime Minister Tony Blair chose to stand with US President George W. Bush in his
decision to invade Afghanistan in the immediate aftermath of the September 11,
2001 terrorist attacks -- to temper his aggressive battle plans.

"Blair's real concern was that there
would be quote unquote 'a knee-jerk reaction' by the Americans ... they would go
thundering off and nuke the shit out of the place without thinking straight,"
Meyer reported told the documentary, according to the Mirror.

In other excerpts of the documentary,
printed in The Observer newspaper on Sunday, members of Blair's inner circle
said the prime minister agreed to commit troops to the March 2003 US-led
invasion of Iraq despite believing that the United States had failed to prepare
adequately for post-war reconstruction.

Channel 4 will air
the first part of "The Rise and Fall of Tony Blair" on Saturday.

Listen up all British people. The truth is, we Americans have a plan to nuke the UK.