tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post3953896537641906061..comments2024-03-29T00:24:13.128-04:00Comments on Daniel Greenfield / Sultan Knish Articles at DanielGreenfield.org : A War of LawsDaniel Greenfieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13575285186581875356noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-49601539408266782822012-10-15T06:28:22.708-04:002012-10-15T06:28:22.708-04:00"Humanism" and "secularism" ar..."Humanism" and "secularism" are two entirely different concepts. <br />They are not mutually exclusive though; one could be nihilistic with respect to a particular belief system, and also affirming of humanism or human achievements. <br /><br />That's like saying, "anti-gay heterosexual". One could affirm heterosexuality and also worry against gays. But the nihilism does seem like insecurity. <br /><br />Humanists don't believe all humans are good; but define good as rational animality or natural fulfillment of human potential. Those who are evil, subvert their human potential. So "human nature" is defined rationally as well as empirically. <br /><br />Kevin Bjornsonhttp://www.defendliberty.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-48742053634065143502012-10-13T18:00:39.167-04:002012-10-13T18:00:39.167-04:00DrRJP:
Simply substitute NAZI for ISLAMIST and as...DrRJP:<br /><br />Simply substitute NAZI for ISLAMIST and ask the same questions:<br /><br />Would we bend over backwards to accomodate the wishes of NAZIS and do everything we can so as not to offend NAZIS? Would we go bananas every time we are called NAZIPHOBIC?<br /><br />Should we cower in fear if we accidentally "insult" Der Fuhrer?<br /><br />The comparison is more valid than you think as the Muislim Bortherhood and Nazisim developed in parallel in the same period of time. They shared a common ideology and hatred of Jews.<br /><br />The Ikhwan represents a greater threat to teh Jeweish People than the Third Reich because NAZIS were confined to one geographic area while Islamists are all over the place - especially right here in our government and military.<br /><br />We have a very serious and very dangerous 5th column within our borders and the only way to lessen the threat is to proactively dismantle their institutions that promulgate the overthrow of the US.<br /><br />Last time I checked, it was called, "Treason."<br /><br />Every immigrant who becomes a US citizen has tro recite an oath to uphold the constitution and fealty to America. Muslim immigrants are directed NOt to make any oaths with infidels, or to follow any infidel laws, except as muruna or taqiyya, i.e., pretending to be a good American while secretly waiting for the Ikhwan to be large enough to take more drastic actions.<br /><br />If we demand fealty to the US to become a citizen, then we should maintain the right to strip someone of that citizenship if they violate their oath and fealty, and the hell with what the PC Left will say.<br /><br />If there are Muslims who wish to be good Americans, then they should be honest about the danger that they face as well as we do, and help us to stop creeping Sharia.<br /><br />Sharia is incompatible with our laws. Period. It cannot and must not be accomodated. If a Muslim has a problem with that, then they have migrated to the wrong country.<br /><br />I have nothing personally against Muslims and I do know fully assimilated ones. But, if they wish to continue as a Muslim and seriously reform Islam, then they cannot remain on the sidelines and hope it changes itself - because it won't.<br /><br />If Islam is so great, then why must people be forced to convert to it and killed if they want to leave it? This is why it is nothing like Christianity or Judaism because of the power of free will that exists in them. There is no free will in a religion based on ultimate "submition."<br /><br />Islam began as an amalgam of Jewish and Christian traditions so as to appeal to Jews and Christians. But, Mohammed, seeing himself as the last great Prophet of God, was not happy coexisting with other religions. His personality was permanently stamped on it to where the two became inseparable.<br /><br />It was not until after his death that Islam embarked on the greatest and bloodiest conquest of the known world, such that, only 100 years after his death, Islam had conquered from 2/3 to 3/4 of the known world: mostly by the sword, but also by inmigration and overbreeding.<br /><br />We cannot allow outselves to become like Europe, and that means kicking the liberals totally out of governance.<br /><br />Dr-RJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11483183372880260477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-49685970220107072812012-10-13T03:06:50.251-04:002012-10-13T03:06:50.251-04:00Kevin, I'm taking about individual's faith...Kevin, I'm taking about individual's faith, what he holds dear. Don't hang onto a literal meaning of words. <br /><br />Laws without individual believes/ethics common for all members of society, is null and void. No police force will be able to enforce laws which are foreign to core values and beliefs of a community.<br /><br />Re: France's Islamic ghettos.<br /><br />There's no Law without Faith. Secular humanists have faith too, faith in the Good Nature of humans, and that we are all "the same".<br /><br />Their crucial mistake is, yes we are all inherently of same innate self-worth, but we are born into different cultures, and we make different choices. <br /><br />No Tolerance for the Intolerant.Will48http://reasonresponsibilityandchoice.blogspot.com/2008/12/anthem.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-8929376782591840402012-10-12T19:01:59.812-04:002012-10-12T19:01:59.812-04:00The non-initiation-of-force principle is not faith...The non-initiation-of-force principle is not faith-based.<br />It is based on human nature, which can be measured.<br />"Faith" is a process which is not bothered by contradictions.<br />So a faith-based legal system could initiate force and/or contradict itself. <br /><br />"Multi-lateral agreements" -- what does that mean? Based on faith, nations can agree that the moon is made of blue cheese, or that non-aggession is aggression. The only reasonable multi-nation law is Jus Gentium. But that is not the same thing at all as "multi-lateral agreements" (like the UN). Kevin Bjornsonhttp://www.defendliberty.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-42394581425037460982012-10-12T16:27:08.080-04:002012-10-12T16:27:08.080-04:00(contd.) which is to say, the Non-Aggression Princ...(contd.) which is to say, the Non-Aggression Principle of the Libertarianism.<br /><br />Or, as not-so-ancient Hebrews put it only 2000 years ago, "Do Not Do onto Other what you wouldn't want them to do to you" (Hillel, was it?).<br /><br />The negative formulation is the key here; positive formulation is what Islam (and any other totalitarianism) says: "command Good and forbid Evil" or something like that. Which is coercion, pure and simple.Will48http://reasonresponsibilityandchoice.blogspot.com/2008/12/anthem.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-56125949914144835942012-10-12T16:16:52.577-04:002012-10-12T16:16:52.577-04:00Not "Law", and not naked control, but Fa...Not "Law", and not naked control, but Faith - this is what defines cultures, and societies that embody them.<br /><br />Today we ask, "what do you believe in?".<br /><br />In ancient times, people asked, "who are your gods?" / "who is your God?".<br /><br />This is what defined their set of ideals and dreams, their "do"-s and "don't"-s, and in turn it defined their civilization, culture and society.<br /><br />People used to really live by their beliefs and ideals. And die for them.<br /><br />Or to use a more scientific language, the core meme-complex. The Ethics axioms of a culture.<br /><br />Mine are:<br /><br />Do Not Cause Harm (knowingly and intentionally)<br />Freedom of Thought, Rational and Informed<br />No Coercion<br /><br />Everything else flows from that.Will48http://reasonresponsibilityandchoice.blogspot.com/2008/12/anthem.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-67483678998936267072012-10-12T15:06:06.902-04:002012-10-12T15:06:06.902-04:00The clash of legal systems is not between "mu...The clash of legal systems is not between "multilateral human rights commitments" and Sharia law. To mention the legal system of the west, without mentioning the legal system of the west, is incomprehensible. <br /><br />"Jus Gentium" is the set of laws in common to all nations, or at the time it was originated, all ancient Roman city-states. After Rome conquered Athens, "Jus Gentium" fused with aspects of Stoicism, to form the theory of "Jus Naturale" or natural justice.<br /><br />By contrast, "multilateral commitments to human rights"--would that include treaties and the UN charter? What are you talking about? Kevin Bjornsonhttp://defendliberty.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-87748467399688031832012-10-12T04:26:57.379-04:002012-10-12T04:26:57.379-04:00Government is force.....that ours hides behind the...Government is force.....that ours hides behind the facade of laws and equal treatment before the law in no way differentiates us from islam which does the exact same thing only they call their laws the koran and sharia and their judges mullahs. Both systems will kill any person within it's jurisdiction for even the most minor transgressions.<br /><br />Freedom is an unnatural transitory condition that only exists among small groups of tolerant people.....and tolerance is not a normal human sentiment.<br /><br />The question is basically which version of servitude by threat of force is preferable.....islam which makes no pretense regarding equality or western society which despises actual equality but gladly pays lip service to it in order to fool the masses into ignoring the fact that they are enslaved and that our system will dispassionately kill for a transgression as minor as jaywalking.Dannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-4255070037023347542012-10-11T21:40:34.501-04:002012-10-11T21:40:34.501-04:00Conflating the traditional western concept of &quo...Conflating the traditional western concept of "law" with the proscriptions and strictures of a state religion (Islame, Secular Humanism, et al) seems a little strange. The concept of law that emerges from the European Enlightenment seperates the law of the state from religion - and they diverge increasingly with time - while Islame and Secular Humanism both seek to unify their respective religions and governments into one seamless, harmonized religious state. I do believe you are correct in defining the fundamental underlying culture of Islame (and secular humanism too as far as I am concerned) as thuggish, barbaric and primitive. Both Islame and Leftist (secular humanist) societies are corrupt to the core because they primarily serve the interests of the power hungry and the powerful. The leaders in Islame pretend to serve the interests of god, and the leaders in Secular humanist societies pretend to serve as masters of fairness, but both are simply serving their own personal, private interests.<br /><br />American Exceptionalism is the dividing line in history that changed the ubiquitous rule of the strong and powerful to the true rule of law. Both Islame and the secular humanist (Libfilth) will stop at nothing to bring to America the horrific, bad old rule of the strong and powerful as exists in most of the world even today.<br />Mr EDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-41910402563911019732012-10-11T15:44:51.791-04:002012-10-11T15:44:51.791-04:00.......Anonymous does come up with a good idea to..........Anonymous does come up with a good idea to solve the problems of Europe's No Go areas........In the end like at both previous attempts of Islam to conquer Europe it might be the only option left as education and/or integration failed miserably.mindRiderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12160934421830568737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-64653087655757486882012-10-11T15:13:44.240-04:002012-10-11T15:13:44.240-04:00You must have redacted that above paragraph, Darth...You must have redacted that above paragraph, Darth Editor Knish. Thank goodness, Anonymous has saved it for us.MmeScherzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08390382094671218366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-12137945888090245272012-10-11T13:57:33.159-04:002012-10-11T13:57:33.159-04:00So calling them Undermenchen , putting them in get...So calling them Undermenchen , putting them in gettos , and killing them with hellfire rockets ans 2000lb smartbombs is A-OK 'cause its THE LAW.Why don't you get it over? Just gas all those nasty subhuman A-RABS and throw them in ovens.Then go murder ANYONE that says you are a NAZI. After all, If you make it a law, Its OK right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-79701008323148334552012-10-11T12:47:35.783-04:002012-10-11T12:47:35.783-04:00In a way, it is correct. The law teaches us that w...In a way, it is correct. The law teaches us that without law we are indeed, savages.MmeScherzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08390382094671218366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-2124509981923967512012-10-11T10:29:12.315-04:002012-10-11T10:29:12.315-04:00yes thank youyes thank youDaniel Greenfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13575285186581875356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-91901648115518153362012-10-11T10:25:58.583-04:002012-10-11T10:25:58.583-04:00Civilization is law. A civilization makes its own ...Civilization is law. A civilization makes its own laws and enforces them. *And it views those who do abide by those laws as lawless savages.* Who the civilized lawkeepers and who the lawless savages is a matter of perspective. <br />*Some clarification, please. ;-)<br />MmeScherzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08390382094671218366noreply@blogger.com