Nihilism is the a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility. In other words, the system sucks and we can't fix it.
There is a kind of Christian nihilism that I find disturbing. It is the belief that the Second Coming of Christ is eminent and that this world will be destroyed almost any minute. For this reason, Christian nihilists believe we shouldn't waste time opposing Muslim oppression because God is going to reboot the world momentarily and that will fix all problems.
Well I don't believe it. I think the world will exist for many more millenia. The question isn't whether the world will be physically destroyed, but who or what will inherit it. Will the world be ruled by pluralistic and tolerant democrats or will it be ruled by Islamic religious fanatics under sharia law?
Putting all your money on the Second Coming number is not a good bet, for several reasons. One is that it forces you to believe that all human effort for progress is futile and that literally nothing, except religion, is worthwhile.
Religion should add zest to life but not replace life altogether. I will not set around in fearful paralysis in my darkened room, looking for signs and wonders as I await the Second Coming. That is not living life.
People who believe that the Second Coming will occur at any minute need never worry themselves with long-term plans or thinking. No need to plant any oak trees to provide shade for future generations: there won’t be any future generations. No need to enroll in college; who needs a degree in Heaven? No need to start a retirement fund: you won’t need it in the next world. No need to take up a musical instrument, write a novel, save for a new home, or marry and start a family. Why bother? Tomorrow or the next day Jesus will appear in the sky with throngs of angels and all of us reprobates will be in deep doo-doo.
What a miserable way to live your life. That’s not for me, sorry. I hope its not for you either, because it is a cop out. Such a belief relieves you of any long term planning and the effort, risk and worry of opposing evil. It tends to produce the illusion that effort is not needed. The result will be fewer, or maybe no Christians in the world of tomorrow.
Our ancestors, who crossed the seas in wooden tubs, cleared the forests, fought savage Indians, disease, famine and bad weather, were mostly Christians. Christians wrote the Magna Charta, the U.S. Constitution and created the great nations of the West. They didn't sit on their butts waiting for the Second Coming.
Christians also saved their faith and their freedom from the barbarians. In 732, one Charles "The Hammer" Martel and his Christian army stood their ground outside of Tours and finally halted the previously unstoppable Muslim forces who had conquered much of the world.
The Muslims returned in 1683 and were again stopped, by a Christian army, at the gates of Vienna. The Christian army of 70,000 men was led by Charles V. Duke of Lorraine, against a much larger Muslim force (Turkish Ottomans). The battle marked the turning point in the 300-year struggle between the forces of the Central European kingdoms and the Islamic Ottoman Empire.
The Polish Cavalry gave the Muslims what-for that day and sent them into retreat, saving Europe from the imposition of an alien faith and the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of "infidels."
Now those are my kind of Christians.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Save the West: Get Someone Pregnant Today!
Well my wild ride courtesy of Mark Steyn is slowing down. Thanks for all the hits, Mark.
I finished Mark's book, "America Alone" last night. This book really should be required reading for everyone in the West (USA, Canada and Europe). We are committing cultural and demographic suicide and it's time we did something to reverse those trends.
There is some good news: Red State (conservative) citizens reproduce faster than do the inhabitants of Blue States and big liberal cities. Religious families are generally bigger than non-religious families. Perhaps we conservatives can bury the liberals over time through our birth rates. I doubt it though: even conservative birth rates are in decline, just not as fast.
One of the most interesting points of "America Alone" is that socialism really dampens human reproduction. Seven of the eight countries with the lowest birth rates were all members of the Soviet Union. Communism made life so miserable that its inhabitants just stopped reproducing. Who would want to raise children in such a hell hole?
Ah, now that they are free they can "get busy" again, hey? No, unfortunately, once a people stops giving birth they apparently find it difficult to get back in the groove.
Save the West folks. Throw out your condoms and your television set. Do your duty - you may be saving civilization as we know it and it sure beats the hell out of war. A lot more fun too.
Oh horrors, I just realized the San Francisco Hippies of 1968 were right after all! They said we should "Make Love Not War."
Smoking that funny stuff is not a prerequisite, however.
As Nike says, Just Do It.
I finished Mark's book, "America Alone" last night. This book really should be required reading for everyone in the West (USA, Canada and Europe). We are committing cultural and demographic suicide and it's time we did something to reverse those trends.
There is some good news: Red State (conservative) citizens reproduce faster than do the inhabitants of Blue States and big liberal cities. Religious families are generally bigger than non-religious families. Perhaps we conservatives can bury the liberals over time through our birth rates. I doubt it though: even conservative birth rates are in decline, just not as fast.
One of the most interesting points of "America Alone" is that socialism really dampens human reproduction. Seven of the eight countries with the lowest birth rates were all members of the Soviet Union. Communism made life so miserable that its inhabitants just stopped reproducing. Who would want to raise children in such a hell hole?
Ah, now that they are free they can "get busy" again, hey? No, unfortunately, once a people stops giving birth they apparently find it difficult to get back in the groove.
Save the West folks. Throw out your condoms and your television set. Do your duty - you may be saving civilization as we know it and it sure beats the hell out of war. A lot more fun too.
Oh horrors, I just realized the San Francisco Hippies of 1968 were right after all! They said we should "Make Love Not War."
Smoking that funny stuff is not a prerequisite, however.
As Nike says, Just Do It.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Mark Steyn Honors Saber Point With a Link
Starting a web log (blog) is easy; getting noticed is not. Many times in the past eight months I have considered adding the sound of crickets to my main page to acknowledge the sparse visitors. Yesterday things changed.
Yesterday morning I sat down and knocked off a post about a book I am reading, Mark Steyn's "America Alone." Around 2 PM I checked my blog stats and noticed a huge spike in the number of visitors. I checked further and found many new visitors were being directed from Mark Steyn's website where Mark had placed a link to my review of his book (see my post of yesterday, immediately preceding this one.)
Thanks to Mark Steyn, who is, by the way, one of my favorite conservative pundits, Saber Point received the largest number of one-day hits in its eight months of existence. They are still coming today. The number of countries visiting this site are now at 100.
Mark Steyn is a very talented and humorous writer. He entertains you at the same time he is educating you. Needless to say I am honored that one of my heroes has acknowledged my existence.
Check out his website at www.steynonline.com or www.marksteyn.com. Either link will take you there.
Yesterday morning I sat down and knocked off a post about a book I am reading, Mark Steyn's "America Alone." Around 2 PM I checked my blog stats and noticed a huge spike in the number of visitors. I checked further and found many new visitors were being directed from Mark Steyn's website where Mark had placed a link to my review of his book (see my post of yesterday, immediately preceding this one.)
Thanks to Mark Steyn, who is, by the way, one of my favorite conservative pundits, Saber Point received the largest number of one-day hits in its eight months of existence. They are still coming today. The number of countries visiting this site are now at 100.
Mark Steyn is a very talented and humorous writer. He entertains you at the same time he is educating you. Needless to say I am honored that one of my heroes has acknowledged my existence.
Check out his website at www.steynonline.com or www.marksteyn.com. Either link will take you there.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
The Decline and Fall of Western Civilization
It's cold and raining here in Podunk County where I live among garlic and onion fields, the cows, the sheep and the horses. In season, we have big red strawberries or cherries you can buy from stands along the road. Not at this time of year, however.
The weather has turned cold and it's beginning to feel like winter, or as winter as it gets in California anyway. It's so cold I may have to put on a sweater before I go outside.
I am currently reading Mark Steyn's new book, "America Alone." It is a fascinating page-turner for sure. He talks a lot about the demographic decline of Western civilization, how birth rates are so low in Europe, Russia and Japan that the populations there are not sustaining themselves and are being cut in half every thirty years or so. Modern, pluralistic and enlightened civilization is dying, effectively committing suicide, while Islamic populations are expanding vigorously. Unless things change, the world will be Islamic and the Jihadis won't have to fire a shot.
Why is this happening? Steyn points out that government entitlements and unsustainable social programs are a major factor. Steyn argues that such programs sap the survival instinct of the people who live under socialistic systems and that they lose their confidence and their will, becoming fearful and dependent.
My theory is that children are a financial luxury that many overtaxed working couples can no longer afford. They are forced to provide more and more support to the aged and the retired and so have less funds to raise a family, so families are smaller than they once were. My mother-in-law had eight children, but her three sons have no children at all, and each of her five daughters has two or less. My wife's current generation is therefore not even at sustaining level.
Because our tax burdens are so much greater than a generation ago, most married couples have to work. It isn't like the 1950's where the father went to work and the mother stayed home to raise kids and maintain the household. Today both the husband and wife work - they have to in order to live at a middle class level. Working women do have children, but no doubt their need to work dampens the birth rate.
There are various cultural trends that are a factor as well. The invention of the Pill around 40 years ago, the widespread acceptability of abortion (with women even bragging about their abortions via T shirt slogans at the Democratic Convention), the foolish and wrong-headed notion of the "Population Bomb." This latter was a theory advanced in the early 70's by some nut root who believed our populations would soon grow to an unsustainable level, devouring all the food and resources, finally resulting in widespread starvation. (The theory was the "global warming" BS of its day.)
And even without a belief in the population bomb, girls today are raised with the belief that if they choose motherhood over career, they are cheating themselves, marginalizing themselves, giving in to the tyranny of a male-dominated society and all that liberal rot.
Marriage is also in decline. Recent news stories indicate that more and more Western couples are choosing not to marry, but just to live together.
As a result of the above cultural trends, many couples think it undesirable if not irresponsible to have children. In any case, Europeans, Russians and Japanese are not having enough babies. These populations are in decline. It takes 2.1 births per couple to just sustain current population levels at a no-growth rate, but rates in England, Spain, Italy, Greece and France are substantially below that. Russia and Japan also have low birth rates (1.5 or lower) and their aging populations are dwindling.
The good news, if there is any, is that the USA is still at the 2.1 births per couple rate. We are sustaining our population but it is not growing. If we continue to follow the Democrats desire to emulate Scandinavia, however, that will change sooner or later. We will then move from a static society to one in numeric decline.
Socialism is a big factor in population decline and European countries are quite socialist. These nanny-governments provide many entitlements to older citizens, paying such things as their rent, medical bills and prescription drugs. The problem with this is that ambitious, unfunded social programs depend on expanding populations to pay for them. Our own Social Security system was set up on that basis. Socialism is a kind of pyramid scheme, depending on an ever expanding number of participants to make it to work.
But the problem is that the number of participants is decreasing, not growing. A declining population spells the ruin and bankruptcy of unfunded social programs. One day, in the middle of winter, with bad chest colds and nothing in the pantry or the bank, ma and pa will find that the government check has ceased to arrive. That's a scary thought for old folks who are dependent on the system.
These facts of life greatly influence European views on immigration. Since Europeans are not replacing themselves, a new source of workers must be found in the form of immigrants to come in and prop up the social systems with their taxes. Surprise, surprise, there are millions of Muslim immigrants who are willing to do that, come to Europe! So the two factors that are the root causes of Islamic immigration into the West are these: (1) declining birthrates and (2) socialism.
But why would anyone want to invite in millions of hostile, unassimilable foreigners just to pay taxes? That's crazy, you say? Maybe it is, but an aging population does not take the long view. Many or most of them don't care what happens in 20, 30, 40 or 50 years, because they'll be dead.
But what about their grandchildren? Don't they care what happens to their grandchildren a few decades down the road? Don't they care that their grandchildren will be raised as Muslims in a new Dark Ages?
Uh, excuse me....What grandchildren?
Beginning to get the picture?
The weather has turned cold and it's beginning to feel like winter, or as winter as it gets in California anyway. It's so cold I may have to put on a sweater before I go outside.
I am currently reading Mark Steyn's new book, "America Alone." It is a fascinating page-turner for sure. He talks a lot about the demographic decline of Western civilization, how birth rates are so low in Europe, Russia and Japan that the populations there are not sustaining themselves and are being cut in half every thirty years or so. Modern, pluralistic and enlightened civilization is dying, effectively committing suicide, while Islamic populations are expanding vigorously. Unless things change, the world will be Islamic and the Jihadis won't have to fire a shot.
Why is this happening? Steyn points out that government entitlements and unsustainable social programs are a major factor. Steyn argues that such programs sap the survival instinct of the people who live under socialistic systems and that they lose their confidence and their will, becoming fearful and dependent.
My theory is that children are a financial luxury that many overtaxed working couples can no longer afford. They are forced to provide more and more support to the aged and the retired and so have less funds to raise a family, so families are smaller than they once were. My mother-in-law had eight children, but her three sons have no children at all, and each of her five daughters has two or less. My wife's current generation is therefore not even at sustaining level.
Because our tax burdens are so much greater than a generation ago, most married couples have to work. It isn't like the 1950's where the father went to work and the mother stayed home to raise kids and maintain the household. Today both the husband and wife work - they have to in order to live at a middle class level. Working women do have children, but no doubt their need to work dampens the birth rate.
There are various cultural trends that are a factor as well. The invention of the Pill around 40 years ago, the widespread acceptability of abortion (with women even bragging about their abortions via T shirt slogans at the Democratic Convention), the foolish and wrong-headed notion of the "Population Bomb." This latter was a theory advanced in the early 70's by some nut root who believed our populations would soon grow to an unsustainable level, devouring all the food and resources, finally resulting in widespread starvation. (The theory was the "global warming" BS of its day.)
And even without a belief in the population bomb, girls today are raised with the belief that if they choose motherhood over career, they are cheating themselves, marginalizing themselves, giving in to the tyranny of a male-dominated society and all that liberal rot.
Marriage is also in decline. Recent news stories indicate that more and more Western couples are choosing not to marry, but just to live together.
As a result of the above cultural trends, many couples think it undesirable if not irresponsible to have children. In any case, Europeans, Russians and Japanese are not having enough babies. These populations are in decline. It takes 2.1 births per couple to just sustain current population levels at a no-growth rate, but rates in England, Spain, Italy, Greece and France are substantially below that. Russia and Japan also have low birth rates (1.5 or lower) and their aging populations are dwindling.
The good news, if there is any, is that the USA is still at the 2.1 births per couple rate. We are sustaining our population but it is not growing. If we continue to follow the Democrats desire to emulate Scandinavia, however, that will change sooner or later. We will then move from a static society to one in numeric decline.
Socialism is a big factor in population decline and European countries are quite socialist. These nanny-governments provide many entitlements to older citizens, paying such things as their rent, medical bills and prescription drugs. The problem with this is that ambitious, unfunded social programs depend on expanding populations to pay for them. Our own Social Security system was set up on that basis. Socialism is a kind of pyramid scheme, depending on an ever expanding number of participants to make it to work.
But the problem is that the number of participants is decreasing, not growing. A declining population spells the ruin and bankruptcy of unfunded social programs. One day, in the middle of winter, with bad chest colds and nothing in the pantry or the bank, ma and pa will find that the government check has ceased to arrive. That's a scary thought for old folks who are dependent on the system.
These facts of life greatly influence European views on immigration. Since Europeans are not replacing themselves, a new source of workers must be found in the form of immigrants to come in and prop up the social systems with their taxes. Surprise, surprise, there are millions of Muslim immigrants who are willing to do that, come to Europe! So the two factors that are the root causes of Islamic immigration into the West are these: (1) declining birthrates and (2) socialism.
But why would anyone want to invite in millions of hostile, unassimilable foreigners just to pay taxes? That's crazy, you say? Maybe it is, but an aging population does not take the long view. Many or most of them don't care what happens in 20, 30, 40 or 50 years, because they'll be dead.
But what about their grandchildren? Don't they care what happens to their grandchildren a few decades down the road? Don't they care that their grandchildren will be raised as Muslims in a new Dark Ages?
Uh, excuse me....What grandchildren?
Beginning to get the picture?
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Day After Thoughts on the Midterm Elections
In life, you’ll have your back up against the wall many times. You might as well get used to it. Just remember, it’s not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog.
-- Paul “Bear” Bryant
Well the election results were bad, as we expected them to be. The Democrats took back the House by winning around 20 seats and they may still take the Senate, as the two seats they need are dead heats in Virginia and Montana. I suspect they will take Virginia at the very least, giving them an even vote in the Senate.
Even so, this election is not a disaster by any means. The party out of power normally gains seats in both houses in the 6th year, as voters get tired of the same party and imagine that a new crop of fresh faces will somehow be better for the country. The tide rolls out but will roll back in again too. Politics, like the seasons, is cyclical. There will always be days when the sun shines but also days when it rains or even snows. If you don’t like the weather, be patient. Sooner or later it will change.
In any case, in two years we Republicans will have another shot at control with the 2008 Presidential and Congressional elections. If we don’t come up with a candidate a lot better than the lackluster George Bush, we’ll lose that too.
A sad note is that Tom McClintock was not elected as Lt. Governor of California, even though he was ahead in the polls. McClintock is a highly competent, knowledgeable, honest gentleman who would have been wonderful for the State. But he didn’t have a “D” after his name so they elected instead an uninspired, lackluster Democrat apparatchik in John Garamandi.
To hell with it all, I voted and the chips can fall where they may. I did everything I could and I am going to let go of the frustration and anger and focus on my bass practice, helping my son and enjoying the coming holidays.
UPDATE: The Democrats have taken Montana and it appears they will win Virginia too. They are ahead by 8,000 votes in Virginia but the results have not yet been certified. In any case, Democrat control of the Senate appears a certainty.
The Dems win, but not by a blowout and not by a mandate. The new political boundaries are close enough that they may quite possibly be regained in two years. Let’s hope that this election result scares the shit out of the remaining Republicans and forces them to get their act together.
Why did the Republicans lose? By way of analogy, it’s as if the Republican candidates were elected on a platform of sobriety and morality and then threw a drunken orgy to celebrate. No that really doesn’t work, fellas. Getting elected is one thing, staying elected is another. You’re never safe. You have to earn your office every day by honest, principled service.
GOP politicians cannot win without the support of their conservative base, so if they want to stay in office they had better return to the basic principles that got them there in the first place. Guess what, politicians: you do need us rank and file members after all.
-- Paul “Bear” Bryant
Well the election results were bad, as we expected them to be. The Democrats took back the House by winning around 20 seats and they may still take the Senate, as the two seats they need are dead heats in Virginia and Montana. I suspect they will take Virginia at the very least, giving them an even vote in the Senate.
Even so, this election is not a disaster by any means. The party out of power normally gains seats in both houses in the 6th year, as voters get tired of the same party and imagine that a new crop of fresh faces will somehow be better for the country. The tide rolls out but will roll back in again too. Politics, like the seasons, is cyclical. There will always be days when the sun shines but also days when it rains or even snows. If you don’t like the weather, be patient. Sooner or later it will change.
In any case, in two years we Republicans will have another shot at control with the 2008 Presidential and Congressional elections. If we don’t come up with a candidate a lot better than the lackluster George Bush, we’ll lose that too.
A sad note is that Tom McClintock was not elected as Lt. Governor of California, even though he was ahead in the polls. McClintock is a highly competent, knowledgeable, honest gentleman who would have been wonderful for the State. But he didn’t have a “D” after his name so they elected instead an uninspired, lackluster Democrat apparatchik in John Garamandi.
To hell with it all, I voted and the chips can fall where they may. I did everything I could and I am going to let go of the frustration and anger and focus on my bass practice, helping my son and enjoying the coming holidays.
UPDATE: The Democrats have taken Montana and it appears they will win Virginia too. They are ahead by 8,000 votes in Virginia but the results have not yet been certified. In any case, Democrat control of the Senate appears a certainty.
The Dems win, but not by a blowout and not by a mandate. The new political boundaries are close enough that they may quite possibly be regained in two years. Let’s hope that this election result scares the shit out of the remaining Republicans and forces them to get their act together.
Why did the Republicans lose? By way of analogy, it’s as if the Republican candidates were elected on a platform of sobriety and morality and then threw a drunken orgy to celebrate. No that really doesn’t work, fellas. Getting elected is one thing, staying elected is another. You’re never safe. You have to earn your office every day by honest, principled service.
GOP politicians cannot win without the support of their conservative base, so if they want to stay in office they had better return to the basic principles that got them there in the first place. Guess what, politicians: you do need us rank and file members after all.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Democrats, UGH!
It seems the Democrats have won control of the House and may yet win control of the Senate before the night is over. So we will have Nancy Pelosi's detestable mug grinning out of all major newspapers in the morning. It will be interesting to see what mischief the Party of Treason will conjure up for America in the next couple of years. Hope all of you are really intent on higher taxes, less spending for defense, a forced evacuation of Iraq, and a thrilled and jubilant Jihadist movement planning and carrying out bigger and better terrorist attacks.
On the other hand, I will shed no tears for Rino Republicans like Lincoln Chafee and Mike DeWine, Republicans in name only, though I would have preferred them to Democrats, only because they could help the GOP retain control of the Senate.
There are certain truths that have to be acknowledged, one of which is that the American people have insufficient patience, will and moral clarity to put up with any war that extends beyond their rather short attention span. People who like their pizza delivered in half an hour or they don't have to pay, also like their wars wrapped up in a similar time frame and hopefully before prime time when the really good shows air. Bush should have known this before he invaded Iraq, but it is not the only thing he has badly misjudged. We should have bombed Iraq into ruins and then gotten out, and never tried to imagine that barbarians would embrace democracy or Democrats would side with their own country in a fight.
Apart from the war, there is another good reason we lost the House tonight. Luke-warm, tentative "conservatives" who shed their principles at the first sign of a pork barrel are not likely to keep voter loyalty for long. Republicans who came to Washington to drain the swamp learned that the swamp makes a pretty good sauna, so they ordered champagne and jumped in.
If we are going to be just a bad imitation of Democrats, why not go for the real thing?
Well, we got 'em. Enjoy.
I'm going to bed.
On the other hand, I will shed no tears for Rino Republicans like Lincoln Chafee and Mike DeWine, Republicans in name only, though I would have preferred them to Democrats, only because they could help the GOP retain control of the Senate.
There are certain truths that have to be acknowledged, one of which is that the American people have insufficient patience, will and moral clarity to put up with any war that extends beyond their rather short attention span. People who like their pizza delivered in half an hour or they don't have to pay, also like their wars wrapped up in a similar time frame and hopefully before prime time when the really good shows air. Bush should have known this before he invaded Iraq, but it is not the only thing he has badly misjudged. We should have bombed Iraq into ruins and then gotten out, and never tried to imagine that barbarians would embrace democracy or Democrats would side with their own country in a fight.
Apart from the war, there is another good reason we lost the House tonight. Luke-warm, tentative "conservatives" who shed their principles at the first sign of a pork barrel are not likely to keep voter loyalty for long. Republicans who came to Washington to drain the swamp learned that the swamp makes a pretty good sauna, so they ordered champagne and jumped in.
If we are going to be just a bad imitation of Democrats, why not go for the real thing?
Well, we got 'em. Enjoy.
I'm going to bed.
The Looming Tower and Other Worthy Books
I cast my vote this morning in California, using one of the new electronic voting machines. It was my second time to use one, and once again it was easy, easier than those old paper ballots that had to be manipulated into machinery so they could be punched. I have no idea why everyone else in the country is so confused about electronic ballots. My experience was entirely positive.
I cast my vote, now let the chads fall where they may. I did my duty. Did you?
It will be good to stop worrying about the vote, whatever the outcome. I plan to practice my upright string bass (I love the twangy resonance and my command of the instrument grows daily), visit with my oldest son Stogie Jr. who is coming to visit from Washington State. Finally, I plan to continue reading my latest book purchase, "The Looming Tower."
In the past month I read David Limbaugh's "Bankrupt," a book title but also his (accurate) description of the moral state of the Democratic Party, as well as "The Truth About Mohammed" by David Spencer. The latter contained little new information for me, and if anything, Spencer was kinder to Mohammed than other writers, like Craig Winn, the author of "Prophet of Doom" who covers the same material in his book.
Now I'm reading "The Looming Tower" by Lawrence Wright and it is very well written! It reads like a novel and describes the history of Al Qaeda and the events leading up to 9/11.
Lawrence Wright, I understand, is a liberal but his political affiliation does not seem to overly influence his opinions or attitudes. He seems like a scholar who is sincerely seeking the objective truth. Nevertheless, he does make a few mistakes in his text. He describes the Islamic hatred of Jews as being born of Nazi propaganda in the years before World War II, which he says infected Muslims with this "ancient Western prejudice." That's probably the dumbest thing I've read in the book so far. Muslims have hated Jews since the 7th century and have persecuted, enslaved and massacred them in great numbers since that time. See Walid Shoebat's book for many examples. Prejudice towards Jews is ancient all right, but it is an ancient Middle Eastern prejudice more than it is a Western one.
Another mistake he makes is to quote the Qur'an surah which states that murder is evil, and that to murder one person is the same (morally) as murdering all humankind. Wright naively believes this admonition was meant to include the murder of infidels, which it does not, of course. Infidels are always open season for Jihadis. I wonder if Wright has read about the millions of Infidels killed by Muslims over the centuries? If so, why would he make such a patently stupid remark?
His third mistake (so far) is that he gives credence to the apocryphal story of Mohammed talking about the "inner struggle for righteousness" as the "Greater Jihad," whereas fighting in battle is only the "Lesser Jihad." My readings indicate this tale comes from less reliable sources (it does not appear in the Quran or the most trusted Hadiths) and that it is rejected as true by many (or maybe most) Muslims. But it sounds great for gullible Westerners.
I don't want to over emphasize Wright's mistakes, however, as the book strikes me as excellent. Wright does not sugar coat or rationalize the extremist, murderous views of Bin Laden or his followers, or the Muslim Brotherhood or other bloodthirsty groups that preceded them. He could, however, have put them into a more accurate context within Muslim history and doctrines.
Nevertheless, the book gives details of the life of Osama Bin Laden, his father and other prominent Jihadis and describes the culture and experiences that shaped their radical vision.
I highly recommend it.
I cast my vote, now let the chads fall where they may. I did my duty. Did you?
It will be good to stop worrying about the vote, whatever the outcome. I plan to practice my upright string bass (I love the twangy resonance and my command of the instrument grows daily), visit with my oldest son Stogie Jr. who is coming to visit from Washington State. Finally, I plan to continue reading my latest book purchase, "The Looming Tower."
In the past month I read David Limbaugh's "Bankrupt," a book title but also his (accurate) description of the moral state of the Democratic Party, as well as "The Truth About Mohammed" by David Spencer. The latter contained little new information for me, and if anything, Spencer was kinder to Mohammed than other writers, like Craig Winn, the author of "Prophet of Doom" who covers the same material in his book.
Now I'm reading "The Looming Tower" by Lawrence Wright and it is very well written! It reads like a novel and describes the history of Al Qaeda and the events leading up to 9/11.
Lawrence Wright, I understand, is a liberal but his political affiliation does not seem to overly influence his opinions or attitudes. He seems like a scholar who is sincerely seeking the objective truth. Nevertheless, he does make a few mistakes in his text. He describes the Islamic hatred of Jews as being born of Nazi propaganda in the years before World War II, which he says infected Muslims with this "ancient Western prejudice." That's probably the dumbest thing I've read in the book so far. Muslims have hated Jews since the 7th century and have persecuted, enslaved and massacred them in great numbers since that time. See Walid Shoebat's book for many examples. Prejudice towards Jews is ancient all right, but it is an ancient Middle Eastern prejudice more than it is a Western one.
Another mistake he makes is to quote the Qur'an surah which states that murder is evil, and that to murder one person is the same (morally) as murdering all humankind. Wright naively believes this admonition was meant to include the murder of infidels, which it does not, of course. Infidels are always open season for Jihadis. I wonder if Wright has read about the millions of Infidels killed by Muslims over the centuries? If so, why would he make such a patently stupid remark?
His third mistake (so far) is that he gives credence to the apocryphal story of Mohammed talking about the "inner struggle for righteousness" as the "Greater Jihad," whereas fighting in battle is only the "Lesser Jihad." My readings indicate this tale comes from less reliable sources (it does not appear in the Quran or the most trusted Hadiths) and that it is rejected as true by many (or maybe most) Muslims. But it sounds great for gullible Westerners.
I don't want to over emphasize Wright's mistakes, however, as the book strikes me as excellent. Wright does not sugar coat or rationalize the extremist, murderous views of Bin Laden or his followers, or the Muslim Brotherhood or other bloodthirsty groups that preceded them. He could, however, have put them into a more accurate context within Muslim history and doctrines.
Nevertheless, the book gives details of the life of Osama Bin Laden, his father and other prominent Jihadis and describes the culture and experiences that shaped their radical vision.
I highly recommend it.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Not Voting? Explain That to American War Dead!
CLICK ON THE PICTURE TO ENLARGE
If you're one of the Americans who aren't going to vote to "protest" the Republicans' tepid defense of conservative principles, think again.
Approximately 1.3 million American soldiers, sailors and pilots didn't die in America's wars so you could sit on your butt and pout. They didn't fight and die at Bunker's Hill, Gettysburg, Belleau Wood, Pork Chop Hill, Khe Sahn or Fallujah so you could act like a spoiled dick or one of those pretentious asses who think that not voting makes them somehow morally superior.
Tens of thousands of anonymous Americans who went in harm's way and who now lie under the sod or the sea gave their lives and their futures so America might survive tyranny and Americans might continue to enjoy freedom. You know, freedom, as in the right to worship as you please, associate with whom you please, pursue happiness and seek your own destiny free from the dictates of tyrants. And yes, to vote for whom you please.
So if you're protesting by not voting, as soon as the radical Left Democrats seize control of the country, go visit your local cemetery. Find the military section, walk among the headstones and say, "Thanks for your sacrifice! Thanks for NOTHING!"
Because if you sit at home and pout on election day, that's exactly what you are saying to our war dead.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Associated Press Shills For Democrats
Read this brazenly partisan and biased reporting from the Associated (with terrorists) Press:
The Democrat strategy is obviously to be optimistic and upbeat so Dems will go to the polls and vote pro-terrorist next week, because they are against the war in Iraq and because of "scandal at home."
The last bit about "scandal at home" is particularly dishonest and nothing more than a talking point, a manufactured "controversy" to influence the election. What scandals? You mean like the Democrat who hid $90,000 in bribe money in his freezer? No, they mean the "scandal" of the gay Republican who sent instant messages to former pages. That is a scandal of the particular Congressman, but not of the Republican Party. The Democrats and their cheerleaders in the mainstream press have been trying to create a false aura of "scandal" surrounding the Republican Party for several years now - they call it "the Party of Corruption," but it simply isn't true and they know it.
As for a "party in peril," it is clearly the Democrats who are in sharp decline. Traditionally, the party out of power picks ups something like 34 congressional seats in the sixth off-year elections and 6 seats in the Senate (see Ann Coulter's column today, linked at the right of the page). The Dems may pick up six seats in the House and a few in the Senate, but what they would normally pick up is way below par. Why?
Why is because, as Coulter so accurately nails it, is that the Democratic Party if a frivolous and dying party without any major causes that resonate with voters. Not surprisingly, their major propagandists in the mainstream media are also in sharp decline, laying off many workers amidst declining revenues and readers.
May the Dems and the MSM soon lay side by side in the graveyard of history. Personally, I will shed no tears for either one.
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush, campaigner in chief for a party in peril, set out on a rescue mission for embattled candidates in the unlikeliest of places Thursday as Republicans struggled to minimize their losses in next week's elections...
Five days before the election, Democratic strategists said none of their incumbents in either house of Congress was trailing - and Republicans did not disagree.
The GOP side of the political ledger was far less positive. Strategists already have
written off the re-election prospects of incumbent Sens. Rick Santorum in
Pennsylvania and Mike DeWine in Ohio, as well as six or more seats in GOP hands
in the House. Dozens more Republican lawmakers - powerbrokers and ackbenchers,
conservatives and moderates - struggled to survive in a campaign shadowed by the
war in Iraq and scandal at home.
The Democrat strategy is obviously to be optimistic and upbeat so Dems will go to the polls and vote pro-terrorist next week, because they are against the war in Iraq and because of "scandal at home."
The last bit about "scandal at home" is particularly dishonest and nothing more than a talking point, a manufactured "controversy" to influence the election. What scandals? You mean like the Democrat who hid $90,000 in bribe money in his freezer? No, they mean the "scandal" of the gay Republican who sent instant messages to former pages. That is a scandal of the particular Congressman, but not of the Republican Party. The Democrats and their cheerleaders in the mainstream press have been trying to create a false aura of "scandal" surrounding the Republican Party for several years now - they call it "the Party of Corruption," but it simply isn't true and they know it.
As for a "party in peril," it is clearly the Democrats who are in sharp decline. Traditionally, the party out of power picks ups something like 34 congressional seats in the sixth off-year elections and 6 seats in the Senate (see Ann Coulter's column today, linked at the right of the page). The Dems may pick up six seats in the House and a few in the Senate, but what they would normally pick up is way below par. Why?
Why is because, as Coulter so accurately nails it, is that the Democratic Party if a frivolous and dying party without any major causes that resonate with voters. Not surprisingly, their major propagandists in the mainstream media are also in sharp decline, laying off many workers amidst declining revenues and readers.
May the Dems and the MSM soon lay side by side in the graveyard of history. Personally, I will shed no tears for either one.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
The Fatuous Wimpoid Known as John Kerry
Check out Michelle Malkin's blog today, Drudge Report or Little Green Footballs. They have a picture of a bunch of Marines holding up a sign that reads "Halp us Jon Carry - we r stuk hear in Irak."
John Kerry is a fatuous blowhard, a phony, an empty suit, a balloon filled with hot air and nothing else.
This coward served three months in Vietnam as the captain of a swift boat, recommended himself for three purple hearts, all of which were dubious, as well as a bronze star and a silver star for his daring exploits (he typed them up himself, describing valorous exploits that never happened or were greatly exaggerated). As soon as he got his last purple heart, he asked to be sent back to the states for his egregious wounds. Since the swift boats were running out of bandaids, they agreed.
When John F Coward returned to the States, he became a willing tool of the Marxist Communists, arranging false testimony of "Vietnam veterans" (actually, drugged out hippies who never served) before the Church Committee, alleging horrendous war crimes against the Vietnamese. Not satisfied with that, John F Coward tried to meet with North Vietnamese officials in Paris before the peace talks, an act of treason.
I suspect that if someone pricked this asshole in the butt with a pin, he would make a sound like a long, drawn-out fart and fly rapidly and haphazardly away into the sky.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
