Aron Ra: Regarding the Most Hated Woman in America

In Canada, we are now debating the proposed legislation in Quebec on the restriction of in-your-face religious symbols in government owned spaces.

I am on record with my unease in permitting a government – any government – in legislating how sovereign citizens may or may not dress…while at the same time, I am also on record with my reservations about permitting individuals who are acting as ‘agents of the state’ to display overt religious symbols as we, as a country of immigrants, are bound to have some citizens who have come to Canada to escape the oppression of every single religious group ‘out there’…..and if an agent of the state, WHILE acting as the agent of the state, displays that religion’s symbols, the individual citizen will have been, in my never-humble-opinion, alienated at best and oppressed by the state at worst.

I have never claimed that I know where the balance lies!!!

Indeed, I do not.

Yet, I do think it is essential that we have this discussion honestly, without the fears that Cultural Marxism with its doctrine of ‘political correctness’ and the fear to speak honestly about our own desires and fears – so that our fellow citizens can honestly understand them, however irrational they may be – can happen.  Only when we understand this can we go back to the first principles (self ownership) and reason out the least harmful solution…our fellow citizens deserve nothing less than that!

The following video offers a bit of that – much less than that in some respects, much more in others.  I think it brings some factors to this discussion that we all ought to keep in mind when we consider the wider implication of any legislation which would seek to define what the boundaries of the outward expressions of one’s religious faith ought to be:

Thunderf00t: Atheists shouldn’t have rights -Fox News

 

Don’t get sick on the weekend – if you have to use socialized medicare…

Like here, in Canada.

A friend had a stroke on Saturday – a big one. Is paralyzed on 1/2 her body.

They did all the scans in the hospital (she’s in the ICU) – but they will not have anyone  who will look at and read them in till Monday.

Socialized medicine…America – this is coming your way!

 

 

Hassled for obeying the law…

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e74_1379122660

Just like the guys with guns who rounded up the Jews and loaded them onto trains:  just following orders/enforcing the laws.

It did not work as a defense then and it certainly does not work as a defense now.

Every police officer must question whether the order, or, indeed, law s/he is enforcing is indeed constitutional or if, by following it, they are actually breeching someone’s rights and infringing upon their inalienable freedoms.

If the law/order breeches someone’s human rights, yet the person still enforces it, in my never-humble-opinion, that person ought to face criminal charges.  Society needs to be protected from small-minded apartchicks like cops who hassle law-abiding citizens.

But, increasingly, the militarized police forces see us as a hostile population to be controlled instead of citizens whom they are to protect.  Thus, an empowered citizen, in their eyes, becomes an armed adversary to be ‘neutralized’.

 

H/T:  BCF

Some word-definitions

Today was day 5 of the Richard Warman vs Free Dominion jury trial.

Unfortunately, I did not feel well today and could not attend – my apologies for those who came here for a report.  Nor have I yet heard from anyone who had been in the courtroom, so I truly have no indication of what transpired…

So, in the meantime, I would like to present you with some definitions I had rounded up on the interwebitudes…and took the liberty of bolding/colour highlighting  some bits.

CENSOR:

The Free Online Dictionary:

cen·sor  (snsr)

n.

1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.
2. An official, as in the armed forces, who examines personal mail and official dispatches to remove information considered secret or a risk to security.
3. One that condemns or censures.
4. One of two officials in ancient Rome responsible for taking the public census and supervising public behavior and morals.
5. Psychology The agent in the unconscious that is responsible for censorship.
tr.v.cen·sored, cen·sor·ing, cen·sors

To examine and expurgate.

cen·sor

[sen-ser] Show IPA

noun

1.  an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
2.  any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.
3.  an adverse critic; faultfinder.
4.  in the ancient Roman republic) either of two officials who kept the register or census of the citizens, awarded public contracts, and supervised manners and morals.
5.  (in early Freudian dream theory) the force that represses ideas, impulses, and feelings, and prevents them from entering consciousness in their original, undisguised forms.

CENSORSHIP:

Wikipedia:

Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet or other controlling body. It can be done by governments and private organizations or by individuals…

PBS:

Censorship: The use of the state and other legal or official means to restrict speech.

The File Room:  There is a collection of definitions here, with citations, including:

Censorship is a word of many meanings. In its broadest sense it refers to suppression of information, ideas, or artistic expression by anyone, whether government officials, church authorities, private pressure groups, or speakers, writers, and artists themselves. It may take place at any point in time, whether before an utterance occurs, prior to its widespread circulation, or by punishment of commincators after dissemination of their messages, so as to deter others from like expression.

Cultural Marxism:

Excerpt from a guest-post by CodeSlinger on my blog:

In the 1920’s, Antonio Gramsci and György Lukács adapted the methods of the Marxist dialectic and critical analysis to the cultural sphere and applied it to the task of undermining Western science, philosophy, religion, art, education, and so on. The result is called the quiet revolution, the revolution from within, the revolution that cannot be resisted by force. This is cultural Marxism.

Now, that was quite bad enough, but then along came a group of sociologists and psychologists — chief among whom being Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm, and Jürgen Habermas — and they combined the Marxist dialectic with Freudian psychology to produce an exceptionally corrosive concoction called Critical Theory, which they use to deconstruct Western culture and values, and to rewrite history in terms of sexual and racial power struggles (and we can all see how that is turning out).

Collectively, these guys are called the Frankfurt School, because they originally got together under Horkheimer at the Institute for Social Research (Institut für Sozialforschung), which was domiciled in a little brick building belonging to the University of Frankfurt am Main in the early 1930’s. They all published their work in the Journal for Social Research (Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung), edited by none other than Horkheimer himself.

Then Hitler consolidated his control of Nazi Germany, so, seeing as they were all Jewish, they fled to the USA, more or less as a group, in 1934. In America, they affiliated themselves with Columbia and Princeton Universities. The Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung was renamed Studies in Philosophy and Social Science, and they really got down to business.

Not a perfect definition, but the great late Andrew Breitbart said a few colourful words about Cultural Marxism

OK, not an ‘official’ definition, but, it does give a flavour…

There is more that ought to be here:  if you have some definitions of these or other ‘terms of interest’, please, do leave them in the comments.

Note:  If you plan to troll, please, donate $100 towards the defense of Free Dominion per troll comment.  Thank you!

Walter E Williams – Government Force Or Voluntary Exchange?

 

The Mandate For Palestine Still Relevant Nearly A Century Later

Interesting article, well worth the read:

‘Successive Israeli governments have failed to recognize the supreme importance of the “Mandate for Palestine” [24 July, 1922]. The Mandate, a  historical League of Nations (the forerunner to the United Nations) document, laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law.
Jewish leadership in Israel and the diaspora has done practically nothing effective with the best political weapon they will ever have. We simply cannot afford to ignore the valid rights granted to the Jewish people under the Mandate for Palestine. Justice is on our side; we must not let it slip away.’

Warman vs Free Dominion and John Does – the Jury Trial (day 4)

Day 1′s events can be read here.

Day 2′s events can be read here.

Day 3’s events can be read here.

Today, Mr. Warman was being cross-examined by Ms. Kulaszka.

It seems that, over the years, Mr Warman had instigated or filed well over 70 lawsuits – and is very comfortable on the witness stand.

He continues to paint Ms. Kulaszka as a nazi-lawyer, sort of like a ‘mob lawyer’, and thus casts her clients as nazis and bad people in the eyes of the jury.

For all her great intelligence, Ms. Kulaszka is not a good orator.  Even the judge had difficulty following her questions at times and was asking for clarification.  After Mr. Warman would answer a question, she’d make minutes long pauses before acknowledging the answer…

Mr. Warman appeared to be trying to help her, and won much sympathy from the jury.

Half an hour into the afternoon session, I could not take it any more and I left.

EDIT:  during day 7 of the trial, the number of lawsuits initiated by Mr. Warman was said to be 69, which M. Katz side disputed by pointing out that some were multiple lawsuits against the same people but some were lawsuits with multiple defendants.

Also, I would like to clarify that the means through which Mr. Warman painted Ms. Kulaszka as a ‘nazi-lawyer’ was by name dropping and smearing, not through direct accussations.

Steven Pinker on Taboos, Political Correctness, and Dissent

 

In Defense of Being Offensive: Jonathan Rauch on the New Threats to Free Thought