So Anyway

I do a lot of posting over at Little Green Footballs as The Other Les.

Charles Johnson, the owner of the site, exercising his rightful control of the contents of his site, has just deleted a comment I made concerning the nature of Islam and the false prophet who created it.

Charles went as far as to make a suggestion:

I suggest you give yourself a timeout before I do.

If he doesn't want me to make a statement of fact on his site then I won't.

But reality is what it is and I will simply repost what I said right here.

I was responding to an adherent of Islam, who like most self appointed superior beings wrote a load of falsehoods and outright antihuman nonsense.

The last sentence of that vile rant was:



Insh'allah one day there will be no more kufr.

"Kufr", meaning "bugs" is one of their terms for those who refuse to submit to the depraved whims of the False Prophet Mohammad and those who persist in enforcing the doctrine of Islam.

I replied:



On that day the Human Race will be for all practical purposes, extinct.

All that will be left are the hominid livestock of a false god.

Humanity is not merely a physical condition, it is a state of mind. To be human is to be essentially rational and productive. The human mentality (or soul) looks upon the world, the land, the animals and plants, the natural forces, as things to be mastered for the benefit of himself and his posterity. On the other hand, the False Prophet Mohammad did not seek to master the world, but to be the master of men. The False Prophet Mohammad sought not to sustain himself by his own effort, but to seize and consume the lives and property of others for material and spiritual sustenance. To False Prophet Mohammad, justice consisted of "getting away with it" --
those who rightfully tried to resist the False Prophet Mohammad were enslaved or murdered.

I happen to completely agree with Robert A. Heinlein when he wrote that those who make slaves of other men were less than human. I also agree with Ayn Rand when she said that those who make slaves of other men should be extinct.

There is simply no excuse for such behavior.

And then I quoted Ayn Rand from Galt's Speech in Atlas Shrugged:

"Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites: morality ends where the gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason--as no advocates of contradictions can claim it. There can be no "right" to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind."

-- Ayn Rand, Galt's Speech, Atlas Shrugged

Now I'm not going to speculate as to why Mr. Johnson does not want a statement of fact on his website. I would suggest, here and now, that he perform what Ayn Rand used to call a Premise Check. Or what my drill sergeants at Fort Benning used to describe as the removal of his head from his fifth point of contact.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?
_

Sigh...

I probably should have gathered more material to do a proper Horror Quote article, but I felt compelled to do an immediate refutation of this particular piece of nonsense:

Pinochet’s regime went on to become one of the most oppressive and brutal organizations of the 20th Century.

-- "Gringo Joe", 10 Cases of American Intervention in Latin America, The List Universe

The first thing that immediately came to mind was the fact that the Administration of General Pinochet killed fewer than 3000 Marxists in the sixteen years of its existence. Whereas the minimum estimated death toll of Marxist regimes since Lenin's coup d'etat in November of 1917 is 110 million.* That runs to a bit over 3200 deaths a day on average. Do the math.

One may argue that the Pinochet administration didn't kill enough Marxists. One may also argue that killing a Marxist is not an inherently brutal act, but is an action which has the practical effect of preventing brutality.

(Of course one may also ask if it could EVER be possible to kill "enough" Marxists.)

What are your questions on this block of instruction?


* "In sum the communist probably have murdered something like 110,000,000, or near two-thirds of all those killed by all governments, quasi-governments, and guerrillas from 1900 to 1987."

-- Professor R.J. Rummel, HOW MANY DID COMMUNIST REGIMES MURDER?
_

Rant of the Day

David Kahane on National Review Online wrote:

In other words, stop thinking of the Democratic Party as merely a political party, because it’s much more than that. We’re not just the party of slavery, segregation, secularism, and sedition. Not just the party of Aaron Burr, Boss Tweed, Richard J. Croker, Bull Connor, Chris Dodd, Richard Daley, Bill Ayers, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and Emperor Barack Hussein Obama II. Not just the party of Kendall “Agent 202” Myers, the State Department official recruited as a Cuban spy along with his wife during the Carter administration. Rather, think of the Democratic Party as what it really is: a criminal organization masquerading as a political party.

Let me repeat with emphasis on the fundamental point:

...stop thinking of the Democratic Party as merely a political party... think of the Democratic Party as what it really is: a criminal organization masquerading as a political party.

I've been saying this for years, and for my trouble I've been called all sorts of names and subjected to calls for violence against my own person by the apologists and outright adherents of statism.

The first violent crime was committed before the recording of history when some now nameless thug turned his spear, a tool created to feed and protect human beings, against another human being to take by violence something from that now nameless victim.

The fundamental crime of the Democratic Party is to turn the apparatus of government -- at all levels, local, state, and federal -- against the people that governments were created to protect, the productive citizens of a free and civilized nation.

The Democrats have rejected the principle of consent as the basis of the social and political order and have sought to materially and spiritually benefit from the coercion of the productive population. Their preferred method of obtaining power, the simple majority vote (or the claim of same) with no constitutional restraints on power obtained, is simply the exercise of brute force given a happy face.

They have appointed themselves a class of masters and condemned us, the citizens of the United States, to servitude to them. This is morally intolerable.

If our families and our nation is to have a future then the Democratic Party, and their bipartisan country club collaborators, must be permanently removed from office and rendered permanently impotent in the political sphere of action. And if this means that some of their dead bodies have to be dropped into the nearest convenient landfill with the rest of the garbage, then let us do it.

Yes, I know that cancer surgery and chemotherapy is rough, but the alternative is simply unacceptable. I believe that we should be no less ruthless in the effort to destroy the tyranny of the looters and to create a new rational political order for ourselves and our own children.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?
_

Blast From The Past

"Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites: morality ends where the gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason--as no advocates of contradictions can claim it. There can be no "right" to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind."

-- Ayn Rand, Galt's Speech, Atlas Shrugged

Of course when I advocate literally returning fire at the practitioners of force I get called all sorts of names, like "the embodiment of all evil on Earth."
_

A Short Rant

Back when I was writing for the original edition of The Resister I used to have a lot of fun through the process of morally kicking a number of token African columnists for various newspapers. A case in point is Derrick Z. Jackson of the Boston Globe. My lack of God! What an idiot!

In fact, given the origin of the term idiot, as a Greek term for someone who doesn’t participate in public life, Mr. Jackson would actually have to work his way up to qualify as one.

According to Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer at the Not Evil Just Wrong website Mr. Jackson has a problem with saving human lives. Specifically the lives of children in Africa.

"The use of DDT makes me shudder," Mr. Jackson said as he traveled through Uganda.

Now why would he have a problem with a substance that is known to harm only the disease carrying insects that kill his fellow Africans?

Because once upon a time ago a morally sick woman by the name of Rachel Carson told a lie. She said that DDT was killing the cute little birdies before they were hatched from their eggs.

This assertion has never been verified. But so what? Politicians who posture as "environmentally conscious" chose to ban the use of DDT as a pesticide anyway. The result is a bodycount through malaria that apparently rivals that run up by the followers of Hitler or Stalin.

If there were in fact a Dark Lord of Hell, he would have to pat the shade of Rachel Carson on the head and say, in the tone of voice used by the teachers of mentally retarded children, “GOOD JOB!”

In reality the life of a human being must have a superior moral value in any valid moral system. Even if a bunch of cute little birdies have to die so a child can live, we should not have a ethical problem with that. And anyone who does have a problem with that should not be allowed to hold any position of political authority.

But Derrick Z. Jackson is also a Socialist. Which means that the idea that a mere human being is more than an animal, and thus has a superior right to live, is shall we say, double-plus ungood to him.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?
_

A Prediction.

President Barack Obama will send American forces to Honduras to restore former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya by force, or will use American civil and military resources to support a third party invasion (by the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua) to do the same.

(For a short explanation of what's going on down there I will refer you to Neil Boortz's article on the situation.)

Some people may object to this prediction. They insist on believing that we are now living in a new age of peace, love, and happy chocolates. And that under the rule of our new political messiah a military intervention in the internal affairs of another nation is now a thing of the past. I wouldn't be surprised if those same people still believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and Barbara Streisand.

My answer to such infantile objections is this, to the those who uphold the moral and legal primacy of the parasite, POWER IS LIFE. Thus any obstacle to absolute power is essentially seen as toxic to would-be absolute ruler.

The President of Honduras attempted to violate the Honduran Constitution and refused to obey an order of the Honduran Supreme Court. As a result he was removed from office in accordance to Honduran law. What the armed forces of Honduras did is in no way, morally or legally, distinguishable from that of a police officer or sheriff enforcing an order issued by a local judge.

Think of it as a constitutional republic in action.

But to the neolithic god-kings and their mobs of worshipers the exercise of the actual rule of law is an abomination. It sets an example to the people of other nations (and I'm looking at YOU my fellow Americans) for how to properly deal with would be dictators. (Of course I also favor the application of one round to the head in the old Soviet style, just to be damned sure.) To the tyrannophiles this is a crime that must be punished.

So don't be surprised if we hear that American troops are being sent to Honduras in order to "restore" democracy.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?
_