?

Log in

No account? Create an account
adamsmithsghost
29 May 2007 @ 02:20 pm

Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris, a Sierra Club official serving as USCAP spokesman. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight That it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against– then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. One declares the very system by which men live – industrial civilization – to be a crime, and makes them feel guilty about their work, food, housing, transportation, recreation, and all the rest. Even about their own families. One makes them hate themselves for the comforts and conveniences their way of life provides. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted; make their means of living adhere to the ‘precautionary principle' – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
-- Ayn Rand, _Atlas Shrugged , Ch. III, "White Green Blackmail"


 
 
adamsmithsghost
If they were sincere in their belief regarding the magnitude of the global warming threat, the enviros would be the biggest backers of a huge increase in nuclear power, which creates zero greenhouse gases.*

Here's another: They would be the biggest backers of a revenue neutral "carbon tax" along these lines:

A $2 or $3 or $5 dollar per gallon gas tax, with equivalent taxes on all other forms of fuel that are burned - including ethanol, biofuels, etc. - made revenue neutral by a dollar-for-dollar cut in marginal income tax rates, less the value of a refundable income tax credit for those whose earnings are so low they pay no tax. The higher fuel tax would increase the incentive for every individual and business to use less fuel. The lower income tax would compensate motorists and other energy users, and boost economic growth by reducing the tax disincentives to work, save, study and invest. The refundable tax credit would compensate the poor who pay little or no income tax, without reducing their greater incentive to also use less fuel.

Where are Al Gore and Congressional enviros with these proposals? If "we're all gonna die" because of warming, isn’t that more important than pursuing their back-to-the-caves religion and their "tax cuts for the rich" class warfare? Isn't that worth the political risks and heavy lifting of explaining this tax shift to the middle class?


*BTW, you can forget about Chernobyl or Three Mile Island as rationales against nukes. The scores of modern design plants plants being built right now around the world are infinitely and intrinsically safer than those dinosaur kludges.

You can also forget about "nuclear waste" as an argument against nukes. More than 98% of the material in a spent nuclear fuel rod is recyclable, and that's what's done outside the U.S. Pure politics prevents here. In France, where 58 nuke plants generate 78 percent of electricity, all the fuel rods are recycled, and the highly radioactive transuranic elements and fission byproducts that remain are all stored in a single room in Le Havre.
 
 
adamsmithsghost
09 December 2006 @ 09:59 pm
Sam Harris is the author of "The End of Faith." He has no use for any religion, but finds Islam especially problematic. "(D)istinct religious beliefs have distinct behavioral consequences. Some ideas are worse than others. We ignore this at our peril."

What follows are excerpts from articles he has written and posted here: http://www.samharris.org/site/articles/


Anyone familiar with my work knows that I am extremely critical of all religious faiths. I have argued elsewhere that the ascendancy of Christian conservatism in American politics should terrify and embarrass us. And yet, there are gradations to the evil that is done in name of God, and these gradations must be honestly observed. So let us now make sense of the impossible by acknowledging the obvious: there is a direct link between the doctrine of Islam and Muslim terrorism. Acknowledging this link remains especially taboo among political liberals. While liberals are leery of religious fundamentalism in general, they consistently imagine that all religions at their core teach the same thing and teach it equally well. This is one of the many delusions borne of political correctness. Rather than continue to squander precious time, energy, and good will by denying the role that Islam now plays in perpetuating Muslim violence, we should urge Muslim communities in the West to reform the ideology of their religion. This will not be easy, as the Koran and hadith offer precious little basis for a Muslim Enlightenment, but it is necessary.

Anyone who imagines that terrestrial concerns account for Muslim terrorism must answer questions of the following sort: Where are the Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? The Tibetans have suffered an occupation far more brutal, and far more cynical, than any that Britain, the United States, or Israel have ever imposed upon the Muslim world. Where are the throngs of Tibetans ready to perpetrate suicidal atrocities against Chinese noncombatants? They do not exist. What is the difference that makes the difference? The difference lies in the specific tenets of Islam. This is not to say that Buddhism could not help inspire suicidal violence. It can, and it has (Japan, World War II). But this concedes absolutely nothing to the apologists for Islam. As a Buddhist, one has to work extremely hard to justify such barbarism. One need not work nearly so hard as a Muslim. The truth that we must finally confront is that Islam contains specific notions of martyrdom and jihad that fully explain the character of Muslim violence. Unless the world’s Muslims can find some way of expunging the metaphysics that is fast turning their religion into a cult of death, we will ultimately face the same perversely destructive behavior throughout much of the world.


Question/challenge to Sam Harris: "Sam, you don’t know a damn thing about Islam, the Koran, or Muslim history.Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by extremists."

This objection is generally put forward by people who have not read the Koran or the hadith (the literature that recounts the sayings and actions of the Prophet). Some readers also pointed out that the bible contains some very scary passages. This is true, and I discuss the consequences of biblical literalism in my other writing. But the bible is a vast, self-contradictory book. It is very easy to just read the “good parts” and ignore all the barbarism found in books like Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Exodus, etc. The fundamental message of the Koran is impossible to ignore and far easier to summarize. And there is no Sermon on the Mount in there to break the spell. Yes, there is a single line that can be read as a prohibition against suicide (4:29 – “Do not destroy yourselves.”), but this line can also be read as an admonishment to Muslims to refrain from killing other Muslims. In any case, we are talking about one line set in a wilderness of other passages that clearly admonish the faithful to despise unbelievers. On virtually every page of the Koran we are informed that Allah is in the process of "mocking," "cursing," "shaming," "scourging," "not forgiving," "not reprieving," the infidels. Had Allah wanted to guide the infidels to the true path, he would have. So he has cursed them with their doubts. He allows them to prosper in this world only so that they may have a greater opportunity to heap sin upon sin and more richly deserve the eternal punishment of the fire whose "fuel is men and stones." As a basis for religious tolerance in a pluralistic world, the Koran is one of the least promising documents ever written—despite the few lines that, read in isolation, seem to counsel patience, charity, tolerance, etc. And the hadith is even worse.

It is a mainstream belief among Muslims that apostasy (the repudiation of Islam by a Muslim) should be punished by death (granted, this rule is only made explicit in the hadith). It is also a mainstream belief that infidels should (if possible) be politically subjugated and forced to pay a poll tax. Yes, Muslims are counseled not to be aggressors, and thus to fight only defensive wars. But "defensive" is in the eye of the beholder. We can be sure that Osama bin Laden can tell a story about why his actions have been purely in "defense" of the faith.

Those readers who think I have offered a caricature of Islam must explain why an uncountable number of imams supported the fatwa against Salman Rushie, while not a single one (to the best of my knowledge) has pronounced a fatwa on Osama bin Laden. I submit to you that the belief that the Koran was dictated by the Creator of the Universe explains this ludicrous and terrifying situation. If you have not read the Koran, read it. It will nearly kill you with boredom, but you will learn something about what devout Muslims believe.


Let us take stock of the moral intuitions now on display in the House of Islam: On Aug. 17, 2005, an Iraqi insurgent helped collect the injured survivors of a car bombing, rushed them to a hospital and then detonated his own bomb, murdering those who were already mortally wounded as well as the doctors and nurses struggling to save their lives. Where were the cries of outrage from the Muslim world? Religious sociopaths kill innocents by the hundreds in the capitols of Europe, blow up the offices of the U.N. and the Red Cross, purposefully annihilate crowds of children gathered to collect candy from U.S. soldiers on the streets of Baghdad, kidnap journalists, behead them, and the videos of their butchery become the most popular form of pornography in the Muslim world, and no one utters a word of protest because these atrocities have been perpetrated “in defense of Islam.” But draw a picture of the Prophet, and pious mobs convulse with pious rage. One could hardly ask for a better example of religious dogmatism and its pseudo-morality eclipsing basic, human goodness.

It is time we recognized—and obliged the Muslim world to recognize—that “Muslim extremism” is not extreme among Muslims. Mainstream Islam itself represents an extremist rejection of intellectual honesty, gender equality, secular politics and genuine pluralism. The truth about Islam is as politically incorrect as it is terrifying: Islam is all fringe and no center. In Islam, we confront a civilization with an arrested history. It is as though a portal in time has opened, and the Christians of the 14th century are pouring into our world.


The idea that Islam is a “peaceful religion hijacked by extremists” is a dangerous fantasy—and it is now a particularly dangerous fantasy for Muslims to indulge. It is not at all clear how we should proceed in our dialogue with the Muslim world, but deluding ourselves with euphemisms is not the answer. It now appears to be a truism in foreign policy circles that real reform in the Muslim world cannot be imposed from the outside. But it is important to recognize why this is so—it is so because the Muslim world is utterly deranged by its religious tribalism. In confronting the religious literalism and ignorance of the Muslim world, we must appreciate how terrifyingly isolated Muslims have become in intellectual terms. The problem is especially acute in the Arab world. Consider: According to the United Nations’ Arab Human Development Reports, less than 2% of Arabs have access to the Internet. Arabs represent 5% of the world’s population and yet produce only 1% of the world’s books, most of them religious. In fact, Spain translates more books into Spanish each year than the entire Arab world has translated into Arabic since the ninth century.

Our press should report on the terrifying state of discourse in the Arab press, exposing the degree to which it is a tissue of lies, conspiracy theories and exhortations to recapture the glories of the seventh century. All civilized nations must unite in condemnation of a theology that now threatens to destabilize much of the Earth. Muslim moderates, wherever they are, must be given every tool necessary to win a war of ideas with their coreligionists. Otherwise, we will have to win some very terrible wars in the future. It is time we realized that the endgame for civilization is not political correctness. It is not respect for the abject religious certainties of the mob. It is reason.
 
 
adamsmithsghost
03 December 2006 @ 10:52 pm
Excerpts from "Who Says Money Can't Buy Happiness?" by Dwight Lee, Independent Review, Winter 2006:


Sensory Adaptation
. . . Another reason why (getting more of something you want) increases happiness only temporarily springs from our sensory adaptation to changing circumstances. It has long been observed that things people are at first intensely aware of soon blend into the background and go largely unnoticed. Our sensory receptors no longer respond to the continuous presence of this stimulus, whether an irritating one (for example, a noise, a foul odor, a flashing light, or the pressure from eyeglasses or hearing aids) or a pleasant one (for example, the sight of attractive and artfully arranged furniture, a beautiful view, or the coolness of an air-conditioned room on a hot day). More complicated stimuli, such as a new car or a new companion, which activate many of our sensory receptors in various ways that depend on a wide range of circumstances, resist sensory adaptation for a longer period, but they are not immune to it. Accord¬ing to psychologist Martin Seligman, “this process [of adaptation or habituation] is an inviolable neurological fact of life. Neurons are wired to respond to novel events, and not to fire if the events do not provide new information” (2002, 105). In other words, our sensory receptors are economizers, becoming activated only when new information becomes available. This process suggests that the higher income we are receiving and the new clothes, nicer car, and bigger house it allows us to purchase soon become old information, no longer able to activate our sensory awareness and keep us on an elevated level of happiness.


As Good as It Gets
. . . Nothing can increase happiness permanently. For example, few things should make people happier than a longer life. If I were informed today that my life expectancy had just increased by six years, I would surely experience a surge in happiness. Just as surely, however, my elevated happiness would not last long. After all, my additional life expectancy would bring me up only to the level of life expectancy for women, and happiness studies show that women are only slightly, if at all, happier than men. Women have adapted to the old news of their longer life expectancy, focusing their concerns on unsettled issues in their lives, and so would I. Consider anything we value and seek more of because we believe it will make us happy—sexual satisfaction, religious fulfillment, professional success, a loving family, good friends, robust health, more education, or better looks, to name just a few. Like more money, more of these things increases our happiness, but only temporarily. We soon adapt to them and soon take them for granted, and though they are important ingredients of a satisfying life, they lose their ability to boost our sense of happiness much, if at all, above the level we would experience with less of them once we had adapted to the loss.

. . . Achieving happiness is an ongoing project, not something that can be accomplished once and for all by earning more money, marrying the love of your life, having wonderful children, finishing a Ph.D., or receiving tenure at a prestigious university.

. . . It is in our nature that we adapt to improvements in our lives, whether those improvements arise from more money or other desirable things, so that the additional happiness they bring is temporary. This fact of life, however, is hardly reason for pessimism . . . There is much wisdom in the commonplace that the journey is more important than the destination. Human happiness comes from striving for improvements and from the sense of achievement gained by overcoming the challenges we face along the way . . . The happiness gained from struggle and achievement may be temporary, but fortunately our insatiable desire for more of life’s good things guarantees that new struggles and achievements are always available for replenishing our happiness.



Question from AdamSmithsGhost: Is there a difference between feeling happy in the sense that Lee describes here, and enjoying a life that is in general, a happy one? This brings in the concept of eudaimonia, fulfillment, "the good life," the inevitability of sadness, and many other issues.
 
 
adamsmithsghost
15 August 2006 @ 11:36 pm
"Randaphobia" has been posted by someone else on Wikipedia, and almost immediately has been targeted for deletion – properly so, since it violates several basic Wiki rules, in particular "neutral point of view." I was notified of the posting this morning, and could not help but to try to correct the deficiencies. Specifically, I added this preface:

' "Randaphobia" is a spoof psychological "affliction" invented by an Objectivist to describe unusually uncivil rhetoric and behavior that many Objectivists contend is often directed against them and Objectivism (the philosophy of Ayn Rand) by some opponents of the philosophy as a substitute for civil discourse. The definition was originally posted in the following form on Objectivist-oriented pages of popular blog sites in early 2006.'

Below is the current discussion on Wiki. I am not a Wiki person, and am learning as I go along. If any readers have Wiki experience and think Randaphobia is work defending, please feel free to jump in.

Prod tag disputed on talk page; Original research, non-notable neologism, (maybe WP:POINT too), 26 Google hits (on newsgroups and blogs). OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I believe this is Original research and thus merits deletion. --TheM62Manchester 21:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Made up at school one day. Though I am amazed that the article didn't find a way to link to Jimmy Wales. 205.157.110.11 22:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 23:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neoblogism. Gazpacho 01:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete because the "dumb" comment and the "made up in school one day" comment above (especially the first, which isn't even clever), may be examples of what this spoof "affliction" seeks to characterize. Adam smith's ghost
• Delete. Just some neologism invented by a Wikipedian. -- LGagnon 02:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neoblogism. Gazpacho 01:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete This is not a neologism. The term "Randaphobia" goes back at least to 2000, since it shows up with a slightly different spelling in this article: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38ae7a071e83.htm . Adam smith's ghost

Some related points from the Wiki policy pages:

In this situation, it may be tempting to illustrate a point using either parody or some form of breaching experiment. For example, the contributor may apply the decision to other issues in a way that mirrors the policy they object to. These activities are generally disruptive: i.e., they require the vast majority of nonpartisan editors to clean up after the "proof".

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.

Neutral Point of View (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, that is, they must represent views fairly and without bias. This includes maps, reader-facing templates, categories and portals. According to Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."
 
 
 
adamsmithsghost
15 August 2006 @ 11:20 pm
"Randaphobia" has been posted by someone else on Wikipedia, and almost immediately has been targeted for deletion – properly so, since it violates several basic Wiki rules, in particular "neutral point of view." I was notified of the posting this morning, and could not help but to try to correct the deficiencies. Specifically, I added this preface:

' "Randaphobia" is a spoof psychological "affliction" invented by an Objectivist to describe unusually uncivil rhetoric and behavior that many Objectivists contend is often directed against them and Objectivism (the philosophy of Ayn Rand) by some opponents of the philosophy as a substitute for civil discourse. The definition was originally posted in the following form on Objectivist-oriented pages of popular blog sites in early 2006.'

Below is the current discussion on Wiki. I am not a Wiki person, and am learning as I go along. If any readers have Wiki experience and think Randaphobia is work defending, please feel free to jump in.

Prod tag disputed on talk page; Original research, non-notable neologism, (maybe WP:POINT too), 26 Google hits (on newsgroups and blogs). OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I believe this is Original research and thus merits deletion. --TheM62Manchester 21:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Made up at school one day. Though I am amazed that the article didn't find a way to link to Jimmy Wales. 205.157.110.11 22:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 23:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neoblogism. Gazpacho 01:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete because the "dumb" comment and the "made up in school one day" comment above (especially the first, which isn't even clever), may be examples of what this spoof "affliction" seeks to characterize. Adam smith's ghost
• Delete. Just some neologism invented by a Wikipedian. -- LGagnon 02:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neoblogism. Gazpacho 01:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete This is not a neologism. The term "Randaphobia" goes back at least to 2000, since it shows up with a slightly different spelling in this article: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38ae7a071e83.htm . Adam smith's ghost

Some related points from the Wiki policy pages:

In this situation, it may be tempting to illustrate a point using either parody or some form of breaching experiment. For example, the contributor may apply the decision to other issues in a way that mirrors the policy they object to. These activities are generally disruptive: i.e., they require the vast majority of nonpartisan editors to clean up after the "proof".

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.

Neutral Point of View (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, that is, they must represent views fairly and without bias. This includes maps, reader-facing templates, categories and portals. According to Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." [1]
 
 
adamsmithsghost
06 August 2006 @ 12:53 pm
WSJ
Islam and Rape
August 3, 2006

Women who are raped can face legal difficulties anywhere in the world. And nowhere is that more true than in the Muslim world, where a few countries -- including Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan -- still incarcerate or execute raped women. Now Pakistan has a chance to set an example and change this despicable practice.

We're referring to "Hudood," a set of Quranic laws whose name is derived from "hud," meaning "punishment." While national versions differ, most Hudood laws legalize the prosecution of a woman for fornication if she cannot prove a crime was committed. In Pakistan, four Muslim men must have witnessed the event, and testify for the victim. If the woman can't produce those witnesses, she can be prosecuted for alleging a false crime. Penalties include stoning to death, lashing or prison.

Pakistan's Hudood laws were enacted under former President Zia ul-Haq in 1979, in his attempt to appease growing Islamist sentiment. In contrast to Indonesia and Malaysia, which have Hudood laws but essentially ignore them, Pakistan's laws have been enforced. Stoning and lashing are rare, but more than 2,000 Pakistani women now languish in jail, at last count, for Hudood violations.

Reforming Hudood is one of President Pervez Musharraf's most formidable challenges. Pakistan's hardline Islamic political parties, including the six-party religious opposition coalition that controls 60 of 342 seats in the National Assembly, are vehemently opposed to repeal or revisions to Hudood. Jamaat-e-Islami, the largest Islamist party in the coalition, has been particularly vocal.

A Muslim himself who sits atop a fragile political coalition, General Musharraf has already taken some action. Last month, he issued a decree that made 1,300 women awaiting trial on Hudood violations eligible for bail. To date, only about 300 have been released. This month the National Assembly is expected to review further amendments. The issue is so divisive that the law ministry won't publicly disclose details of the amendments, for fear the opposition will kill the proposal before it gets to parliament.

The government has a good case to press. According to official statistics, about 80% of the women currently in prison were convicted under Hudood laws. It's thought that thousands of rapes go unreported each year for fear of arrest or retribution. In March, 1,000 women demonstrated outside of parliament in Islamabad, demanding Hudood's repeal, while some 5,000 also rallied in Multan, a city in eastern Punjab. Among the latter rally's leaders was Mukthar Mai, who was gang-raped in 2002 by order of a village council as retribution for her 13-year-old brother's illicit affair with a woman of a higher caste. The event embarrassed Pakistan internationally and ignited a movement to repeal the law.

Mr. Musharraf must balance the wishes of Pakistan's hardline Islamic parties and the country's more moderate elements. Pakistan's nonreligious political parties command about 80% of the popular vote and represent a younger generation, who presumably are less concerned about punishments prescribed a thousand years ago than with democratic, fair policies. In revamping its Hudood laws, Pakistan has a chance to set an example for its Muslim peers.
 
 
adamsmithsghost
18 July 2006 @ 12:34 pm
I don't think I like this live journal place. I have witnessed some unbelievably malicious behavior here that clearly was motivated by no other desire than to hurt another individual. My limited experience of it suggests that LJ is a place where people lacking in wisdom but full of their own malicious cleverness tend to congregate. This may not be an accurate characterization because I really have spent very little time here, and there are certainly many exceptions to that. If it is accurate then I suppose the site serves some purpose in identifying such hurtful individuals, or at least concentrating them in one place that can be avoided. But it would not be a place where people of good will with good hearts should frequent.

Edited to add: The commenters below have restored my balance on this issue. Also, I did not post this as one of those passive-aggressive "Screw you guys - I'm going home" things, just as an observation.
 
 
adamsmithsghost
23 June 2006 @ 12:37 pm
This is copied and pasted from a website "FaithFreedom.org" (http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/MohammadAbdullah60416.htm). It appears to be a Muslim-bashing site and that's all I know, except that this post is very interesting and seems quite perceptive.


1984
By Mohammad Abdullah
2006/04/16
I recently got a bootlegged version of 1984 (we in Pakistan seem quite happy not paying for creative license), and I was dumbfounded by its symbolism. 1984 Oceania could be a stylized 2006 Pakistan , or Saudi Arabia , or Iran or … any other failed Muslim state. I wonder if Orwell had based his novel on Muslim thought. The allusion to communist East is clear yet his dystrophic message also clearly describes the effects of Islam on civil society. From the constant war mongering, the indoctrination of children, the “thought crime”, lack of freedom and innovation, the banal salutation of brother and sister all are terrifying reminders of a Mohammedan society. Yet not even Orwell could have thought up the insidious mind control that the pedophile Mohammad conjured up, in his sick demented state, as the cult of Islam.

Consider the following: in Oceania the population are constantly fed propaganda via loudspeakers and television sets (which they cannot turn off), they have to wake up early in the morning to exercise, watched through the TV sets by an instructor. Muhammad’s five times a day prayer was the basis of his mind control. The constant call to prayer is essential in:

1. getting the “faithful” together thereby infusing in them a sense of the collective

2. a chance for the preacher to exhort and inculcate the dogma of the cult of Muhammad 5 times a day, thereby ingraining in their psyche the falsehoods of his twisted mind.

3. a chance to spy on individuals who were not as enthusiastic as others. Even though this is more difficult nowadays, but you would be surprised at the knowledge, the local mullah retains of his neighborhood in Muslim societies.

As I saw Winston Smith (the main character in the movie) exercising in the early morning I was shocked that Muhammad (around AD 600) could have thought up the exercise regimen, which he associated with prayer, and the timings of these “prayers” to exert maximum mind-control. The first prayer of the day in Islam also starts at dawn. I wonder if the sleepy mind is more susceptible to propaganda at this early hour…

In Oceania they are constantly being reminded of their duty to the party, we in the Muslim world hear the call to prayer five times a day, our reminder of our duty to Muhammad’s “message”. Just like in Oceania Muslims refer to each other as Brothers and the women as their sisters (this also appears to be true of all cults that I know of). Just like in Oceania sex is considered a “bad thing” only fit for procreation. Just like in Oceania the core philosophy is based on conquering and conversion of the “other”. Just like in Oceania war is a constant.

In Islam the populace is given a heavy dose of “you are God’s chosen one” philosophy. This has the twin effect of making the “others” seem less than human and oneself in turn superior to the “others”. Heavenly rewards are offered for those who convert the “others”, and if someone strays away from the communal, he is a traitor worthy only of death. One of the principal tools in this indoctrination are the half truths. Since Muhammad was plagiarizing from existing faiths, he cleverly made up half-truths so that people could relate this new faith to their existing faiths yet he could differentiate it enough to start his own following, and so the story of Abrahams son’s, the fasting, Genesis and the numerous other half-truths. The dictionary of “new speak” and the “two minute hate” find loose parallels in the Muslim world. Thought is to be controlled, and ideas suppressed. To question is death.

The control of the Mohammedan cult is quite impressive. Muhammad’s ridiculous ideology taps into our most basic of fears, the fear of the unknown, and provides the comfort and succor that billions of feeble-minded individuals long for. It is surprising that even in this age of reason and rational thought Muslims would cling to their flawed faith with such a fanatical zeal. Yet this is a death embrace. It drags the individual and their societies farther and farther down into the Dark Age rot that we see today as the Muslim world. Free thought and ideas are stifled, the arts, sciences, culture are all subject to censure. Without the free flow of ideas, societies suffocate and they can neither imagine nor create. Images of dirty broken streets and electricity cuts in the movie exactly mirror our daily existence in these Muslim hellholes.

Interaction between the sexes is banned and results in a culturally repressed individual who is immature at his best, incapable of experiencing the finer pleasures of life. He lives in a subjugated existence, incapable of being creative, incapable of being productive, incapable of reasoning, incapable of questioning.

In 1984 Winston writes in his diary “To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free, when men are different from one another and do not live alone -- to a time when truth exists and what is done cannot be undone: From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink -- greetings!” Replace the blue overalls for the beards and the dress sense of Muhammad, replace the rigidity of action by the imitation of Muhammad and we have our own dystopia. The last entry Winston writes in his diary is that “freedom is to say that two and two makes four. If this is granted everything else follows”. At least Winston could dream of a future that could be better, I look around at the madness of my fellow citizens and I cannot.

Here is my fear. In this Golden age, interaction with these decaying Muslim societies will despoil those fragile civilizations that have fought for freedom of thought and justice, who have built, created, and progressed technologically. These decrepit Muslim societies could drag us all down into the Middle Ages, their perverted thoughts corrupting the sane. The savagery of Islam will destroy the delicate social balance that is required for justice, deliberation, tolerance and mutual respect. Only the intangible “frame of mind” separates the prosperous west from the rotting Muslim east. As interaction with the Muslims increase will draconian “Patriot Acts” proliferate, how can these advanced societies deal with the crass Mohammedans living amidst them? If they sacrifice those tenets that they hold dear, like Freedom of Religion thought and expression will it not be the beginning of the end. Yet how else can one deal with a totalitarian system like Islam?

This I know as true. There is an evil philosophy in this world, it must be fought…

… its name is Islam
 
 
adamsmithsghost
SPIEGEL INTERVIEW WITH AFRICAN ECONOMICS EXPERT

"For God's Sake, Please Stop the Aid!"

The Kenyan economics expert James Shikwati, 35, says that aid to Africa does more harm than good. The avid proponent of globalization spoke with SPIEGEL about the disastrous effects of Western development policy in Africa, corrupt rulers, and the tendency to overstate the AIDS problem.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html