tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post6122295751371895054..comments2023-12-28T06:30:48.808-05:00Comments on The Rule of Reason: OIC “Workshops” Speech CrimeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-15460299595572113122012-02-26T13:02:36.099-05:002012-02-26T13:02:36.099-05:00Thank you for the reminders, Ed and R.A. I sort of...Thank you for the reminders, Ed and R.A. I sort of “knew” what you’ve reminded me of, but I do sometimes lose track of it all: it’s all so evil, one can’t quite get one’s head around it, as it were, and keep it there. (Excepting a Dostoevsky.)<br /><br />The ingredients for the Lady Macbeth Casserole consist then, by my understanding, in the following (“you” referring to the Islamics, and “I” to Lady Macbeth, in each case):<br /><br />Multiculturalism: “Who am I to tell you how to live, or why?”<br /><br />Power Lust: “I can use you to enact more laws, and thereby exert more control, over my own subjects back home. Maybe that will make me feel important and powerful.”<br /><br />Hatred of Self: “I found out that everybody in my country hates me. To get even with them all for reminding me of how loathsome I am, I’ll use you to hurt them.”<br /><br />Victim Pandering: “You’ve been trounced by your betters (read: Israel), haven’t you—and, more importantly, you exist only by virtue of their generosity and forbearance. So I feel sorry for you. (Indeed, I rather identify with you.) I’ll do your bidding, then—as long as it’s directed against your moral superiors.”<br /><br />Hatred of Capitalism: “Being a power luster, meritocracies are threatening to me and my self-image: since America still retains symbolic value as a meritocracy, I hate it—and I can use you as an excuse to enact laws that will ensure it never regains the conditions that allowed it to achieve its previously actual (but now, thankfully, only symbolic) stature.”<br /><br />Fear: “I don’t have the gumption to defend myself, or my country: neither are worth defending—and plus, I don’t want to harm you, because you’re such a victim; so I don’t want to make you angry with me. I’ll cooperate with you, then, and do your bidding—so that you don’t get mad and hurt me.”<br /><br />… I think that covers it all? …. Of course, these ingredients (in varying proportions) are also evident in other dishes, aren't they, besides the LM Casserole. There’s the delicious Barak Bake, for instance. And so very many others; a smorgasbord, veritably.jayeldeenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-53046255935009493962012-02-25T21:04:05.642-05:002012-02-25T21:04:05.642-05:00R.A.: This could have been a postscript to my &qu...R.A.: This could have been a postscript to my "Hillary Clinton Auditions for Lady Macbeth." I make the same points there, too.Edward Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12160209827969614964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-40243825305142752182012-02-25T20:56:43.807-05:002012-02-25T20:56:43.807-05:00I think those creatures, such as Hilary Clinton, w...I think those creatures, such as Hilary Clinton, who side with the Muslims in their drive to silence critics are partly envious of their naked power lust, and also wanting to cash in on it. She sees it as an effective tool to shut up the opposition which she and her ilk cannot control. The fact that if she and her Muslim counterparts are successful the lovely modern world we live in will cease to be does not concern her. She is one of the living dead; she is not capable of valuing anything objectively and on her own. Power over others, making them fear and obey her, is what she's after. Nothing more, nothing less. <br /><br />It's difficult for normal people who like being alive, and want the freedom to live a life understand those who don't like life, don't like themselves or others, and just want to be in control of others. They are not efficacious humans, despite often being quite smart. They've put their talents to work in controlling others, in having power, so that when they say or do something people are fearful or obsequious. It's a strange, perverted psychology- they may look human, and sound human, but in a real sense, they are not motivated by wanting to be alive and to live as many humans are. A person chooses to live by their own mind for their own chosen values or they give up, and they live by how others tell them to live, and/or by controlling other people, having power over them. It's a fundamental choice. Either one lives ones' life by ones own reason and judgment (and that is a big responsibility requiring courage and brains). Or one decides to live for others and by their rules: whether it's a religion's edicts, or a gang's rules or a tribe’s, the Fatherland, society, the proletariat, etc. Clinton has decided to live by her particular collective's rules and those rules (Multiculturalism, which says the most primitive tribe with head shrinking and cannibalism, is the equivalent of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers) tells her she can have no standards, cannot judge others, and a Muslim edict has as much moral standing as the First Amendment. Who is she to judge? She just wants to be President. She wants people to admire her, to be fearful of her, to listen to her when she talks, genuflect when she's perturbed, etc. She's got a path to follow and she'd sell her own mother down that path or walk on nails and certainly taking down the First Amendment is hardly something that matters to her. She doesn't have the ability to value the life she'd lose by giving the First Amendment away. She doesn't understand life, her own, and she does not value it in the way you value yours. She's afraid of not being someone in someone else’s' eyes. That's not nearly enough to save the Constitution from ruin.<br /><br />R.A.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-2895818228844856132012-02-23T21:35:57.616-05:002012-02-23T21:35:57.616-05:00Ed, I take your point. And now, please forgive me ...Ed, I take your point. And now, please forgive me for being apparently dense--but just WHY are these slimeballs "protecting" Islam, again? I feel stupid asking this, but I have trouble fathoming plausible motives. Is this all to be ascribed to multiculturalism? Is it that they're terrified of being thought judgmental, and so forth--of, in fact, having some sort of values (however ill-considered)? Is that it, then, in a nutshell? Is that your take? (Perhaps I don't need to, but I do have trouble, now and again, fathoming the folly.)jayeldeenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-65324563405340675642012-02-23T18:13:30.728-05:002012-02-23T18:13:30.728-05:00Jayeldee: Resoluton is meant to insulate and prote...Jayeldee: Resoluton is meant to insulate and protect Islam only. That's all. No other religion. Clinton knows this. Which makes her complicit in the duplicity. She's just as capable of it as is her husband, Bill. And she's Obama's pick for Sec'y of State, as a consolation prize for losing the Democratic nomination. You don't need to examine the folly any further.Edward Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12160209827969614964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-68770196923428076222012-02-23T16:08:38.886-05:002012-02-23T16:08:38.886-05:00"Resolution 16/18 aims to combat intolerance,..."Resolution 16/18 aims to combat intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatisation of discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief...."<br /><br />This is duplicitous in the extreme, and the framers of this Resolution haven't a leg to stand on--for, suppose that MY "religion" or "belief" system dictates that Islam is an evil that must be identified and resisted? In that event, I, too--and my religion and beliefs--would also be subject to "toleration" (or whatever), under the selfsame Resolution. Wouldn't they? "16/18", and all similar prescriptions, are simply ludicrous and self-contradictory--and bring to mind Ayn Rand's exhortation, "Don't bother to examine a folly; ask yourself only what it accomplishes." (I quote from memory.)jayeldeenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-12075381404388597522012-02-23T14:48:53.307-05:002012-02-23T14:48:53.307-05:00The trend is towards statism and totalitarianism, ...The trend is towards statism and totalitarianism, with our "masters" in collusion with our would-be masters, the Islamic supremacists. Shades of the Nazi-Soviet "non-aggression pact."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-56097427932211614212012-02-23T10:26:44.410-05:002012-02-23T10:26:44.410-05:00Witness the reactions of tolerant peaceful adheren...Witness the reactions of tolerant peaceful adherents to islam when scraps of garbage were found outside a US military base. Death and destruction must be the appropriate response. The idea that our(?) State Department would side with these savages and bring to bear the technologic capabilites of DHS is less then reassurring. <br />Not to mention the near silence of the MSM when examples of the nefarious surveillance tactics are made public. The story of the British citizen deported for a tweet, should have raised more flags, eg how was it one particular tweet came to their attention out of the millions generated everyday unless they were looking at all the passengers on the manifest prior to the flight.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com