Iranian Elections

It looks like Ahmedinejad has won.

This election reminded me of a book I read recently -"The Future of Freedom", by Fareed Zakaria, which talks about how liberalism (the rule of law, free markets, free speech, etc) leads to democracy, but how democratic elections in countries without those institutions often leads to dictatorship and the complete abrogation of rights.

Ever since the Iranian election and the rise of Islamic theology, this has been the case in Iran. In times gone by, I've posted pictures here of Iranians accused of being homosexuals being hanged, not an uncommon practise in Iran. The West needs to learn that the rise of Islamic ideology in Iran has led to this, and the continuing descent into absolute dictatorship in that nation.

Zakaria talks about how liberal institutions can act as a deterrant to the rise of extreme Islamism. Although in the short term this can be true, the introduction -by some miracle, no doubt- of liberal institutions in Iran would simply be showing a practical side to Persia. But at the end of the day, Islamic extremism will rise again -no country can be based on a contradiction for too long, and as political institutions merely express an underlying philosophy, they will be the ones to lose out.

This is what I fear is happening in the West, and Western intellectuals need to take note: with the philosophy of altruism still present in every part of Western society (art, politics, and religion being just a few examples), the West is also based on a contradiction, which has nearly spelt its end, in World War II, for instance. Although we are lucky to have survived for so long, we need to be very cautious, especially with economic crisis on our hands, where we tread.

Thank God For Secularism

Three recent items from the news/blogosphere tie in nicely today:

Lindsay Perigo's recent PR "Obama Gets One Right" two days before a Woman claiming she was the "anti-Christ" kills herself and her son, a week after a new survey revealed New Zealanders were more likely to believe fortune tellers than have no doubt God exists.

That isn't to say that religion is always a bad thing; indeed the development of Protestantism during and after the Reformation helped to build a base (along with, most importantly, the re-discovery of ancient Greek thought in the Renaissance) upon which the modern, post-Enlightenment world rests. I certainly don't think much of fortune tellers, either.

However, more often than not religion is used as an excuse, justified or not, to commit horrible acts (9/11, for instance). So, a redeeming feature about New Zealand is that, certainly in public affairs, religion takes a "back seat" to more pressing issues.

That doesn't mean we're all anti-religious people; knowing many religious people myself, the great majority of them are good people, and live good lives. What it means is that religion doesn't have to come first all the time, and doesn't dominate politics.

Which (and take note) is the full and final outcome of the Reformation: by stressing the personal relationship with God, Protestantism allowed for the development of classical liberalism, and the development of the true tolerance and freedom which allowed ideas and thoughts to thrive. So while America didn't develop as a direct result of Christianity, the predominant version of Christianity in the US did allow for the Enlightenment ideals on which America is founded.

Terror in Mumbai

Over the past three days, terrorist scum in Mumbai have killed 150 people, injured hundreds more, and caused irreversible damage to India's largest city.

This latest attack is not the first of its kind; there have been many such terrorist attacks, committed in the name of Islam, over this century and the last. Terror has been committed in the name of Islam ever since its founding over 1400 years ago, when Muslims took over much of Europe and Arabia. The terrorists weren't poor and desperate; they didn't make demands. They were there to commit an atrocity in the name of Islam.

Yet, the West continues to ignore this. They ignored it during the later half of the twentieth century when America was targeted for allying with Israel, a country who takes the most blows of Islamic violence. They ignored it during 9/11, and in the London, Madrid and Bali bombings. They've ignored it again.

The usual suspects from the left will be crying out about how George Bush's war on terror has caused all the recent attacks in the Middle East. Take note: the Bush Administration always uses phrases like "Militant Islam", "Islamic Extremism", etc. To appease "moderate" Muslims, they make it seem that they're only fighting a small, out-of-the-ordinary group of Muslims. They always avoid using the word "Islam" to describe the ideology -ideology- that these attacks have been committed in the name of.

What we're seeing isn't a random group of people against another group of people, we are seeing a fundamentally ideological fight. The terrorists know that. The West is trying its utmost to evade it -and is paying the price.

Catholic Stupidity

The residents of the Vatican City have said many stupid things in the past, but few of them can get much stupider than this:

"Politics needs religion," Cardinal Bertone said in a speech published by the Vatican mouthpiece L'Osservatore Romano. "When instead God is ignored, the ability to respect rights and recognise the common good begins to disappear."

Are we talking about the same religion that started the Great Crusades? The God who sanctioned witchhunts? The Church that persecuted Galileo when he proved wrong Catholic scientific beliefs?

One of the fundamental principles of the Enlightenment was the seperation of Church and State, that the church (or any religious institution) played no role in the political development of nations and governments. It was done with good reason, too. Perhaps the Cardinal should look to the places where religion does play a big role in politics. Places like Nigeria, the US South, and, of course, the Middle East -all of whom are backwards in comparison to the rest of the world.

However, maybe he does have a point -so we can be shown again how bad religion is in politics.

ACT for America

Some of you who look at my Libertarian and Objectivist links from time to time may have seen a link called "ACT for America". ACT for America is an American organization dedicated to fighting for American values, security and freedom against radical, militant Islamism, which has been increasingly entrenched in American society, since before 9/11. It is founded by America's answer to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Brigitte Gabriel.

Brigitte Gabriel was born in Lebanon in 1965 and immigrated to America after the Lebanese Civil War. After immigrating to America, she founded the American Congress for Truth, dedicated to repudiating lies and propaganda about Israel and America's role in the fight against radical Islamism, constantly thrown about in the media.

Gabriel has first hand experience of the violence of radical Islamism in Lebanon. She says:

"I was born in Lebanon and raised as a Christian. When the Lebanese Civil War broke out, our family and our Maronite community came under vicious attack by Islamic extremists. They promised to destroy us, and today the country is nearly all Islamic.

I was nearly killed by a mortar. Our home was destroyed. We lived in a bomb shelter for seven years. Most of my childhood friends were killed. That's how I know about this fight."

On the site, she doesn't just target radical Islamism, she also targets political correctness, which is the philosophy which allows radical Islamism in the West, unabated. She says, quite frankly:

"Political correctness will literally kill us."

She also talks about why radical Islamists are out to destroy the West and its values, how they go out it, and what will the outcome will be if it isn't stopped. She stands up for Western values, and makes it very clear what her organization is about:

"...to be a collective voice for the democratic values of Western Civilization, such as the celebration of life and liberty, as opposed to the authoritarian values of Islamofascism, such as the celebration of death, terror and tyranny."

Brigitte doesn't just oppose Islamism on practical grounds, she opposes it on moral grounds. She doesn't oppose it simply because of terrorist acts, she opposes it because of its hatred towards Western civilisation and values, and its philosophy based on death.

Brigitte Gabriel and her organisation(s) enable America to have what Europe and the UK didn't: a clear and principled voice against radical Islamism.

ACT for America-before it's too late!

Oops.

Uh-oh. Look at what the Reverend of one American Presidential Candidate's been saying:

"This is a despicable, racist country. This is a country of poison and murder. This country is no different from al Qaeda. This country faked Pearl Harbor, etc."

...You'd think that whoever came from that church is surely down-and-out on their chances of becoming President, right? Surely!

Well, think again. This Reverend is none other than the Reverend of Barack Obama. Surely, the media will talk about it and it'll be an issue worthy of debate, but will Barack Obama be hurt by it? Of course not. And he knew about his Reverend's statements, and the two were really good friends.

Now just imagine that happening to John McCain!

"Conservative" Pope?

It looks like all the commentators who said, back in 2005, that the current Pope -Benedict XVI- is "very conservative", and that the current Pope would bring the Catholic Church back to tradition, were in fact dead wrong. Instead, this new Pope, unleashing his post-modernist, politically correct side released a series of new sins. And if you think that they'll be better and more up-to-date than the old list, think again.

The list of new sins goes as follows (from the BBC):

1) Environmental pollution. So no nation should get out of poverty, because industrialization involves pollution? Cooking everywhere creates pollution. So should we all starve because of this?

2) Genetic manipulation. Who cares about how many lives can be saved? The Church finds it bad!

3) Accumulating excessive wealth. Regardless of how much you deserve your wealth through production, investments, trade and saving. Exemptions to this sin, however, include the Catholic Church.

4) Inflicting poverty. If the Pope was an economist, he'd quickly realize that this violates #1. But hey, poverty is good for Catholicism. It keeps people's mysticism about them.

5) Drug trafficking and consumption. Fair enough, but I wonder if the Pope supports the best way to end this sin -legalization.

6) Morally debatable experiments. "Morally debatable" how?

7) Violation of fundamental rights of human nature. Yes, but such as? If the Pope knew what such rights were, he'd be an ardent supporter of Capitalism. Contradicsts #1.

So, he's as politically correct as the worst of the Left. But, politically correct with a religious twist, from a religion that's so old and intolerant of progress that the Pope had no choice but to update. However, he didn't release this list for that reason -he genuinely believes what he says. Don't ask how.

All this is strikingly similar to what the Archbishop of Canterbury said- and he represents the other faction of Christianity. Looks like all the bloodshed in Europe over so many centuries about Catholicism vs. Protestantism really did die in vain.

As was seen on Not PC, the lovely Sus of Sus's Sound-Bite released a far more sensible and rational list of real sins:

"1. Tax. All taxes. Tax is theft, Ben, and a contravention of your boss's seventh commandment.

2. Censorship. All censorship. It is thought control.

3. The EFA. Yes, it's censorship, but it's such a travesty it deserves its own spot.

4. The Greens. Having lost the economic battle when the Soviet Union fell over, they swapped their red cardigans for green ones by playing the environmental card. 21st century frauds.

5. The Do-gooders. Those who have no qualms in telling us all what to do, and always for our own good. You know them: they support all the usual causes and they're invariably white, middle-aged socialists. The worst.

6. AGW. The Global Warming zealots. Those Who Must Not Be Questioned. They are today's reactionaries and every bit as frightening as their counterparts of old.

7. Reality TV and all 20-somethings in the pages of the women's mags. Brainless, mind-numbing and almost impossible to tell one from the other."

It's good to see someone has sense.

Bhutto Assassinated

It's the holiday season, and I don't intent to write much on my time off, but this is too important, unfortunately.

With political violence in the troubled Middle Eastern Nation of Pakistan reaching new highs, it had to happen some time -former Prime Minister, Opposition Leader and most importantly female (!) Benazir Bhutto, a popular leader in a country strife with Islamofascism was assassinated, in a bomb blast and several bullets as she was making her way from a rally for her political party.

It wouldn't be the first time an attempt on her life has been made; since she came out of exile just two months ago, somebody else blew up a bomb at another political rally. However, instead of killing her, about 90 other people were slaughtered.

This time, she was in an armoured car, like in the previous assassination attempt. The success of the attempt this time around was because Bhutto had her head out the sunroof, which made all the difference, even though the car was quite badly damaged, as well.

The assassination of Bhutto is just one of a long line of murders, assassinations, and terrorism committed in the name of Islam, by Islamofascists. She was murdered for being pro-West, being a woman doing a man's job, and wanting to downplay Islamic extremism. The sad reality of daring to speak out against Islamofascist evil: you pay with your life.

Hitler and Islamofascism

Hitler was one of the most murderous tyrants of world history. He set off a great war that killed countless millions of people, killed innocent men and women on an incredible scale, and was the centrepiece of a philosophy -fascism- that still today continues to slaughter innocent men and women. A form of this tyranny and terror beyond words is the system that exists in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Palestine.

The similarities that exist in these countries are very similar to those of Nazi Germany:

Murderous tyrants and fanatic supporters: Hitler slaughtered millions in his day. Evil men such as Ahmedinejad still hang gays in Iran, and then boast in America about there being no gays in Iran! Another example is the recent lashing of a Saudi women for being in a car with men not related to her- and then raping her! Or the "death to Denmark, death to America" placards and riots that ensued after a brave Dane dared to publish portrays of Mohammed in a magazine. 9/11, and the Madrid and later London bombings. It all hails back to an era when Nazi supports burnt down the shops, homes and livelihoods of Jews, Poles, or anyone Hilter didn't like. And the constant excuses for carrying out murderous actions.

Evil philosophies: Islam isn't a "religion of peace" (this will be discussed later). Fascism was, and continues to be, an extreme form of statism, in which all power is given to a select few in the state. It is built on Nietzsche's concept of the superman. The Islamofascist philosophy of radical Islamists is merely an Islamic twist on normal fascism. The same goes with Ahmedinejad's theocracy in Iran, which is a cross between middle ages theocracy and modern Islamofascism. As seen in the example given above, Saudi Arabia is the same.

Islam is a religion. As has been said on SOLO (and this goes for all religions), it is a "stinking superstition". Although the adjective "stinking" can certainly be used to mean events happening under Islam's name as we speak, the "superstition" part applies to all religions. Because religion - belief in what may be true to guide us in life - is in direct contrast to knowing what is true, to guide our life on this Earth. Islam, in its current post-enlightened state (the Islamic "enlightenment" of the Middle Ages was achieved by men acting in their self-interest to advance their life on Earth) resembles Christianity during the Middle Ages. Or the worship of Hitler during WWII.

Pragmatic Supporters: The great majority of Muslims, both in the West and in the Middle East, are good people. The problem with these people - and admittedly there are some people who do speak out against the atrocities committed in the name of their religion - are pragmatists. They live their lives, follow their religion, and don't think twice about Islamofascism. The same was true with the Germans in under Hitler. Although it's hard for Muslims to speak out against a regime that terrorizes them, and the same was true with the Germans, what annoys me is the lack of speaking out by free Muslims, in the West. Instead, they're too preoccupied with yelling about Mohammed cartoons, or refuting claims like mine that Islam can lead (and often will lead) to evil regimes and tyrants.

It's this pragmatism that refutes the claim that Islam is a religion of peace. If that were so, there would've been demonstrations all over the world in response to 9/11, and Ahmedinejad would've been long overthrown. It wasn't until after WWII that the Germans saw Hitler's evil. Under a true "religion of peace", that wouldn't be the case just over the horizon.

Western Appeasement: I'm not one of those people who believes in going and blowing up Iran now. But then again, Hitler hadn't invaded anyone until what, 1937? Just two years before WWII started.

However, what was disgusting during WWII was the West's complete inability to do anything. Even when he started invading, no one was smart enough to stand up to his reign of terror until Churchill came around. America didn't enter the war until it got bombed itself. This appeasement allowed Hitler to take half of Europe in weeks. There should be no such appeasement toward today's Islamofascist regimes, and if they do attempt to invade, the West should be on it in minutes.

And the other part of Western appeasement is the PC attitude towards it all. The West should have no fear in denouncing Islam and Islamic regimes, for what they have created where they have been tried. And if anyone's offended... too bad! Free speech includes the right to be offended!

It's these four things that have contributed to the barbarism committed under Islam in the Middle East today. And unless these issues are dealt with in a consistent, objective manner, things will only get worse.

To Be or Not To Be?

I must congratulate the brave Buddhist Monks who are defying the totalitarian military rule of Myanmar in its capital city, Yangon. It's not easy standing up against a government who would slaughter you on the spot, even if you are an important religious figure in the country.

But that's only half the story. If these Monks were to succeed-and lets say, for the sake of argument, that they did-what would it be replaced by? Socialist/religious rule, based around collectivist principles (which lead to the current mess)? Or would the Monks think beyond that, and instate rational individualist principles?

To Be or Not To Be, That is the Question.

September 11, and Islam Versus the West

Yesterday (American Eastern Time), six years ago an act of war was committed against the West, and its underlying values of individualism and capitalism. It was committed by a group of Islamic extremists, acting in the name of Islam and the Medieval value system that it currently implies. The acts weren't just random bad acts committed for a random reason, like the Oklahoma City bombings half a decade before. This was an act of war, against the West and its incredible achievements of man's mind.

In response, America itself started a war against Afghanistan, where many Islamic extremists were hiding at the time with the help of the oppressive Taliban government (and it should be noted that not a great deal of progress has been made).

The War on Terror is not a war against religion, or particular nations per se, it's a war against the underlying values of the Islamic extremists that want us and all we stand for in the West all dead, and for a new Islamic medieval period to sweep the world.

Right now, the ideals of the West and the ideals of Islam are not compatible. Indeed, the same was true with Christianity until the Reformation and Protestantism came along, and one outdated and primitive value system was replaced with another updated and liberal value system. Christianity became more liberal, and free speech was allowed. Without this reformed Christianity and value system, there would've been no enlightenment, no industrial revolution, and the world wouldn't be particularly different today than what it was back in the 1500s.

Unfortunately, Islam has had no Reformation. It is still a religion similar to what Catholicism was in the Middle and Dark Ages, when people were burned at the stake and sacrificed daily in the name of God. Its value system is also similar. Until the Islamic value system is replaced with a new set of values, until its own little Reformation, we can expect the same outcome of the same values: torture, oppression, murder and terrorism.

Let shops open during Easter!

Easter time is supposed to be about peace and celebration, but it isn't for shopkeepers, who, once again, have to close down on "Good" Friday because of silly a primeval law the government enacted fourteen years ago. Easter is a religious holiday, and not everyone is Christian. So why don't we give our shopkeepers their well-deserved freedom to open on "public" holidays? Why should they be denied their right to offer people goods and services on any day of the year?