Recently some idiotic politician in Washington State elected to ban Easter, Easter Eggs, and the Easter Bunny on the basis of “separation of Church and State”. It isn’t enough that the Constitution doesn’t actually state that there should be such a separation but that it merely precludes the government from establishing a state religion. But the complete ignorance of this politician regarding the origin of many of our holidays is truly breathtaking. Easter is word derived from ancient Persian for the goddess Ishtar (Aphrodite, Isis, Venus) who is the goddess of fertility. The Egg and the Rabbit are symbols of fertility as well.
The Jews celebrate Passover at Easter Time and the Christians celebrate the resurrection of Jesus and neither of these are relatively serious if not downright grim. Those Pagans however, were celebrating Spring and the rebirth of nature at roughly the same time, so those clever early Christians who were desperately trying to sell their religion to those fun loving Pagans simply tacked the resurrection to the Pagan Holiday. The result of this gives us the rather weird combination of Jesus, Passover, and Easter Eggs which are laid by the Easter Bunny. Then of course we have Christmas which is celebrated as the birth of Jesus, who was born during the summer, but those fun loving pagans in Rome celebrated the Saturnalia starting December 25th so once again the Christians tacked Jesus on to a Pagan Festival that everyone loved, once again making Christianity very marketable. Then we have Mayday where all of those young virgins dance around the May Pole (I leave the symbolism of THAT to you).
The point is that Christianity seems to incorporate some things which are not truly Christian in origin but nevertheless are viewed as Christian. Well it seems that Islam also includes some things not originally included in Islam and one of these is the veil or Burqua. This is not included in the Qur’an which only admonishes women to cover their bosom, but it comes from Zoroastrianism and was later adopted by the Persians. It is not Islamic in origin and many Muslim women do not practice it. However, a woman is suing the government because a Judge dismissed her case because she had her face completely covered with her Burqua. The basis of her suit is that this was a violation of her freedom of religion. Then we see Christian women being forced to cover their heads “as required by Islam” when in fact no such requirement exists within the Qur’an. This is tantamount to suing the government to restore the Easter Bunny because it is Christian. Jesus and Mohammed both must be shaking their heads.
Then we have the issue of circumcision. The Jews and the Muslims, practice circumcision, but the (European) Christians do not. However, it is common in many primitive societies to circumcise boys as a coming of age ceremony. The ancient Egyptians practiced circumcision as a coming of age ceremony usually about the age of 14. Undoubtedly this practice was adopted by the Jews and later by the Muslims. However, circumcision is directed in the Old Testament (Genesis 17:10-14) but is not mentioned in the Qur’an, yet Muslims practice circumcision as a coming of age ceremony. So this is another example of a Pagan practice being incorporated into a religious practice.
The real point here is that no organized religion is totally pure but it incorporates things from outside the original religious teachings. Christianity has gone through a reformation and the result has been many variations of Christianity. Based on these variations, Christendom has established the concept of “Freedom of Religion” and this permits anyone to worship (or not worship) God(s) in any way they choose. It is worth noting that this concept of religious freedom does not exist in Islam. In Saudi Arabia it is a serious crime to even own a Bible and a capital crime to proselytize. Islamic countries do not permit most of the freedoms associated with a free society. In fact it is virtually impossible to separate Islam from the government in most Islamic countries because the concept of a separation between the state and religion doesn’t exist. This makes the lawsuit regarding the wearing of the Burqua supremely ironic because it is driven by a woman who would deny freedom of religion to others while demanding it for herself. If it was a Christian woman in an Islamic Country she would be forbidden to wear a Crucifix while being required to wear a veil even though it was against her religion. Toleration is not a hallmark of Islam.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Another Experiment in Socialism Gone Awry
It is truly amazing how the socialists in the world fail to get the message that it doesn’t work. Our Universities and the Educational community in general continue to be filled with these people who feel capitalism is evil and that socialism is the only “fair” way to run a government. Of course it goes unsaid that they should be the ones to run the government because the rest of us are too stupid to make the right decisions. Even in those European countries where socialism is entrenched the best they have been able to achieve is a level of mediocrity, where no one is terribly rich, no one terribly poor, and many who simply give up and live parasitic lives without working. If it wasn’t for the leadership of the United States most of Europe would simply collapse. But that really isn’t the issue. The issue today is Venezuela, a once prosperous country rich in oil revenues but suffering from the usual Latin America malaise of few members in the middle class, too many ignorant and uneducated peasants, and too little reinvestment in the country.
What we find today in Venezuela is Hugo Chavez doing what dictators and communists have done forever and that is promise something for nothing to the masses and then find a scapegoat to blame for the failures that inevitably follow from socialist policies. Since Chavez gained power the economy of Venezuela has slipped into decline and is growing worse day by day. At first glance this deterioration may not be obvious because the streets are filled with vendors hawking their wares and shouting out prices. These vendors are selling virtually everything and from the sheer number it would appear that the economy is in good shape and that the people are prosperous and doing well. But this appearance is deceiving because the supermarkets where one would ordinarily buy vegetables and other staples are virtually bare. But why is this happening when the whole objective of socialism / communism is to share the riches with everyone. The objective is to take from those that have and give to those who have not so why are goods becoming scarce?
Obviously the answer to this question is complicated but it starts with some of the fundamentals of socialism / communism. In capitalism the objective of any enterprise is profit and if the profits are not forthcoming the business goes out of business. In socialism and in Venezuela the Chavez form of Socialism is more nearly akin to communism the objective is employment and any profits from the enterprise are taken by the state and redistributed into other endeavors that are not making a profit. The inevitable result of this policy is that eventually there are no profits being generated by any enterprise. But the more direct impact of government control of the economy is the policy of price control. This failed in ancient Rome and it has failed in every instance where it has been tried and it is failing in Venezuela. As soon as the government fixes the price at which a product can be sold it immediately drives that product out of the marketplace because the product can be sold at a higher price on the black market. Punishment of black marketeers increases the scarcity and drives the prices even higher. In Venezuela the government allows these individual entrepreneurs to exist, which is why the street vendors are selling vegetables on the street but the shelves in the markets are bare.
Regimes like Chavez’s drive away business from outsiders and cause investors internally to flee the country taking their wealth with them. This has historically been the problem in Latin America as one dictator after another seizes power the wealthy move their wealth to other countries and the new regime falters and fails to be replaced by other and the pattern repeats itself. Dictatorships are inherently unstable and eventually fail. Communist states follow the same pattern for much the same reason – any prudent person will not stand by and allow the fruits of his labor to be seized by the government and redistributed to the unproductive.
There is a lesson here for America’s leftists and the extreme positions held by many in the Democratic Party. Raising taxes is simply a legal way of taking the profits from the productive and giving them to the unproductive. This is what Chavez is doing in Venezuela and his strength comes from the unemployed, the disenfranchised, and the poor. The power base of Pelosi and the extreme left increasingly rests on the illegal immigrants, the poor, and the unproductive.
But the real warning is that Hugo Chavez is a “democratically elected” leader who seems to have convinced the American left that he is not only a popularly elected leader but that he represents the future of Latin America. Of course this was the position these same leftists took with Fidel Castro and we see how well that worked but the situation in Venezuela may actually be worse because Chavez like dictators before him is using the US as a scapegoat to distract the people from the evident failures of his regime. This is the same technique being used by Kim Jong Il in North Korea, the Mullahs in Iran, the Islamofascists all over the world, and the list goes on and on. However, unlike the others Chavez appears to be trying to provoke the US into some sort of retaliation or military intervention. The recent capture of the British Soldiers is an example of this attempt to provoke an attack by the Iranians. Chavez needs something similar to consolidate his grip on the country because his seizure of private property and obvious drift toward a fascist communist state is rapidly eroding his power.
The leftists in this country and worldwide continue to view the US as the oppressor of the weak, especially Cuba and other communist countries like North Korea. Chavez is relying on this attitude and the fact that the US is distracted by the Islamofascists, which gives him the opportunity to establish himself as the first Communist in South America. He doesn’t represent a significant problem yet but he is not someone to be ignored for long.
What we find today in Venezuela is Hugo Chavez doing what dictators and communists have done forever and that is promise something for nothing to the masses and then find a scapegoat to blame for the failures that inevitably follow from socialist policies. Since Chavez gained power the economy of Venezuela has slipped into decline and is growing worse day by day. At first glance this deterioration may not be obvious because the streets are filled with vendors hawking their wares and shouting out prices. These vendors are selling virtually everything and from the sheer number it would appear that the economy is in good shape and that the people are prosperous and doing well. But this appearance is deceiving because the supermarkets where one would ordinarily buy vegetables and other staples are virtually bare. But why is this happening when the whole objective of socialism / communism is to share the riches with everyone. The objective is to take from those that have and give to those who have not so why are goods becoming scarce?
Obviously the answer to this question is complicated but it starts with some of the fundamentals of socialism / communism. In capitalism the objective of any enterprise is profit and if the profits are not forthcoming the business goes out of business. In socialism and in Venezuela the Chavez form of Socialism is more nearly akin to communism the objective is employment and any profits from the enterprise are taken by the state and redistributed into other endeavors that are not making a profit. The inevitable result of this policy is that eventually there are no profits being generated by any enterprise. But the more direct impact of government control of the economy is the policy of price control. This failed in ancient Rome and it has failed in every instance where it has been tried and it is failing in Venezuela. As soon as the government fixes the price at which a product can be sold it immediately drives that product out of the marketplace because the product can be sold at a higher price on the black market. Punishment of black marketeers increases the scarcity and drives the prices even higher. In Venezuela the government allows these individual entrepreneurs to exist, which is why the street vendors are selling vegetables on the street but the shelves in the markets are bare.
Regimes like Chavez’s drive away business from outsiders and cause investors internally to flee the country taking their wealth with them. This has historically been the problem in Latin America as one dictator after another seizes power the wealthy move their wealth to other countries and the new regime falters and fails to be replaced by other and the pattern repeats itself. Dictatorships are inherently unstable and eventually fail. Communist states follow the same pattern for much the same reason – any prudent person will not stand by and allow the fruits of his labor to be seized by the government and redistributed to the unproductive.
There is a lesson here for America’s leftists and the extreme positions held by many in the Democratic Party. Raising taxes is simply a legal way of taking the profits from the productive and giving them to the unproductive. This is what Chavez is doing in Venezuela and his strength comes from the unemployed, the disenfranchised, and the poor. The power base of Pelosi and the extreme left increasingly rests on the illegal immigrants, the poor, and the unproductive.
But the real warning is that Hugo Chavez is a “democratically elected” leader who seems to have convinced the American left that he is not only a popularly elected leader but that he represents the future of Latin America. Of course this was the position these same leftists took with Fidel Castro and we see how well that worked but the situation in Venezuela may actually be worse because Chavez like dictators before him is using the US as a scapegoat to distract the people from the evident failures of his regime. This is the same technique being used by Kim Jong Il in North Korea, the Mullahs in Iran, the Islamofascists all over the world, and the list goes on and on. However, unlike the others Chavez appears to be trying to provoke the US into some sort of retaliation or military intervention. The recent capture of the British Soldiers is an example of this attempt to provoke an attack by the Iranians. Chavez needs something similar to consolidate his grip on the country because his seizure of private property and obvious drift toward a fascist communist state is rapidly eroding his power.
The leftists in this country and worldwide continue to view the US as the oppressor of the weak, especially Cuba and other communist countries like North Korea. Chavez is relying on this attitude and the fact that the US is distracted by the Islamofascists, which gives him the opportunity to establish himself as the first Communist in South America. He doesn’t represent a significant problem yet but he is not someone to be ignored for long.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Remarks about A global intelligence briefing for ceo's
Apparently Herbert Meyer, a former member of the Reagan Administration, gave a speech in Seattle to a group of CEO’s which is getting a lot of attention. This is a very interesting speech and is an interesting strategic assessment of the world today, but this is an assessment provided by an intelligence officer and not a businessman. Consequently while his views are essentially sound they are not totally accurate because he simply does not have the business knowledge or experience to put some of these things into perspective.
Essentially Mr. Meyer addresses four major transformations and their impact that are shaping the political and economic events of the world today. These transformations are:
1. The War in Iraq
2 The Emergence of China
3 The Shifting Demographics of Western Civilization
4 The Restructuring of American Business
THE WAR IN IRAQ
This is perhaps the most misunderstood of these four transforming events. The Islamofascists have declared war on the West and this war is not limited to Iraq. However, the reality is that Islam is at war with itself as the radical Muslims are attacking other Muslims with growing violence. The reality is that Islam is under going its long delayed reformation with the violence that characterized the Christian Reformation. Unfortunately the Western powers are caught in the middle of this because the radicals are using America as the scapegoat for the failure of the Islamic governments.
This internal struggle between the Radical Muslims and the mainstream Muslims is global in nature and poses a real threat to Western Civilization especially with regard to Iran. The Iranian Mullahs have a tiger by the tail and are desperately holding on. Iran is an ancient culture and not Arabic. The Iranians look down on the Arabs as goat herders and lacking in the cultural refinement of Persia. The modern Iran is Islamic but has a very young population that is essentially pro-Western. This does not mean “pro-America” but it does mean pro- technology, and pro-freedom. The Iranian young are chafing under the puritanical and restrictive policies of the Mullahs.
The Mullahs are doing everything they can to force Israel or America into a military confrontation. The purpose of this would be to unify the country against a common enemy which would allow them to regain control. Iran represents an even greater threat to America and the West than Iraq or Afghanistan.
THE EMERGENCE OF CHINA
China is actually becoming Imperial China with different names. There is no doubt but that it is a powder keg politically. Capitalism is creeping across China and ultimately it will topple the communist structure – maybe not the government but certainly the structure. Socialism’s objective is “employment” not efficiency or profit. This allows the Chinese to effectively compete through their subsidized industry but if the human rights activists and those who oppose the balance of trade policies with China succeed in restricting the trade with China then this destabilization to America and China could easily happen.
This is something that the politicians don’t want to hear, but the reality is that the world demand for oil is outstripping the supply – primarily because of the Chinese demand. As China loosens the restrictions on business they are becoming more and more capitalistic and this change is causing their economy to boom. The average Chinese has given up his bicycle in favor of a car – many of these built in China. The favorite pass time of the liberal establishment is to condemn the oil companies and their “obscene” profits. But the reality is that there is a big difference between revenues and profits. Hillary Clinton has actually said her objective is to take the profits from the oil companies. As the demand for oil goes up the price goes up and as the price goes up the profits go up, but so do the costs. The good news is that the higher pump prices make mining our oil shale economically feasible.
The Chinese have a huge military and will undoubtedly build their navy but challenging the American Navy for supremacy of the seas is probably not realistic – at least not in the near term. The Chinese are an interesting people but they have never been expansionists.
THE SHIFTING DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE WEST
There is little doubt but Europe will fall to the Muslims because the Europeans cannot stop the immigration or the growth of the Muslims already there. The Europeans have never learned to assimilate outsiders, which has given rise to anti-Semitism throughout their history. Now that they are faced with this huge influx of Muslims they refuse to allow them in and this is leading to a very explosive situation. It is already beyond their control.
Europe is lost – France and Germany are declining into irrelevance and are being taken over by Islam. I expect by 2050 Western Europe will be Islamic. The Europeans are abandoning Christianity and are so self absorbed that they don’t care what happens as long as they can continue their life of laziness. Their productivity is declining, their taxes are increasing, their unemployment is high but their programs for the unemployed are generous, which encourages idleness and creates an unstable underclass. They refuse to assimilate the Islamic immigrants and this is greatly increasing this instability. They have reduced their military to the point that it is practically non-existent. They rely entirely on NATO – meaning the US – to defend them. However the threat to them is internal and civil war in France is a distinct possibility.
Actually the population of the US has continued to increase, the longevity continues to increase, the productivity per capita continues to increase, and the tax relief has increased. Large families are simply not economically feasible and probably not necessary. It is true that the ethnic mix is changing and it is less white than it used to be but I’m not sure I understand Meyer’s point regarding the economic impact on our society since he fails to acknowledge our growing productivity and booming economy.
Mr. Meyer expresses great concern over social security and the healthcare demands in the US. There is no doubt that the healthcare system needs overhauling and it is only a matter of time before this is done. The Social Security System will not go away and it could easily be funded through the elimination of pork barrel projects. The housing market has already been seen as a problem as the costs have reached unreasonable levels. Million dollar homes are commonplace just as foreclosures. I anticipate the housing market will continue a slow decline over the next several years. I think the impact will be mostly in large urban areas because retirees will move and virtual employment will become more commonplace, which will allow workers to live anywhere.
Japan is not really a Western Society but it is certainly a member of the Industrialized World. There is no doubt but that the Japanese have significant problems that are economic in their root cause. They use a central planning approach and this in concert with their cultural sense of face and pride has left their economy in a shambles. In order to get out of this funk they would have to open their doors to competition and to force their banks to write off their bad investments. Culturally and politically they cannot bring themselves to do this so things continue to decline. Where will it end? Who knows but I think Meyer’s assessment is more extreme than the reality.
THE RESTRUCTURING OF AMERICAN BUSINESS
I think Meyer’s view is the view of a non-business person – not inaccurate but not totally accurate either. Companies are increasingly seeing the advantages of “work from home” jobs. This allows one or both parents to work from their home office (I have done this since 1995) and this home office can be in Moose Jaw as well as Los Angeles. People will live where they want and many will opt for small towns with low costs and high quality living. This model is driving up our productivity while reducing our costs. Plus mundane jobs are being shipped overseas. American technology is driving our productivity and it is making our companies more flexible and reactive. No other country in the world approaches us in this regard. So yes, American business continues to morph into a completely new model far in advance of the rest of the world. While companies shrink in size they increase in scope, productivity, and profitability.
Certainly China represents a potential threat to America both economically and militarily .America is probably the most reluctant military power in the world but we are also the most warlike people. The Chinese have a huge army and it is growing in strength. It is possible that they could challenge us militarily but the Chinese have historically not been an expansionist power. As long as we command the seas this is probably not an issue. Economically China is very dependent on the US because we are their principal business partner. This symbiotic relationship will probably continue for the foreseeable future.
Our Judeo-Christian culture is really the crux of the issue. If we allow our work ethic to erode and become self-absorbed hedonists like the Europeans we are doomed. If we give up our Christian culture we are doomed. So far we have resisted this erosion but with the influx of people from socialistic countries (e.g. Latin America) they expect our government to take care of them like they were used to in their countries. Politicians like Nancy Pelosi and others from states with high immigrant populations play on this expectation in order to remain in power. They are the real threat as they focus on their personal power at the expense of the country as a whole.
Mr Meyer's speech can be viewed at the following address
Live Search: A global intelligence briefing for ceo's
Essentially Mr. Meyer addresses four major transformations and their impact that are shaping the political and economic events of the world today. These transformations are:
1. The War in Iraq
2 The Emergence of China
3 The Shifting Demographics of Western Civilization
4 The Restructuring of American Business
THE WAR IN IRAQ
This is perhaps the most misunderstood of these four transforming events. The Islamofascists have declared war on the West and this war is not limited to Iraq. However, the reality is that Islam is at war with itself as the radical Muslims are attacking other Muslims with growing violence. The reality is that Islam is under going its long delayed reformation with the violence that characterized the Christian Reformation. Unfortunately the Western powers are caught in the middle of this because the radicals are using America as the scapegoat for the failure of the Islamic governments.
This internal struggle between the Radical Muslims and the mainstream Muslims is global in nature and poses a real threat to Western Civilization especially with regard to Iran. The Iranian Mullahs have a tiger by the tail and are desperately holding on. Iran is an ancient culture and not Arabic. The Iranians look down on the Arabs as goat herders and lacking in the cultural refinement of Persia. The modern Iran is Islamic but has a very young population that is essentially pro-Western. This does not mean “pro-America” but it does mean pro- technology, and pro-freedom. The Iranian young are chafing under the puritanical and restrictive policies of the Mullahs.
The Mullahs are doing everything they can to force Israel or America into a military confrontation. The purpose of this would be to unify the country against a common enemy which would allow them to regain control. Iran represents an even greater threat to America and the West than Iraq or Afghanistan.
THE EMERGENCE OF CHINA
China is actually becoming Imperial China with different names. There is no doubt but that it is a powder keg politically. Capitalism is creeping across China and ultimately it will topple the communist structure – maybe not the government but certainly the structure. Socialism’s objective is “employment” not efficiency or profit. This allows the Chinese to effectively compete through their subsidized industry but if the human rights activists and those who oppose the balance of trade policies with China succeed in restricting the trade with China then this destabilization to America and China could easily happen.
This is something that the politicians don’t want to hear, but the reality is that the world demand for oil is outstripping the supply – primarily because of the Chinese demand. As China loosens the restrictions on business they are becoming more and more capitalistic and this change is causing their economy to boom. The average Chinese has given up his bicycle in favor of a car – many of these built in China. The favorite pass time of the liberal establishment is to condemn the oil companies and their “obscene” profits. But the reality is that there is a big difference between revenues and profits. Hillary Clinton has actually said her objective is to take the profits from the oil companies. As the demand for oil goes up the price goes up and as the price goes up the profits go up, but so do the costs. The good news is that the higher pump prices make mining our oil shale economically feasible.
The Chinese have a huge military and will undoubtedly build their navy but challenging the American Navy for supremacy of the seas is probably not realistic – at least not in the near term. The Chinese are an interesting people but they have never been expansionists.
THE SHIFTING DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE WEST
There is little doubt but Europe will fall to the Muslims because the Europeans cannot stop the immigration or the growth of the Muslims already there. The Europeans have never learned to assimilate outsiders, which has given rise to anti-Semitism throughout their history. Now that they are faced with this huge influx of Muslims they refuse to allow them in and this is leading to a very explosive situation. It is already beyond their control.
Europe is lost – France and Germany are declining into irrelevance and are being taken over by Islam. I expect by 2050 Western Europe will be Islamic. The Europeans are abandoning Christianity and are so self absorbed that they don’t care what happens as long as they can continue their life of laziness. Their productivity is declining, their taxes are increasing, their unemployment is high but their programs for the unemployed are generous, which encourages idleness and creates an unstable underclass. They refuse to assimilate the Islamic immigrants and this is greatly increasing this instability. They have reduced their military to the point that it is practically non-existent. They rely entirely on NATO – meaning the US – to defend them. However the threat to them is internal and civil war in France is a distinct possibility.
Actually the population of the US has continued to increase, the longevity continues to increase, the productivity per capita continues to increase, and the tax relief has increased. Large families are simply not economically feasible and probably not necessary. It is true that the ethnic mix is changing and it is less white than it used to be but I’m not sure I understand Meyer’s point regarding the economic impact on our society since he fails to acknowledge our growing productivity and booming economy.
Mr. Meyer expresses great concern over social security and the healthcare demands in the US. There is no doubt that the healthcare system needs overhauling and it is only a matter of time before this is done. The Social Security System will not go away and it could easily be funded through the elimination of pork barrel projects. The housing market has already been seen as a problem as the costs have reached unreasonable levels. Million dollar homes are commonplace just as foreclosures. I anticipate the housing market will continue a slow decline over the next several years. I think the impact will be mostly in large urban areas because retirees will move and virtual employment will become more commonplace, which will allow workers to live anywhere.
Japan is not really a Western Society but it is certainly a member of the Industrialized World. There is no doubt but that the Japanese have significant problems that are economic in their root cause. They use a central planning approach and this in concert with their cultural sense of face and pride has left their economy in a shambles. In order to get out of this funk they would have to open their doors to competition and to force their banks to write off their bad investments. Culturally and politically they cannot bring themselves to do this so things continue to decline. Where will it end? Who knows but I think Meyer’s assessment is more extreme than the reality.
THE RESTRUCTURING OF AMERICAN BUSINESS
I think Meyer’s view is the view of a non-business person – not inaccurate but not totally accurate either. Companies are increasingly seeing the advantages of “work from home” jobs. This allows one or both parents to work from their home office (I have done this since 1995) and this home office can be in Moose Jaw as well as Los Angeles. People will live where they want and many will opt for small towns with low costs and high quality living. This model is driving up our productivity while reducing our costs. Plus mundane jobs are being shipped overseas. American technology is driving our productivity and it is making our companies more flexible and reactive. No other country in the world approaches us in this regard. So yes, American business continues to morph into a completely new model far in advance of the rest of the world. While companies shrink in size they increase in scope, productivity, and profitability.
Certainly China represents a potential threat to America both economically and militarily .America is probably the most reluctant military power in the world but we are also the most warlike people. The Chinese have a huge army and it is growing in strength. It is possible that they could challenge us militarily but the Chinese have historically not been an expansionist power. As long as we command the seas this is probably not an issue. Economically China is very dependent on the US because we are their principal business partner. This symbiotic relationship will probably continue for the foreseeable future.
Our Judeo-Christian culture is really the crux of the issue. If we allow our work ethic to erode and become self-absorbed hedonists like the Europeans we are doomed. If we give up our Christian culture we are doomed. So far we have resisted this erosion but with the influx of people from socialistic countries (e.g. Latin America) they expect our government to take care of them like they were used to in their countries. Politicians like Nancy Pelosi and others from states with high immigrant populations play on this expectation in order to remain in power. They are the real threat as they focus on their personal power at the expense of the country as a whole.
Mr Meyer's speech can be viewed at the following address
Live Search: A global intelligence briefing for ceo's
Live Search: global warming, rebuttal
The battle over Global Warming rages on but with little input from any scientist and certainly no scientist who disputes the entire concept. The reality is that much like the Rachel Carson "Silent Spring" hoax Global Warming is shaping up to be another. The famed "hockey stick" graph that purports to show the rapid grow in warming over the last century seems to be "a misinterpretation" of the data. Using the data used in creating the "hockey stick" graph other scientists were unable to get the same result. It is clear that during the Mesozoic the average temperature was 6 degrees warmer than today. The same is true during the middle ages when the average temperature was warmer than today.
The reality seems to be that Al Gore, the extreme left, and the usual gaggle of "environmentalists" are dtermined to implement the Kyoto Treaty without going through the process of getting approval. Instead they intend to panic the media and the uneducated (if hat isn't a redundancy) into demanding draconian action against the industrialized world and America in particular. They wish to reduce carbon emissions and Gore (the man who invented the internet) and that tower of intellectual strength HRH Prince Charles, are on a crusade to reduce the "carbon footprint" of mankind.
It probably comes as a shock to Gore and the Prince but virtually every living thing on the planet is carbon based. The atmosphere is composed primarily of Oxygen, Nitrogen, and several other gases including CO2. Of course carbon dioxide is actually carbon and oxygen twso of the most plentiful elements on Earth. The Encyclopedia Brintannica states that Earth's Atmoshere includes .03% of CO2. Of this small amount 57% comes from evaporation from the oceans, 38% comes from animals and rotting vegetation, and the remaining 5% comes from mankind. So of the .03% of the CO2 in the atmosphere .0015% comes from mankind.
Of course the argument then becomes that it isn't about the AMOUNT but about the LAYER of CO2 that traps the heat on the Earth. But then the reflective nature of this layer is ignored just as all other evidence to the contrary of the popular (but unscientific) view of Global Warming.
Live Search: global warming, rebuttal
The reality seems to be that Al Gore, the extreme left, and the usual gaggle of "environmentalists" are dtermined to implement the Kyoto Treaty without going through the process of getting approval. Instead they intend to panic the media and the uneducated (if hat isn't a redundancy) into demanding draconian action against the industrialized world and America in particular. They wish to reduce carbon emissions and Gore (the man who invented the internet) and that tower of intellectual strength HRH Prince Charles, are on a crusade to reduce the "carbon footprint" of mankind.
It probably comes as a shock to Gore and the Prince but virtually every living thing on the planet is carbon based. The atmosphere is composed primarily of Oxygen, Nitrogen, and several other gases including CO2. Of course carbon dioxide is actually carbon and oxygen twso of the most plentiful elements on Earth. The Encyclopedia Brintannica states that Earth's Atmoshere includes .03% of CO2. Of this small amount 57% comes from evaporation from the oceans, 38% comes from animals and rotting vegetation, and the remaining 5% comes from mankind. So of the .03% of the CO2 in the atmosphere .0015% comes from mankind.
Of course the argument then becomes that it isn't about the AMOUNT but about the LAYER of CO2 that traps the heat on the Earth. But then the reflective nature of this layer is ignored just as all other evidence to the contrary of the popular (but unscientific) view of Global Warming.
Live Search: global warming, rebuttal
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Comment
I added a counter to this page today. Generally this blog has been widely unread although the profile shows 227 views but I suspect 220 of those are due to my fiddling.
Royce
Royce
Sunday, March 18, 2007
The Battle of Thermopylae
The recent movie “300” is generating a lot of money – mostly from the young male audience world wide – those who read comic books rather than anything resembling a real book. This movie has also gotten the Iranians (Persians) all stirred up because of its portrayal of Persians as some sort of monstrous, androgynous, barbarians. But the real issue here is the impact this sort of movie has overall on history.
This movie purports to show the Battle of Thermopylae which was fought in August 480 BC between the Persians under King Xerxes and the Spartans led by King Leonidas. This was a bloody battle where the Greeks lost a total of approximately 1400 people including all 300 of the Spartans to the Persians suffered losses of approximately 20,000. The Persians heavily outnumbered the Greeks but Leonidas had selected the narrow defile at Thermopylae which was only 50 feet wide as the place of battle. This allowed his Spartans standing shoulder to shoulder to fend off an army of approximately 150,000. On the third day a shepherd showed a secret pass to the Persians allowing them to flank the Spartans. The Spartans continued to fight a rear guard action allowing the Greek Army to escape. The Persians simply stood back and killed the Spartans in a hail of arrows. These are the essential facts of this battle.
My concern is that in reading various versions of this battle I discover that the details of the battle can vary and in some cases dramatically. For example in some versions Leonidas is killed on the first day and a substantial battle rages over his body with the Greeks eventually capturing it. In another version Leonidas is killed on the third day and the remaining Greeks protect his body. This is actually a small point but if Leonidas was killed on the first day then the Spartans fought leaderless for the remaining two days. Again a small point but without Leonidas who made the decision to stay as a rear guard and order the Army to retreat?
In some versions the Greeks built a wall and fought in front of this wall. Of course this was a mountainous defile so where did this wall come from? In one version this wall was built with the bodies of the Persians, which is quite plausible given that the Persians lost a total of 20,000 men. Fighting in front of a wall constructed completely of corpses would certainly have a psychological impact and this is probably the reality. Some maintain that these bodies were buried by Xerxes to avoid having his troops march by thousands of dead troops, but again this was a mountain pass so where could these corpses have been buried? Were they burned?
Then we have the Immortals, the crack troops of the Persian Army and the personal body guard of Xerxes. In the movie these troops are shown with dramatic silver masks – dramatic but not very practical. In some historical versions these troops were indeed masked but with a gauze like material that did not obscure their vision. In earlier versions no reference is made to the Immortals being masked. So which is it? Masked or unmasked? Does it matter?
Then there is the final day and how it was conducted. Xerxes sent 10,000 troops over the pass to outflank the Greeks who are still in the narrow defile and actually number slightly more than a thousand men. While the odds are overwhelming and the outcome foregone, the reality is that the Greeks could still have fought the Persians to a standstill because the terrain was still in their favor even if the numbers were not. However, the final battle was short lived but in one version the Greeks fought the Persians face to face. Their spears were broken, many had no swords and the fighting was hand to hand. This would only have occurred had the Spartan Phalanx broken but how did that happen? Was it because Leonidas was dead and there was no one in command? In another version the Spartans retreated to a hillock and formed up to fight but Xerxes had his archers simply kill them off and there was no face to face battle. This version is less dramatic but would certainly explain why the third day of battle was relatively short.
The movie provides a very distorted view of this battle, which is not surprising since it is based on a comic book. But for many young people this is the only view they will ever see or read about of this battle. If this is the only view they ever have over time it could easily replace the historical facts. The only point here is that it is easy to see how a historical event like the Battle of Thermopylae, which was described shortly after it was fought can be distorted into something quite different from the reality. The story of the battle rests on variable descriptions based on memories, that morph into legends, and ultimately become myth. Of course the movie is simply one of those versions but what of other legends -- how real are they?
We have Jason and the Argonauts which is considered to be a legend, but there is evidence that real gold in collected in sheep hides. This gives credibility to Jason and the Golden Fleece so is the legend of Jason fact or fiction? The Trojan War was considered to be a poem and nothing more until the location of Troy was discovered. So if Troy was a real place was there a Trojan War as described by Homer? Was there an actual Achilles, Hector, Paris, Helen, and the whole roster of people found in the Illiad? What about the almost universal view of Dragons? Did these exist? Were these dragons dinosaurs and are described as Dragons? If so then this means the paleontologists view is wrong and dinosaurs and man co-existed at some point. The world is filled with legends and myths so it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, but based on a historical battle that was documented at the time, it is easy to see how in the course of 2500 years this actual event can fade into legend and then into myth – so what else has this happened to?
This movie purports to show the Battle of Thermopylae which was fought in August 480 BC between the Persians under King Xerxes and the Spartans led by King Leonidas. This was a bloody battle where the Greeks lost a total of approximately 1400 people including all 300 of the Spartans to the Persians suffered losses of approximately 20,000. The Persians heavily outnumbered the Greeks but Leonidas had selected the narrow defile at Thermopylae which was only 50 feet wide as the place of battle. This allowed his Spartans standing shoulder to shoulder to fend off an army of approximately 150,000. On the third day a shepherd showed a secret pass to the Persians allowing them to flank the Spartans. The Spartans continued to fight a rear guard action allowing the Greek Army to escape. The Persians simply stood back and killed the Spartans in a hail of arrows. These are the essential facts of this battle.
My concern is that in reading various versions of this battle I discover that the details of the battle can vary and in some cases dramatically. For example in some versions Leonidas is killed on the first day and a substantial battle rages over his body with the Greeks eventually capturing it. In another version Leonidas is killed on the third day and the remaining Greeks protect his body. This is actually a small point but if Leonidas was killed on the first day then the Spartans fought leaderless for the remaining two days. Again a small point but without Leonidas who made the decision to stay as a rear guard and order the Army to retreat?
In some versions the Greeks built a wall and fought in front of this wall. Of course this was a mountainous defile so where did this wall come from? In one version this wall was built with the bodies of the Persians, which is quite plausible given that the Persians lost a total of 20,000 men. Fighting in front of a wall constructed completely of corpses would certainly have a psychological impact and this is probably the reality. Some maintain that these bodies were buried by Xerxes to avoid having his troops march by thousands of dead troops, but again this was a mountain pass so where could these corpses have been buried? Were they burned?
Then we have the Immortals, the crack troops of the Persian Army and the personal body guard of Xerxes. In the movie these troops are shown with dramatic silver masks – dramatic but not very practical. In some historical versions these troops were indeed masked but with a gauze like material that did not obscure their vision. In earlier versions no reference is made to the Immortals being masked. So which is it? Masked or unmasked? Does it matter?
Then there is the final day and how it was conducted. Xerxes sent 10,000 troops over the pass to outflank the Greeks who are still in the narrow defile and actually number slightly more than a thousand men. While the odds are overwhelming and the outcome foregone, the reality is that the Greeks could still have fought the Persians to a standstill because the terrain was still in their favor even if the numbers were not. However, the final battle was short lived but in one version the Greeks fought the Persians face to face. Their spears were broken, many had no swords and the fighting was hand to hand. This would only have occurred had the Spartan Phalanx broken but how did that happen? Was it because Leonidas was dead and there was no one in command? In another version the Spartans retreated to a hillock and formed up to fight but Xerxes had his archers simply kill them off and there was no face to face battle. This version is less dramatic but would certainly explain why the third day of battle was relatively short.
The movie provides a very distorted view of this battle, which is not surprising since it is based on a comic book. But for many young people this is the only view they will ever see or read about of this battle. If this is the only view they ever have over time it could easily replace the historical facts. The only point here is that it is easy to see how a historical event like the Battle of Thermopylae, which was described shortly after it was fought can be distorted into something quite different from the reality. The story of the battle rests on variable descriptions based on memories, that morph into legends, and ultimately become myth. Of course the movie is simply one of those versions but what of other legends -- how real are they?
We have Jason and the Argonauts which is considered to be a legend, but there is evidence that real gold in collected in sheep hides. This gives credibility to Jason and the Golden Fleece so is the legend of Jason fact or fiction? The Trojan War was considered to be a poem and nothing more until the location of Troy was discovered. So if Troy was a real place was there a Trojan War as described by Homer? Was there an actual Achilles, Hector, Paris, Helen, and the whole roster of people found in the Illiad? What about the almost universal view of Dragons? Did these exist? Were these dragons dinosaurs and are described as Dragons? If so then this means the paleontologists view is wrong and dinosaurs and man co-existed at some point. The world is filled with legends and myths so it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, but based on a historical battle that was documented at the time, it is easy to see how in the course of 2500 years this actual event can fade into legend and then into myth – so what else has this happened to?
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Muslims and America
I once again rise to issue a warning that seems to be wasted on our politicians and all of the multi-culturalists who insist that the Muslims who are carefully referred to as "insurgents" or "Islamofascists" are in the minority. Well this "minority" should be referred to as the "silent minority" because I have yet to see any condemnation of the events in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. etc. The local Imam did come out and condemn the acts of terrorism as opposed to Islam but then he pointed out that while the terrorism was wrong it was caused by the Jews. Naturally there was no condemnation of his anti-semitism because THAT would be wrong and opposed to multi-cultural values. The reality is the Qur'an is filled with exhortations to fight all non-believers:
4:76
Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who choose disbelief fight in the cause of the transgressors; fight you, therefore against the friends of Satan, surely, the strategem of Satan is ever weak.
4:89
They would like you to reject the faith as they have done themselves, that you may be all alike; therefore, make no friends with them until they emigrate in the cause of Allah. but if they turn back (to hostility ) then capture them and kill them whereever you find them, and do not take any one of them as a friend or helper.
5:51
O you who believe! Do not take these Jews and Christians for Allies. They are allies of one to another and whoso from amongst you takes them for allies is indeed one of them. ...
There are dozens of quotes similar to these and even more damning. The point is that if you are a Muslim and are truly committed to the faith then you cannot be an American or even live in a free and democratic society without resisting that society by force. We see this in England where the Muslims are becoming evermore violent and anti-democratic. We see it in Canada where the Muslim community insists on living under Shar'ia Law. In Minnesota the cab drivers are refusing to take passengers who carry or have consumed alcohol even though it is against the local law for them to do so.
Now this morning we are greeted with the an article describing how Hassan Abujihaad, 31, of Phoenix, has been arrested as a traitor and who has provided classified military information to Islamic Terrorists. The time has long past for America to wake up and recognize we are in the midst of a Religious War -- not a secular war of freedom versus tyranny but of Christendom versus Islam -- a war that has been raging for a thousand years. Muslims are duty bound to kill all non-muslims and to take their possesions -- of course not all Muslims are "good" Muslims like all Christians are not "good" Christians but the Muslim community in general does not condemn the terrorists and many either passively or actively support them. The almost total lack of understanding by our media, officials, the ACLU, and the multiculturalists of Islam and its teachings is appalling and is actually harming us because the terroists rely on this ignorance. They use our very freedoms and morality against us. A Muslim's first loyalty is to Islam, not some secular or national authority and this is a point which Westerners simply fail to grasp. Given a situation where the Muslim must choose between government and Islam, Islam wins and to this point I offer the recent arrest of former Sailor Hassan Abujihaad.
This man is a traitor and should be shot but punishment for traitors is no longer death but imprisonment regardless of the damage they may have caused. Here is a man who provided iinformation on American Fleet positions, their susceptibility to attack, and suggestions on how to attack them. He did not act alone but in concert with an international Islamic organization dedicated to the destruction of America as well as all non-Islamic people and states. Among his co-conspirators was Derrick Shareef of Chicago another Muslim who we would view as an American but who would undoubtedly view himself as a Muslim living in America. THESE PEOPLE DO NOT RECOGNIZE THE SUPERIORITY OF THE STATE OVER THE RELIGION. Nevertheless we continue to hear apologists point out that not all Muslims are radical nor do they support terrorism. Well that may be but then they do not actively oppose it either do they? Where is the hue and cry? How many send dollars to Muslim front organizations or to their relatives who pass it on to the terrorists? We are under threat domestically but instead of recognizing this threat and working to quash it, we find the ACLU and other left wing organizations working to thwart efforts to identify, arrest, and imprison these Muslims.
We need to wake up an recognize we are being inflitrated. We now have a congressman who is a Muslim and what was his first act? To complain about the Bible and to insist on taking the oath on the Qur'an. Not a terribly bad thing but it is the camel's nose, just as the Cab drivers in Minnesota are a first step in the Islamic Drive to install Shar'ia Law. We find Christian symbols being stripped from all buildings both public and private for fear of offending Muslims. No one seems to recognize that Bibles are forbidden in all Muslim countries and the possession of one in Saudi Arabia could bring death. The Muslims demand equality and freedom of religion but are not willing to provide it for others. This is a religious war and right now we are losing through ignorance and a refusal to recognize the threat.
4:76
Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who choose disbelief fight in the cause of the transgressors; fight you, therefore against the friends of Satan, surely, the strategem of Satan is ever weak.
4:89
They would like you to reject the faith as they have done themselves, that you may be all alike; therefore, make no friends with them until they emigrate in the cause of Allah. but if they turn back (to hostility ) then capture them and kill them whereever you find them, and do not take any one of them as a friend or helper.
5:51
O you who believe! Do not take these Jews and Christians for Allies. They are allies of one to another and whoso from amongst you takes them for allies is indeed one of them. ...
There are dozens of quotes similar to these and even more damning. The point is that if you are a Muslim and are truly committed to the faith then you cannot be an American or even live in a free and democratic society without resisting that society by force. We see this in England where the Muslims are becoming evermore violent and anti-democratic. We see it in Canada where the Muslim community insists on living under Shar'ia Law. In Minnesota the cab drivers are refusing to take passengers who carry or have consumed alcohol even though it is against the local law for them to do so.
Now this morning we are greeted with the an article describing how Hassan Abujihaad, 31, of Phoenix, has been arrested as a traitor and who has provided classified military information to Islamic Terrorists. The time has long past for America to wake up and recognize we are in the midst of a Religious War -- not a secular war of freedom versus tyranny but of Christendom versus Islam -- a war that has been raging for a thousand years. Muslims are duty bound to kill all non-muslims and to take their possesions -- of course not all Muslims are "good" Muslims like all Christians are not "good" Christians but the Muslim community in general does not condemn the terrorists and many either passively or actively support them. The almost total lack of understanding by our media, officials, the ACLU, and the multiculturalists of Islam and its teachings is appalling and is actually harming us because the terroists rely on this ignorance. They use our very freedoms and morality against us. A Muslim's first loyalty is to Islam, not some secular or national authority and this is a point which Westerners simply fail to grasp. Given a situation where the Muslim must choose between government and Islam, Islam wins and to this point I offer the recent arrest of former Sailor Hassan Abujihaad.
This man is a traitor and should be shot but punishment for traitors is no longer death but imprisonment regardless of the damage they may have caused. Here is a man who provided iinformation on American Fleet positions, their susceptibility to attack, and suggestions on how to attack them. He did not act alone but in concert with an international Islamic organization dedicated to the destruction of America as well as all non-Islamic people and states. Among his co-conspirators was Derrick Shareef of Chicago another Muslim who we would view as an American but who would undoubtedly view himself as a Muslim living in America. THESE PEOPLE DO NOT RECOGNIZE THE SUPERIORITY OF THE STATE OVER THE RELIGION. Nevertheless we continue to hear apologists point out that not all Muslims are radical nor do they support terrorism. Well that may be but then they do not actively oppose it either do they? Where is the hue and cry? How many send dollars to Muslim front organizations or to their relatives who pass it on to the terrorists? We are under threat domestically but instead of recognizing this threat and working to quash it, we find the ACLU and other left wing organizations working to thwart efforts to identify, arrest, and imprison these Muslims.
We need to wake up an recognize we are being inflitrated. We now have a congressman who is a Muslim and what was his first act? To complain about the Bible and to insist on taking the oath on the Qur'an. Not a terribly bad thing but it is the camel's nose, just as the Cab drivers in Minnesota are a first step in the Islamic Drive to install Shar'ia Law. We find Christian symbols being stripped from all buildings both public and private for fear of offending Muslims. No one seems to recognize that Bibles are forbidden in all Muslim countries and the possession of one in Saudi Arabia could bring death. The Muslims demand equality and freedom of religion but are not willing to provide it for others. This is a religious war and right now we are losing through ignorance and a refusal to recognize the threat.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Forecasts and Past Observations
Periodically I review what I have written and sometimes I am surprised at what I have forecasted or described. In this case this is an excerpt from a larger series of comments and observations that I did for Madonna University in 1993. I think my comments are still timely and some of what I have described seems to be coming true. The acceptance of same sex couples seems to have grown and this in turn seems to have reduced the expectation that an executive should have a wife or husband. The rampant racism inherent in the civil rights movement seems to be coming under increased pressure and more and more people see organizations like the NAACP as racist and counter productive. Affirmative action is under attack and is gradually being repealed -- which demonstrates that racial divisions are eroding and that preferential treatment of blacks is eroding the progress they have made. The acceptance of women in the workplace is certainly present today and many top level executives are women. While not all of this has come to pass I think many of these observations have turned out to be relatively accurate.
OCT 15, 1993
I read an article last night titled "Women In Management: The Spare Sex". For the most part this is the same tired old litany of complaint and abuse put out by the feminist movement in increasing quantities. Nevertheless, it does have some points which caused me to think about things.
"Top jobs are designed for people with wives". This is a true statement. They are also designed for people with mistresses, low morals, and a complete disregard for the feelings of others. From personal experience, I have found very few top corporate executives worthy of respect. But this is beside the point. The point is "What is the role of women in business in the future?". Will top jobs then be designed for women with "consorts" ? I think not. We owe the feminist movement our thanks for killing the business suit, for rearranging our priorities, and I think for changing the way we do business. Personally, I think we will see more and more women in top jobs, not because they are women, but because women are nurturing by nature. As our management style changes to one of team play and peer-to-peer relations, women seem to be better at this. I think families and personal priorities will come to the forefront. This means that the forced participation of wives and husbands will fall by the wayside. Why you ask ? Because many top executives will not have wives or husbands. Many will not have any consort, others will have homosexual partners. The logistics and protocols will simply become too difficult.
This same article also quotes a study of contributions made by men and women in meetings. The basis of measurement was the amount of time spent speaking. I was reminded of the sign outside of Cuyama, Calif. which states:
Founded: 1870
Population: 200
Elevation: 910
_____________
Total 2980
From the fact that the women spoke for a shorter total time, the author draws the conclusion they were intimidated and contributed less. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. You could just as easily conclude they expressed themselves better or that the subject being discussed was prostate problems. Yet I am confident the average feminist doesn't see this article and its conclusions as an insult to women, but as verification that they are abused and subjugated. This raises the question " What is the future of the feminist movement?". Again I don't know. I think the feminist movement, multi-cultural diversity, political correctness, and racism are tied very closely together and the fate of one is a harbinger for them all. Perhaps a better question might be "What is the future of the White Male ?" Personally, I am offended by much of the press, the media, and the universities and I am not alone. I think there could be a rebound effect with white males becoming much more militant. For instance are any of these institutions racist?
The White Horsemen's Association ?
The Governor Wallace Academy
The White Students Collegiate Scholarship Fund
If I substitute the word Black for White are they still racist? Is the movie "Blackmen Can't (fill in the blank)" racist ? Why are Negroes " Afro-American" and I am "White" Why aren't I "Euro-American" Why is the "Citadel" wrong for being all male while all women's colleges are necessary and needed. Why are organizations and seminars dealing with women and women's issues correct and those dealing with male issues are not ? The list can go on and on, but it leads me to the conclusion that the growing unrest among males in general and white males in particular may manifest itself in the future.
OCT 15, 1993
I read an article last night titled "Women In Management: The Spare Sex". For the most part this is the same tired old litany of complaint and abuse put out by the feminist movement in increasing quantities. Nevertheless, it does have some points which caused me to think about things.
"Top jobs are designed for people with wives". This is a true statement. They are also designed for people with mistresses, low morals, and a complete disregard for the feelings of others. From personal experience, I have found very few top corporate executives worthy of respect. But this is beside the point. The point is "What is the role of women in business in the future?". Will top jobs then be designed for women with "consorts" ? I think not. We owe the feminist movement our thanks for killing the business suit, for rearranging our priorities, and I think for changing the way we do business. Personally, I think we will see more and more women in top jobs, not because they are women, but because women are nurturing by nature. As our management style changes to one of team play and peer-to-peer relations, women seem to be better at this. I think families and personal priorities will come to the forefront. This means that the forced participation of wives and husbands will fall by the wayside. Why you ask ? Because many top executives will not have wives or husbands. Many will not have any consort, others will have homosexual partners. The logistics and protocols will simply become too difficult.
This same article also quotes a study of contributions made by men and women in meetings. The basis of measurement was the amount of time spent speaking. I was reminded of the sign outside of Cuyama, Calif. which states:
Founded: 1870
Population: 200
Elevation: 910
_____________
Total 2980
From the fact that the women spoke for a shorter total time, the author draws the conclusion they were intimidated and contributed less. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. You could just as easily conclude they expressed themselves better or that the subject being discussed was prostate problems. Yet I am confident the average feminist doesn't see this article and its conclusions as an insult to women, but as verification that they are abused and subjugated. This raises the question " What is the future of the feminist movement?". Again I don't know. I think the feminist movement, multi-cultural diversity, political correctness, and racism are tied very closely together and the fate of one is a harbinger for them all. Perhaps a better question might be "What is the future of the White Male ?" Personally, I am offended by much of the press, the media, and the universities and I am not alone. I think there could be a rebound effect with white males becoming much more militant. For instance are any of these institutions racist?
The White Horsemen's Association ?
The Governor Wallace Academy
The White Students Collegiate Scholarship Fund
If I substitute the word Black for White are they still racist? Is the movie "Blackmen Can't (fill in the blank)" racist ? Why are Negroes " Afro-American" and I am "White" Why aren't I "Euro-American" Why is the "Citadel" wrong for being all male while all women's colleges are necessary and needed. Why are organizations and seminars dealing with women and women's issues correct and those dealing with male issues are not ? The list can go on and on, but it leads me to the conclusion that the growing unrest among males in general and white males in particular may manifest itself in the future.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Islam - The Religion of Peace?
Once again the issue has been raised regarding Islam and whether or not it is a religion of peace or violence. The Christian Bible uses the word “love” 409 times[1] with 223 of those in the New Testament. The Qur’an uses the word 79 times in these five categories:
(1) Man's love of things. (15 times)
(2) Human love. (15 times)
(3) Man's love for God. (7 times)
(4) God's love in the negative sense, i.e. "God loveth not ..." (22 times)
(5)God's love for man. (20 times)
While the Bible was written in Aramaic it has been translated into Greek, Latin, and a host of other languages including English. Although there have been disputes at various times over the translation of the original text, there is general agreement overall. This is much the situation with the Qur’an which is written in Arabic and translated into English. The above references are from a translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, but the translation by Amatul Rahman Omar and Abdul Mannan Omar which is sanctioned by the Noor Foundation (similar to Gideons) has some significant variances. For example in verses 14:3 and 16:107 Abdullah Yusef uses the word “love” while the Amatul translates the same word as “preferred”. In fact there are some very significant variations between these two translations, with the former translating the Arabic more liberally than the latter. In fact in checking various translations, I have found some very significant variances in the translation which significantly change the meaning.
The failure of the Qur’an to use the word “love” is not in itself an indication that Islam is more violent than Christianity but the reality is that the Qur’an is filled with exhortations to violence for a variety of reasons. Furthermore, the Qur’an specifically states (5:51) that a Muslim is NOT to take Jews and Christians for allies and any Muslim who does so becomes one of them. Then again in Chapter 9 there are multiple verses exhorting Muslims to fight the non-believers and those “who have been given he scripture” but do not follow it. In Chapter 22:39 Muslims are given permission to fight in self-defense against those who have attacked them for no reason. Certainly this verse can be stretched to justify the current attacks by Muslims on all non-Muslims on the basis that these people and their governments have wronged or otherwise “attacked” Muslims.
The treatment of prisoners is specifically spelled out in various treaties and in the Geneva Convention in particular, but these are Western views established by secular governments. Within the world of Islam, secular governments are secondary to the religious structure so the Qur’an takes precedence over laws or agreements made by these secular governments. The Qur’an specifically (4:81 and 4:91) calls the killing of captives permissible. Nevertheless Western governments continue to act as if treaties and agreements between them and these Islamic governments carry weight – they do not. The Western Governments continue to abide by the Geneva Convention and act shocked when the Islamofascists do not but instead murder innocent civilians, execute captives in barbaric ways, and hide behind human shields. Furthermore, the Qur’an specifically directs Muslims to not take Jews and Christians as allies (5:51) because they are in league against Islam. And 5:101 specifically forbids Muslims from inquiring into divine laws (i.e. Qur’an and Shar’ia) lest they become disbelievers. Of course this simply reinforces the control the Imam’s have over the believers who are kept ignorant by disallowing and rejecting any education outside of the Qur’an.
Now the Muslim Imam’s insist that Islam is a religion of peace and go to great lengths to demonstrate this. But the reality is that the Qur’an is filled with exhortations to violence to fight, to kill, to destroy. Certainly the word love is found in the Qur’an but the usage of this word is largely an matter of interpretation and certainly does not exhort the reader or believer to “love” their fellow man or to forgive trespasses. While it is true that there are many passages in the Qur’an that deal with forgiveness that are just as many that preach violence against non-believers. An example of this dichotomy is found in chapters 5:32 and 5:33
If anyone slays a person- unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land -it would be as if he slew all people.And if anyone saves a life,it would be as if he saved the life of all people.
However this quote does not include the entire verse and the beginning of this verse states “
Because of this incident we laid down for the Children of Israel that he who kills a human being – unless it be for murdering a person or for (reforming) disorder in the country ....
The next verse (5:33) is a little more specific and states:
The only recompense of those who make war against Allah and His Messenger and who strive hard to create disorder in the land, is (according to the nature of the crime) that tehy be executed or crucified to death, or that their hands and feet be cut off on account of their opposition, or their free movement in the land be banned ...”
So the reality is that these verses are taken out of context and thus can be interpreted in various ways. These verses are part of Section 5 of Chapter 5 which deals with the sin of murder as described between Cain and Abel. But it also puts this crime and others into the framework of crimes against Allah and describes the punishments for those who commit crimes against Allah.
There are various verses that exhort the believer to violence but 9:29 through 9:35 generally encourage or direct the true believer to attack Christians and Jews as non-believers. So while Islam may view itself as a religion of peace it does not require much of a stress for a radical Muslim to find that it instructs him to attack and destroy all non-believers. The fact is that the current war on terror is simply another Crusade between Islam and Christendom.
[1] www.answering-islam.de/Main/Quran/Themes/love.htm
(1) Man's love of things. (15 times)
(2) Human love. (15 times)
(3) Man's love for God. (7 times)
(4) God's love in the negative sense, i.e. "God loveth not ..." (22 times)
(5)God's love for man. (20 times)
While the Bible was written in Aramaic it has been translated into Greek, Latin, and a host of other languages including English. Although there have been disputes at various times over the translation of the original text, there is general agreement overall. This is much the situation with the Qur’an which is written in Arabic and translated into English. The above references are from a translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, but the translation by Amatul Rahman Omar and Abdul Mannan Omar which is sanctioned by the Noor Foundation (similar to Gideons) has some significant variances. For example in verses 14:3 and 16:107 Abdullah Yusef uses the word “love” while the Amatul translates the same word as “preferred”. In fact there are some very significant variations between these two translations, with the former translating the Arabic more liberally than the latter. In fact in checking various translations, I have found some very significant variances in the translation which significantly change the meaning.
The failure of the Qur’an to use the word “love” is not in itself an indication that Islam is more violent than Christianity but the reality is that the Qur’an is filled with exhortations to violence for a variety of reasons. Furthermore, the Qur’an specifically states (5:51) that a Muslim is NOT to take Jews and Christians for allies and any Muslim who does so becomes one of them. Then again in Chapter 9 there are multiple verses exhorting Muslims to fight the non-believers and those “who have been given he scripture” but do not follow it. In Chapter 22:39 Muslims are given permission to fight in self-defense against those who have attacked them for no reason. Certainly this verse can be stretched to justify the current attacks by Muslims on all non-Muslims on the basis that these people and their governments have wronged or otherwise “attacked” Muslims.
The treatment of prisoners is specifically spelled out in various treaties and in the Geneva Convention in particular, but these are Western views established by secular governments. Within the world of Islam, secular governments are secondary to the religious structure so the Qur’an takes precedence over laws or agreements made by these secular governments. The Qur’an specifically (4:81 and 4:91) calls the killing of captives permissible. Nevertheless Western governments continue to act as if treaties and agreements between them and these Islamic governments carry weight – they do not. The Western Governments continue to abide by the Geneva Convention and act shocked when the Islamofascists do not but instead murder innocent civilians, execute captives in barbaric ways, and hide behind human shields. Furthermore, the Qur’an specifically directs Muslims to not take Jews and Christians as allies (5:51) because they are in league against Islam. And 5:101 specifically forbids Muslims from inquiring into divine laws (i.e. Qur’an and Shar’ia) lest they become disbelievers. Of course this simply reinforces the control the Imam’s have over the believers who are kept ignorant by disallowing and rejecting any education outside of the Qur’an.
Now the Muslim Imam’s insist that Islam is a religion of peace and go to great lengths to demonstrate this. But the reality is that the Qur’an is filled with exhortations to violence to fight, to kill, to destroy. Certainly the word love is found in the Qur’an but the usage of this word is largely an matter of interpretation and certainly does not exhort the reader or believer to “love” their fellow man or to forgive trespasses. While it is true that there are many passages in the Qur’an that deal with forgiveness that are just as many that preach violence against non-believers. An example of this dichotomy is found in chapters 5:32 and 5:33
If anyone slays a person- unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land -it would be as if he slew all people.And if anyone saves a life,it would be as if he saved the life of all people.
However this quote does not include the entire verse and the beginning of this verse states “
Because of this incident we laid down for the Children of Israel that he who kills a human being – unless it be for murdering a person or for (reforming) disorder in the country ....
The next verse (5:33) is a little more specific and states:
The only recompense of those who make war against Allah and His Messenger and who strive hard to create disorder in the land, is (according to the nature of the crime) that tehy be executed or crucified to death, or that their hands and feet be cut off on account of their opposition, or their free movement in the land be banned ...”
So the reality is that these verses are taken out of context and thus can be interpreted in various ways. These verses are part of Section 5 of Chapter 5 which deals with the sin of murder as described between Cain and Abel. But it also puts this crime and others into the framework of crimes against Allah and describes the punishments for those who commit crimes against Allah.
There are various verses that exhort the believer to violence but 9:29 through 9:35 generally encourage or direct the true believer to attack Christians and Jews as non-believers. So while Islam may view itself as a religion of peace it does not require much of a stress for a radical Muslim to find that it instructs him to attack and destroy all non-believers. The fact is that the current war on terror is simply another Crusade between Islam and Christendom.
[1] www.answering-islam.de/Main/Quran/Themes/love.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)