"The game is now clear: any dispute between Christianity and Islam must follow rules set by political Islamism. Obey them or risk violence and death... more» ... more» ... more» The West, says Sam Harris, really is at risk from Muslim extremists."
All those "more" links are to articles decrying the lack of moral cojones on the left about radical Islam, or even just plain, old Islam as CW maintains.
A professor from Oxford who I caught on Savage's show last night made the same points. I can't remember his name, but he will be on tonight.
This whole reaction to Islamo-fascism is one of the most suicidal outbreaks of the West ever. The Oxford professor said that we lacked "moral certainty" here, and that was the great strength of Islam (not that he approved of it as such).
Because of Gurdjieff and Jung, I have a lot of moral certainty. But my cure, Reich/Janov with reprogramming by Jung and Gurdjieff is resisted.
It makes me go back to that book, Dreams of the Future, where the author talks about the "garbage and the garbagemen" as the theme of the immediate period of three hundred years of incarnation.
We come into the world sometimes to reap what we have sown in previous lives. That experience is not always a pleasant one. But to think that we can "save" everybody because we have a decent attitude toward others, care, and have persuasive arguments is to believe in folly, as Castaneda's Don Juan would call it.
Controlled folly is where you try to do something that you think that the Spirit has indicated is yours to do, but is no guarantee of success, either.
Without that practice of controlled folly, the "garbage", the unsaved, undifferentiated souls wreak havoc on you, and you regret ever taking on the role of the garbageman.
In Dreams of the Future, the image of the garbage and the garbagemen was a non-verbal communication from a spirit guide to one of the participants in this study of future incarnations by a hypnotist from Berkeley who conducted her experiments in Paris and Berkeley.
Laugh, furl your eyebrows if you must, but much of what this book predicted about 15 years seems to be coming true: everything from the coarsening of culture as the "garbage" souls stream in and demand the space for their self-expression, to the increasing volatility of the stock market, general sense of chaos, and the like.
So, there is little to be done to convince willing lemmings of the imminent danger we find ourselves in.
Just take the case of Rosie O'Donnell. Here is a woman who makes fortune in show business and get to adopt kids even while not married and living openly a life as a lesbian, yet she finds that the "Christian right" is just as dangerous as the Islamo-fascists who would put her in a burkha, take away her freedom of speech and her career, take away her children, condemn her lesbianism and make her one of someone's several wives, just to mention a few of the more obvious changes.
Everyone who thinks like this ought to go to meet Hugo Chavez and Castro along with their present ally and future enemy, the president of Iran.
Roy
____________________ "The force and degree of a man's inner benevolence evokes in others a proportionate degree of ill-will" - Gurdjieff
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." — George Orwell
Ugh. R.O'D is living proof that some people can indeed be thoroughly ugly inside and out. She clearly believes that content supersedes form. I disagree. They seem to me to be most often of equal import in human affairs. She is living proof of the John Lennon statement, "Pop-stars should for the most part stay out of politics. They tend to just get in the way".
But of course there is wisdom in those words, so naturally, R.O'D will deliberately ignore them. Pop-stars do not trust any idea or belief that does not emanate from their own cortex (or that they steal and then claim authorship). They are disciples of the religion that worships egotism and materialism above all - the religion of the Pop-Star called "Hollywood"- where "kooks" are only the norm.
Where the Commandment is, " Thou must 'do thy thing' above all, and do it in lavish style, lest you make the other look greedy! "
Beat em till they couldn't take no more
blood and teeth splattered on the floor
meanwhile on our nations soil
the sheep cried no blood for oil
u.n. failed our needs
allies left our side
you say innocent casualties
but how many have died
you protest peace signs in the air
true american don't even care
just get out of bed with saddam
just admit humbly you are wrong
empty protests won't change a thing
but this strong nation will always win
leaping on hip political trends
makes no real difference in the end
socialist unions preach civil rights
theyre cowards not americans to afraid to stand and fight
what happened to Mumia's plight?
now your the voice of Iraqis' fight
just get out of bed with saddam
just admit humbly you are wrong
____________________ Pecca fortiter, sed fortius fide et gaude in Christo!
Galactic Signature: Blue Self-Existing Monkey
Since I've been on vacation, I've had some time to reflect on the essential differences in the two dominant political schools of thought.
Hillary Clinton said:
I'm sick and tired of being told that simply because we say and do things that are anti-American, anti-defense, and anti-military that we are somehow unpatriotic!
Democratic Rep. Nancy "Impeach the President" Pelosisaid :
All of this blaming of the liberal media for all of the unpatriotic, anti-American things that they really do and say is really getting old. All of this Democratic losing of elections over and over again is really getting old. This conservatives-repeatedly-challenging-us-with-the-truth thing is really getting old. This being-held-relentlessly-accountable-for-what-liberals-say-and-do-thing, is really getting old. This being-expected-to-make-sound-decisions-based-upon-something-other-than-emotion thing, is really getting old. I'm tired of feeling threatened by the truth day in and day out.
The anti-conservative ( ie.,"liberal") stance is all about feelings, love for convenience and a need to be liked by everyone, hate, resentment, outrage, and more fear, fear, fear. They seem to believe that it's alright to make life-or death decisions with the same type of thinking one uses to decide what clothes to wear, what to order for lunch, taste in art - primarily using emotionsinstead of logic.
Responsible leaders have never made policy decisions based primarily upon emotions. Even though it's perfectly normal to state," I feel like having a chocolate ice-cream cone!" it's not to state,' I feel like pulling out of Iraq".
It's even O.K. to say something like the latter, but to believe that it's normal adult decision-making is to indulge in a childish fantasy.Emotions are great for decisions which do not require great precision or complexity (matter of taste, mood, or of little import). But logic and thought are needed for serious decisions on serious problems. Emotions often tend to get all mixed up, vague and diffuse even in normal people, so they are not very good for maing objective or precise analysis'. When one wants to know an asteroid's orbital trajectory, one does not consult one's feelings. One gets out a sliderule or a computer and calculates the numbers.
No intelligent person that I know really objects to anyone holding an opinion based upon intuition and emotion alone. But most normal people do object to dishonesty. If a person holds a policy position based upon intuition and emotion, one should not represent that view as being rational, nor make up what they know to be spurious rational arguments and defend their view with them as if they have logical integrity.
If I hear any liberal, (as at work), say something like: " God, I just hate George Bush! I admit that I don't really have any strong evidence to support my belief, but I feel strongly that he is untrustworthy and I suspect him of base character..." I would accept them as my brother. They are only speaking the truth of their beliefs and making no effort to establish some rational basis for it. I can easily and gladly relate to people who can be honest about their thoughts and feelings, even if I disagree with their conclusions.
As reknown psychaitrist David Viscott( Dr. Phil's and Dr. Laura's predesessor once pointed out correctly, "Without honesty, we have only illusions" - only Hollywood.
It's primarily a mistake of very primitive intellects to apply mostly emotional thinking to serious, technical real-time decisions. Few good decisions about grave matters are made in the heat of strong emotion. Contemplation, reflection and pondering of pertinent data are all inherent in any good decision.
The emotion-dominated attitude of the fanatic melds well with the emotion-dominated mind-set of the 21st century liberal. A fanatic has decided to suspend disbelief in their cause, and is unwilling to reappraise their viewpoint. Rather than question themselves with challenging facts, they support their view with highly biased logic based upon inducing it ( like a lawyer pleading a case) rather than deducing it (like a legitimate scientist or detective). Fanatics are 100% guided by emotion in their decision-making processes.It contaminates their ability to reason normally( ie, by considering pertinent facts and doing research to obtain more). That is one reason the 21st century far-left seems to feel an affinity for the fanatics of Islam. They both resonate on the inferior intellectual level of the emotion-dominated psyche. This type of gross intellectual immaturity is most often seen only in children, the mentally ill, or highly anti-social types
The following summarizes my indictment of the 21st century anti-conservative movement, (formerly the "liberal" movement).
My friends, it's time to face a hard, cold fact. Militant Islam wants to kill us just because we're alive and don't believe as they do. They've been killing us for decades. So it's time to stop pretending these terrorist incidents are mere episodic events and face the reality that our way of life is in grave danger. This threat is not just going to go away because we choose to ignore it. Some say we should try diplomacy. Yeah, well, tell me, how do we negotiate with people whose starting point is our death? Ask them to wait for ten years before they kill us? When good negotiates with evil, evil will always win and peace follows victory, not words issued by diplomats. But some Americans, sadly, not interested in victory, and yet they want us to believe that their behavior is patriotic.
Well, it's not. When the critics are more interested in punishing this country over a few incidents at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay than they are in defeating those who want to kill us; when they seek to destroy a foreign surveillance program which is designed to identify those who want to kill us and how they intend to do it; when they want to grant those who want to kill us U.S. constitutional rights, I don't call that patriotic. Patriotism is rallying behind the country, regardless of party affiliation to defeat Islamofascism. Patriotism is supporting our troops in the battlefield, not undermining the mission and morale. Let there be no doubt about this: America will prevail. We're the same country that survived a bloody civil war, defeated the Nazis and the Soviets. Each generation has a responsibility to the next, our generation will not disappoint.
Well, that fellow above really nailed it.
Lastly, I note that the anti-Iraq anti-WWT folks are hysterically waving the MORE DEATHS THAN IN 9-11" banner now - trying to give even more comfort and aid to the enemy and to spread discontent at home over the heroically effective WWT to date.
Imagine if the mass media in WWII declared that since the casualties of the war effort had exceeded those of Pearl Harbor, that the war should be abandoned, and the Axis should be allowed to continue their war of aggression upon the free world, unchallenged by America. How anyone can hold that position and honestly claim that they cannot understand how someone could consider that view to be unpatriotic, is either a liar, and idiot or insane.
This is WWT, a World War on Terrorism. Our nation lost 50,000 troops trying unsuccessfully to stop the Communist take-over of Southeast Asia and the ensuing genocide of over 1,000,000 innocent people by the Communists. Yet, there are people who say that losing one tenth the amount of troops we lost in Viet Nam defendng another people, in a direct response to a direct attack and massive ongoing threat by Fundamentalist Islamist/Militant Arab terrorist networks must not incur more loss of life than died in the suprise attack that started the war. To say that our level of casualties is too high (when they are in reality the lowest in the history of modern major warfare) is to say something unforgivably naive at best. At worst, it's horribly foolish, and even treasonous to the entire free world.
And I for one, am sick and tired of it.
Hey, maybe the Democrats should pick a new logo from some avowed, stridently pacifist nation that has flourished as a major power in the Free World....oh, there aren't any? Not even one? Never mind.
Try as it might the anti-conservatives will never eliminate the Warrior Spirit (whose motto is ENGAGE AND DEFEAT THE ENEMY) from it's revered role leading and defending our Free Society, nor replace it with the flaccid, feeble spirit of a diffident, timorous, trembling, neo-Communist accounting clerk.
After I used my Super Moderator Powers to read all of Corvus's PMs, private email, bank-account information, children's diary, and his mind, I also used them to put this very worthy thread in the Political Section where it seems obvious to me that it should have been in the first place. No offense to the originator intended.
If I hear any liberal, (as at work), say something like: " God, I just hate George Bush! I admit that I don't really have any strong evidence to support my belief, but I feel strongly that he is untrustworthy and I suspect him of base character..." I would accept them as my brother. They are only speaking the truth of their beliefs and making no effort to establish some rational basis for it. I can easily and gladly relate to people who can be honest about their thoughts and feelings, even if I disagree with their conclusions.
BS.
All you want is factual support for any argument presented. Doing a little self introspection, ehh PG . . . be honest with yourself.
____________________ "In a person (not Corvus) who is open to experience each stimulus is freely relayed through the nervous system, without being distorted by any process of defensiveness." -C. Rogers
Sigh... please explain the remark/question above Corvus, as I politely asked you to do in the PM I sent to you yesterday, (which you've so far ignored) or I will ignore the post and the question.
And in the future, can you please at least try to express yourself clearly so that we don't waste time figuring out what you actually mean?
You know, if my posts tend to be longer than Corvus's, at least they don't require constant follow-up clarification of what I mean. This seemingly-contrived vagueness and cryptic silliness seems like a childish way for the poster, (rather than the topic), to be the center of discussion and attention. I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds this posting habit more than a little irritating sometimes.
I suspect that, "being serious" to a person like Corvus means little more that to screw their face up into a serious expression while they are typing. If one is indeed serious about one's thoughts as claimed, one should at least be serious enough to allow others to clearly understand the post. Maybe by using the English skills that one has been given by loyal, diligent educators to make oneself clearly understood, one may do this.
