Powell was a man of conspicuous moral
greatness, something that, alone, made him unsuited for politics,
because it meant he could not keep what he perceived to be the truth to
himself.
He had a gift denied to most politicians, which was of making prophecies that were right.
He
was right about Europe; right about the single currency; right about
economic management; right about Lords reform; right about devolution;
right about American imperialism; and, with even Trevor Phillips, the
figurehead of the Equalities Commission, now arguing that
multiculturalism has failed, right about that, too.
Fourteen
years after his death, and almost half-a-century after he sat in the
Cabinet, his influence on political thought is not only undiminished: it
continues to grow.
Freedom News Freedom News writes and shares posts that are of Interest to a broad demographic . Articles are to be taken on a individual basis and not under the assumption that different Authors and content providers and Horwich Nationalist as well share the same opinions. Articles copied are fully attributed to Authors under international fair use acts. .
Saturday, 14 July 2012
Friday, 13 July 2012
Pluralism and Democracy
Pluralism
Our
modern society is founded on a string of concepts going back to the
Enlightenment, when we decided that individual human beings wielding
science were superior to religious concepts of inherent order to life
itself.The first concept here is individualism, or the idea that the individual is the highest value in society. This naturally leads to pluralism, or the idea that every individual is right in whatever they do, as all choices are options for the fulfillment of the individual, and any comparison of those to a “right” way is a constraint on that individual.
From that we go to utilitarianism, also known as majority rule, because it states that what benefits the most people is the best answer. Since there’s no way to assess what “benefits” means that does not contradict individualism, that tends to mean that we survey all those people and see what option the greatest number prefer. This is the basis of democracy.
After that, we arrive at pluralism. Since democratic voting allows one direction per many people, and it by definition leaves out a lot of people, it contradicts individualism unless there is also the idea that society exists as a facility to fulfill the individual, and thus that many individuals of conflicting values, ideologies and cultures can co-exist bonded only by the law that says the must be facilitated. This is called pluralism, and it is the basis of our permissive nanny-state that encourages us to tolerate everything and anything except the idea of any kind of standards.
Naturally, this sets up a number of paradoxes. First, we want the popular answer, not the right one. Second, we want quantity of response, not quality. Third, we agree to disagree. Fourth, we tolerate each other, which means detest and dislike, yet agree to be forced to co-exist. Finally, the nature of pluralism itself means there can be no social standards except for pluralism itself; like a computer virus, it’s totally self-referential.
Only because we’ve been indoctrinated in this stuff since birth can we read about it or hear and it not burst out laughing. Everyone has their own version of reality, and what ought to be done? Why, that’s a formalization of disorder. What most people want is the best? But they’re people, which means they’re going to pick short-term benefits over long-term difficult truths. Every election ends in beer, ice cream, circuses and pornography.
We are trained to think about pluralism in terms of its ethnic, sexual preference and gender-based varieties. This is because those things are not choices of the individual, thus can be characterized as arbitrary, and thus (socially) it’s seen as a cruel move to hold those arbitrary attributes against a person. Never mind if you’re simply trying to make an intelligent decision, like let’s not send women into combat or let’s divide our city by social classes into zones. In the view of the Crowd, you’re a jerk for even noticing these differences.
However, it’s important to remember that the goal of pluralism is not in itself this kind of chaos. The key to its goal lies in the individual heart. The selfish individual, putting himself before all else, wants to (a) neutralize society so it can demand nothing from him and (b) create the greatest possible pressure on others to give him what he wants. Guilt works toward this end, which is why pluralism is based on social concerns like tolerance, acceptance, etc. Even more, the implication of displeasure from a group because the actions of an individual threaten them all, as a control mechanism, is very powerful.
It is this individual desire that leads to the invention of pluralism wherever societies exist. The parasitic individual finds a reason to make others owe him, and by forcing them to comply with that rule and evading it himself by being entirely self-contained, he gains the greatest amount of power.
Unfortunately in doing so, he destroys his host, the civilization which supports him. As soon as pluralism occurs, each person has his own ideology, belief and values, and those are created for the sake of affirming individuality, thus must not overlap with any others. Outlandishness accelerates and soon agreement is impossible.
In that state, leadership cannot exist. Problems are ignored until they are disasters threatening the very life of the civilization. It can get away with it for awhile, but eventually a fast-moving problem appears, and the out-of-shape, confused and exhausted civilization cannot react in time, and begins its fall to the disinterested ground below.
Tuesday, 10 July 2012
Financial crossbreeding and it,s Effects
Financial crossbreeding.
By August Pointneuf
Politics is that pie slice of human behaviour which can be looked at as behaviour under constraint.
Economics is another pie slice - human behaviour which can be reduced to digital markers. It cannot be regarded as independent of the broad behaviour of humans, and must conform to the behavioural rules of human activity. Because economics can be reduced to mathematics is has another role. It can be used as an instrument to understand complex societal behaviour overall.
*******************************************************************************************************************
The Euro was created in an attempt to “unify” the financial patterns of the diverse groups of Europe. That illustrated the inherent folly of the politicians in the European Union. When a single monetary unit was imposed across a wide spectrum of societies the naive fumbling the political engineers assumed that human behaviour could be permanently changed by diktat.
But they failed to understand that economics was only a small outward feature of overall human behaviour. Finances cannot be manipulated independently of that. The political fatal assumption was that the underlying behavioural variances of different groups and nations could be forced into a universalized “economic” behaviour by imposing a “universal” currency.
From the outset it was not conceptually possible that a Thessalonian goatherd could be expected to behave - socially, culturally and economically - in the fashion of a banker in Bonn. By even attempting to force this, the European Union demonstrated its political gaucherie.
It is true that human humans can be changed by external forces, but only temporally, and only by suppression. Human behaviour is far too intricate and complex to be remodeled by muscle.
It is no coincidence that when the controlling politicians of Soviet Union and the Nazis wished to show their power they used parade-ground disciplined demonstrations of military manoeuvres to express their authority. After the parade the participants, of course, reverted to their previous behaviour.
A universal currency should represent a consistent value to all its users. It should display value parity. But it is an economic truism that the value of a currency should reflect the productivity of the user group, (when compared with a “marker” currency). Said another way any currency is expected to possess”productivity parity”
Currency values are therefore secondary to (and are determined by) the behaviour of the population which issues that currency. It cannot be the other way around: A currency cannot determine the behaviour of a population.
But the nations which were persuaded to use the Euro were highly varied. They had different resource mixes, differing population ages and various levels of socialism. The per capita savings and concepts of wealth (which included the willingness to rely on promissory notes, i.e. borrowing on the premise that it expected those borrowings to be honoured) differed. Most important, productivity differed.
In the complex equation which is Europe, inequality of productivity exists. Therefore the value of the euro (expressed in terms of the interchangeable bonds) cannot reflect equal value parity. Any currency is ultimately committed to reflect the productivity of that individual national culture. Equality of productivity has never (indeed will never) happen in the European Monetary Area because of the very varied societal behavioural patterns of the nations –which are now in stressed bondage.
As a result Greeks pay a higher interest rate to lure purchases. Greek bonds, although denominated in Euro therefore cost less. The Germans, on the other hand, do not need to lure investors; instead investors clamour for their bonds because they believed that their money would be safer with the Germans then it would be with the Greeks.
Since a Greek Euro denominated bond now has less value than German Euro bond, a Greek Euro is now worth less than a German Euro.
Bizarre? Yes, but only because of the bizarre underlying fallacy that the behaviour patterns of different groups could be economically forced into synchrony.
Devaluing money from an unproductive country (i.e. causing its bonds to devalue) moves money from that country (making it more poor) to another (making it more rich).
Now that the Euro has been seen not to hold consistent value parity it can only be doomed to a relentless downward spiral of inconsistent value.
Since it will not be possible to force lasting conformity on the variety of societal groups that use the Euro, the euro must fail.
*******************************************************************************************************************
Any attempt to separate economic behaviour from the broader field of universal human behaviour is folly.
Changes in monetary value of nations put on show the underlying differences in cultural and behaviour as expressed by their diverging "economics".
Since politics and economics overlap they can offer parallel messages. The EU’s predictable failure as a monetary system now presages an equally predictable failure of its political union.
Thus where differing peoples are ordered, by political directives, to behave in “universal” fashion the same catastrophic cascades can be expected to occur politically.
The most important of these political directives, by the European Union, is that varied populations have been ordered to tolerate alien cultural distinctions and “ignore” obvious differences whether these are racial, linguistic, cultural or behavioural. People are forced - by law - to transgress the natural interface between different communities, obliging them to suppress their instinctive, protective reactions.
This social perturbation, if forced union continues, will be the same as shown in the economic model - widening divergences accelerating into an avalanche of chaos. The endpoint will be conflict and societal destruction.
This predicts that ultimately the entire European Union is politically doomed.
*******************************************************************************************************************
End note: the EMA seems never to have learned that while the Germanys were divided (and socio-economically different) the “official” exchange rate was one Ostmark to one Westmark. Reality forced the (empirical and realistic) black-market rate to six inferior Ostmark to one Westmark, Helmut Kohl lured voters in East Germany by promising – misleading to engineer his re-election - that reunification would permit a one-to-one exchange of Marks. This another political legerdemain succeeded only to have repercussions which still reverberate: West Germans continue to pay for that political chicanery.
Economics is another pie slice - human behaviour which can be reduced to digital markers. It cannot be regarded as independent of the broad behaviour of humans, and must conform to the behavioural rules of human activity. Because economics can be reduced to mathematics is has another role. It can be used as an instrument to understand complex societal behaviour overall.
*******************************************************************************************************************
The Euro was created in an attempt to “unify” the financial patterns of the diverse groups of Europe. That illustrated the inherent folly of the politicians in the European Union. When a single monetary unit was imposed across a wide spectrum of societies the naive fumbling the political engineers assumed that human behaviour could be permanently changed by diktat.
But they failed to understand that economics was only a small outward feature of overall human behaviour. Finances cannot be manipulated independently of that. The political fatal assumption was that the underlying behavioural variances of different groups and nations could be forced into a universalized “economic” behaviour by imposing a “universal” currency.
From the outset it was not conceptually possible that a Thessalonian goatherd could be expected to behave - socially, culturally and economically - in the fashion of a banker in Bonn. By even attempting to force this, the European Union demonstrated its political gaucherie.
It is true that human humans can be changed by external forces, but only temporally, and only by suppression. Human behaviour is far too intricate and complex to be remodeled by muscle.
It is no coincidence that when the controlling politicians of Soviet Union and the Nazis wished to show their power they used parade-ground disciplined demonstrations of military manoeuvres to express their authority. After the parade the participants, of course, reverted to their previous behaviour.
A universal currency should represent a consistent value to all its users. It should display value parity. But it is an economic truism that the value of a currency should reflect the productivity of the user group, (when compared with a “marker” currency). Said another way any currency is expected to possess”productivity parity”
Currency values are therefore secondary to (and are determined by) the behaviour of the population which issues that currency. It cannot be the other way around: A currency cannot determine the behaviour of a population.
But the nations which were persuaded to use the Euro were highly varied. They had different resource mixes, differing population ages and various levels of socialism. The per capita savings and concepts of wealth (which included the willingness to rely on promissory notes, i.e. borrowing on the premise that it expected those borrowings to be honoured) differed. Most important, productivity differed.
In the complex equation which is Europe, inequality of productivity exists. Therefore the value of the euro (expressed in terms of the interchangeable bonds) cannot reflect equal value parity. Any currency is ultimately committed to reflect the productivity of that individual national culture. Equality of productivity has never (indeed will never) happen in the European Monetary Area because of the very varied societal behavioural patterns of the nations –which are now in stressed bondage.
As a result Greeks pay a higher interest rate to lure purchases. Greek bonds, although denominated in Euro therefore cost less. The Germans, on the other hand, do not need to lure investors; instead investors clamour for their bonds because they believed that their money would be safer with the Germans then it would be with the Greeks.
Since a Greek Euro denominated bond now has less value than German Euro bond, a Greek Euro is now worth less than a German Euro.
Bizarre? Yes, but only because of the bizarre underlying fallacy that the behaviour patterns of different groups could be economically forced into synchrony.
Devaluing money from an unproductive country (i.e. causing its bonds to devalue) moves money from that country (making it more poor) to another (making it more rich).
Now that the Euro has been seen not to hold consistent value parity it can only be doomed to a relentless downward spiral of inconsistent value.
Since it will not be possible to force lasting conformity on the variety of societal groups that use the Euro, the euro must fail.
*******************************************************************************************************************
Any attempt to separate economic behaviour from the broader field of universal human behaviour is folly.
Changes in monetary value of nations put on show the underlying differences in cultural and behaviour as expressed by their diverging "economics".
Since politics and economics overlap they can offer parallel messages. The EU’s predictable failure as a monetary system now presages an equally predictable failure of its political union.
Thus where differing peoples are ordered, by political directives, to behave in “universal” fashion the same catastrophic cascades can be expected to occur politically.
The most important of these political directives, by the European Union, is that varied populations have been ordered to tolerate alien cultural distinctions and “ignore” obvious differences whether these are racial, linguistic, cultural or behavioural. People are forced - by law - to transgress the natural interface between different communities, obliging them to suppress their instinctive, protective reactions.
This social perturbation, if forced union continues, will be the same as shown in the economic model - widening divergences accelerating into an avalanche of chaos. The endpoint will be conflict and societal destruction.
This predicts that ultimately the entire European Union is politically doomed.
*******************************************************************************************************************
End note: the EMA seems never to have learned that while the Germanys were divided (and socio-economically different) the “official” exchange rate was one Ostmark to one Westmark. Reality forced the (empirical and realistic) black-market rate to six inferior Ostmark to one Westmark, Helmut Kohl lured voters in East Germany by promising – misleading to engineer his re-election - that reunification would permit a one-to-one exchange of Marks. This another political legerdemain succeeded only to have repercussions which still reverberate: West Germans continue to pay for that political chicanery.
Saturday, 7 July 2012
Eat your heart out Jul, 2012
Eat your heart out
The more I see of the world, the more am I dissatisfied with it; and
every day confirms my belief of the inconsistency of all human
characters, and of the little dependence that can be placed on the
appearance of merit or sense. – Elizabeth Bennet, Pride and Prejudice
The modern person has so deeply internalized self-loathing that she
is unaware it thrives in her every action. Infected, she passes it on to
her children as if gifting them with great knowledge, and in her
dissatisfaction is unable to name her malady, which is dissatisfaction.How is it that a society so at the heights of its powers, and so rich in technology and resources, can be so self-loathing? To answer that, we have to figure out why people hate themselves. There is no universal reason; we hate ourselves based on what we hate, and that varies with how smart we are and how strong our characters are.
But generally our self-hatred begins when we feel we are unable. We are unable to do what we need to do, or unable to know what we need to do. Or we are dishonest. Or maybe all of the above.
With the “progress” of the West toward an egalitarian society, we replaced the notion of goals, values and reality with the conventions of a society that exists to facilitative the individual. Goals, values and reality cluster together because they depend on each other; to have a goal, one must have values and understand reality, or in other words be a consequentialist like all conservatives are under the skin.
In other words, our greatest strength was also our greatest weakness. The “freedom” of democracy guaranteed that each person could do whatever they wanted. That in turn meant whatever they could afford. This in turn put people into a mindset where society became a hateful thing one manipulated in order to bring home the gold, which then was spent on “personal expression,” something we view with a near-religious sense of obedience.
As a side effect, this mentality made us hate ourselves. It meant that our jobs had nothing sacred to them, but were a dirty means to an end. It meant that when we were not working our jobs, our purpose was entirely disconnected from other people and basically selfish. We started seeing ourselves as whores by day, and keepers of dirty secrets at night.
Even more, the lack of a sense of overriding purpose and values ate away at us. If there was nothing to shoot for, except watching a lot of TV and buying stuff, we would have the most comfortable lives but we also would have removed the only thing that gives value to life, which is striving for a result against adversity. The creative act is not pacifism, but war.
Without some sense of what we should be doing beyond the self, we turned on ourselves. We ate our hearts out, and our souls. Convinced of our plastic irrelevance, we became spiteful and resentful toward life itself. A millennial onslaught of self-hatred followed.
Currently the West faces many problems, but all of those are bound by a single thread, which is our lack of respect for ourselves and our desire to cannibalize and self-destruct our society. It’s amazing that such a simple thing as equality could do all this, but it is our epitaph, whether we choose to recognize it or not
Muslim Astronauts for NASA Outreach Program
Cardboard Muslim Astronauts for NASA Outreach Program
Critics
of the Obama Administration have repeatedly pointed out the absurdity
of tasking NASA with improving the self-image of Muslims through a
special outreach space exploration program. However, this idea is as old as Islam itself. Our oil companies have long been working for Muslims to extract their oil, which they couldn't find themselves. Hollywood studios are producing pro-Muslim, anti-American propaganda movies that Muslims couldn't film themselves. And Western politicians are surrendering to them their countries, which Muslims couldn't otherwise conquer. And so on. Giving them our spaceships is just one more stroke of a shovel in leveling the playing field for the Muslims.
This isn't as simple as it may look. While many Muslim enthusiasts are expected to volunteer for space flights, experts predict their lack of willingness to learn about landing procedures. Besides, a complete full-time training may not fit into NASA's recently downsized budget.
We've got a solution: USE CARDBOARD CUTOUTS OF MUSLIMS IN SPACE!
~
Just as Reuters journalists once successfully used cardboard Flat Fatima to paint a dramatic picture of Arab suffering at the hands of Jews, cardboard astronauts can now be used to paint a picture of dramatic Islamic achievement in space at virtually no cost to American taxpayers.
This glorious concept was born on a recent thread
Asteroids: Why Do They Hate Us? Trying to envision
an Adopt-an-Asteroid outreach program for Muslims,
we created two model Middle Eastern astronauts, who
quickly developed a life of their own and jumped off
the page, leaving behind the discussion about a
rampant harassment of asteroids in national obser-
vatories, calls for gravitational equality, and special
needs of gay asteroids.
If
the goal here is not the scientific exploration but rather the creation
of feel-good emotions in far-away countries, what difference does it
make if the achievement is Photoshopped? In space, no one can hear you
scream "Allahu Akbar!"See examples below, along with two cutouts (transparent PNG images), which you can use to create your own examples of Muslim space exploration. Help out NASA and the US government in their benevolent mission and save on the cost of space travel!
Comrades, the Palestinian State has finally been established!.... on Mars:
I'm terrified that nobody will get this one, but I had to do it:
Here's a link if you don't get it.
I'm terrified that nobody will get this one, but I had to do it:
Here's a link if you don't get it.
Why stop with cardboard
We can get the MSM and TV involved as well to support the greater good.
Perhaps a remake of an old time favorite 'Lost in Space'
A modern adventure of a Muslim family on a spaceship named Freedom Flotilla 2.
The Characters:
The family includes Professor Hakim Robinson, his wife, Maureenshib, their children, Djohdee, Bayan, and Wa'il. They will be accompanied by their pilot, US Space Corp Major Dhakir West who is married to the two daughters of Professor Hakim Robinson.
The characters also include Dr. Zachary Smithsky, the Jew who slips aboard the spaceship in an attempt to sabotage it.
We are also provided with the fabulous creation of a robot by the name of Sorena. A robot designed to protect the family and ship. The robot is quite entertaining as he runs around flapping his arms and sayings such things as, "Allah Akbar"; "Jihad" and "Hope and Change".
We can get the MSM and TV involved as well to support the greater good.
Perhaps a remake of an old time favorite 'Lost in Space'
A modern adventure of a Muslim family on a spaceship named Freedom Flotilla 2.
The Characters:
The family includes Professor Hakim Robinson, his wife, Maureenshib, their children, Djohdee, Bayan, and Wa'il. They will be accompanied by their pilot, US Space Corp Major Dhakir West who is married to the two daughters of Professor Hakim Robinson.
The characters also include Dr. Zachary Smithsky, the Jew who slips aboard the spaceship in an attempt to sabotage it.
We are also provided with the fabulous creation of a robot by the name of Sorena. A robot designed to protect the family and ship. The robot is quite entertaining as he runs around flapping his arms and sayings such things as, "Allah Akbar"; "Jihad" and "Hope and Change".
And of course, Comrades, the Muslims insist on
ruling everything under the Moon and claiming all of History even before
their "peaceful prophet" was born, this was more than appropriate!
Oh, and I'm not finished yet....
NOW I'm done, Comrades!
NOW I'm done, Comrades!
Comrade Rock - this is a very appropriate image. The pole dancer, I assume, is Rima Fakih.
Miss USA Rima Fakih: Stripper Pole Champion!
Miss USA Rima Fakih: Stripper Pole Champion!
Quote:
Years
before she became the first Muslim-American to win the Miss USA crown,
Rima Fakih won another prestigious title - "Stripper 101" pole dancing
champion!
This got me thinking... and here's another constructive idea!
Yet another page in NASA Muslim outreach program wall calendar:
Trainees undergo rigorous training by NASA professionals, to prepare for any hard task that lies ahead.
Trainees undergo rigorous training by NASA professionals, to prepare for any hard task that lies ahead.
And another one: prepare for exciting space adventures!
To atone for our sins against Islam we could have
given Afghanistan a recently decom'd space shuttle to kick off their
space program.
Do we really want to give the keys to flying objects to these people?
Holy Wars are a nice touch. But didn't this Abbas Vader say "Barack! I am your father"?
I can't photoshop, but wouldn't these delightful puppet characters make great Muslim outreach mascots?
Muslim outreach program in France is going as scheduled...
Islamic progress in historic photographs... Getting sharper with every step...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)