Tolerance

This article led to a conversation about tolerance. The person I was talking to claimed that she would "hate to have to tell my children I lost my job/car/house because I had no tolerance for another's belief and burned their holy book."

Tolerance is an anti-concept. It is designed to imply that something (like religion, social norms or traditions) just because of their nature, are deserving of a free ride, literally of being tolerated... Tolerance is defined as "to allow the ...existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance" or "to endure without repugnance; put up with"

Now that concept might be applicable to a boisterous child running slightly amok in the kitchen but do you think we really ought to tolerate an ideology that demands homosexuals to be hanged, women to be stoned to death for the crime of being rapped, where it is written that a man can take a child as his bride, where it demands the death of every single living person who doesn't believe what is written in some megalomaniac's piece of delirious, misogynistic hateful homophobic fiction?

Is this really what we want to tolerate?

No.

Muslim Terrorists and Moderates in Ottawa

The story broke yesterday with the arrest of two men, carefully unidentified, so carefuly in fact that simple information such as their ethnicity (information routinely given out in other arrests) was withheld - but that is perhaps a point for a future post.

Then today what was suspected by all, was proven to be true. The men accused are all of middle eastern descent and Muslim.

But again, for me, that fact is unimportant.

What is important is that one of the largest and most powerful Muslim organizations in this country the Muslim Canadian Congress is sounding out. However, the protestations of this group have not been in outrage at the RCMP or to claim racism or bigotry as has so often happened before in other places. Instead they have voiced their outrage against the ideology of Jihad. They have called for Muslims in Canada to stem this evil and to address this "serious problem among Canadian Muslim youth".

"Salma Siddiqui, the Muslim Canadian Congress vice-president said in a telephone interview that she was “livid and frustrated” that young Muslim men were still being seduced by the idea of fighting a holy war in the name of Islam.

“It has to stop,” she said."

Raheel Raza, also of the Muslim Canadian Congress went even further in this article when she admitted that...

"This is not something that comes as a total surprise . . . we have a problem,"

To add to the credibility of this group, to show that they are indeed the moderate western face of modern Islam in Canada, Muslim Canadian Congress has condemned the Ground Zero Mosque on the front page of their website saying...

“Many Muslims suspect that the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation, to thumb our noses at the 'infidel.' We believe the proposal has been made in bad faith and, in Islamic parlance, is creating 'fitna,' meaning 'mischief-making,' an act clearly forbidden in the Qur’an.”

For those that claim there are no moderate Muslims the words of Salma Siddiqui, Raheel Raza, and the Muslim Canadian Congress would seem to make a lie of that claim.

I should point out, that I do believe that Islamic fascism is a real and continuing problem. But regardless of that, as a rational individual I know that it is individuals that set their own beliefs, guide their own destinies and run their own lives. That simple knowledge will not allow me reasonably to condemn all Muslims as dangerous terrorists or Islamofascists any more than it is reasonable and proper to believe that every German, alive in the world between 1931 and 1945 was a Nazi.

Religion of Perverts.

Is this religion of misogynistic, paedophiles and perverts the same one people say we shouldn't criticize out of respect for a culture that is "different" than our own?

Why?

Peace at any Cost

"Canada is supportive of it because there are no conflicts in the world that have been able to resolve themselves without any reconciliation and reintegration so we have indicated our support for that process."

Minister Canon is correct. but not in the way he believes he is.

Conflicts, or should I say wars, because war is where we are at, don't "resolve themselves". They are won or they are lost. Apartheid, the first "conflict" to have a Truth and Reconciliation Commission was a war that the forces of freedom and equality won. Then they chose to engage the enemy in dialogue.

Just what are our politicians trying to reconcile with the Taliban? Do they so naievely believe that the Taliban and their fellow travellers are going to "renounce violence" when it has already gotten them so much?

The terrorists and Taliban have fought NATO to a virtual standstill. Why? Because NATO is not permitted to wage the kind of war that would see the Taliban defeated. NATO is becoming a UN light, hamstrung by feel good policies where the desire to reduce collateral damage is more important than winning the war. Could you imagine Churchill demanding that the bombing of Dresden be halted because of collateral damage?

What sort of negotiations would take place under this reconciliation commission? What concessions would the Taliban get in return for laying down their arms? Maybe they would only be able to stone adulterers every other day? Mondays Wednesdays and Fridays are kill an infidel day, but Tuesday Thursday and weekends are reserved for religious secularism? Girls schools are fair game for beatings and acid throwing but they promise not to kill homosexuals?

When the South Africans developed the Truth and Reconciliation Commission it was because they knew that there was some value, some good in the white South African culture. They knew that their country would be less able, less stable and less prosperous without the whites and their skill, knowledge and experience. So someone please tell me what value is there in anything that comes out of the Taliban's twisted ideology?

Nothing.

Stop this insanity now. Don't offer any deal, no capitulation no reconciliation.

Lets get back to work and fight this war like it really matters, because you know what... it does.

Because for every Taliban scumbag hiding in a cave there are 40 or 50 more psychopathic fascists watching the goings on in Afghanistan on the Internet in Saudi Arabia, Iran Pakistan and Indonesia waiting for us to fail...

There is a cost that must be paid for peace. That cost is nothing short of total war. It's time for us to get our peace at any cost.

A Veiled Threat?

Well the French Parliament has decided to ban the Veil.

With all the problems that country has with a growing Muslim population accompanied by growing extremism, that is the French solution?

Gee, If they'd only been this pro-active in 1939... They could have stopped the Germans cold by outlawing Lederhosen.

Don't Just Let Them Speak, Let Them be Heard...

Canada and Canadians have missed a huge opportunity by banning Dr. Zakir Naik from speaking in person in Toronto at "The Journey of Faith Conference".

We should have let him come, more than that we should have put someone inside that conference to video the entire thing, every speech and every speaker.

Because maybe if Joe and Jill six-pack heard one of these people claim that "every Muslim should be a terrorist," or that it's okay to beat your wife - without leaving a physical mark of course (how very moderate of him) they would realize that this is an ideology of hate and fear and that every single person in that conference is a supporter implicitly or explicitly of the destruction of our way of life.

For those that would call me intolerant I say thank you. I have no desire to develop a tolerance for evil, or the cattle that follow it.

Gaza 2010 = Sarajevo 1914?

It is ridiculous that the world seems to be standing around watching as this shapes up. To think of a parallel, the Iranians sending an aid ship to Gaza is the equivalent of the Russians sending an “aid ship” to Cuba in October of 1962.

Iran has sworn to “wipe Israel off of the map”. Israel has sworn to defend herself, and that includes the blockade of Gaza.

With Israel standing alone and surrounded by her Muslim enemies, and the rest of the world playing the part of two of three monkeys - seeing and hearing no evil in the intent of those who would break the blockade – does someone really need to point out that Israel is a nuclear capable nation and Iran is pushing toward that goal (while Obama, America’s Nero – fiddles with his foreign policy)?

Israel’s enemies continue to push. They launch rockets, they threaten, they cajole and so far all Israel’s appeasement has done has been to embolden them. Israel’s patience is not infinite however and when push comes to shove they will strike back to save their lives.

This is the point we are going to reach sooner rather than later if the Iranian “aid ships” steam for Gaza. Israel will push back, there will be blood. The Muslim world will condemn. The UN will condemn out of one side of its mouth while calling for an “impartial investigation” out of the other. The new American administration will lower its eyes, kick as the dirt beneath its feet like a shamed child and remain silent.

At that point, abandoned by all her allies implicitly if not explicitly, what option does Israel have?

Surely Israel will launch an attack on Iran to prevent that theocratic totalitarian state from ever achieving nuclear status, and from that act of self-preservation the entire set of dominoes may fall.

This single event, this largely ignored calculated provocation of Israel by her sworn enemies has the possibility of being this millenniums "shot heard round the world"..

And so far all the world has done is scold the victim and praise the assassin.

Imagine...

"From this distance, it's easy to be sanctimonious about Israel's commando raid on the Turkish flotilla, and costless to be naive about the motives of those onboard.

Read the whole thing...

Not Neutral... Ambivalent. Not Compassionate... Evil

I will never donate another penny to the Red Cross.

The Red Cross' treatment of the Taliban in Afghanistan exemplifies the predominant philosophy of our age writ large. The Red Cross is exhibiting its altruistic roots, it is supporting people who would see it and every other vestige of "western society" completely destroyed. How wonderfully selfless.

Ayn Rand once said that "Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent." and she was right.

That answer to the Red Cross' implicit philosophy draws some fire from "compassionate humanists" though...

"The Red Cross is just being neutral" they say just like in WW2 when they dealt with German POW's in Prison camps.

That is a good point and I hadn't thought of it before but their assistance to the Taliban now is no different than their assistance to Nazi's in WW2.

I see now that the Red Cross is not immoral for doing this but rather that it is amoral. It is designed as an organization to be unable to distinguish between right and wrong, good from evil. Which in my book puts it directly alongside the evil it is unable to recognize.

"But the Red Cross is just like Switzerland..." they cry "Neutral!"

But they miss a very important distinction between the Swiss neutrality and the Red Cross'.

The Swiss neither help nor hinder any side. They keep their hands to themselves in all matters. This isn't amoral, they have decided that it is in their self-interest as a nation to stay out of it all altogether.

The Red Cross is not neutral it is ambivalent. It doesn't care who it helps. It makes every one of the good guys fighting for the moral and right reasons, the exact same as every misogynistic, racist, ignorant, socially backward, religious fanatic and bugger Taliban on the battlefield.

In short, the Red Cross equates MMV winners, guys like Tpr Shane Dolmovic and our leaders, like General Hillier with the scum-bags who throw acid on schoolgirls and stone women to death for the crime of adultery when they have actually been raped.

There is a moral choice facing the Red Cross, it is as clear as white and black, and they are evil for failing to make that choice.

Then comes the next philosophical head fake...

"The Taliban were raised to believe what they do, their society is structured that way, their religion has taught them that they are right. So who are we to say what is moral? "

To answer a question of morality I would ask what is the purpose of existence and what position among all the positions of all religions, ideologies and cultures best upholds that purpose?

For me the purpose of existence is life, my life and my living of it. In other words living in a rationally self-interested way.

Now this does not mean living as a range of the moment hedonist. Tiger Woods was not operating in his self-interest when he was out whoring around, as evidenced by how much those actions have cost him personally and professionally.

Nor is it a blank cheque to treat people as sub-human, as disposable and worthless. After all it does not further my life to live in a society where I would need to treat every other person as a danger rather than a possible source of value to enhance and enrich my life.

It also doesn't benefit me to treat this life like a shadow of something more "beyond the grave". Reality and the facts of it all point to this being the only existence we are going to get. Dismissing reality is the first cardinal sin against living a good, long, successful and happy life.

It also means that altruistic sacrifice (the relinquishment of a greater benefit for a lesser one) is contrary to living in this life.*

* A note here, our soldiers do not sacrifice themselves for a lesser value. They have either made a conscious decision that what they are fighting for is worth the possibility of death or they have weighed the risks and believe themselves to be skilled enough to survive where others will not. Neither of these is sacrifice.

So to get back to the deciding of what is moral or not; using these few points and many others that it would take too long to list I can, and you can, determine what is moral and what isn't, and we should.

More than that I believe that this world would be much better off if people would use the standard of their own lives to determine their morality instead of accepting someone else's definition, ideology or superstition.

Like Rand said. "The moral principle to adopt is Judge and be prepared to be Judged."

Actions can not be separated from their results, no matter if you claim compassion, humanity or neutrality as your excuse. No matter if you are an individual or a multi-national organization.

I have judged the Red Cross by their actions and I find them to be immoral, and evil.

*H/T Chris

Buried Chest High...

Push and We Push Back...

I wasn't going to get involved with "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day"on the 20th as advertised here, and elsewhere... That is until I saw this.

So here he is.

Although, as of yet no one has tried to do the same here I have no doubt that Islamofascists would try if they thought they could get away with it.

Regardless, here is a little bit of advice for any would be Islamic fanatics out there. If you try to push your nonsense onto our way of life, if you try for the sake of stupid superstition to limit our freedoms, if you threaten and if you cajole... we will push back. And you will loose.

By the way... my response is the same to Christian fanatics that want to force their particular brand of stupidity down our throats.

Believe what you want, that is your right but your right ends where my right begins.

Islam is...

Don't Ever Forget

*

Don’t Call It Moral.

The Scottish Judge who released Terrorist bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi the killer of 270 people over Lockerbie Scotland said in an interview with CNN that;

“Equally, we have values that we seek to live by, even if those who perpetrate crimes against us have not respected us or shown any compassion. Here is a dying man. He didn't show compassion to the victims, American or Scottish. That does not mean that we should lower ourselves, debase ourselves, or abandon our values.

He was justly convicted, but we're allowing him some mercy to return home to die.”

This statement by the judge implies the application of a moral standard, but morals are defined as; of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong;

The last part is central to my point. Under Christian religious morality one should always find it in their heart to forgive a transgressor, no matter what it is that they have done wrong. This is the central tenant of Christian “morality”.

The problem is that it isn’t moral; it is specifically and implicitly amoral. It discards all concept of right and wrong and replaces it with the vilest abdication of thought imaginable. Christianity tries to make the devout follower indifferent to questions of right or wrong and wholly dependent and subservient to some mystical whim which is itself contradicted in Christian religious writings (including anecdotal evidence of god’s actions).

So here is your choice. You can believe in the Christian morality and try to walk your religious tightrope which lists a multitude of things as evil but also states that you should forgive any transgression no matter how vile, or you can apply the morality encapsulated in the sentence “In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.”

Quickly… Choose. Choose to compromise on any and all moral decisions, to abandon any principal based on the whim of a deity who himself fails to apply what he teaches, or you can take the hard line, the resolute stance to believe in right and wrong regardless of circumstance, immovable by whim, immutable by the mystic babbling of an invisible unknowable and completely inconsistent god.

UPDATE: Scottish Justice...

Is a dish best served at a "hero's" homecoming...



Sickening.

Welcome to Canada Mr. Galloway

There has been quite some row over the Canadian government's decision to not permit British MP George Galloway to enter the country.

Reading the comments left at the link above it is easy to see that on one side you have those who see his support for terrorism (in the form of actual financial aid to Hamas) as the antithesis of Canada's position and on the other you have those useful idiots claiming that this is the conservative government clamping down on free speech.

Now I'm all for free speech, pure unfettered free speech, without any trace of censorship of any kind. I don't want the HRC to tell anyone what they can and can not say. You want to spout ignorance and hate, go ahead and prepare to reap what you sow.

But what Galloway is doing is not speech. His financial aid to terrorists is not the equivalent of a hate filled pamphlet, hell... Ernst Zundel was a Canadian citizen and we kicked him out of the country for writing about the kind of hate that Galloway pays for.

When it comes to Jews, Zundel lied, and Galloway helps ensure they die. For that simple fact I say we should welcome Mr Galloway into Canada.

Further, I suggest he enjoy his stay in Dorchester at the request of the Canadian Government and in concurrence with our laws.

Wake Up and Smell the Appeasement.

I'm not the only one who sees a problem with feeding the alligators after all.

Feeding The Aligator

So the anointed one has said that he would negotiate with Taliban moderates. He's not the first, unfortunately, and this brilliant strategy has been welcomed (again) by Hamid Karzai.

Now forgetting for a second that the only thing that separates Karzai from Robert Mugabe is Karzai's reliance on the west, what exactly does this willingness mean?

Well to negotiate there has to be a give and take, compromise must be reached.

The modern liberal world is made up of rights respecting nations. the Taliban, not so much. So I wonder what the difference would be between now...

NATO Leadership: "We will continue to fight the Taliban and their evil ideology."

Taliban: "Allahu Akbar"

and then...

Obama Negotiator: "Ok, so you're allowed to kill homosexuals for being gay as long as you let children fly kites, and women can still be stoned to death for being raped as long as you allow your people to have the odd shot of fermented goats milk with dinner."

Taliban: "Allahu Akbar"

What could possibly go wrong...

SOTCA

Never mind human rights violations, torture, executions, mass murder, extremist jihadists or totalitarianism... That little old lady in Windsor Castle is the real concern.

Eliminating freedom and prosperity, one industry at a time.

Filed under "credible source"; Seriously, anyone paying attention to our casualty rate in Afghanistan or to the effectiveness of the Taliban resistance knows that this is the Taliban begging for their lives from the bottoms of their little rat caves. The Mujahideen these losers are not.

Google Couillard, now tell me we'd still be paying attention to this crap if she looked like this.

"Mr. Poilievre also suggested aboriginals need to work harder rather than receive more money." The first casualty of politics is truth.

And Canada's status as a totalitarian banana munching state without free speech, castrated by corrupt star chambers, fed by pompous petty bureaucrats who have never really fought for a right in their lives grows... Fire. Them. All.

Signs of the Collectivist Apocalypse (SOTCA)

More rights ≠ More liberty

More rights ≠ More Freedom

More rights = A wrong

We are quickly sliding into the realm of a 'rights' tyranny. With every new "right" concocted by our hypersensitive, overly judicious, politically correct, namby-pamby nanny state, someone else looses a right.

Your right to ensure that the people you hire will do what it was that they were hired for in the first place is contravened by someone else's right to disobey and mooch. (H/T to Ezra)

Your right to free speech is contravened by someone else's (Syed Soharwardy) right to not be "offended".

Your right to have an opinion and express it is contravened by someone else's right to not have it published (McLeans Magazine & Mark Stein).

Your right to call someone an ass for being an ass is contravened by his right to not have his feelings hurt. (Kate at SDA vs. Richard Warman)

Your right to property is contravened by someone else's right to lay claim to that property (Caledonia).

Your right to protect the beliefs you hold dear is contravened by someone else's right to do what your belief tells you is sinful and immoral (Priest charged for Preaching that homosexuality is a sin).

So much for the freedom our rights were supposed to provide, but hey, NONE of our rights were ever guaranteed.

From our glorious illiberal ill-conceived and poorly legislated Charter of 'rights and freedoms'

(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including

a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and
b) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.