Search This Blog

Saturday 21 September 2013

The Synagogue Of Satan 1949 ~ 1973, by Andrew Carrington Hitchcock

Libertarianism: An Introduction

Saudis Sent 1,200 Death-Row Inmates to Syria to Join Rebels

Saudis Sent 1,200 Death-Row Inmates to Syria to Join Rebels

Offered Detainees Freedom, Stipends for Families

by Jason Ditz, September , 2013
According to reports from the Assyrian International News Agency (AINA), a Syriac Christian-run media outlet, the Saudi Arabian government sent over 1,200 death-row inmates to Syria to join the ongoing civil war on the side of the rebellion.
The AINA report cites a leaked memo from the Interior Ministry as saying the 1,239 inmates were all sentenced to “execution by sword” for various crimes, and were given full pardons, as well as stipends for their families.
An unnamed Iraqi MP confirmed knowledge of the program, and said that Saudi Arabia had been forced to end the policy after Russia threatened to bring the issue to the attention of the United Nations.
The quiet deal between Russia and Saudi Arabia was that the influx of inmates would end and Russia would keep the matter from becoming public knowledge. Now that the information is out there, it will be interesting to see how Russia and Saudi Arabia react.

Friday 20 September 2013

MUST WATCH! An Economic Collapse Of Biblical Proportions Is Coming. By G...

Outside The Box - Episode 1

UK Column Live - 20th September 2013

Good versus Evil And the Liberal Hypocrisy



Good versus Evil

this_horse_looks_like_bill_clintonDo liberals believe in evil? Examining the political and cultural conflicts portrayed in the media fosters suspicion that they do not. Think how often liberals attempt to excuse horrific crimes as somehow not being the responsibility of those involved but the result of flaws in society, such as inequality.
My investigations suggest the situation is more complex. Consider the following thought experiment: When conversing with a liberal, you ask, “Do you believe in evil?” The likely response would be an attempt to artfully dodge the question. They may demand you clarify what you mean by “evil” or ask if you’re religious.
Now imagine asking the more direct question, “Do you believe racism is evil?” You will be met with a resounding “yes.” It is inconceivable that any other answer occur. They may even throw in a “duh” for good measure, to show how obvious the question is.
Within the liberal point point of view, this answer makes perfect sense. Liberals don’t believe in good. To clarify, they don’t believe in any objective sense of good. Good is whatever any individual person wants it to be. The only evil is to state otherwise, but let me not get ahead of myself.
Liberals fundamentally view people as being born perfect but then corrupted by society and its institutions through various forms of oppression. Essentially, people are born “free” to pursue their self-fulfillment. The only thing separating humanity from utopia is the existence of unenlightened authoritarians demanding objective standards.
This outlook explains liberal positions. Most (sane) people prefer society to be governed by general principles and then let communities, families, and individuals iron out the details. Liberals, by contrast, examine as much minutia as possible. The conservative expects a business to be run in a fair, honest, and respectable manner. Those concerns being met, the internal workings, business strategies, day to day operations, etc. are up to the owners and employees to work out. The liberal wants to examine every facet of the business they can. What exactly are the demographics of this business, and how do they compare to the make-up of society? Does this business provide special accommodations for LGBT and gender queer individuals? How do the salaries of each individual within the company compare to one another? Are religious or cultural holidays recognized in this company; if so, do they also give equal recognition for Kwanzaa, even though nobody celebrates Kwanzaa? And on and on, on and on…
At first this obsessive examination appears at odds with the liberal tendency toward social anarchy, but looking further it becomes understandable. The liberal ideology of victimhood forces one into a state of habitual paranoia whereby one must constantly be on the look out for signs, not matter how subtle or seemingly innocuous, of oppression, and because the laws and measures put into place never yield the desired results since natural laws deny the liberal ideal, a vicious cycle emerges. Thus in order to “liberate” mankind, the liberal spends tremendous energy and resources attempting to exert their will onto others, and eventually becomes totalitarian.
Because the liberal has no objective conception of good, s/he becomes obsessed with and eventually consumed by the concept of evil. Furthermore, because the liberal has nothing but a vacuous conception of good with which to contrast evil, evil becomes a similarly nebulous concept. When taken to its logical conclusion, a total inversion of moral and ethical principles arises.
In light of all of this, pragmatism and ideology merge for the conservative because moral relativism is always a losing position due to its innate incoherence and counter intuitively. Thus, properly articulating what is right is arguably the strongest weapon conservatives can wield. The question then becomes how best to do so.

Thursday 19 September 2013

Should Hitler Have Been Punished? Stefan Molyneux·



Sign of the times

the_path_toward_the_one_realityMonths ago, I debated a liberal. I know that engaging in such debates is stupid, since a liberal by definition already knows everything, but it was not unproductive. Even though I didn’t stand a chance of communicating, I still managed to “get” something interesting from this exchange. Namely that every time I mentioned the concept of reality, this character would put scare quotes around the word. Never once did he omit them.
In his view, “reality” was an optional thing, or at least a place that existed only in our language and preferences. A bolt of enlightenment struck me: Liberals consistently turn everything into abstractions. To the liberal mind, there is nothing that can exist independently of our concepts of it, thus there can never be a single reality, so the concept of reality itself must be destroyed.
So what is the difference between reality and “reality”?
For those of us who acknowledge it, reality is the only thing that matters. If something isn’t real, it isn’t worth our attention. But reality can often be notably different than our perception of it, so by acknowledging reality we also accept the fact that we can be wrong, and face horrible consequences in an instant for being wrong about reality.
All of us will at some point be very wrong about the nature of reality. I know that I have. But the fact that I came to this awareness — that reality was in fact something completely different than what I thought — was actually the prime cause of my realization that reality is of infinite magnitude and meaning compared to my own limited and possibly faulted perspective.
To actually experience being in the wrong can serve as a rude but necessary awakening. You realize suddenly that reality is on a level which completely dwarfs the human ego. This can come as something of a shock, like seeing idols fall. However, once you get over the shock, you start to see how unimportant these idols actually were in contrast to the living mystery of reality itself.
Being in the wrong can instigate a true change of mind. You tune in to other frequencies. You’re no longer satisfied with perceiving only the bits and pieces of reality that are in accordance with your preconceived ideas. Instead, you become increasingly absorbed in silent awareness and then slowly start to see things in a new light.
On the other hand, “reality” is hard to define or experience. If you ask the liberal, he’ll point you to a horde of philosophers, sociologists and other writers whose complexities are incomprehensible to most people. If he is of the refined kind, the liberal will even dish out a long monologue on the subjective nature of everything, and how perception is an inescapable filter between self and reality. He’ll put on quite a show to make sure that you understand just how smart he is, how many theorists he knows, and how stupid you must be to disagree with him.
It will be impressive and profound, but what does it mean? You probably guessed: reality doesn’t matter, but that the perception or notion of reality — namely “reality” — does. This naturally leads to the conclusion that the only patently wrong way of perceiving the world is, that there is in fact a reality out there (or within, for that matter) independent of our perception of it. For the liberal there can always be many “realities”, but there can never be just one reality.
This of course makes the individual liberal’s “reality” immune to criticism, because no one “reality” can ever overrule another. All realities are equal, in that it is impossible to say what the actual reality, if there is such a thing, is actually like. These “realities” are mere notions, concepts or ideas; they are all abstractions. At most he’ll admit that reality hypothetically could exist — but beyond that it must be utterly unknowable.
Abstractions as such aren’t necessarily a problem. In fact, they are an integral part of language itself. But when reality itself is perceived as an abstraction, the words themselves lose their anchoring in the world, and become a closed system where words only reference more words. Words become something separate and independent of… well, everything else.
In the end, the words lose all meaning, and the discord between what the liberal preaches and what he actually is becomes apparent for those with not only ears to hear, but eyes to see as well: He’ll talk forever about tolerance, or solidarity, or love while actually behaving like the most intolerant, solipsistic, bitter individual imaginable. And in some strange way, by virtue of the immense complexities of the human brain, he’ll more often than not be completely oblivious of this open hypocrisy of his — or at least appear as if he is… Because there is only the perception, and no reality, remember?
Maybe deep down inside he knows that he’s deceiving himself, but he’ll do his best to suppress such a suspicion, and you can bet that he’ll never admit it to others. As such, the liberal is like a miniature of modernity itself: superficial, unstable and unbearably self-righteous. Anger is understandable, but pointless, for the individual liberal is just a sign of the times. He is a symptom, and not the disease itself.
Modernity itself is nothing but an idea, you see, a hollow abstraction that can be cleansed from the mind. Perhaps this idea could be called a “reality” on some level… but in the end, there is nothing real about it. Some may take it to be dead serious, but actually it isn’t. In actuality it is a series of abstract notions about the world and humanity that aren’t very accurate, but unfortunately are believed by many, and thus destined to go down with a bang.
For those able to see beyond modernity, it will forever remain what it is, in spite of all the loud noises, the flashing neon signs, the pulsing traffic and dramatic entertainment-products trying to distract us into thinking otherwise: It’s an increasingly delusional dream of a civilization unable — or unwilling — to admit that being wrong is even a possibility, and therefore a civilization incapable of achievements that’ll reach beyond the here and now.