The BBC has rolled out a prime-time documentary as well as a superabundantly detailed ten-part podcast series on the story of Shamima Begum, whose path to celebrity has been unconventional. She has become the object of the BBC’s lavish affections by fleeing Britain to join the Islamic State (ISIS) at age fifteen, becoming a jihadi bride, showing no remorse for the atrocities of her jihadi friends and colleagues, and being consequently denied the right to return to Britain. As Rolling Stone magazine did with Boston Marathon jihad bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, The Times’ Saturday magazine has published a glamor shot of Begum on its cover to help publicize the BBC series. In the twisted culture of the far Left of which the BBC and Rolling Stone are foremost exponents, an Islamic jihadi who hates his or her home country is a hero, and any action law enforcement authorities take against the jihadi only enhances the warrior of Allah’s victimhood status, and thus in turn only magnifies the jihadi’s celebrity status in the West. Sick? Oh, that’s an understatement.
Neil Davenport observed in Spiked Thursday that “anyone following the past week’s coverage could be forgiven for thinking that Shamima is the victim, rather than the villain of her story. The fact that Begum was a footsoldier of a movement responsible for unspeakable carnage and suffering is treated almost as a footnote. No space, it seems, could be found to give voice to the families whose lives have been destroyed by ISIS killers.”
This notable lack of balance belies the mission statement contained in the BBC’s Royal Charter: “To act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain.” Impartial? That ship sailed for the BBC a long, long time ago, but the fascination with Begum demonstrates beyond any lingering doubt that the once-trusted broadcaster has reduced itself to being nothing more than a propaganda arm for the hard Left, which sees any enemy of Britain and the West as an ally and friend.
The BBC insisted that it was not simply offering up a puff piece on Shamima Begum, and would look at her critically, but the very fact that the documentary and podcast series exist at all demonstrates the BBC’s intention: to make British people think positively of Shamima Begum, and get her back into the country. Consider, for comparison’s sake, the fact that the BBC wouldn’t be caught dead featuring a foe of jihad terror in a 10-part podcast or in any sort of treatment at all except an attack piece full of critical quotes from Leftist jihad enablers and Islamic supremacists.
Skeptical? Back in 2013, when Pamela Geller and I were banned from entering Britain for the unforgivable crime, as far as the British elites are concerned, of opposing jihad violence and Sharia oppression of women, I happened to be working very early one morning. I saw the BBC announce on Twitter that it was going to have a show in an hour, about 3AM Pacific time, discussing whether or not Geller and I should indeed be banned from the country.
The “impartial” broadcaster had not, of course, invited either Pamela Geller or me to participate in the discussion, or made any attempt at all to contact either of us. When I tweaked them for this on Twitter that night, however, they were embarrassed, and ended up (no doubt reluctantly) inviting me on after all.
So in the middle of the night, sleepless and without a preparation, I got my one and only chance to defend myself in the British media, and only got that because I caught the BBC out and called them on it publicly. Pamela Geller never got any chance to respond at all. A portion of the show I was on can be heard here; listen to see how the imam the BBC had on to discuss what terrible people Geller and I were was completely unable to answer the points I made about the Qur’an.
But quite aside from anything that was said on that show, the contrast is clear. The BBC loves Shamima Begum and is doing everything it can for her. But those who oppose jihad terror? The BBC doesn’t love so much. There is no BBC documentary or podcast series about anyone in Britain who stands against the cause to which Shamima Begum gave so much of her life. As far as the BBC is concerned, defending Britain as a free society doesn’t make you a hero. Only wanting to see Britain conquered and subjugated gets you the BBC’s star treatment.
Keep Muslims out of the country. Let them stay in their own countries.
And there’s dozens of safe muslim countries in between where they are allegedly escaping from and Britain. Why don’t they migrate to Dubai or Saudi or Oman or Qatar or Pakistan or…
Ah, but part of the Allah commanded “mission” is to spread Islam to every corner of the Earth, erasing any trace or scintilla of any other culture or belief in the process.
“We will be your friend, until we’re strong enough to be your enemy”
No! That would be SELFISH SELF-PRESERVATION, that would be immoral, that would be selfishly seeking to embrace this life and this world. Jesus came to earth to rescue us from this earth. He died for all of us including Muslims. We are all sinners born of Original Sin our Holy Mission is to seek salvation from our fallen state in this fallen world by sacrificing our selves for God, Jesus, and neighbor. For we are all brothers and sisters under God, including sinful Muslims. Who are we to judge them, only God can judge them, judge not that ye shall not be judged. You are your brother’s keeper.
Altruism and self-sacrifice are our highest virtue and duty to God. It does not matter if we die saving our sinful, fallen, Muslim brothers, we will be rewarded with Eternal Life in Heaven once we’re DEAD!
Jesus wants us all to be a Christian martyr like Kayla Mueller. Kayla is enjoying her reward of Eternal Life in Heaven right now as I write this.
Part 1
Ah yes, if it isn’t the deluded liar and coward. Who insists they “defeated me” in a debate about Thomas Aquinas and the Renaissance even though it became incredibly obvious they did not know A: Aquinas wasn’t the first Latin language translator of Aristotle, even in his own generation, B: That they didn’t know about the continued Greek language references to him in Eastern Rome, and C: That Rand grotesquely mangled Aristotle’s personality and impact.
Let’s go through this again, shall we?
“No! That would be SELFISH SELF-PRESERVATION, that would be immoral,”
This is stupid on a grand scale, especially if you’ve ever studied the Book of Judges and its kin and what ancient Israelite Siege Warfare was like. This is where I point out that the Judeo-Christian God is also the Lord of “Losts” aka Armies.
And of course Selfish Self-Preservation and Altruistic concern for one’s kin and community often go hand in hand and are not the binary either/or you like. Which is why you pervasively demonize altruism at every turn while simultaneously wanting to denounce the kind of brutally asocial, cruel, egotistic psychopathy that a complete disregard of altruism can lead to.
Part 2
Because you, like your idols, lack the courage to “Go Galt” all the way and accept the consequences of what that would entail for more people (which I suppose is nice), but you don’t want to acknowledge that Going Galt would mean allowing the looters to destroy countless others while also destroying themselves. So you try to square the circle. It’s charming in a way, certainly one of the more redeeming features of your otherwise odious personality. But the fact that it can only be sustained by delusion and a particular brand of self-righteous arrogance handily counterbalances it.
” that would be selfishly seeking to embrace this life and this world.”
And there’s nothing wrong with THAT in and of itself. The issue is how far you go.
“Jesus came to earth to rescue us from this earth.”
Ah yes, the Randian pretend game that all Abrahamic faiths are Manichean and believe that “This earth” is inherently and irredeemably evil and that so much as seeking to prolong one’s life on it is treason.
What utter rot.
Part 3
According to mainstream Christianity, those few branches of Judaism that acknowledge him, and even Islam, at best Jesus came to Earth to rescue us from the fallen state of this. Muslims believe he was merely a prophet teaching the “Correct” Religion. Christians and the more Messianic Jews believe he did that but also died for our sins as the perfect sacrifice.
In any case, he certainly did not die to “rescue us from this earth” as shown by how we remain conspicuously on this Earth. And even his Second Coming is predicted not to free us from “this earth” but to free this Earth from the evil and corruption that manifests in it. See Revelations 21-22. And indeed, the Bible even talks about a “New Earth” and a “New Jerusalem” that the righteous will enjoy.
Of course Rand and Peikoff and co don’t like this because it goes against the attempt to portray the Abrahamic religions as purely otherworldly, purely spiritual, and purely anti-materialistic. But it holds true. And if you wanted to actually INDICT Christianity or the Abrahamic Faiths, it would help to have a *BASIC* concept of what they claim and what they don’t claim.
Part 4
“Oh, and “Selfish self-sacrifice”? The Bible never forbade that entirely, especially on the communal level. As shown by Luke’s discussion of John the Baptist and his response to soldiers.
“And those who served in the army were also asking him, saying, “What should we also do?” And he said to them, “Extort from no one,* and do not blackmail anyone,[d] and be content with your pay.”” ” – Luke 3:14, Lexham English Bible
* The original Greek is more like “Terrorize no one” rather than merely extorting.
This exchange was immortalized in the New Testament ironed out by the assorted Church Councils of late antiquity, and so it clearly indicates that the Bible did not forbid people from baring arms and using violence, even in pursuit of their own self-interests. He did however underline how to do so ETHICALLY, which is the rub..
“He died for all of us including Muslims.”
Correct. But that doesn’t mean “all of us” would accept that gift.
“Selfish self-sacrifice”? Huh? What precisely is “selfish self-sacrifice”, that’s a contradiction in rational terms. Please explain with rational precision? There is no such thing as selfish-self-sacrifice. Not by rational definitions of what is the “self” and what is a “sacrifice”, but for religious sophistry, inconsistent, and even contradictory definitions are the usual irrational definitions.
Part 1
““Selfish self-sacrifice”? Huh? What precisely is “selfish self-sacrifice””
Sacrificing for what one believes is in one’s own personal interest.
Not unlike what Rand said many of the US Military cadets she spoke to were doing.
Of course that can take many forms, whether sacrificing for one’s kin because one sees them as a furtherance of one’s own self, sacrificing one’s own time and risking health in order to earn acclaim and power, (as in the Roman Cursus Homorum- the Course of Honors) and many other ways. The exact nature isn’t important for this point, just that it exists.
I realize you’re probably pretending to be daft this time rather than your more typical actually being daft in an attempt to earn what you think is a “win” that you can put next to that imaginary one where you supposedly defeated me in a debate about Aquinas and the Renaissance in spite of not knowing what Aquinas did, when the Renaissance started, or who translated Aristotle, but this is pitiful even by your low standards.
” that’s a contradiction in rational terms. ”
No, it is not. And even Rand understood it was not when she was talking to the US Military cadets. Indeed, you made this very point when you mentioned her doing so.
But apparently because I bring it up, you will turn your previous statements and principles and even the actions and words of your idol into pretzels to contradict them. Pitiful.
Part 2
“Please explain with rational precision?”
Define rational precision.
That’s the other thing about you. For someone who claims to value rationality and precision so much you make a point of being extremely vague and obscurantist when it serves your purpose. Especially when you seem to understand your knowledge on a given subject is weak and you would lose in an open debate.
But for the purposes of my clarification, it refers to sacrifice for one’s own (perceived or real) personal interests, much as Rand spoke about when talking to the Military Graduates in real life. The exact form that takes depends and differs, unsurprisingly given how differing people are and how their personal views differ, but I outlined some of the ways in Part 1.
And this was not exactly a difficult concept to grasp. The Greco-Romans you laud so much certainly had concepts about it, and the Cursus Honorum’s title reflected that going through the offices of civil and communal service could garnish one’s personal interests for power, honor, and prestige, and the conservative side that won the Putney Debates argued that suffrage should be limited to those with a personal stake. Indeed, understanding this was the glue behind a great deal of societies, clans, and other organizations.
Part 3
“There is no such thing as selfish-self-sacrifice.”
See above.
” Not by rational definitions of what is the “self” and what is a “sacrifice”, but for religious sophistry, inconsistent, and even contradictory definitions are the usual irrational definitions.”
Well, I suppose it was only a matter of time before you turned – however implicitly and indirectly – on Ayn Rand for not being pure enough. I’ll confess I did not expect it to happen over this.
Why am I not surprised?
YOU were the one to quote about Rand speaking to the military cadets about how their service was not necessarily purely altruistic. And yet you how quickly you forget when it serves your purpose of being a contrarian, bigoted gnat!
I realize it is too much to actually do your own research on scholars with contrary opinions, and to accurately remember that you did not win a debate when you got shown up about basics like who translated Aristotle into Latin, but would it kill you to at least remember your idol Rand accurately?
Go back to your studies THX., and stop humiliating yourself.
“Sacrificing for what one believes is in one’s own personal interest.”
You have no understanding, or simply refuse to understand, or want to evade, what Objectivism defines as a sacrifice or is in one’s RATIONAL self-interest.
Part 5
”
” We are all sinners born of Original Sin our Holy Mission is to seek salvation from our fallen state in this fallen world by sacrificing our selves for God, Jesus, and neighbor. ”
Nice strawman. Except you’ll note that while Christianity does love its martyrs, it also adores those who do charity and spread the gospel even without sacrifice. It certainly did not demand Constantine abdicate the throne of Rome he fought so hard to seize, for instance. But that doesn’t help your case. Christianity does call upon Christians to suffer for their faith and belief in Him, as does Judaism and Islam, but that does not mean every Abrahamic religious believer will be forced to sacrifice everything regardless of the circumstances. Only that they be willing to.
” For we are all brothers and sisters under God, including sinful Muslims.”
Correct, but while we are all family, that doesn’t mean there aren’t unrepentant douchecanoes in the family tree. Literally and metaphorically. See: David v. Absalom, and what the Bible has to say about the Book of Life and the Book of Death.
Do unto others as you would have done to yourself, and love your neighbor as you love yourself, is the simple truth of Christian behavior. It does not mean that you must destroy yourself for God, or for man. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is very clear, all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. We were created to display the image of God and walk in communion with our Creator, but the original head of the human race turn away from his Creator and died toward God at that moment of disobedience and self will.
Because a man is the source of the ruin and fall of mankind, only God has the remedy for His fallen creature. The false religions and idolatry of man cannot save him from eternal death. Only God in His grace, has provided for the recovery and salvation of His rebellious creature. Only Jesus Christ paid the price of the redemption of our souls before the all just and holy God. Whether Atheist, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc., all are called to repentance toward the living God and faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Sinners that seek to continue in their sin and self will, will die in there sins, and will face eternal separation from the Creator and Redeemer God. There is no other name under heaven, given among men by which we must be saved.
Part 6
“Who are we to judge them, only God can judge them,”
God is the final judge and so we can be cautious with our judgement, but the dogma is that he left some PRETTY good advice that would let us guess. Which plays out multiple times, such as the horror that Absalom’s incest, the Benjaminites going on a rape spree, and so on are alleged to have held.
“judge not that ye shall not be judged.”
See above.
” You are your brother’s keeper.”
Actually no, that is one of the few points where Cain is held to have a point, because while he was lying his butt off (…to an omnipotent deity) he was correct that he was not his Brother’s Keeper, ie an owner or shepherd, like the master of a slave or shepherd of a flock (yes, like a priest, which opens up its own can of worms). Cain was claiming correctly that he did not own Abel and thus should not always be able to dictate where he was (…. while conveniently ignoring the fact that by murdering him, Cain was stealing his life and essentially dominating him as a Slavemaster would).
Part 7
This tends to be forgotten by the more collectivist or hippie Christians who are so proud of being “Our Brothers’/Sisters Keeper” to actually know the original Greek and Aramaic.
“Altruism and self-sacrifice are our highest virtue and duty to God.”
No, obedience to God is the highest virtue and duty to God, whatever that entails. Even if it means quite literally abandoning one’s community and belongings. “Your straw man of altruism would most likely have held that it would be “altruistic” for Lot to have turned over his guest or even his daughters to the townfolk for rape (and indeed Lot did try the latter). But the problem is that this is contradicted by the arcane art of *reading the freaking Bible* and realizing the situation is quite similar to the Benjaminite War’s beginning, where a Levite turns over his concubine to be gang raped and mortally wounded by the Benjaminites.
” It does not matter if we die saving our sinful, fallen, Muslim brothers, we will be rewarded with Eternal Life in Heaven once we’re DEAD!”
Or if we live in the time of the Second Coming and are judged worthy. But nobody knows what time it will be, and up until that point everybody dies.
“No, obedience to God is the highest virtue and duty to God, whatever that entails.”
Are you really that BLIND? Don’t you see that THAT is precisely altruism and self-sacrifice? Your “self” is your mind, and your body, and your life.
If you have to obey an “other”, divine or earthly, natural or supernatural, you are sacrificing your self, your, body, and your life to that other. Altruism literally means “otherism”, sacrificing your self to other, any or all others.
Part 1
“Are you really that BLIND?”
I’m not surprised a blind fool thinks those who see are blind. Indeed, there’s this lovely little statement that those who are insane will come to harass those who are sane, accusing them of insanity.
“Don’t you see that THAT is precisely altruism and self-sacrifice? ”
No, you fool.
Because altruism is concern for others.
Christian Dogma, first and foremost, is that one should be concerned about obedience to God and loyalty to him for the sake of *ONE’S OWN* Soul.
This is an incredibly obvious point that gets bashed in over and over again with basic concepts such as the Covenant with Abraham, Christ pointing out that he comes not to bring peace but a sword, that on the Day of Judgement there will be those in the Book of the Living and the Book of the Dead, to cite just a few, but when you are obsessed with trying to twist theology into a strawman it is not surprising you have a vested interest in ignoring the incredibly obvious.
Part 2
Now, it ABSOLUTELY is true that Christianity preaches that some of the ways for one to look after one’s own soul are acts of altruism or Good Works, including spreading the Gospel, ie Good News. But ignoring the personal aspect of salvation according to Christian dogma requires a lot of blindness. Because while you are judged along with everyone else, and you will be judged for your actions towards others, *you are judged Alone, On an Individual Basis, for the Highest Personal Stakes Imaginable.*
So naturally ignoring that fundamental point fits right in with the prejudices of a bigot who has probably never bothered to research what they are arguing against so they could at least sight their rhetorical arguments better.
“Your “self” is your mind, and your body, and your life.”
And by extension your soul. You know, the thing that is supposed to be central to Abrahamic religion? The thing that Christian dogma holds Christ died in order to save?
Is this ringing a bell, or do I need to start typing in monosyllables?
“PS: This is why you lose debates with the few people who bother replying to you any more.
Part 3
“If you have to obey an “other”, divine or earthly, natural or supernatural, you are sacrificing your self, your, body, and your life to that other. Altruism literally means “otherism”, sacrificing your self to other, any or all others..”
This is stupid on multiple levels.
Firstly: “If you have to obey an “other”,….earthly… you are sacrificing your self, your body, and your life to that other.”
So you’re admitting – tacitly – that you, Peikoff, and O’Connor sacrificed their selves, bodies, and lives to Rand? And That so did the Brandens until they broke away?
Of course this is true, but I don’t think it is the argument you wanted to make.
Secondly: This ignores one of the basic foundations of Abrahamic Faith. That God is Omnipotent and Omniscient and already has ownership of your self, your body, and your life. He is just libertarian enough to give you free will to do what you will with it (and suffer the consequences), whether that be staying true to Him or not.
Thirdly: This further ignores the point of everlasting life, rebirth, and joining the Beatific Vision. All of which are complicated terms and concepts to labor over someone who can’t even measure the Dark Ages correctly, but all of which are individual rewards.
There’s simply no way to reason with you. You keep switching definitions to suit your argument.
Part 8
“Jesus wants us all to be a Christian martyr like Kayla Mueller.”
I realize you’re a goddamn idiot and a liar, as well as a perennial debater in bad faith, but this is manifestly true even according to the canon. Martyrdom is death in pursuit of one’s faith and in fealty to it, not any Death. Not even the Bible has Jesus telling his assorted disciples to go YOLO to the nearest Legionary barracks or Zealot hovel to announce they are a believer of Jesus with the expectation of being martyred.
They were instructed to spread the Gospel, the Good News, of Christ’s message. But that they would not turn away from the risk of dying in His name if it came to that. Hence the conflicting traditions of how many were martyred and if where, especially important in light of John the Apostle, who is held to have been exiled rather than killed outright.
But just like Rand and Peikoff were happy to lie and twist their opponents’ arguments to fit their strawman, so too are you.
“Kayla is enjoying her reward of Eternal Life in Heaven right now as I write this.”
I can only hope so. In any case she certainly seems to have lived far better than someone who has to lie to shelter their fragile ego and lack of historical and philosophical knowledge on a site that does not welcome their Galtse.
You can only “hope” so? Of course, your supernatural mysticism offers you no proof or evidence of your supernatural claims. The Shroud of Turin and the hearsay in your New Testament are not proof or evidence.
“You can only “hope” so? ”
Of course.
“Of course, your supernatural mysticism offers you no proof or evidence of your supernatural claims. ”
It offers proof or evidence, but not unambiguously so. Which is why it is a matter of Faith. Something I accept and acknowledge.
In contrast to you, who have an utterly superstitious, mystical faith in the rantings of a secular, egotistical, exploitive guru and the Cult of Aristotle, but assert it is purely rational.
In spite of proofs and evidence that actively disprove many of those claims.
Which is why you can’t explain why the Tuscan Renaissance started when it did and try your best to ignore the Carolingian Renaissance ever happened. Because Charles le Magne and Aelfred the Great crush your “rational ” theory of history like an egg.
Part 2
“The Shroud of Turin and the hearsay in your New Testament are not proof or evidence.”
The Shroud of Turin’s not concrete evidence yet, which is why it is having tests run on it.
As for “the hearsay in my New Testament”? I disagree. And moreover, secular science increasingly agrees, at least on the historical levels. Even those who do not believe the New Testament’s divine claims recognize it as a vital historical source, one that got a lot of otherwise lost information right, such as the existence of Pontius Pilate, his role as client of Sejanus, and how court protocol in Ancient Egypt varied over the centuries. It is to be considered rather than taken as completely literal (Especially since it was compiled by disciples of a supposed Man-God who liked talking in figurative parables), but its track record at obscure history has been much better than Rand or Peikoff.
The Onus of Proof is on he who states a positive.
You as a Christian mystic need to prove that an “eternal soul” exists, where is it, what is it? You need to prove the existence of your God plus Adam and Eve, A Talking Snake, Original Sin, Cain and Abel, The Parting of the Red Sea, Noah’s Ark, A Virgin Birth, The Resurrection, Heaven and Hell, Satan,so many, many, mystical, supernatural, claims that violate the Law of Identity and the Law of Causality.
But you can’t prove any of those mystical, supernatural, claims can you? You can’t even offer evidence for them. But you call me a fool? You’re projecting.
“You have no understanding, or simply refuse to understand, or want to evade, what Objectivism defines as a sacrifice or is in one’s RATIONAL self-interest.”
And you are engaging in obscurantist bullshit and evading the fact that Objectivism does not have a monopoly on the ability to define “sacrifice”, “Rational self-interest”, or other concepts. After all, they were in existence long before Objectivism was.
You got caught turning your beliefs into a pretzel by turning on Rand in her speech to the military cadets, and apparently won’t or can’t even attempt to paper over the details. So you make an appeal to vagueness and that I do not “understand” the “Sacred Knowledge” of how Objectivism defines things….
…. while ignoring the fact that even if that were true (and it isn’t) it would not refute my other points.
Try to keep up THX. You can’t win actual debates by lying and asserting that you won.
They have quite a few of them by now, considering that they occupied only a small portion of Arabia 1400 years ago. It’s too bad they can’t go back there. I recall reading a prophecy by their founder saying that they would eventually all return to a tiny, specific spot, and thence disappear into a hole in the ground. I have seen it only once, so it might not be anything written by MoHamhead but rather wishful thinking on the part of some author.
Any Brit reading this? Stop paying the TV license (tax) thousands have stopped since the convid fear propaganda campaign began.
Why is it that the reprobates on the Left never get to experience the random violence that normal people, mostly in Sweden, Norway, England, France and Germany are subject to on a daily basis, with the whole hearted support of the worthless Leftist government and media.
Never fear normal Americans….it’s coming here soon, so we can all enjoy the pleasures of being jihadi victims.
The left never experience the damage they bring, because the pricks insulate themselves from it – as evidenced by the swift eviction of 48 illegal aliens from Martha’s Vineyard.
It is coming here thanks to your Lutheran Church. Why is your Lutheran Church eagerly and actively engaged in receiving stolen tax-payer loot from the Biden administration to aid and abet the open borders, illegal alien invasion, and destruction of America?
Why is the Catholic Church, the Methodist Church, and Jewish organizations also eagerly engaged in receiving confiscated tax-payer loot to help destroy America?
The answer is that the central, crucial, and decisive moral code of Judaism, Christianity, and Globalism (i.e., Marxism) is ALTRUISM, i.e., self-sacrifice for others.
If I quit the church would anything change? In a word, no. So if you think your “got” me again by posting your moronic self-righteous word salad for the millionth time, I will post my challenge back to you that you are too chicken shyte to take up.
If you have a problem with the religious service programs get off your little Lotus Flower, and contact:
Lutheran Social Services of Minnesota
2485 Como Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55108
800.582.5260
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
8765 W Higgins Road
Chicago, IL 60631
Toll-Free: 800-638-3522
I’m sure they will pray for you.
At least you didn’t play your Hitler card again. So there is that. Personally I think you do this because you are losing your personal crusade to rid the world of Christians.
Despite the language in its Charter, institutionally the BBC is a part of the Left. The Left hates and wants to destroy Western Civilization. Islam hates and wants to destroy Western Civilization. The rest writes itself.
If by “Western Civilization” you mean rationality, reason, logic, science, individualism, freedom, liberty, technology, private property rights, capitalism, the personal and self-interested pursuit of happiness on earth, then Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Socialism, Communism, Nazism, and Marxism are all enemies of Western Civilization.
The Mystical Cult of Jesus is NOT Western, it is an Oriental, invading, mystical cult from the Middle-East, just like the Cult of Mohammed and the Cult of Moses. The Mystical Cult of Jesus resulted in the one-thousand years of the Christian Dark Ages.
Any form of unreason is the enemy of reason and all the rational values that reason produces.
I see you are getting out your big guns. Christianity is oriental. The Cult of Jesus. The Christian Dark Ages. Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Socialism, Communism, Nazism, and Marxism are all enemies of Western Civilization.
Your mental issues are so far advanced as to be incapable of hearing reason. It is the Cult of Rand and the Cult of one THX. You are the true enemy of Western Civ.
We do not have magic dirt here. Every nation has its own culture and ethos. We are being destroyed by those who wish to live here and enjoy what we have created, but also hate and envy us. Proverbs 27:4 “Wrath is cruel, and anger is outrageous; but who is able to stand before envy?”
Let them create in their own countries such conditions as best suit their own people and ethos.
“We” created? Who is “we”? Are you Thomas Edison? Are you Newton, Galileo, Copernicus? Were these geniuses Aryans like you? Einstein certainly was not considered an Aryan like you.
The Cult of Jesus fought tooth and nail against many of the Western geniuses like Galileo and Copernicus. The Cult of Jesus even fought against anesthesia because according to the Cult of Jesus God had intended man to suffer pain. We can’t upset Yahweh’s plan of pain and suffering for us can we now?
A genius is a genius, regardless of the number of morons who belong to the same race—and a moron is a moron, regardless of the number of geniuses who share his racial origin, some woman said that, I forget who though.
Typical stupid lies. Copernicus was a Catholic cleric and his work was approved by the popes. Galileo got into trouble when he started speaking on Christian dogma and not when he proposed his astronomical theories which the pope supported.
What about anesthesia?
Part 1
““We” created? Who is “we”? ”
Americans and Westerners.
“Are you Thomas Edison? Are you Newton, Galileo, Copernicus? Were these geniuses Aryans like you? Einstein certainly was not considered an Aryan like you.”
The fact that you’re incredibly stupid enough to try and racialize this nonsense underlines how bankrupt you are.
Oh also: we don’t know who invented the first windmills to appear. We just know they did in Northwestern Europe towards the tail end of the Dark Ages and the Carolingian Renaissance. Which in addition to handily snapping Rand’s “everything good in the modern world comes from Aristotle” claim like a twig also is a nice check against the cult of the Great Man syndrome or the idea that only famous geniuses contribute to a society and civilization.
Part 2
“The Cult of Jesus fought tooth and nail against many of the Western geniuses like Galileo”
Ah yes, why am I not surprised the lying ignoramus buys into the old myth about Galileo?
Ironically, Galileo was PATRONIZED by the “Cult of Jesus”‘s main Catholic body in the form of the Pope in Rome. And he was in high stead. Until he – being both a genius who was proud and arrogant – started picking fights with other geniuses in the employ of the Pope and responded to the latter’s attempt to mediate by *writing a satire strawmanning both his enemies and the Pope.*
One doesn’t have to have a huge amount of respect for Pope Urban VIII personally or the Papacy as a whole to recognize how hypocritical and ungrateful this was… *ESPECIALLY SINCE GALILEO WAS OBJECTIVELY WRONG* on most of the claims he made, both in terms of theology and in terms of more scientific matters. Which is why when he tried to attack Bellarmine using the technology and methods of the day Bellarmine and his intermediaries crushed him quite comprehensively.
Part 3
So the trial of Galileo is not the common, simplified cartoon you like to portray, and few parties involved come across completely unscathed OR wholly unsympathetically, because it was a case of a brilliant but egotistical man smearing his opponents (many of whom were at least as competent as he was) and his patrons, and baiting out a reaction from religious theocracy with power it should never have had. It tells us many things. The folly of arrogance and ingratitude on Galileo’s part, as well as overconfidence. The hubris of assuming power one should not have, as the Church did. The abuse of due process (that the Inquisition did). But that would require knowing a damn about the history and evidence, and caring about the truth. Which you do not.
“and Copernicus. ”
Actually this is manifestly untrue. Copernicus was not only a loyal Catholic in good standing and heavily involved in clerical politics, but he was possibly a priest himself and the only reaction his work triggered from the Papacy (which was full of many people who had personally known him during his work there, especially since he spent 1500 in Rome) at the time was moderately engaged curiosity. Ironically it wouldn’t be until decades after he did that the climate in the Catholic Church shifted and his system (though not himself) was sanctioned.
And this is before I get into the fact that Aristotle and Galileo were most known for attacking Aristotle’s view of the cosmos.
Part 4
“The Cult of Jesus even fought against anesthesia because according to the Cult of Jesus God had intended man to suffer pain. ”
Depended on which branch of the “Cult of Jesus.” and in any case means to dull the pain remained in wide use even before modern anesthetics.
Which is why it took decades after the invention of modern anesthetics before you saw a coherent opposition based on (supposedly) the Bible’s teaching.
“We can’t upset Yahweh’s plan of pain and suffering for us can we now?”
See above.
Of course this is the kind of nonsense that edgy, stupid anti-theists taking a few examples such as Mother Theresa’s opposition to anesthetics (and even then without biblical citation) and projecting it backwards. When in reality even a cursory examination that Popes, Patriarchs, and Church Reformers like Martin Luther (many of whom kept armed guards or even armies around) either hired or outright employed doctors using a wide array of early anesthetics – their existence well documented in the many, many ledgers of early modern Europe – to see otherwise. But that would destroy one of your precious arguments.
Part 5
“A genius is a genius, regardless of the number of morons who belong to the same race—and a moron is a moron, regardless of the number of geniuses who share his racial origin, some woman said that, I forget who though.”
On this much I agree. Which is a pleasant surprise compared to your par.
Anyone can interpret the New Testament or the Old Testament any way they like. Consistency is a requirement of reason not of faith. Since there is no rational or earthly way to consult with God-Jesus about which interpretation he sanctions there is no way to arrive at certainty about a supernatural God-Jesus existing in a supernatural realm. Christians have waged war and persecuted and killed each other precisely over interpretation.
Faith and force are corollaries because if you demand that someone believe in your supernatural claims there is no way prove them and your only recourse if you demand that I believe in your Christian supernatural claims is to FORCE me to. Now, you will claim that in no way do you demand that I become a Christian and therefore you have no interest whatsoever in using force on me, BUT that is an implicit concession to reason, and an implicit admission that your religious belief is not seriously urgent and seriously complete. “Live and let live” is only possible when religion has lost it’s urgent stranglehold on the religious mind. After 2,000 years with no Second Coming or Armageddon it gets difficult not to relax and enjoy this life to some degree while it lasts.
If you wish to live on earth by the requirements of life in this reality on earth then reason is the earthly life-saving human faculty I need to use.
I am interested in no other life because there is no other life. This life is sufficient unto itself. It requires no after-life to justify it, to justify the joy and happiness that are possible to the rational man. Just because happiness doesn’t last forever, doesn’t make it any less happy, or worth achieving. Just because life doesn’t last forever, doesn’t make it any less a value. It is precisely because life is temporary and conditional, and not guaranteed, that values are possible and necessary. An eternal life is a contradiction of life.
Part 1
“Anyone can interpret the New Testament or the Old Testament any way they like. ”
Strictly speaking, anyone can interpret any text any way they like, for any reason they like. The problem is their interpretations can be compared and challenged by those of others. Which is indeed the very essence of rational debate and discourse, and how we reconcile free will with reason.
And trying to foist a Pro-Jewish, “Hitler was really tolerant and misunderstood guize” interpretation onto Mein Kampf and the Second Book of Hitler are going to run up against fierce opposition from not just other interpreters but also the text of the books themselves.
Likewise here.
PS: It’s almost like the Bible features an allegory that anticipates this, Matthew 7:21-23.
Part 2
“Consistency is a requirement of reason not of faith. ”
But both have to co-exist given the nature of humanity. And moreover, attempts to ensure perfect consistency in reason have routinely been mocked by not just human nature but reality itself. Good luck foisting much in the way of consistency onto modern Quantum Physics. Because while Schrodinger’s Cat is based on an incorrect misunderstanding of the theory, the actual stuff is even more complicated.
“There is a small but real chance of almost anything happening, at any moment” is a hell of a trip if you understand its implications, but that is where the state of the science is. (That doesn’t mean that is the actual TRUTH, it is just our best working theory of the truth as it stands now).
The ability to accept the existence of inconsistency – in reasoning, in faith, and in existence – without becoming a slave to it or lazily deferring to it is an important skill in maturity.
Part 3
“Since there is no rational or earthly way to consult with God-Jesus about which interpretation he sanctions there is no way to arrive at certainty about a supernatural God-Jesus existing in a supernatural realm. ”
It’s telling when the best part of this claim is Dubious, and it goes downhill from there.
So let’s start: “There is no rational or earthly way to consult with God-Jesus about which interpretation he sanctions.” This is dubious AT BEST. Leaving aside the questions of miracles, prayers being answered, or so forth, there is the expedient of *bothering to read what was recorded and consider it.* *Just because ultimate decision on what God sanctions is the venue of God doesn’t mean we have no way of evaluating it.* Starting with the scripture and the nature of the Gospel.
That is – as you correctly noted – subject to differing interpretations, but that doesn’t mean all interpretations are equally valid. An attempt to argue that “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, render unto God what is God’s” justifies engaging in state-sponsored idolatry would slam into the Ten Commandments and the Book of Acts. An attempt to argue that Christianity is socialist would very quickly run into the Parable of Talents. And so on and so forth.
But I’ll grant this claim for the sake of generosity and the argument.
Part 4
“Christians have waged war and persecuted and killed each other precisely over interpretation.”
This is very true, and I don’t deny it. However, that is hardly unique to Christianity or even religion as a whole. Which is also why scrutinizing interpretations is so important.
In essence, this entire first part of your post is an appeal to just give up because interpreting things is hard and people can come up with different ones. Which is not something we’d happily settle for in any OTHER aspect of reality, such as interpreting the boundaries of the Treaty of Verdun, the nature of Rational Self-Interest, or how ironic Gorgias was being. Why with religion, especially since they are linked closely to philosophy?
Part 5
Oh, and this is before I get into the questions of INSINCERE interpretations or abuses of them. Like the endless parade of people who will insist that the term “The People” in the Second Amendment refers to government militias or the military while accepting that “The People” in every other reference of the Constitution refers to the American Citizen Body.
“Faith and force are corollaries because if you demand that someone believe in your supernatural claims there is no way prove them and your only recourse if you demand that I believe in your Christian supernatural claims is to FORCE me to. ”
I already debunked this incoherent, counterhistorical idiocy before, and I really shouldn’t have to do this again. But here we go.
No, faith and force are not corollaries. As you’d understand if you realized there’s a reason why most of the surviving Anabaptist communities around are pacifist ones, and also the large number of pacifist groups.
This also ignores – in typically Randian fashion that –
A: Humans are not perfectly rational beings (which you attest to in every comment).
B: Even if there were no way to prove a given thing, that doesn’t mean one can’t be falsely convinced of said proof.
Part 6
C: You’re ignoring the corollary of persuasion. The carrot as well as the stick. Which is ironic considering how Scandinavia didn’t become Christian because the Holy Roman Empire marched in and forced everyone to convert at sword point. Indeed, it didn’t even become Christian because militant Christian Scandinavian Kings could successfully force such a thing (and Olaf Tryggvason and Olaf Haraldsson of Norway died trying).
Now obviously once the royal conversions HAPPENED they were often enforced by force, but persuasion and argumentation (however “irrational” it may be in your eyes or mine) are usually what got the door open. Nor was this some kind of uniquely Christian act. Buddhism flourished in the warlordism of the 10th century AD/CE was because it had priests who were very good at getting in with those in power, such as with the Wuyue/”Southern Han.” Many of which were pointedly not because of rational claims (for instance through garnishing supposed magic).
Ironically if you had more flexibility and studiousness, you’d realize this dovetails well with your stance that religion is superstitious and irrational and that it will often appeal to things other than reason. But because you are so wedded to Rand’s writings over research, you continue banging on by insisting that the unarmed or barely armed priestly congregations going into a very armed Uppsala represented more force than the locals.
Part 7
Oh and
D: This also ignores the fact that if one’s concern is power or spreading the belief to as many people as possible, then your personal belief is not an issue so long as you are reduced to a harmless minority., as indeed often happened during the rise of Christianity with Senator Symmachus, who remained devoutly and publicly Pagan to the last. And beyond that there would be the issue of forcing outward conformity, which has sadly been very common throughout religious history (and something Christ supposedly warned against).
So ironically by making a big deal of the insistence on Christian faith making YOU believe, you undermine your claim that the core of Christianity and belief in the Judeo-Christian God was Altruism, because your personal convictions would be ultimately irrelevant in such a faith.
“Now, you will claim that in no way do you demand that I become a Christian”
Untrue. I would, but only in the same way you demand that all read your overwrought, underlearned screeds on Rand.
” and therefore you have no interest whatsoever in using force on me,”
I’ll admit your lies, smears, and claims to have won in debates where you were utterly routed do give me a passing interest from time to time, but like all passing interests those moments pass. And are fundamentally not about religion, as forcing such compulsion would be a sin. And one of the most grievous.
Part 8
” BUT that is an implicit concession to reason, ”
An implicit concession to reason…….as outlined by Jesus Christ and his Disciples, as outlined in things like the Book of Acts and 2nd Epistle to the Cornthians.
“and an implicit admission that your religious belief is not seriously urgent and seriously complete.”
Once again we get back to how your ignorance, your bias, and your fundamental refusal to acknowledge the personal nature of Abrahamic theology leads you astray.
Because you conflate my refusal to try and go to your house to extort you with a sword to say a few words to Jesus with an indication my faith is insincere or not “seriously urgent.”
In reality I do believe my faith is seriously urgent, but primarily seriously urgent *for me.* And I have far more pressing worries in that regard than going to your house to commit a sin.
I believe my faith is seriously urgent FOR YOU and that your rejection of it will lead to bad consequences For You, but I also acknowledge (as many Christians admittedly did not) that that is ultimately your choice, and if you want to go that way then it is well “above my pay grade” to mete out any punishment for that.
As for my faith being “not seriously complete” that’s another issue and arguably true, but mostly irrelevant for the subject in question. And crises in faith as well as doubt are hardly treated as alien or unforgivable. See: Doubting Thomas.
Part 9
““Live and let live” is only possible when religion has lost it’s urgent stranglehold on the religious mind. ”
Dubious at best. See: 9th Century China, Dravidian India, Later Rome.
It also ignores the fact that – just as “Goyim” originally referred to “Nations” – in antiquity pretty much every given tribe or kingdom had its own set of deities or takes on them, and many still do. Meaning they’d have to at least ACCEPT the existence of other people believing differently in order to conduct basic functions like diplomacy. (This is where the roots of the “Tolerant Paganism” takes – and sometimes outright myths- come from). The idea of a universal religion or philosophy is relatively new.
But don’t let the knotty realities of life in 5th millennium BC Mesopotamia trouble your sugary little dialectic. You can ignore that just as readily as you ignore other contrary evidence.
“After 2,000 years with no Second Coming or Armageddon it gets difficult not to relax and enjoy this life to some degree while it lasts.”
Surprise surprise, the Bible has stuff to say about that too. Such as the Song of Solomon and the Book of Ruth.
Also keep in mind that you say this as if 2,000 years is a long time. And in many ways it is. But even on the scale of human time, Abraham supposedly made his covenant after the Bronze Age world had existed for about 5,000 years, give or take some.
Part 10
“If you wish to live on earth by the requirements of life in this reality on earth then reason is the earthly life-saving human faculty I need to use.”
And frankly you need to use more of it, for the reasons I’ve mentioned. You’d like to imagine you are one of the Horsemen of Atheism but in reality you can’t muster the source awareness of any of them. In part because you treat Rand and Preikoff with far more childlike faith than many believers treat their scripture.
“I am interested in no other life because there is no other life. ”
Logical Fallacy: Denying the Antecedent.
Ironic how quickly you shift from admitting there are limited or even no rational ways to evaluate or contact God or check another life, but then jump to assuming for sure that there is no such thing.
Unexamined assumptions are a hell of a drug.
“This life is sufficient unto itself. It requires no after-life to justify it, to justify the joy and happiness that are possible to the rational man. ”
Agreed. Though I would also argue such also applies to the irrational man. To the feeble minded, to the crippled.
Part 11
But just because it needs no further justification does not mean there is none, or that more would not be nice.
“Just because happiness doesn’t last forever, doesn’t make it any less happy, or worth achieving. ”
Agreed.
“Just because life doesn’t last forever, doesn’t make it any less a value.”
Likewise, though it does make it less valuable than extending life.
” It is precisely because life is temporary and conditional, and not guaranteed, that values are possible and necessary. An eternal life is a contradiction of life.”
If we ever work out basic biological immortality, you’re going to run into issues.
The importance of living a meaningful life would be at least as important for those who have functionally unlimited time.
A genius is a genius, and you will never be one.
Ayn Rand is a historical genius and represents a paradigm shift in philosophy and ethics. She has won the philosophical and moral battle against altruism and self-sacrifice.
Now, it’s up to mankind to discover, understand, and accept the fact that she has. If men desire to live on earth in peace and prosperity that’s what they urgently need to do.
That’s what they urgently need to do….under your “benevolent guiding hand”, no doubt. Objectivist re-education centers? Does mankind include Sri Lanka, Tibet, Viet Nam, and all of the other backwaters in the world where many people are illiterate. She’s having a hard enough time getting traction in this country with you hectoring your audience of 20 on this site.
You really are crazy. A historical genius? Under what criteria? Beethoven is a genius. Mozart is a genius. Bach is a genius. Handel is a genius. Plato is a genius. Aristotle is a genius. Kant is a genius. Rembrandt is a genius. Van Gogh is a genius.
The Cult of Rand is fading in whatever importance she may have achieved. A few books and a couple of films of those books? Really?
If she were such a genius why is it you never seem write anything beyond your usual repetitive, flip and shallow historical missives and religious bigotry, which aren’t based on anything but your own silly opinions. She is not mainstream anything.
In music we call a band or a singer with a single hit a “one hit wonder”. The same can be applied to your girlfriend. She is barely a blip on the intellectual scene and now she is practically forgotten. Even Brandon dumped her.
Part 1
“Ayn Rand is a historical genius”
Not really. She was an eloquent speaker and author, but not a coherent, clear, or accurate thinker.
As people who bothered reading through her works and how she mangled facts about history, philosophy, and biology attested.
To what credit can be given she was generally stubborn and convinced in her principles for both good and bad, but that came at the cost of self-delusion, hypocrisy, and abusing those close to her,.
” and represents a paradigm shift in philosophy and ethics. ”
Both true and nowhere near as important as you claim.
Moreover, it was a minor paradigm shift that you admit was largely not followed.
Part 2
“She has won the philosophical and moral battle against altruism and self-sacrifice.”
Which would be more convincing if she could have won the philosophical battle with basic foot notes or source analysis. But alas, she could not. Which is why Objectivism withered under close, critical scrutiny by people who actually spent more time reading Aristotle rather than idolizing him by claiming he is the reason for the development of windmills in Medieval Flanders.
“Now, it’s up to mankind to discover, understand, and accept the fact that she has.
If men desire to live on earth in peace and prosperity that’s what they urgently need to do.”
Riiight. Because “rational self-interest” never leads to people harming others, to egomania that will set people against each other, and to psychopathy.
But leaving all that aside (because you keep insisting “No True Sociali-err, No True Rational Self-Interest” when I point out the stubborn fact that Ted Bundy, Rodney Alcala, and Reinhard Heydrich existed) the bigger issue is they have no serious reason to. The philosophical and moral rot at the heart of the West and other world societies can hardly be cured by someone who could not even cure her own toxic, domineering social circle and who treated her husband and lovers poorly.
And that’s before I get into her manifest historical and factual flaws.
Some of those earlier young minds full of mush enticed to travel to Syria to become “ISIS brides” (under the strict supervision & iron hand of older ISIS females) came to deeply regret their decisions and had a hell of a time getting out. If they did
They apparently didn’t understand that they were travelling to meet men who may have insects living in their beards and traded girls (e.g. Yaziidi) like horses.
Does a civilization reach a point where it becomes to nihilistic to even deserve to continue?
The BBC and CNN are just about the same two peas in a pod leftists propaganda not real news just leftists propaganda
And don’t forget the CBC in Canada – same sh*t, different diaper.
Shamima Begum has strange asymmetrical eyes with extremely large and glassy pupils. I wonder if she suffers from megalocornea like Daryl Dragon did.
“In rare cases, it might be associated with intellectual disabilities.” – Wikipedia
So you are a doctor now. Don’t think I’ll be seeking you out the next time I have a cold.
It could very well be that you have megalocornea.
BBC has been consistently anti-Israel for decades. See BBC Watch website for starters. And there’s been legal cases too. Though they might have either Jews and or Israelis broadcasting the anti-Semitism (they pay very well) by the IHRA definition they have been and are anti-Semitic. E.g. holding Israel to different standards to other countries. Outright lies (see Hann ah Arendt’s observation about those who lie about Jews). Presenting Muslims in Israel’s jurisdiction as victims. Thus obviating their refugee status to Christian UK and Europe (never mind the Mercedes franchises and all the rest in Judea, Gaza etc.). Presenting Israel as Nazi, neo-Nazi by use of pundit mouthpieces invited to programmes. I could go on. And you’d expect anything different for a Muslim terrorist than the victim, puff piece??!! You arn’t that naive, surely.
BBC. Brits Backstabbing Christians.
They attack and lie about Israel and Jews even more than they do Christians.. They are anti-God and know that Islam is a fascist violent expansionist cult holding a billion plus people enthralled to its barbarism.
Part 3
“Since there is no rational or earthly way to consult with God-Jesus about which interpretation he sanctions there is no way to arrive at certainty about a supernatural God-Jesus existing in a supernatural realm. ”
It’s telling when the best part of this claim is Dubious, and it goes downhill from there.
So let’s start: “There is no rational or earthly way to consult with God-Jesus about which interpretation he sanctions.” This is dubious AT BEST. Leaving aside the questions of miracles, prayers being answered, or so forth, there is the expedient of *bothering to read what was recorded and consider it.* *J ust because ultimate decision on what God sanctions is the venue of God doesn’t mean we have no way of evaluating it.* Starting with the scripture and the nature of the Gospel.
That is – as you correctly noted – subject to differing interpretations, but that doesn’t mean all interpretations are equally valid. An attempt to argue that “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, render unto God what is God’s” justifies engaging in non-Christian idolatry would slam into the Ten Commandments and the Book of Acts. An attempt to argue that Christianity is socialist would very quickly run into the Parable of Talents. And so on and so forth.
But I’ll grant this claim for the sake of generosity and the argument.