Below are 10 entries, after skipping 10 most recent ones in the "jordan179" journal:
[<< Previous 10 entries -- Next 10 entries >>]
Some Opium For the Masses|I happen to be an atheist, in that I believe in no gods. I am also an agnostic, in that I do not acknowledge proofs of any gods, since no valid proofs have been offered.
Having said that, hating "religion" lock, stock and barrel is the equivalent of hating humanity.
Why is that? Because every effective Human culture in history which was not also casually-democidal has incorporated religion as a significant element. The only truly atheist cultures of which I know were those of Communist-totalitarianism, which murdered 100 million of mostly their own people in the 20th century; and (to some extent) modern European democratic socialism, which is in the process of laying out its own population as lambs for the slaughter by Muslim invaders.
The closest thing to an atheist culture which has ever actually worked is the United States of America, and we are "atheist" on the Constutional level -- we forbid the establishment of religion by the Federal Government. As America adopts the democratic-socialist model, we are sliding toward the same ineffectuality as the European Union has already attained.
This strongly implies that the impulse to religion is very strong in Humans, and that if religion is forbidden or discouraged, either Humans turn to worshipping men (Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao) or become rudderless and helpless in the face of fanaticism (the European Union). Even if religious belief is objectively wrong, the Human need for religion is apparently overpowering.
Religion may be the opiate of the masses, but sometimes the medical condition of a patient indicates opiates as the best treatment of -- at least -- the symptoms.
European Governments Undermining Themselves Over Muslim Immigration Issue|
All across Europe, Muslim immigrants are launching unprovoked attacks on Europeans, doing so in the belief that their religion gives them the right to abuse the Europeans at will. The governments are not even trying to protect or avenge their own people. These governments are, instead, cracking down hard on all attempts to resist or even protest such attacks.
What the Europeans don't get is something even more fundamental. Governments derive their legitimacy from the degree of consent of and to the degree that they protect the rights of the governed. A government which brings in hordes of abusers and then punishes those who resist the abusers is undermining its own legitimacy. This is true, and will have the effect of making riots, coups and rebellions more likely, whether or not the Europeans know it. Natural Right is the political-science equivlent of natural law -- you can ignore it when you build your social structures, but do not be surprised when they then fall down.
Quite aside from the direct threat posed by the Muslim immigrant invasion, the European governments are flirting with disaster in the form of an anarchic breakdown of their regimes. And they don't seem to be aware of this -- they are sleepwaliking forward, apparently convinced that their legitimacy is unquestionable.
I don't think that the Muslims will win. But I increasingly doubt that European liberal democracy will win, because the former European liberal democracies are increasingly transforming themselves into ineffectual authoritarian states -- and when that happens, the people will prefer effectual authoritarian ones.
The Man On A Horse is riding into town. Let's hope that we get Francos instead of Hitlers, or the next few decades could be very interesting.
"To Hell with their culture!" says Dawkins of Muslims|
He's probably the most brilliant evolutionary biologist of our age. He's revolutionized my grasp of how evolution works by explaining "kin-selected altruism" by showing that evolution operates at the genetic, rather than the individual, level. A subtle difference, but one with tremendous implications. And, unlike most atheists, he's willing to publicly oppose Islam, giving it the (non)-respect that it deserves..
As for atheists and Islam, some are simply cowards, lacking the courage of their convictions when it comes to opposing any religion whose adherents might get violent (The joke of this being that Muslims are famously incompetent at violence, due to their fatalistic doctrine of insh'allah). Others don't actually see any religions other than Judaism or Christianity as being "real" enough to be worth debating, a dangerous arrogance that is bearing bitter fruit right now in Europe.
I've frequently taken my fellow atheists to task for the absurd cowardice of confronting Christians, whom they may reasonably assume won't try to harm them, while letting Muslims have a pass because they might try to harm them. This attitude on their part is encouraging religious violence, by refusing to criticize violent faiths.
What's especially courageous about Dawkins' stand is that he's the subject of a country which does not back up his right to free speech with a First Amendment. Englishmen have been fined or put in prison (and under conditions amounting to state-sanctioned theft or their reckless endangerment -- read the story of Tommy Robinson some time) for expressing views similar to those of Dawkins. This, rather than the inept aggression of Muslims, is the real risk he runs.
Dawkins' intellectual courage should be celebrated.
As for Muslims ... to hell with their culture, indeed.
Why Europe Needed a First Amendment|
What we are seeing in Europe is a very good demonstration of why the First Amendment, or something like it, is necessary for the maintenance of a truly free society. The Europeans are not free to express political beliefs of which their masters disapprove, which is hindering the development of lawful opposition to the policy of importing large numbers of Muslim immigrants. In consequence, despite the growing unpopularity of the program, the people are unable to organize to vote out those who are executing it, and in politicians who are pledged to oppose it. This means that effective opposition, when it appears, is very likely to be illegal and take the form either of spontaneous violence, or -- eventually -- coups d'etat.
European democracy will fall -- either because it hardens into a dictatorship to prevent the Right opposition from coming into power, or because such opposition will have to come into power by coup or revolution. If the current Left establishment is able to remain in power, it is likely to be able to do so in the long run only if it arms and incorporates the Muslim immigrants into its forces: and if it does that, the day will come when the barbarians it has admitted in by the gate themselves seize power.
That, in fact, strikes me as the only way in which the Muslim invaders are likely to win.
And all this could have been avoided had Europe possessed a true guarantee of freedom of speech.
So, A Paranoid Hoplophobe Who Happens To Be a Black Woman Walks Into a Gun Show|
As a Wisconsin native, I’m used to squinty-eyed white Midwestern suspicion. But since we stood several hundred feet from a lot of guns and I figured the guys were probably armed, my feet froze.
You actually think that guys are randomly and in public going to shoot you? What, you don't think that the attendees at a gun show have any scruples against committing murder? (Or, at least, enough common sense to know that if they did so in public and absent any provocation, they would be pretty much spending the rest of their lives in prison?)
Projecting a bit, methinks?
But background checks are required in Illinois, where my teenage cousin joined a gang and shot someone in 2010. He took his lawyer’s advice not to talk about his case, so I channeled my sadness into learning how Chicago gangs like his get their guns. More of the guns used in Chicago gang shootings come from Indiana than anywhere else.
So your cousin, apparently, was a murderous scumbag, and hopefully will be spending a good long time in prison where he can't hurt decent folk. And this is the fault of gun shows, because ...?
If someone stabbed you with a knife, would that be the fault of knives? If someone hit you with a baseball bat (as happened to me, once) would that be the fault of baseball bats?
You're blaming the tool rather than the wielder.
But I didn’t think I, a black woman, would be welcome at a gun show.
Four people sat at the registration table: one white guy in his fifties and three women in their twenties, one of whom was black. Her blackness threw me off nearly as much as the mood outside. We made the sort of eye contact that meant we’d acknowledged each other’s blackness but we weren’t going to bond over it.
You keep assuming that being pro-gun implies being anti-black. Why? Black people probably benefit more from legal gun ownership than do white people. Do you want me to tell you why, or is it obvious?
Women probably benefit more from legal gun ownership than to men, for a different reason. Do you want me to tell you why, or is this obvious as well?
I turned away from him toward tables filled with more guns than I’d ever seen, forgot how to breathe, and retreated to the bathroom to calm myself behind a locked stall.
This is perhaps the most hilarious or sad, depending on how I look at it, descriptions of paranoid hoplophobia I've ever seen.
Why do tables full of unloaded weapons, in a room where no one has shown you any particular ill-will, terrify you? Seriously, do you imagine that the guns will get up, load themselves and shoot you, all on their little ownsomes?
Black people aren’t part of the big tent of gun ownership. We’re never assumed to be law abiding, reasonable gun owners. That kind of gun ownership is seen as an upstanding white person act; a picket fence closed to outsiders like blacks.
By your assertion. And it is gun licensing laws, particularly "may issue" as opposed to "shall issue," which create this problem to the extent that it is real. In fact, the original gun control laws were passed in the post Civil War South, to make sure that blacks couldn't use guns to resist whites attempting to "discipline them." Too many Klansmen coughing out their lives all over their nice white sheets otherwise, dontcha know?
This was a lot more diversity than I expected, but not enough to stop people from staring at me.
You don't think that at least a little of the looks you were getting may have come from your deer-in-the-headlights expression of irrational terror? Seriously, I once went through an episode of paranoia, decades ago, and I know from personal experience that if you display fearful or hostile affect toward others, it causes them to become nervous in return, because they don't know why you're reacting like this!
I saw one guy wearing a T-shirt that said It’s Not Racist If It’s True, and looked back at G from halfway across the room. She seemed perfectly comfortable sitting behind her table, and I ached for her anyway, having to see T-shirts like that at shows like this.
So, um, true things shouldn't be mentioned if they have implications which might be seen as racist? Or no black person would possibly agree with the sentiment? Has it occurred to you that perhaps the woman you met agreed with the T-shirt? Or do you believe that you, being black, get to think thoughts for all other black people, and if they think differently they're being out of line?
I’m equally familiar with the uniquely white Midwestern combination of down-home friendliness and suspicion that I encountered at the gun show, in alternating rounds. It’s subtle, but it’s constant, and I felt it for the 23 years I lived there. Sometimes it bubbled into something more, like the fourth grader who called me a nigger at school. But mostly it was the high school and college friends who told me I “wasn’t that black,” and confided in me about their love lives and career dreams. It’s the dizzying swing from Scott and his lunch recommendations to the men who stare at me as if blinking might physically wound them.
Apparently, white folk are being racist to you if they're hostile, and if they're friendly. There's no way to win.
Have you ever stopped to think that, if there's no way to win, there's also no rereason to TRY? With you, anyway. I have no problem getting along with people of all races, personally.
Oh, and FYI: when they said you weren't "that black" what they meant was the popular image of black street culture. Being a thug or a whore. They were actually complimenting you. What should be bothering you is just how being a thug or a whore has become synonymous with being black. Hint: it's mostly black people who have promoted this image.
So, you were terrified of guys who sold Confederate flags, but otherwise did nothing to harm you. I'd sympathize more, but I bet you don't have a qualm about attending pro-Palestinian, anti-Semitic demonstrations -- I'm Jewish.
To summarize: you went to a convention, glared in fear and suspicion at everyone around you, and found that some of the people were still nice to you anyway. And no one did anything to hurt or insult you in the least bit.
And you still don't realize that you were being paranoid.
Hopefully, some day you will grow up.
Soiling Oneself As Defense Against Rape|
Apparently, an organization called Rape Aggression Defense (R.A.D.)
urged women who were in danger of being raped to defend themselves by, in part, soiling themselves (vomiting, urinating or defecating in their clothing). Various leftist groups,including at least one college, and some feminists, have signed on to this idea as a useful tactic.
What I want to know is -- how is this even supposed to work?
First of all, would someone attempting violent rape -- a crime that would often be accompanied in any case by various unpleasant emissions (including blood
) from the victim -- really abort his attempt because of some slightly nasty emissions?
Secondly, since the attacker is, after all, violent
, what stops him from "punishing" the successful user of this tactic by severely injuring or killing her?
This seems only a marginally saner idea than Andrew P. Marston's famously-hilarious suggestion that women carry booby traps in their vaginas.
9-11 Quarter to the Foe!|
Fourteen years ago, the Islamists attacked us in a literal bolt-from-the-blue and murdered almost 3000 Americans, starting with over 100 civilians they had made captive and were under the Laws of War bound to protect from harm. In that action, they declared themselves not only our foes, but foes who were not entitled to the protections of those same Laws of War. In that action, they justified not only total war against them, but against any and all States which backed and sheltered them, or simply did not exert suffiicient efforts to root them out and utterly destroy them within their borders.
We chose, instead, to wage a very limited war against them, binding ourselves tightly hand and foot, while their combatants, when captured, were not even subject to war crimes trials for the crimes they had committed. We prided ourselves on doing this, with exactly the sort of pride that "goeth before a fall."
In consequence, one faction of Islamists is now in the process of conquering Syria and Iraq, while another in Iran is being allowed to acquire nuclear weapons by the most incompetent, and possibly treasonous President in American history, a man who bids fair to beat out James Buchanan (look him up) as the most disastrous President we've ever had. The situation is being set up for the first multi-lateral nuclear war in global history, while this strutting fool preens with triumph at his negative achievement.
I think that it is very likely now that within 5-10 years -- by 2020 or 2025 -- a Western city or cities will be destroyed or severely damaged by atomic attack -- possibly from Iran, possibly from Pakistan, possibly from the Caliphate itself. And I think ... i certainly hope ... that when this happens we will cast aside all restraint and respond with total war of our own against Islamism. (*)
When this happens, of course, millions, tens of millions, possibly hundreds of millions of Muslims will die.
This is what our self-restraint in the first phase of the Terrorist Wars will have bought. Those of you who urged restraint -- this will be the consequence of the choice you succeeded in having us make.
Enjoy the deaths of the women and children. You bought it, fools.
Well-meaning fools, but still fools
in conclusion; Never forget 9-11. Never forgive 9-11. And when the foe cries for mercy, give them the same mercy they gave the civilians they made prisoner aboard the four airliners.
Death to the Islamists! And 9-11 quarter to the foe!
(*) Why do I "hope" this? I don't hope that a Western city will suffer atomic attack, I hope that if such an event happens that we respond with total war against the attacker -- because if we don't, the alternative is that we will fight half-heartedly, and possibly lose.
Tags: 9-11, terrorist war
A Thought On the Democrats Valuing Blacks Greatly|
The Democrats used to value blacks greatly.
Then, the Republicans made the Democrats stop buying and selling them at auction.
It was a little dispute called the American Civil War. You may have heard of it.
Tags: humor, politics, racism
Quick Thought on the Mass Murder in Tennessee|
The really sad thing here is that the shooter was successful. The solution to this is to harden the targets by allowing the military to go armed even when on Stateside assignments. Had the Marines been armed, there's a good chance nobody would have died, instead of four people.
Yes. That math was intentional. The shooter abandoned his humanity when he chose his side.
Supreme Court Decisions|
I am glad that the Supreme Court sustained the legality of same-sex marriage across the country. It is my profound belief, based on the logic that marriage is a mutual choice between any two people who decide to unite their lives in love, that marriage should not be only allowed between persons of opposite sexes. Marriage is not purely for the purpose of sexual reproduction: if that were the case, then what of marriages between people of which at least one is infertile? Given that marriage is not purely for the purpose of sexual reproduction, then there is no logical reason to forbid it to same-sex couples.
I like the idea of same-sex marriages. Why should same-sex couples be denied the honorable resolution of their courtship in marriage?
Same-sex marriages do not devalue heterosexual marriages, because same-sex couples do not marry any more easily than to heterosexual ones. And there is no logical reason to assume that same sex couples somehow don't really mean it when they get married.
I am glad that America is moving beyond a purely religious view of marriage.
I am far less enthusiastic that the Supreme Court chose to uphold Obamacare. The law was passed unconstitutionally and altered unconstitutionally, and the very same logic being used to justify it (that it would cause disorder were it not to be upheld) could be used to uphold any irregularly-passed law. What is to prevent Obama, or more importantly his successors, from simply decreeing laws and the Supreme Court holding that we must treat them as properly-passed and constitutional simply because it would be inconvenient to end them?
I fear that in this decision, we are witnessing the beginning of the end of the American Republic.
Tags: constitution, law
[<< Previous 10 entries -- Next 10 entries >>]