Posted in Fighting Against Jihad, Rule of Unreason on August 7, 2008 by ragnard

So I watched a show called Taboo last night on the National Geographic channel.  They had 3 segments.  In Thailand, parents make their kids fight Mui Thai for money, a woman is still breast-feeding her 6 year old son, and shiite muslims butcher themselves and encourage their sons to butcher themselves during the “festival” of ashoura.

Oh, and they showed how 100 years ago, children in western countries worked at an early age.  Nice moral equivalence, this episode.  First of all, let’s take the breast-feeding story right out of it.  Whatever the merits of doing it that long, or of weaning a child at an earlier age, this just isn’t in the same league as the other segments!

Let’s quickly address child labor so we can get on to the real point.  Today, people take it as a god-given right of children not to work until 16 or 18.  This is the same error as Marxism.  Where will the stuff come from, that we all have a “right” to consume?  A childhood of leisure and education is a luxury only affordable to the wealthy (such as the majority of Americans today).  Societies such as America 100 years ago, or most of the world today, cannot afford this.

Now, on to sending children to risk their lives and their brains in the blood sport of Mui Thai.  They are poor.  They are doing it for money.  They need money.  But it’s wrong.  You earn money in order to pay for the values necessary to human life.  You can’t destroy human life in order to earn money (well you can, but I condemn it).  It’s bad enough when consenting adults risk their lives, health, and brains to fight for money.  It is obscene to force a child into this self-destructive lifestyle.

The one thing that I will say about it is that it appears (based on the “depth” of watching 20 minutes about it on TV, mind you!) to be based on a desire to earn money, based on human values.  That is not the case with the acts of bloody self-mutiliation of the shiites during ashoura.

Unlike the parents of the fighting toddlers of Mui Thai, who said they were confident that their children would not be seriously hurt, the parents of the children who were deeply cutting themselves in a frenzy of violent self-loathing in an out-of-control festival of thousands doing likewise knew their children could be killed.  They were not merely fatalistic about it, but defiant.

One father said he would not be sad if his son died.  One mother said that she would be proud if her son was martyred.

Folks, this is a death cult.  They don’t love or value their children.  They are trained from infancy that their lives are worthless, and the goal is death.

The multicultural announcer tried to obscure the distinction between a culture that loves its children and this culture that wants to destroy theirs.  But this is what we’re up against.

We basically, despite many decades of socialized education, love life and love our kids.  Our implacable enemy does not want to live.  They want us to die.  Not only do we not really grasp this, but we have TV shows and “news” that lie about this distinction.

The good news is that it is easy for our military to defeat these knife-wielding savages.  The bad news is that we have not yet admitted that we know who the enemy is.  We are only fighting a war “on terror”, that not-quite-clear tactic used by unknown or unmentionable people.  What is clear is that Lutheran grandmothers have to be searched before being allowed to get on airplanes, and it is not permissable to focus one’s search on muslims from saudia arabia or pakistan.

And right now, every voice on TV agrees that cultures are just different, and no judgement can be made.

Our lives depend on making this judgement.  If that statement seems far fetched, look at the example of the hare who raced the tortoise.  The hare didn’t think it was possible to lose.


In the Name of God, I Kill Thee

Posted in Fighting Against Jihad on August 6, 2008 by ragnard

Today, Christians do not kill in the name of their god.  This may be due, in part, to what their bible does or does not say.  Or, as I believe, it has more to do with the culture today–still guided by the Enlightenment.

I was interested to see a little spat between Robert Spencer and Glenn Reynolds:

Well, I believe in evolution, memetic as well as physical, and I think that if violence works, more people will use it, and the religious doctrine to justify that will follow. Am I right, or is Robert Spencer right? The world had better hope that Spencer is, since our spineless powers-that-be seem determined to conduct the experiment. . . .

I think Reynolds is right.  Let’s not forget that for a period of 1000 years, plus or minus, Christians were constantly killing in the name of their god.  They could begin again (though I don’t think that this is imminent).

I think there is another, more important, point here.  Instead of focusing on defending Christianity (or Hinduism or Judaism, etc.) I think we need to focus on the fact that islamism is the enemy.  We can work together without having to argue theology on the problem of defeating the jihad.  I am not interested in Christianity per se.  I am very interested in defeating the jihadists permanently.

I don’t want to be fighting a war “on terrorism” for the rest of my life, replete with airport psuedo-security checks and other humiliations, not to mention the actual acts of mass murder on American soil!

Collectivism by Any Other Name…

Posted in Principles on August 6, 2008 by ragnard

Oh, the irony.  I somehow ended up, following links from one blog to another, on this site, which looks to be a white supremacist forum.  This is the money quote:

Not only do blacks lack the requisite collective smarts and sense to self-police the menacingly savage element from within their ranks, they are impulsively tribal and thus do not countenance any criticism of their fellow blacks, even of the ghetto thug elements. In fact, the “typical black person” (thanks, Obama for allowng me to make that statement) views criticism of one black person from any source as an attack on all blacks. This is why we cannot share a society with them and this is why we must separate ourselves from them.

So blacks are tribalist, and thus our tribe needs to band together as a tribe and treat their tribe as a tribe?

Hey Mr. Mark Jaws (the guy who wrote this brilliant gem)!  If you could only see the irony in this (or perhaps the right word is blatant irrationality and tribalism)!


It seems to me (but then I suppose these people would call me a “race traitor” or a “Jew”) that the issue is culture, not race.  Some cultures have (or had) a universal respect for the rule of objective law.  Others have a nearly universal disrepespect for law and order.

Focusing on race and ignoring culture, values, and ideas is not simply wrong or wrongheaded.  It is immoral and a betrayal of the very you claim to espouse.



This article, by Mychal Massie, the chairman of the National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives-Project 21, is a clear example of my point.

He is a black man who is able to see the marxism and racism in Obama’s positions.  Thank you Mr. Massie.

Grand Theft Auto “Causes” Murder

Posted in Rule of Unreason on August 5, 2008 by ragnard

Wow!  How much can one article get wrong?  A lot:

  • “The youth showed no signs of mental problems…”
  • “As a response to this news, Thai distributors are withdrawing GTA IV from their shelves.”
  • “Thailand’s Culture Ministry…”
  • “…authorities need to better deal with the issue of violent video games.”
  • “…restricting the time minors can play the games in public arcades.”

I submit that either no one competent has ever examined this soulless killer, even now.  Because his very confession is a sign of schizophrenia!  He murdered in order to see if it was like a video game?!?  WTF?!?!?!?

It’s sad to see that the same kind of knee-jerk response based on superficial appearances rule in Thailand the same as here in America.  So there’s nothing wrong with violent video game–until some psychopath commits a brutal act.  Then in “response” to this, stores pull the product from the shelves.

Thailand has a Culture Ministry?  My god!  Is it 1984 yet?

What exactly do authorities need to do?  Regulate video game access time from 4.5 hours/week down to 3 hours/week?  Censor based on subjective standards

But the money quote is:

“Today it is a cab driver, but tomorrow it could be a video game shop owner.”

How brainlessly pragmatic, how moronically short-sighted, how concrete-boundedly unprincipled would one have to be to think “it’s ok for him to murder cab drivers, I am a video game store owner”?  But then, how dumb would one have to be to think that video games cause vioelence or that violence is a disease, like a virus, that spreads in an epidemic?

No one here, or apparently in Thailand, questions the role of publik edukation kamps in creating these enraged, agnst-ridden, utterly selfless and soulless monsters.  Does anyone think that a happy and healthy child, who would otherwise grow up to be a happy, self-reliant, productive member of society can be “turned” to pure evil by a video game??  What are the roots of this evil?  Where does it come from?

Blank Out.

By the way, just to be clear, I am no fan of mindless violent video games.  I think they are a product of a nihilistic culture.  But I don’t think that censorship by thugs at the Culture Ministry is justifiable by this or any other problem.

They didn’t mention it, but I wonder if this murderer is a non-Buddhist from the “restive” south where non-Hindus are murdering the population in a jihadic frenzy?

As The UN, So The Olympics

Posted in Short Comments on August 1, 2008 by ragnard

Glenn Reynolds nails this one like a sledgehammer hitting a 16 penny nail:

I won’t be going, and I don’t plan to watch. The Olympics are a fount of corruption and chicanery anyway, upholding no ideals and promoting no good ends anyway.

What exactly do the good guys (that’s us, in case you live in San Francisco and are brainwashed into thinking it’s the palestinians) have to gain from pretending to party and play sports with thugs and mass murderers?


Evolution and Religion Compatible?

Posted in Pseudo-Science on July 21, 2008 by ragnard

This is an age-old question.  Can one have both faith and reason?  If so, how does one draw the line between where one uses reason and logic, based on the facts of reality vs. where one accepts divine revelations in dreams and ancient dogma written in scrolls thousands of years ago?

It was to marry faith and reason that Immanual Kant dedicated his work in philosophy.

The two can’t be integrated, because they are based diametrically opposite methods.  Reason is based on observing reality, using logic, identifying the truth, and acting accordingly.

Faith is based on ignoring reality, accepting dogma or whims, believing just because, and acting on this mush.

Reason gave us the Rennaissance, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, and our current Information Age.  Faith gave us the Medeival Age, Jihad, and stagnation and death wherever and whenever it ruled.

At best, you can compartmentalize your mind.  Use reason sometimes, and faith other times.  But what principle can you use to determine when to use reason and when to use faith?  Would this be a reason-based principle, or a faith-based principle?

Faith is diametrically opposed to reason.  Reason is diametrically opposed to faith.  No matter the muddled (or dishonest) attempts to marry them, either reality is the final standard and final judge, or it’s not.  Either one looks to reality or to dreams.  Either “it is what it is” or it is whatever you wish.

Either reality is real, or the “supernatural” is real.

I usually agree with Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs.  Not just on the jihad we’re (reluctantly) fighting, but other matters.  He is neither “conservative” in the sense of Bush, Buckley, or Buchanan.  Nor is he “liberal” in the sense of Clinton, Obama, or Nader.  He is a thinker and an honest one

For some time, he has had a series of blog entries on natural selection, and has risked the ire of many of his long-time fans by taking an uncompromising position, that “intelligent design” is nothing more than the latest attempt to teach the Bible in public schools.  This is unconstitutional, wrong, and dishonest.

But I have to disagree with his post today.  I think he is trying to make the point that there is room for all of us to get along (which I certainly support).  But it came out a little like “faith and reason are compatible”:

How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God. [emphasis in original]

It’s not ridiculous.  It is the nature of religion to oppose science, and faith to oppose reason.



After thinking about the comments, I wanted to say something explicitly in the main body. Communism is based entirely on faith.  While communists may be atheists, that does not mean that they in any way accept reason or reject faith.  Quite the opposite.

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

This is the central faith underlying communism.  Do whatever you can, and whatever you need will be magically provided to you.  Where are the goods to come from?  There is no more answer to that–by design–than there is to: where is heaven?

Just believe.



I am noticing something ironic.  My thesis was that science and faith were incompatible.  So far, three people have posted in disgreement.  But each has made a number of errors that no scientist would make.

Does this prove my thesis?  Hardly.  But it does tend to support it!

Warmenism is Big; So Will Its Fall Be

Posted in Uncategorized on July 18, 2008 by ragnard

I’ve been saying for a long time (long before I started this blog) that the hoax of global warmenism has to crash.  It is a religion, but unlike regular religions, it appeals to science and reason rather than faith.

Given that it is utterly false, totally without merit, intellectually bankrupt, morally corrupt, and will cause economic catastrophe, it’s only a matter of time before it crashes.

Criically, people who oppose it are basing their opposition on the proper principles.  You don’t hear “well, compliance will be expensive.”

You hear this:

“In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years …”


This would be an appropriate occasion for John McCain to announce that, in view of the fact that the claim of a scientific “consensus” has now unraveled, he is rethinking his own position on the regulation of carbon emissions.