Capitalist Paradise -> Around the web 11/29/06

Around the web 11/29/06

Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

Inspector

Posted: Nov 29 2006, 01:59 PM

Night Watchman
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 3,209
Member No.: 44
Joined: 8-June 04

There�s a lot to read out there at the moment, so I�ve done a �round-up:� (HT: GVH, for the coin of phrase)

------------------

Daniel Pipes has an ominous list showing the 751 places in France where Islam rules and the French police dare not go.

QUOTE (�Daniel Pipes�)

What are they? Those places in France that the French state does not control. They range from two zones in the medieval town of Carcassone to twelve in the heavily Muslim town of Marseilles, with hardly a town in France lacking in its ZUS. The ZUS came into existence in late 1996 and according to a 2004 estimate, nearly 5 million people live in them.
Comment: A more precise name for these zones would be Dar al-Islam, the place where Muslims rule. (November 14, 2006)
Nov. 28, 2006 update: For an insight into how bad things are, the police in Lyons demonstrated on Nov. 9, denouncing "violence against the forces of order." Things have reached a pretty sad state when the police have to demonstrate in the streets against the criminals

How, one might ask, are such things allowed to happen? Because multiculturalism not only demands that we not fight back; it also insists we let our guard down, and welcome the serpents into our midst. They are consciously aware of our multiculturalism, and even deliberately use it against us. Gus Van Horn comments on their latest probing attack against us, and it�s truly sinister intent:

QUOTE (�Gus Van Horn�)

Somehow, it comes as no surprise to me that the recent "humiliation" of six "peaceful" imams, who were led off in handcuffs from a US Airways plane simply (as they disingenuously claimed) for "praying" was in fact a staged incident designed to provoke exactly the reaction it did so its perpetrators could scream, "racist!", thus preempting all rational discussion.

QUOTE (�Gus Van Horn�)

These enemies of civilization knew exactly what they were doing� These hatemongering clerics weren't "flying while Moslem". They were impersonating terrorists�

�and for what purpose?

QUOTE (�Gus Van Horn�)

It is both reason and evidence that these imams want you to ignore any time their religion can be brought up on even the remotest pretext. � They want to intimidate us to the point that we quit thinking whenever they want us to, so when they say "Jump!" we'll ask "How high?" if we dare say anything.

�Meanwhile, in the name of some sort of weird protectionist fear of �foreign oil,� environmentalists are demanding that we ruin the economy for the sake of �alternatives� to petroleum. Meanwhile, as The Kalamazoo Objectivist (HT: Mike�s Eyes, for the link) notes, we�re sitting on top of a lake of the stuff. Those very same environmentalists caused the �foreign oil dependence� by not letting us drill for it.
Oh, and there�s a right abundance of shenanigans that the viros are up to�

For instance, Gus Van Horn reports:

QUOTE (�Gus Van Horn�)

Although the Houston Chronicle touts the case as one that "could shape [national] policy on [global] warming", the real significance of this case lies beyond the fact that it could cause the EPA (which deserves far more fame than it has for banning DDT) to have the power to regulate automobile emissions at the national level.

If the Supreme Court rules the way the environmentalists want, the EPA, suddenly drunk with new power, could finish the job -- started on our east and west coasts -- of starving our power-hungry nation of new sources of electricity�

Since the environmentalists have usurped California law into making power production basically illegal, Californians buy much of their electricity from Texas. So, naturally, the environmentalists now want to crush Texas� ability to produce energy.

Meanwhile, as Gus goes on to report, in that very same court case the bastards are setting their sights on our cars:

QUOTE (�Chron.com�)

State officials say they have limited power to regulate [auto] emissions, citing federal rules in the Clean Air Act that restrict the local creation of measures such as fuel economy and emission standards.

However, there is a loophole in the rules. States may not adopt their own emission standards, but they can adopt California's stricter rules on new vehicles. And there may now be a growing political movement to do just that in Texas.

And as annoying as that is, it�s important to keep in mind that California law has it on the books right now to basically ban the internal combustion engine if the legislature doesn�t do anything to repeal it in the next few years�

And even if they do let us drive cars, one of their flunkies is going to run a rolling road block at 55 in the left lane. It was environmentalists who first imposed that travesty on us, and it is environmentalists who want to do it again.

All news in not bad on that front, however. Mike�s Eyes reports on a documentary I had heard of that exposes some of their true goals. I have to agree with Mike�s assessment here:

QUOTE (�Mike�)

In part, I blame thousands of businessmen and otherwise wealthy people who have been donating large sums of money to Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) like Greenpeace, Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund and others under the illusion they are doing something good for nature which they wrongly understand to mean the environment.

Or, in other words: stop feeding them, you morons.

The biggest hurdle to exposing these vicious man-haters is the fact that they have managed to construct an elaborate mythology around the concept of �nature.� As if it were some kind of happy, friendly garden that wants to hug us and sing songs to us. Take, for example, this gem that Gus found:

QUOTE (�Gus Van Horn�)

Spiked Online posts a very interesting article by Dr. Michael Fitzpatrick about a claim by a group called "Natural England" that an unspecified set of conditions it calls "contact with nature" is good for human health.

QUOTE (� Dr. Michael Fitzpatrick�)

According to William Bird, a Berkshire GP and Natural England's health adviser, "increasing evidence suggests that both physical and mental health are improved through contact with nature". A campaign factsheet claims that "aggression and domestic violence is [sic] less likely in low-income families with views or access to natural green space", and "crime rates are lower in tower blocks with more natural green space than identical tower blocks with no surrounding vegetation" (no references provided).

Dr Bird is worried that "people are having less contact with nature than at any other time in the past" and insists that "this has to change!".

Natural England's campaign, which is endorsed by Britain's deputy chief medical officer and the BBC and supported by a budget of �500million of taxpayers' money, offers a curious combination of the silly and the sinister. On the one hand, the notion that a breath of fresh air and the sight of a few trees can cure the ills of both the individual and society has the aura of whacky green fundamentalism. On the other hand, Dr Bird's schoolmasterish tone and his offer of a natural cure for a wide range of social problems clearly appeals to the authoritarian instincts behind New Labour's public health policies. [minor punctuation and format changes]

Of course, by "nature", the environmentalists basically mean "anything unaltered by human efforts" because, somehow, man's rational faculty -- despite the fact that it evolved naturally over many eons -- is "unnatural".

Even leaving aside some of the wilder claims and proclivity towards social engineering of Nature England at present, and the inglorious past history of the "nature therapy" movement as explored by Fitzpatrick, let's very briefly examine the idea that more "contact with nature" is beneficial to man's health.

Environmentalists the world over regard the banning of DDT in the United States as an unqualified triumph despite (?) the fact that since the 1972 ban, millions of human beings have died since having more "contact with nature" in the form of bites from mosquitoes carrying the parasite that causes malaria. Fortunately, while the environmentalist brothers-in-spirit of the Nature England folks weren't looking, the use of DDT to fight the spread of malaria has been partially resurrected in those parts of the third world hardest-hit by malaria�

These putrid fantasies notwithstanding, �nature� (that is, wild things and the non-technological) is not our �friend.� "Nature" is extremely hostile to the survival requirements of human beings and it is a very big challenge to even stay alive in it for long. It's no picnic, in other words.

Or, in the words of Penn Jilette that The Charlotte Capitalist linked to:

QUOTE

We need technology to fight against nature. Nature so wants us dead. Nature is trying to kill us. The natural things in this world are HIV and bears. Everything natural in the world wants us dead.

A lot of people like going out into nature preserves every now and then. They say that they �like the outdoors.� But to say that you "like the outdoors" is not really accurate. What you're really saying is that "I like occasionally venturing into a tamed and controlled garden, but only on my own terms and with the assistance of countless technological aides, and only for a few days or hours after which I return to my comfortable, man-made home that is not filled with things that are trying to kill me."

But this shows the difference that environmentalists would fool us into forgetting: between life, and a hobby. Hobbies, such as skydiving, can be challenging or even dangerous. But to say that you like skydiving is not to say that the proper state of man is to live hurtling toward the ground from great heights.

Some people say that they want to �live close to nature," while they really mean, "it is sometimes enjoyable for me to temporarily enter a natural environment so that I can enjoy triumphing over it."

Personally, I can very much understand triumphing over the adversity of nature. In fact, I'd very much enjoy paving over great swaths of it. That'll show it who's boss.

The environmentalists, however, don�t mean it that way; the last thing they want is to triumph over it; they want it to triumph over us:

QUOTE (� Robert J. Smith @ Adjunct Environmental Scholar; Competitive Enterprise Institute�)

Now, my talk today has some bazaar title, �Pleistocene Park�A Threat to Civilization.� What does that mean? Well, on Thursday, August 18, this summer while most of you may have been enjoying the end of your summer vacation, the kids were at summer camp or whatever, you might be planning to go off on Friday and take your last three-day vacation to go to the beach or go trout fishing or something like that, the world�s most distinguished and prestigious science journal, called Nature, hit the news stands. It contained a remarkable article written by twelve authors, ecologists and conservationists, all at ten different American universities and institutions, and it called for the creation of something called the U. S. Ecological History Park.

Okay, so what? Just another park. We have got hundreds of national parks. What is one more? Just a little more private land acquired by the government, a little more loss of liberty as the government land ownership continues to expand and is now almost fifty percent of all the land in the United States. But this was a park with a twist. It wasn�t just another 100,000 acres here or 500,000 acres there. It calls for taking much, if not most, of the land in the Great Plains, the short grass and the mid grass prairies, all the land from the east side of the Rocky Mountains to the western edge of the tall grass prairies just to the west of the Mississippi River, and turning it into a park. This includes much of the land of ten states from Canada to Mexico�Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. If my math is right, these ten states are about one fifth or twenty percent of the entire United States. And this includes several hundred thousand square miles of land.
Well, for what? What they want to do is restore the ecosystem and all the large animals that roamed North America 10,000 to 13,000 years ago at the end of the Pleistocene Ice Age, which were killed off by the Native Americans, which they weren�t supposed to do apparently according to modern Greens. Now, unfortunately, the mastodons are gone, the mammoths are gone, the saber tooth tigers are gone, camels are long gone. So what to do? Well, not to worry. What these scientists are planning to do is take their nearest kin and begin re-introducing them to the Great Plains and this will restore, or here is an important word, re-wild the ecosystem and the wildlife that belonged there before humans came here and starting messing up nature. It will help save large animals that are endangered elsewhere in the world. So the plan calls for re-introducing, and as soon as possible, get this, African elephants, Asian elephants, Asian lions, African cheetahs, Bactrian camels (that is, the Mongolian camel with the two humps, not the Arabian camel with one hump), all sorts of wild horses, and also those wild giant Bolson tortoise. There are still a few of them left in northern Mexico. This will involve removing all fences on the plains and other barriers to free migration of all these animals. They hope to begin it almost immediately on some of the vast private ranch lands owned by exceedingly wealthy Green landowners like Ted Turner, who owns more land than anybody else in America. And Drummond Hadley�many of you may know him. He owns the entire boot heel of New Mexico. He is a very eccentric multi-zillionaire heir to the Anheuser Busch fortune. What they want to do, because these are private ranches, is to begin stocking the ranches almost immediately with elephants and cheetahs and the tortoises. Then they think they can complete their whole project within the next fifty years by working in cooperation with BLM (Bureau of Land Management), the U. S. Forest Service, and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Most of you are probably saying to yourselves that this is a total joke and silly nonsense. But, unfortunately, I suggest, this is deadly serious and this kind of idea and the ideas leading up to it are becoming more popular all the time.

It never ceases to amaze me, the leeway that our society gives to people like this, and their ideas. They literally call for the extermination of the human race, and what do we do? We give them donations, grants, scholarships, moral sanctions, and control of our laws and government.

***

�and while we�re busy letting Islamists stab us in the face, and environmentalists convince us to stab ourselves in the guts, the sneaky F�in Russians are up to business as usual:

QUOTE (�Gus Van Horn�)

I am at a loss as to which of the following is most amazing: (1) the brazenness of Russia's recent exploits on the international stage, (2) the failure of nearly anyone in the mainstream media to "connect the dots", or (3) the fact that President Bush still regards Russia as a valuable ally against North Korea.

Consider what a quick Google News search turned up this morning: Russia has been selling enormous amounts of weaponry abroad, most notably to China with whom it is busily upgrading (probably military) satellite technology and Iran, whom it is helping develop not only a nuclear capability but also missile systems. Russia is also shipping air defense systems to Iran for its new nuclear plants.

Ah, but don�t worry. If certain people have their way, the Russians won�t be alone in their crypto-police-state. Myrhaf found a good summary of John McCain�s vision for America:

QUOTE (�Myrhaf�)

What McCain Wants
Matt Welch�s examination of John McCain�s ideas is a must-read. Many politicians show aspects of fascism, but McCain, with his militarism, national greatness, government regulation of business, calls for self-sacrifice and militaristic view of citizenry, is the purest fascist among prominent politicians. Can anyone doubt that a Democrat Presidency (especially with a Republican Congress) would do less harm to freedom than a McCain Presidency?

Do you want to wake up one day between the years 2009-2113 to an America in which every young person must do two years of mandatory service to the state as a "rite of passage"? Is that what Jefferson, Madison and friends had in mind when they founded this country?

You�re going to want to follow that link. McCain is as slippery as an eel about his true intentions, but I�ve said for years that he suffered for his country and he means to make sure everyone else does, too.

user posted image

Be worried, Kriegsgefahrzustand.

***

Finally, Mike links to this fellow, who managed to find a poster child for hoplophobia:

QUOTE (�Barry�)

I just...I just blink my eyes in amazement everytime this crops up - actually watching people feel the need to carry a concealed weapon in public...

If I were to take a live, armed weapon and carry it on my person, in public, it would eat away at my sanity just as if it were emitting lethal radiation. To know that I carried an instrument of sure and certain death on my person, available and ready to be pulled out and used at a moment's notice to possibly kill...a child. A homeless person. An innocent.

Obviously that is not your intent. You want to protect yourself - maybe that is how you feel in California. But being brought up in Eastern Tennessee I've never once felt the need to protect myself from imminent bodily harm in public. And if I were aware of a location that might be unduly hazardous - a dark alley, a badly lighted parking area - I would avoid it. I've never been mugged, nor can I readily pull up a name of any person I've ever met that's been mugged or even bodily threatened in my whole life.

What scares me most is the arbitrary nature of self-defense. What line must be crossed to signal to you that there is imminent danger or threat? Is it a criminal pulling a gun on you? In which case, unless you're a gunslinger, you're not going to outdraw him. Is it someone pulling a knife? Threatening words? Bad language or rude gestures? Where is that one point where you decide, "Yes, my life or the life of my loved ones is in danger and I must now take it upon myself to take the life of another person." What if the guy is reaching into his jacket, and you are sure, absolutely certain that it is a weapon. You pull your gun and shoot--and see he's reaching for his wallet. Or worse, you miss and hit a child running in the street. Where is that line?

The radiation would rot my brain and I would never be able to live with myself�

Geez, if he�s that scared of concealed weapons, then how would he react if he saw me open-carrying my 1911 on my hip (or, for that matter, a policeman�s)? Would the radiation cause him to freak out and bite a baby or homeless person?

I just...I just blink my eyes in amazement every time this crops up - actually listening to people who can say things as idiotic as this window-licker. Kevin�s answer is the same as mine would be:

QUOTE (�Kevin; The Smallest Minority�)

Barry, I applaud your decision to remain unarmed. I hope, however, that you will get some psychiatric or psychological treatment for your crippling fear of your own lack of control.

It�s psychological projection, as clear as I�ve ever seen it. He, personally, is the kind of psychopath that can�t handle being armed, so he�s going to make damn sure the rest of do so.

Oh, also notice the moronic �Well, I�ve never been mugged and I�m not afraid of crime, so therefore it�s okay to be unarmed.� As I�ve said before, that�s grade-A primacy of consciousness right there.

-Inspector

--------------------

I am the night watchman;
Obstating Principii while you sleep

Inspector	Posted: Nov 29 2006, 03:09 PM
Night Watchman Group: Admin Posts: 3,209 Member No.: 44 Joined: 8-June 04	Updated and edited post. -------------------- I am the night watchman; Obstating Principii while you sleep

raditz8526

Posted: Nov 30 2006, 04:40 AM

Newbie

Group: Members
Posts: 40
Member No.: 244
Joined: 10-October 06

QUOTE

All I can do is shake my head. Some people just have no grasp of reality.

0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)

0 Members:

« Next Oldest | The Night Watchman | Next Newest »

DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you