Category: No More Bullshit!

Posted on

“Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western civilization as it commits suicide.” — James Burnham

Re-“printing” this from January 20th, 2010.

It’s interesting to me that simple common sense is so completely forsaken that such things as this can even gain an audience in a Western society:

Muslim police say Islam not to blame for terror attacks

Muslim police officers have rebelled openly against the [British] Government’s anti-terrorism strategy, warning that it is an “affront to British values” which threatens to trigger ethnic unrest.

The plain fact of the matter is that so-called “radical” Muslims are at the dead solid center of Islam. It is those vanishingly few genuine “moderates” who are apostate Muslims, heretics, deniers of Islam and its prophet, the Butcher of Medina, and his diktat of hate, intolerance and jihad against any who refuse to embrace his cult. Those who are genuine followers of Mohamed are either open jihadists or enablers pretending to be “moderates” while practicing al taqiyah and acting as enablers for their openly jihadist brothers in arms.

Anyone who can allow such behavior as that linked above by police officers in a Western society is simply an active participant in societal sabotage, an enemy of the West and of human rights, decency and honesty.

h.t. Atlas Shrugs

Slight update:

Note another practice permitted–yea! encouraged–by the “prophet” that closely resembles the outright lying that characterizes taqiyyah is the Muslim practice of kitman. Kitman is quite similar to the most common lies told us by politicians, academicians and Mass MEdia Podpeople here in the West. It is lying by omission, telling a part of the truth in such a way as to remain “factual” while still committing a lie. Decent people in the West find such behavior reprehensible, but MOhamed taught such behavior as being not just permissible but in many cases desirable. Most such cases with Muslims are, of course, desirable when dealing with non-Muslims (although Mohamed also allowed lying to fellow Muslims in some cases. Try to get a Muslim to admit that).

One place kitman and taqiyyah are most effective in bamboozling stupid people in the West is on the very nature if Islam, “the religion of peace”. Of course, the “peace” of Islam is simply the religious, social, cultural, legal, and behavioral submission of a slave to a master, but Islamic apologists don’t want to (and so do not) go there, and roundly condemn anyone who does (because truth is anathema to these scum). Regularly cited by these liars are the so-called “peaceful verses” of the Koran (yeh, yeh, Islamic apologists have insisted that “Qu’ran” is more respectful. Eat my shorts.). What they do not want you to know is that not only are the so-called “peaceful verses” outnumbered at about 7-3 by the verses advocating violence, but that Mohamed’s own exegetical principle, which scholars call “abrogation,” dictates that any “apparent” conflict between his sayings is to be resolved by a saying uttered later taking precedence, abrogating an earlier, conflicting saying. Interestingly enough, the “peaceful verses” came early in Mohamed’s career as a con man, while the verses advocating violence against unbelievers came later.

That is why I hold the opinion that a more accurate descriptive of Islam is “Islam: Hate Cult.”

Surrender to Islam on any front by the West is stupid, immoral and suicidal.

Have you ever had a Muslim “friend”? If so, only one of two things obtained:

1. The Muslim who was your friend was an apostate or
2. The Muslim who was your “friend” deceived you, because Mohamed was adamant that his followers could not have friends who were unbelievers, and it is universal Islamic doctrine that his words are eternal, unchangeable, inerrant and infallible. (Koran 5:51, 5:80, 3:28, 3:118 and many others.)

Posted on

Self-Made Morons: Giving the Gift of Laughter

UPDATE:

I’m really late to this thing, and I don’t really have anything to add, but that’s never stopped me before, so why now, eh? 😉

The book that’s the subject of the kerffuffle mentioned below has won the 2014 Compton Crook Award, arguably one of the awards most insulated from influence by the agenda-driven GHH crowd. It’s a reader-driven award for best sci-f/fantasy first novel by an individual author

http://www.bsfs.org/bsfsccw.htm

So, some guy wrote a (pretty good, IMO) space opera/first, et al, contact novel and someone else obviously trying to influence some upcoming awards (one of which the novel had been nominated for) wrote a “review” wherein she openly admitted she hadn’t really read the book, just cherry-picked things that offended her. (Apparently she wrote another that was even more over-the-top, but it seems to have disappeared from all the places links point to. Wonder why. Not.)

The review’s here: Fire with Fire: The Most Interesting Man in ALL TEH WORLDS (The book’s here or here, in case you want to make your own comparison to what the reviewer who DIDN’T read the book has to say about it.)

Here, perhaps this will push your curiosity button. One of the things that sends the “reviewer” around the bend was this cherry-picked sentence (quoted in more context at the “review”):

Downing shook Corcoran’s wide, strong hand.

Yeh, that’d give me the willies too. I would greatly prefer to shake a “narrow, weak, limp-wristed” pussy metrosexual paw. Yep. Oh, wait. That’s not me; that’s the po’ widdle baby who cherry-picked things to be offended at and who refused to read the whole thing before “reviewing” it. Might run into another scary “wide, strong hand”!

*feh*

To the po’ widdle baby who apparently “thinks” she has a glittery hoohah, but who obviously has simply spent too many hours playing with her autolobotomy kit, I have only this to offer: life won’t get any better until you put down the autolobotomy kit and stop sniffing the unicorn farts, buttercup. (Yeh, yeh, I’d offer this at the offending post, but I’m not wasting even a throwaway email address on obtaining a login there.)

As to Gannon’s book, well, below the fold, mmmK?

Continue reading “Self-Made Morons: Giving the Gift of Laughter”

Posted on

Hard Questions with Easy Answers

N.B. This is not intended to in any way be some sort of an exhaustive and definitive disquisition on the subject dealt with below. Think of it more as a sort of outline and indicator of where and how to direct your own homework, if you want to do any and find my comments useful.

Often, especially when moral equivalency arguments are regurgitated1 in response to truthful statements about the facts of Islamic dogma, questions are posed about “genocide” in the Old Testament. These questions are, of course, intended to indicate that the scriptures that inform and direct the lives of devout Jews and Christians are morally equivalent to those that direct the lives of devout Muslims. Is this true? No.

First, as to mass violence against others either directly attributed to God or as individuals or groups were commanded by God to commit mass violence, examples of both exist. The first includes the Flood account, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the destruction of Ninevah and the annihilation of Pharaoh’s army by drowning in the Red (?) Sea.  The latter is pretty much limited to the waging of herem against the Canaanites. It is this that is almost always referred to by the arguers of “moral equivalence” as evidence that the God of the OT commanded genocide and so Jewish and Christian scripture is thus on the same moral plane as foundational Islamic texts.

I’m not going to press theological arguments, because those making the “moral equivalence” argument have proven in my experience to either have no grasp of such things or to simply sneer at the information. Fine. My first objection, then, is that the on-again/off-again obedience by the Israelites to the command to engage in herem was never genocidal, that those who make such an argument are using “genocide” as a facile slur, fully aware that such an accusation is both false and tendentious. The plain text of the OT, not often actually quoted by such persons (often, I have found, because they simply have never actually read the texts but are merely parroting the slur), disproves the “genocide” accusation.

Yes, herem did mean mass slaughter of those indicated in the command, including those we think of as innocents (particularly, children).  Genocide or even the less inclusive “ethnic cleansing”? The texts do not support such an accusation. (Should I cite the relevant texts? Nope. Since the accusers almost never do, I’ll go ahead and leave that as a very easy exercise for any interested parties. Easy-peasy.) Next objection: this kind of mass slaughter was limited in scope by both time and place. It was not commanded to be unending, forever. Today, the genetic inheritors of Canaanite blood (genetic progeny exist because, urm, no genocide, *duh*) are actually welcome in Israel and by the Christian community at large, as long as they do not engage in unlawful conduct harmful to others, in other words, as long as they meet the same minimal standards of civilized behavior demanded by such societies of all participants.

While these avenues allow a great deal of scope for further examination of the false accusation of “genocide” as normative for Jews and Christians, we can go to extrabiblical examples often cited by those who argue “moral equivalence” as a slur. How about the Crusades, hmm? Fine, let’s go there. While political leaders (both church and civil political leaders) made appeals for the Crusades based on tainted theological arguments (some, “just war” arguments and some even more silly ones), all such arguments fail the central test: “Why do you call me ‘lord, lord’ and do not the things I tell you to do?” [Luke 6:46]

Hello! “Christian” means “like Christ” and so those who have committed acts of mass murder, rape, torture, etc., claiming to do so in the name of the founder of Christianity are simply liars, because their actions contradict the words and deeds of the one they claim to follow. That includes such things as found in the Crusades, the Inquisition(s) and more, even up to contemporary times. Jim Jones, Fred Phelps and legions of “celebrity” faux-christian leaders are all excellent examples of people falsely claiming to be disciples of a religious leader while acting in direct contradiction of that leader’s life and work. “Why do you call me ‘lord, lord’ and do not the things I tell you to do?”

Now a question of my own. How is that contradiction of the life and work of Christ the equivalent of some who faithfully emulate the life and commandments of one who was a mass murderer, rapist, thief, slaver, and torturer, and who commanded his followers to continue to commit mass murder, rape, theft, slavery and torture on those who would not accept his teachings? On the one hand, those who claim to be Christian who say they commit their mass murder, rape, theft, slavery and torture in the name of Christ are clearly, plainly liars. On the other hand, those who say they commit their mass murder, rape, theft, slavery and torture in the name of Mohamed and his god are clearly, plainly, honestly, faithfully following the teachings of Mohamed. How do these two classes indicate that Christianity and Islam are morally equivalent? Hmm?

Those who fail to follow Christ but instead contradict him by word and deed are considered by those who make the moral equivalence argument to be “like Christ”? Yes. Those who faithfully and accurately follow Mohamed’s example and commandments are, on the other hand, usually presented by such persons as atypical of Islam. How can such persons live with their fundamentally dishonest argument? *shrugs* Oh, it’s probably easy, since they apparently simply have no interest in truth anyway.

[N.B. Minor edits for sentence clarity and to reintroduce paragraph breaks that disappeared from the draft version of this post upon publication. *shrugs* Need dreadlock wig and chicken bone rattle, I suppose. . . ]

Continue reading “Hard Questions with Easy Answers”

Posted on

Come On, Folks, Show a Little Respect!

I was lurking a discussion about some of the recent shenanigans of congresscritters and other hellspawn-in-training when one of the participants typed, “F*** ’em with a rusty pipe!”

Now, that’s just wrong folks. Show a little respect. “F*** ’em with a rusty hammer” scans so much better. Show some respect for the English language, mmmK?

Posted on

There are some differences. . .

. . .between someone like Michaelangelo painting a masterwork like the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and someone like Obama accomplishing only destruction and chaos.

Michaelangelo was a creative genius who had developed several areas of mastery.

He spent four long years creating an enduring work of genius.

King Putz the Petulant, Occupier in Chief of the Spite House, is a “feckin’ eedjit” whose only areas of competence are lying, blowing smoke up the skirts of masochistic Repugnican’ts (Who simply bend over for him and pitifully plead, “Please, may I have another?”) and accepting obeisance from his worshipers in the Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind and the Useful Idiots they pump their toxic Koolaid into.

He has spent five long, painful years tearing down an once durable work of genius constructed by the Founders and paid for by the blood and toil and sweat and tears of generations of citizens.

Posted on

Wherein I Offer Aid to Those Confused by Obamacare

“Obamacare Exchange” Translation?

“You are hereby required to exchange health care coverage you were once satisfied with for more expensive coverage offering fewer benefits and more restrictions. Unless you are one of my cronies or a member of the political/bureaucrappic nobility. Now, kiss my [asterisk].”–King Putz the Petulant

There. All clear, now?

Posted on

How to Waste Your Time

A fact based, reasoned argument presented to a contemporary faux liberal (progressive, leftist, etc.) is like attempting to teach a pig to sing. All it does is waste your time and annoy the pig.

Ditto with the porker.

Posted on

“Compromise” *gag-spew*

Borrowing (OK, stealing) from Sluggy Freelance to translate King Putz the Petulant’s stance on compromise with any view not his own,

“Look, [if] you beat me fair and square, I’ll totally give you bragging rights. Now, just jump on my sword and see things from my perspective. It’s called ‘compromise’.”

Of course, the typical Repugnican’t manner of compromise with Dhimmicraps is to bend over and pitifully plead, “Please, may I have another?”

Posted on

“Rubber Bumper” Society Encourages Stupidity

The way so many people have been reared in virtual bubbles in the last few decades has led to all too many people wandering through life apparently feeling invincible.

Not so with me. I was a slow learner, but I have–slowly–learned both prudence (well, in matters of physical safety) and gained confidence in my genuine abilities through a process of exploration of things that weren’t always. . . safe.

No room here to detail all my childhood adventures and play, but they were more risky than most kids seem to experience nowadays (No, I’ll not explain the rules of Dodge-Rock. I’ll just say that we didn’t have nice soft balls to play with and leave it at that. . . :-)) By the time I reached junior high, I had had a major gash in my left foot dealt with by stitches, a bigger HOLE in my left hand, suffered unconsciousness from a fall (only about 20′ but not bad for a seven-year-old kid), broken arm (left again. . . Hmm. . . I see a pattern), broken leg (AGAIN, left, but other assorted head and limb injuries slightly disguised the trend :-)) and had twice been hit by cars while (properly!) riding my bicycle (the worst injuries came when the driver had to actually LEAVE THE ROADWAY to bash me off a shoulder *heh*). Later, in college, as a more wary bike rider, I was still struck twice by daydreaming drivers, although I saw them coming and was almost able to avoid them, resulting in only minor injuries–bruising and whatnot.

That I am not comfortable with heights probably helped me I avoid falls while free climbing during my college years. BY “free climbing” here, I mean I was wearing street clothes every time. Sneakers, jeans, etc. No falls, because b y that time I had learned some of my limits and when to push them, and practiced what safety measures I could.

Now, what did I see today that spurred these thoughts? A father pushing a tandem stroller (with the expected two kids) down a narrow street, moving WITH the traffic. I see this a lot around here, though. Folks walking–and often pushing strollers–down a highway that goes through town, a highway that is as narrow as legally allowed and is traveled by a great deal of 18-wheeler (and other) traffic. . . and, from my limited observations (I can’t set up an observation post and man it 24×7), most of the 18-wheel traffic speeds through town and much of it minds the lanes about as carefully as Bill Clinton observed proper behavior in the White House. Just sayin’. It has NO shoulder and NO sidewalk. And yet people walk down the highway assuming they are immune to stupid drivers approaching them from the rear.

The second “street rule” I learned as a kid (the first was the Stop, Look BOTH WAYS, and Listen before crossing ANY street) was “Whenever there is no sidewalk, walk AGAINST traffic”–so you can see what’s coming. It’s common sense that is very, very UNcommon nowadays, from what I see. Nope. Apparently, people just assume they are invincible and DO NOT THINK. (They don’t have to. After all, it’s everyone ELSE’s responsibility to look after THEIR welfare, isn’t it?)

Of course, timidity is another stupid problem fostered by a “rubber bumper” society, but detailing even one example of that would make a too long post even “too longer”. *heh* Just take it as given that I could list many, many other behaviors I witness daily indicating that folks are either too stupid to use ordinary,common sense safety measures or too stupid to take action when nothing dangerous threatens (Common around here: “COME ON! IT SHOULDN’T TAKE 5 MINUTES TO MAKE A SIMPLE RIGHT HAND TURN! Sure, there’s a bar ditch on the right and ya should avoid “ditching” your car, but COME ON! MAKE THE FRIGGIN’ TURN ALREADY!” *heh*).

Scairdy Cats and The Invincibles (Legends in Their Own Minds)–sometimes even in the same persons! It’s enough to drive one to despair. How can our society survive these weenies?