“I trust in free speech to expose your sorry ass!”

Thunderf00t, like ZOMGitsCriss, is a free speech advocate on the internet (specifically, YouTube).  He is a scientist with a mostly left-wing political bend….but, what he says about the freedom of speech is something I definitely agree with.

It is only when people from all bits of the political spectrum will agree to unite in the fight to preserve our fundamental rights and freedoms that we can ever hope to succeed…  So, let’s start building some bridges:  I am sure that you can agree with what the spirit of what Thunderf00t says in “Is Islam a Hate-Crime?’.

ZOMGitsCriss on Ezra Levant and Macleans and Fitna

ZOMGitsCriss is somewhat of a presence among the ‘pro-free-speech’ crowd on YouTube…

She is a part of what I think is a small but growing international group of young people (most of whom are quite ‘left-wing’ – though, I have no idea where Criss stands politically) who are fighting the anti-censorship, pro-free-speech attitudes and policies which are beginning to creep onto the Internet and which threaten the impartiality of this medium to carry all kinds of information and all kinds of messages without outright censorship or some of them nebulous, non-transparent machinations through search-engine algorithm-manipulation which seem to make some information on the internet easy to find while making other ‘stuff’ so hard to find, it is, for all practical purposes, inaccessible!

Anyhow….

When I saw that the latest video of this Romanian free-speech activist mentions Ezra Levant, Mcleans (the Mark Steyn thingy) and Fitna – well, I though I ought to share it with you.

So, without further ado, here is “Islam is so wonderful and sciency and peaceful”:

A ‘Houle’ in the moral fabric of Ottawa University

Goodness knows, I am not a fan of Ann Coulter.  My dad thinks she’s cute – I’m unconvinced.  Rather, I find her offensive, ill informed, un-objective and, well, not very bright.

Still, a person’a a person, no matter how brash!

This week, Ann Coulter is going to be embarrassing conservatives in Canada by speaking at 3 Universities.  You’d think that after the ‘Bash-a-Jew’ week most Canadian Universities held in March, they’d let up a bit on the anti-Jewish rhetoric on campus…

But no, no such luck!

Ms. ‘Jews-are-unperfected-Christians’ Coulter has been invited to demonstrate her ‘selective intelligence’ at 3 Canadian Universities this week.

And why not?

Why should ALL the anti-Semitism at our Universities come exclusively from the left of the political spectrum?  A little right-wing anti-Semitism brings ‘diversity’ to those institutions we entrust with shaping our young, bright minds!

Still, I do think that it is great that she gets to give her speech, do her bit.  I may not like her views – and diss her mercilessly for her open contempt for anyone not Christian, but, she has just as much right to speak her mind (if you can stretch the meaning of the word ‘mind’) as you or I or anyone else.  Freedom of speech must be given the greatest possible precedence because, just like with an infected cut: when you hide odious ideas out of sight, they don’t just ‘go away’ – they fester.

Therefore, anything short of immediately and directly inciting violence (notice I did not add ‘hate’ there) must be permitted. If – and only if – the speaker had already said/written things which were ‘slanderous/defamatory’ or in breech of a law in another way (revealing state or trade secrets, etc.), legal action (criminal and/or civil) can and should be taken against him/her.  Not before!

What is interesting, though, is the reaction from the Universities themselves!

While all care was taken to ‘protect’ the left-wing ‘JewsZionists-are-baby-killers’ anti-semites who were left-wing and/or Muslim from any criticism of their rhetoric and from putting limits on their freedom of speech, making sure nobody was permitted to say anything which might hurt their feelings as they call for the murder of citizens of Israel, the right-wing Christian anti-Semite has been threatened with legal action – should she not self-censor her words sufficiently to some unspecified level – before she even got here!

A Houle in the moral fabric of Ottawa University – François Houle, Vice-recteur aux études / Vice-President Academic and Provost, Université d’Ottawa / University of Ottawa, 550, rue Cumberland Street, Ottawa (ON) K1N 6N5, téléphone / telephone : 613 562-5737, télécopieur / fax : 613 562-5103, e-mail: francois.houle@uottawa.ca – that Houle, to be specific, has sent Ms. ‘Jews-have-to-obey-religious-laws-but-Christians-don’t-because-Jesus-will-Fed-Ex-their-souls-right-to-heaven’ Coulter, bullying her with the threat of lawfare if he does not approve of her message.

I’m not sure if you have picked up on my subtle hints:  I think that Ms. Coulter is a personification of  much of what is wrong with the ‘right wing’.  Voices like hers drown out sane voices, like, say Thomas Sowell, and cause many, many people to reject any and all messages coming from the right’.  But…

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech!

TechnoViking: a study in positive alpha-male body language

This classic (10-year-old) video has become a meme of its own.

For Aspies, as well as everyone else, this is an excellent study in alpha-male body language and its use to skillfully dispel a potentially violent conflict.  A worthy subject of observation!

(That is an objective statement and the fact that the TechnoViking is uber-hot is most likely a simple side effect of this subject’s effective projection of super-concentrated male energy (constructively, not destructively channeled) and has not been influential in the selection of this specific video for observation and study!)

I call special attention to the classic, metllic Mjolnir-shaped amulet around the TechnoViking’s neck (which identifies him as a worshiper of Thor – NOT Odin) and the theological significance of both his socks and the colouring of his shorts:  all of which have led to the subject’s identification with the Viking theological heritage.

Thor – whose hammer (and symbol) Mjolnir is – used to be considered the ‘father’ of all the Viking gods, the head of the Norse Pantheon.  Mjolnir itself played an extremely important role in spring and fertility rites!  (Happy spring equinox!)

It was only following the influence of the Mediterranean theologies – and the rise of an affluent upper class among the Vikings – that Odin began to rise to the prominence we are accustomed to see him in.  It was Thor who had been firmly in charge during the ‘classical’ era of Norse religion!

The rise in Odin’s (and that of the ‘upper class’) influence  and status only began well into the ‘common era’ and could only succeed through diminishing the image of Thor:  thus, in later times, Thor is increasingly marginalized and, since he could not easily be maligned, ridiculed ….  Just as the ‘upper classes’ considered themselves to be much more ‘clever’ (though not ‘wise’ – in my never-humble-opinion), Odin began to thirst for more ‘knowledge’ (not ‘wisdom’) and Thor became depicted as increasingly dull and dull-witted…

What an interesting commentary on the nature of humanity:  even centuries ago, the ‘upper-middle-class progressives’ saw the unpretentious ‘conservatives’ as ‘dull and dumb’!  How little some things change… But, I digress…

By the time of Christian conquest of the Norse, Odin had risen to such prominence that he had not only de-throned Thor as the head of the pantheon, Odin had been elevated to the status of Thor’s father – reversing their original roles!

In order to join Odin’s cult, a young man had to go through a ritual of mystical ‘death and re-birth’, which was – according to the descriptions from that era, very similar to the Biblical account of the mystical initiation of Jesus’s brother-in-law… and, later, Jesus himself: a ritual ‘hanging’ (either using a rope or crucificction) to almost the point of death and ritual wounding with a sharp spear in very specific spots – identical to the places Jesus was to have been wounded by Roman soldiers while crucified – followed by 3 days of seclusion and healing….and the the joyful welcoming of the ‘re-born’ person!

But – that is NOT the focus of this video!

Nor is it the reason I embedded it.

Rather, I would like to go further back in the Norse mythology, to the time when Thor – with his ‘oak-power’ – was the alpha male god.   This is exactly the mythology of  ‘the oak’ which, for centuries, motivated European women to wish to give birth to male children ‘beneath’ or ‘in the shadow of’ an oak tree!

It is also why there are so many ‘oak-groves’ in Europe which are considered ‘sacred’ and why two days of our week are named in honour of Thor’s ‘mainland incarnations’, Tiwan and Woodin!

With the coming of the spring equinox, it is difficult to look around to see ‘all of nature waking up’ without being reminded of all the ancient spring fertility rituals (from Luprenalia to Easter) without remembering (even in some long-hidden recesses of our sub-conscious) the significance of the birch, the oak, and – with the help of TechnoViking –  Mjolnir!

So, I repeat:  this video is not just ‘eye-candy’ – it is a serious study in successful projection of ‘Mjolnir/oak/Thor-channeled’ alpha male energy and body language!

Now that you have all this in your mind – go watch the video again!

Observe and enjoy learn!

Salim Mansur: Unveiling the truth behind Sharia

If you read this blog every now and then, you probably know I am not exactly a lover of ‘Sharia’.

Quite to the contrary:  I regard Sharia as an abomination designed to de-empower (if you excuse the expression) women and other segments of society.

Salim Mansur’s colum in the Toronto Sun is right on:

“But the Islamists have succeeded in making the argument that the faith in, and the practice of, Islam is confined by the Shariah, and anything outside of it is non-Islam.

This argument deliberately obscures the fact that the Shariah is a legal system devised under Arab supremacy during the last three centuries of the first millennium and it was based on a reading of the Qur’an that reflected the prejudices of that age in history.”

And – he is absolutely right!

Shariah did not exist at all until several hundred years after the life of Muhammad.

Muhammad – for better or worse – declared that he was the last of the prophets.  That what is said in the Koran IS the whole of Islam.  That no other human  being had the power to ‘interpret’ Islam for others…

Yet, that is exactly what Shariah is:  other men’s interpretation, superimposing their opinions over the Koran!

This is exactly the very thing Muhammad forbade!  If one is to follow the rules prophet Muhammad laid down, really really follow them, they have no choice but to reject Sharia because it is against everything Islam stands for!

OK – I am not as good at expressing it as Salim Mansur is. So, read his column!

H/T: Blazing Catfur

Agnostic: what it does – and does not – mean

One term misused in debates about ‘religion’ almost as often as the term ‘atheist’ is the term ‘agnostic’.

Perhaps it’s the Aspie in me, but I think that if people are going to make passionate arguments, often using some terms in an authoritarian or patronizing manner, they ought to have taken the time to learn what those terms actually mean.  (Of course, not everyone does that – but, many do…)

The term ‘agnostic’ does not describe a person’s ‘belief in’ or ‘non-belief in’ or ‘belief-in-the-non’ existence of god(s).

Not even a little bit.

An ‘agnostic’ can believe in the existence of god(s).

An ‘agnostic’ can believe in the non-existence of  god(s).

An ‘agnostic’ can hold no belief in either the existence, or the non-existence, of god(s).

Still, many people use the term to mean ‘someone who does not believe one way or the other if god(s) exist’…..

Sorry – that is NOT what the word ‘agnostic’ describes!!!

Certainly, some agnostics fall into the category of ‘not holding a belief in either the existence, or the non-existence, of god(s).  But, that is only because there is an overlap in ‘groups’ or ‘states of belief’ that various definitions describe.

…kind of like there is an overlap between ‘long arms’ and ‘long hair’.  Both revolve about something being ‘long’.  And, some people with ‘long arms’ also have ‘long hair’.  But the terms each describe a different ‘long’ – so they cannot be used as if they meant the same thing!

Yes – I am getting bogged down in words.  To re-phrase:  the term ‘agnostic’ may include theists, non-theists, atheists or any other -theist group because it does not describe the state of one’s belief in the divine.

Rather, it describes one’s belief about the ‘ability to have knowledge’ of the existence of the divine.

Let’s look at the root of the word:

‘Gnosis’ means ‘knowledge’ in Greek.

The term, when used in English, refers to ‘spiritual enlightenment’ – as in, the type of ‘mystical enlightenment’ a person receives during a ‘spiritual  rapture’ or ‘spirit quest’ or another altered-state type meditation or similar experience.

For example, Gnostic Christians do not recognize the authority of any church or clergyman, because they strive for direct spiritual knowledge – gnosis.  This they regard as much more important than any dogma…

The prefix ‘a-‘ simply means ‘apart from’.

Thus, ‘a-gnostic’ – taken bit by bit – literally means ‘apart from (spiritual) knowledge’.

Once ‘put together’, the term ‘agnostic’ means ‘belief that it is un-knowable ‘ if god(s) do or do not exist.

Thus, this is a statement of belief.  Yes, to be an agnostic, one must hold this belief!

But this belief is not about the existence of the divine: it is a belief about existence of knowledge of the divine!

Specifically, an agnostic actively believes that we cannot know whether god(s) exist.

This does not preclude choosing to believe, anyway.  Many people have concluded that they cannot know for sure if god(s) exist, so, to be on the safe side, they decide to believe!  This is the very point of Pascal’s Wager.

Blaise Pascal argued that we cannot know – through reason, so really, really know – if God exists.  Therefore, we ought to consider the 2 possible scenarios (God exists and God does not exist) and our 2 choices of action (believe in God or not believe in God) and do a risk-assessment:

Scenario 1:  God does not exist

Choice 1:  behave as if God does exist

Result – more effort during life, but, nothing gained.

Choice 2:  behave as if God does not exist

Result – nothing lost and nothing gained.

Scenario 2:  God exists:

Choice 1:   behave as if God does exist

Result – more effort during life, but huge gain at ‘the end’! Eternal Salvation!

Choice 2:  behave as if God does not exist

Result – less effort during life, but then… everything lost! Eternal damnation!

Therefore, Pascal’s reasoning goes, the cost to one’s soul of ‘not believing’ in God is much greater (eternal damnation) than the cost of believing in God while alive (obeying the church).  Therefore, the only reasonable choice is to believe!

(OK – there could be an argument made whether Pascal actually said ‘choose to believe’ or ‘live as if you believe’:  the first one would be an agnostic who chooses to be a theist, the second one would be an agnostic who is an atheist, but chooses to behave as a theist.  But, that – as well as just how ‘voluntary’ it is ‘to believe’ – is a whole different discussion!)

Aside:  this same argument has been used by some people to justify spending tons of money on ‘preventing the disaster of global warming/anthropogenic climate change’.  That ought to suffice in helping us recognize that the whole ‘ACC’ movement is a religion, not science, and that ‘carbon credits’ are its ‘indulgences’.

But – back to the main point…

Summary:  The term ‘agnostic’ does not refer to one’s ‘beliefs’ about the existence of God.  Rather, it is the positive (‘actively present’) belief that it is impossible to know if god(s) exist.

Thus, it is a belief about the nature (presence) of knowledge.  Specific knowledge, in this case, but knowledge none the less.

It is not a statement about one’s state of belief in the subject of that knowledge – the existence of god(s).

Agnostics can either believe that god(s) exist – or not.  They just believe they cannot ever actually know

Iranian theocracy: 31 years of oppression

Today marks the 31st anniversary of when theocracy was inflicted upon Iran.

I cannot express the depth of my empathy with the people of Iran adequately – there are no words strong enough.

There are tyrannies – all kinds of tyrannies.  And it is not pleasant to live under the yoke of any tyrant!

But, not all tyrannies are the same.  The differences are very important:  perhaps not so much to any specific individual who is martyred by a tyrant, but to the overall population, there is a difference.

It is difficult to explain what I mean – but, I shall try.

There is potential for infinite goodness in humanity – but there is also a potential for infinite evil in us.  It is only the choices we make that determine which potential we are fulfilling.  The actions we choose to take or not to take – that alone fulfills our potential.

While there are such among us that take delight out of causing pain and suffering to others, they are in a minority.  If – or, rather, when (their ruthlessness drives them) – such a bad persons come to power, they can only remain there with the help of those who are corrupt. Sure, they will have cores of psychopaths they surround themselves with – but their numbers will never be large enough to keep them in power!

That is why tyrants need corrupt people to run their government.  Not actively evil psychopaths, like themselves, but, those willing to be corrupt are numerous enough among us to permit tyrants to rule.  Up to a point:  if the tyrants excesses get to be too much, even the corrupt will balk at their evil and refuse to prop them up any longer.

Or, perhaps another way of phrasing it is that a ‘simple’ tyrant is, sooner or later, seen for what he or she is:  a tyrant.  Therefore, at some point in time, enough people will loose their fear of the tyranny and will rise up against the tyrant.  This will happen when the people believe the cost of inaction is greater than the cost of rising up!

In a horrible sense, it is a self-correcting system.  Not a nice, pleasant or efficient system, but, it has been repeated enough times to note the pattern.

Even this pathetic ‘self-correction’, this ‘worst possible hope’ has been subverted by theocracies by changing the way the people measure the ‘cost in suffering’!

How?

1.   more people are willing to inflict suffering onto others if they believe they are helping bring them back to ‘righteousness’ (their ends justify the means)

2.  those oppressed are willing to suffer much longer and worse abuses because they believe they have more than just their worldly life to loose if they rebel!

The percentage of people who enjoy inflicting serious pain and suffering – for the sake of their own pleasure – really is not that big.  But, those who are willing to inflict pain and suffering onto others because they believe it is ‘a necessary evil’ – a way to drag others onto the path to salvation, whether they wish to be  saved or not – those people we have in abundance!

It’s a variation on the old saying:  ‘spare the rod and spoil the child’!  Yes, that is right!  You ‘ought to’ inflict violence on this here person, because it will ‘clense them’ and make them ‘better’!

Many of those who inflict suffering onto others under an oppressive theocracy do not do so because they enjoy the whole inflicting pain thing (except those who believe that suffering on this world buys you a better ‘next life’ – they are willing to open you a ‘savings account’ of type).

These are not inherently cruel people.  Rather, they perform these unpleasant tasks for the sake of those they oppress, for the sake of their society, for the sake of all the children, for the sake of their God!  It is the conditioning of the gullible, tricking them into committing evil against others in the name of ‘fighting evil’ and ‘being righteous’ that raises the number of potential oppressors that theocratic tyrants can exploit to keep themselves in power!

“Religion always leads to rhetorical despotism.

It shields evil behind walls of self-righteousness which are proof against all arguments against the evil.”

– Leto II

God Emperor of Dune

As for the oppressed people themselves…

They will endure more suffering if they believe it is God’s Will than they would ever stand for if they thought it a mere man’s will!

And, standing up to a God takes a lot more courage, too…

Of course, some religions add the element of ‘eternal soul’:  suffering on this Earth is good, because it will buy you everlasting bliss in the next, much longer life-after-life!  Of course, there is a stick behind  this proverbial carrot, too:  even if you get away with rebelling against God on THIS world, He’ll torture your soul for eternity in such horrible ways that only a God could imagine, so you had better not dare make trouble!

Others add the ‘collective punishment’ clause:  unless everyone does ‘the right thing’, all of humanity will suffer!   People will put up with much abuse, if they think they are buying protection for their loved ones…

Sometimes, the theocratic tyrants actually prey victim to their own propaganda and believe, truly believe, their own lies and religions!  Because they remain convinced of their own righteousness, they will remain blind to the worst evils they commit!

Just ask the people of Iran…  They rose up against a ‘simple tyrant’ only to have a theocratic one fly in from Paris and steal their freedoms away from them!

What a sad day…

Pat Condell: when the truth is illegal….

At a loss for words…

A bit ago, I wrote a post ‘Winning back our liberty: the ‘religious right’ threat’.

This was one post in a ‘Winning back our liberty’ series based on a ‘freedom of speech’ seminar I went to in December.  Earlier posts included ‘Winning back our liberty: the ‘commercial’ threat’ and its afterthought and ‘Winning back our liberty: the ‘international’ threat’ .

It took me a long time to write this post – the ‘religious right’ one – because I was afraid that people on ‘the religious right’ would either not take it seriously – so I had to strongly support my point – or that they would focus solely on the ‘supporting evidence’ and miss my actual point completely.

Well, it seems that my fears were not misplaced.   Please, just scroll down past the LEAF bit to get to where ‘Binks, the Webelf’ goes medieval on my post.

To say that I was disappointed would be an understatement.

And, ever since he posted it – a bunch of days now…hence no posts from me – I have been trying to compose a response to his criticisms.

However, I am having trouble with this.  In my typical Aspie fashion, I get lost in the details:  I wish to pick apart the fallacies in his reasoning, the errors or incomplete comprehension of the historical facts, or the misunderstanding/misrepresentation of some of the key concepts in the debate.

Either I get caught up in the minutiae.

Or I get sidetracked into correcting some serious errors in his statements.

Or I explain myself, but, I don’t think I support my arguments sufficiently.

Or – I accomplish all of the above….and my post is at over 10K words…so I delete the draft and start again.

I’ll have to work on this some more.  In the meantime – any help would be appreciated!

P.S.   I wonder if his remark about the ‘buzzing of a bee’ was an allusion to Gnostic Christian dogma, with which Binks, the Webelf knows I have been familiar with since early childhood.  Because, if it is, it means at least another 10K-words-worth of a response will be required!

Laura Rosen Cohen: Freedom will set us free

Blazing Catfur has a guest-post by Laura Rosen Cohen:  Freedom will set us free.  This is a response to the ‘official Jewry’ calls for increased censorship as they fight a war long won, instead of facing an enemy ready for a new and bloody battle:

“Time after time, when Jewish “leaders” resort to their default position on hate speech and fatuous accusations of anti-Semitism, I am called upon by my exasperated pro-Israel gentile friends to explain why these “leaders” seem so hell bent on alienating them with their knee-jerk anti-Christian biases and their frankly completely un-Jewish moral support of censorship-such as the Canadian Jewish Congress’s support of the CHRC “Hate Speech” and other “Hate Crime” legislation.”

“The real danger facing the Jewish people, and the civilized world is not Nazi words-it is deeds; beheadings, suicide bombings and highjackings with the umbrella name of “jihad”. Furthermore, it is morally and intellectually dishonest to point to insulting words as the root cause of the Nazi dehumanization of Jews.

It was the disassembling of Jewish civil liberties and civil rights that began the downward spin toward hell on earth. The descent began when Jews were stripped by the state of their rights to own property and businesses. Their physical property and humanity were legally expropriated. When the state took away the Jews’ freedom to marry whom they chose, and when the state legally defined the Jews as less than human, the descent was unstoppable.”

“The Nazi state and its laws enabled the dehumanization of Jews-not words and insults. Concentrated, dictatorial legislative powers were Hitler’s best weapon and were among the Nazis most profoundly and rapidly absorbed anti-Jewish functions within German society.

Read the full post here.

And – Ms. Rosen Cohen – well said!