It is easy to blame Bush for all the fallacies that have messed up america during the time of his presidency. But I do feel that the situation is not so hard and fast as it has been put up on both the sides. Let us ignore the liberals for now, because what they do is just blame the guy because he lacks charisma and has difficultly expressing himself in a coherent fashion. Yours truly has a similar difficulty, so can really assocaite with that. But then even with regards to descisions to invade iraq being specially planned by bush to get oil, does seem to fly off in the way of a reasoned debate if analyzed very closely. If we look at bankers who are driven to maximize their profits at any costs and who are the behind the scenes generals of all policies, the motivations of a president are definetly different. Because from a presidents viewpoint, once he has finished with hsi term, he is out of the limelight. Unlike a banker with the muscle power of money and the greed for more, a president does not have that liberty. He cannot just say that he would be entirely a puppet in the hands of the bankers, just so that the president gets to enjoy being in power for 5 years. The desire to stand in elections, starting from a senator till becomign a president should be coming from something outside personal desires (even though personal desires are a major factor in the race for power too). He cannot sit and quote jefferson and washinton, just to fool the people and not believe a cent of their sayings in his own heart. This is because after those 5 years he is completely sidelined from power, unlike the bankers who are still the major players, with major power.
That being said, I think it would be really weird that people came in to bush's office and asked him to start a war in iraq so that people who are sponsoring him would be able to maximise profits and at the same time, ask bush to ask his people in CIA, MI5 and KGB, to manufacture photographs of alleged nukes in iraq. It is obvious that the guys in power definetly know about their responsibilities to work for the benefits of the money barons, but just going on a war to plainly satisfy the money barons seems really unlikely.
I feel that the supposed nuclear sites in iraq which were constructed with the help of western technology were constructed during the phase of an american iraqian friendship, so that in the future an attack on the country could be justified. Also the construction of these sites really points to the fact that the president is not plainly a puppet, but is a guy who could be easily manipulated. That is why when bush was shown evidence of nuclear weapons in iraq by major intelligence agencies around the world, he had no choice but to attack.
I mean, if I was the president, what would I do if that is what top secret agencies tell me the intelligence on iraq is, especially when I have never worked in the armed forces or intelligence gathering myself. Do I just ignore such evidence as manufactured by the rich and powerful. It is a different matter that when the war has begun and the oil contracts go out, they will go to the friends of the president and that is what exactly happened.
The same kind of a reasoning comes up, when you confront bush with messing up the economy and the wall street failure. Even before the economy failed, the top economist of the country, neither the media warned against a possible failture. Expecting that the president has some secret knowledge about failing of the economy and wanted it to fail, just to satisfy his bosses, also does not fit the criteria for a reasonable debate.
Blaming Bush for failing of the economy is like praising clinton for the IT revolution. The president is just a figurehead who works on the information given to him by his coterie, who get their information from others.
When I saw the interview of Bush, on a human level I feel that it would be wrong to say that the guy was just putting up an act, when talking and trying to defend his presidency and in reality all he was, was a puppet who really worked for his wall street bosses. That he never possessed the same feelings that drive other patriots in america, to strive for the good of his fellow citizens and that his beliefs in things personal to any human being such as God (the guy actually quit drinking because of such beliefs, which is a challenge for most humans) is just all about getting a small cut offered by his money bosses, so that he presides over the superpower of a country. I feel that making such statements, just trivializes the entire problem of govt which inadvertently ends up working for the rich. If the problem is not even clearly identified , the soultion backfires in terms of its efficacy.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Feminism and Violence in Western Society
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb9WIhWGSnI&NR=1
Bumfights a video too far
The whole documentary is about the rise in the love for violence among young kids or society in general. The question is not really about the lack of discipline in schools, but the the need for violence as being fundamental to the sense of self among teens of today and the reasons behind it. Why were such problems never present centuries before the sexual revolution/feminism, and why have these problems arisen now. What has changed??? Why is it common to call a woman a bitch today, so much so that eminem has made millions out of misogyn, but why werent these the morals of the conservative society of the past.
The main issue is the morality of the society has changed. One of the primary reasons behind this is the breaking down of the family unit, with divorces frequent and boyz being brought up by their moms. There is an unconcious need for a boy to identify with a male figure, the lack of such leads to naturalization of violence as a way of affirming of manhood.
We can sit and argue about the principle of gender equality, but then how about a few questions. Why are there frequent divorces now compared to the days when there was no gender equality.
Just like the hatred for a guy who is the recepient in gay sex is almost universal in all cultures, because of its association to feminity. Such hatred is hard wired in the mind of most men. We could also understand this in evolutionary terms. A man would have to be strong and lead the way in a hunter gatherer setting and hence a hatred of feminity in man must have been hard wired in the brain of men, in accordance with the principle of survival of the human species. (This simple explanation will not be honored in most academic settings, where the intellectual conduct is driven more by political correctness and other agendas hidden or otherwise, rather than the principle: truth for the sake of truth)
This inherent hard wiring in the brain of the majority of men of equating masculinity as an hatred of feminity really makes equality of the sexes disastrous in practise atleast in most households. It is this reason that has led to breaking up of the family unit and the lack of a strong father figure that has led to increase in violence in most teens who are just following their nature to feel like men.
Arguing from the point of view of the principle of human equality, changing of society is required in order to further the goals of feminism. The best option however is to structure society so that it is best in tune with the limbic system of the human brain (wchich cannot be changed), so as to maximize happiness in human kind.
Bumfights a video too far
The whole documentary is about the rise in the love for violence among young kids or society in general. The question is not really about the lack of discipline in schools, but the the need for violence as being fundamental to the sense of self among teens of today and the reasons behind it. Why were such problems never present centuries before the sexual revolution/feminism, and why have these problems arisen now. What has changed??? Why is it common to call a woman a bitch today, so much so that eminem has made millions out of misogyn, but why werent these the morals of the conservative society of the past.
The main issue is the morality of the society has changed. One of the primary reasons behind this is the breaking down of the family unit, with divorces frequent and boyz being brought up by their moms. There is an unconcious need for a boy to identify with a male figure, the lack of such leads to naturalization of violence as a way of affirming of manhood.
We can sit and argue about the principle of gender equality, but then how about a few questions. Why are there frequent divorces now compared to the days when there was no gender equality.
Just like the hatred for a guy who is the recepient in gay sex is almost universal in all cultures, because of its association to feminity. Such hatred is hard wired in the mind of most men. We could also understand this in evolutionary terms. A man would have to be strong and lead the way in a hunter gatherer setting and hence a hatred of feminity in man must have been hard wired in the brain of men, in accordance with the principle of survival of the human species. (This simple explanation will not be honored in most academic settings, where the intellectual conduct is driven more by political correctness and other agendas hidden or otherwise, rather than the principle: truth for the sake of truth)
This inherent hard wiring in the brain of the majority of men of equating masculinity as an hatred of feminity really makes equality of the sexes disastrous in practise atleast in most households. It is this reason that has led to breaking up of the family unit and the lack of a strong father figure that has led to increase in violence in most teens who are just following their nature to feel like men.
Arguing from the point of view of the principle of human equality, changing of society is required in order to further the goals of feminism. The best option however is to structure society so that it is best in tune with the limbic system of the human brain (wchich cannot be changed), so as to maximize happiness in human kind.
Monday, February 1, 2010
An article on proud holier than thou uppercaste people's heroine kalpana chawla. They are critisizing affirmative actions
Am quoting an article from a white supremacist website. Kalpana Chawala is respected as an indian icon by the english speaking india media which is dominated by uppercastes, but affirmative actions were part of her getting in to space. Articles of this nature below are considered racist in america (and they obviously are), however articles with a similar tone critisising affirmative actions for lowercastes in india are the norm in english media in india, where they are excessively published. Such articles in the indian media are obviously never seen as discriminatory . Ironic isnt it.
Disastrous
Challenger
First "diversity" space-disaster
Columbia
Latest "diversity" space-disaster
Diversity = Death, Once Again
Another "affirmative-action" spaceship explodes
NASA dogged by integrationist policies
Diversity = Death. Once again, the same fate has befallen the latest
"diverse" mission into space as befell the Challenger in 1986. Columbia,
whose seven-member crew contained only three American men, blew up upon
re-entry from a sixteen-day mission. All on-board, dubbed "Diversonauts"
by columnist Mark Siporen, were killed. The seven-member crew of
Challenger had included only three American men, as well, together with
one Negro, one Jewish woman, one American woman and a Chinaman. Aboard
Columbia were a Jewish man, an Indian woman married to a white man, an
American woman, a Negro and an American man married to an Oriental. "What
an insult to Christopher Columbus, who established civilization in the New
World," said Wendell Gardner," to have named such a motley crew, including
even an Indian, after him."
The idea of a "diverse" spacecraft was first proposed in 1986 as
part of fledgling "affirmative-action" proposals advanced by failed
Democratic Presidential candidate George McGovern. Until that time, all
crews of spacecraft had been highly-skilled, American men, in top physical
and mental condition, picked from the "cream-of-the-crop" of military
pilots. The demise of Challenger, however, prompted NASA to retrench to
banning all but Neil-Armstrong types from space-flight. The plan held and
success returned to space-exploration, until "affirmative-action" began to
creep back in, culminating in the latest explosion. "Diversity," actually,
had returned not only to the cockpit, but to the ground crew, as more and
more Negroes and aliens, some even from foreign countries, were forced
back into the space program. Initial reports indicated that some materials
had broken off of Columbia, damaging the vehicle, which could have
resulted from shoddy workmanship on the ground or, even, sabotage.
On-board error could not be ruled out, either.
The explosion recalled the scene in Jackson, Mississippi where a
city bus had burst into flames. The sleek, new vehicle, smoldering at the
side of a street, pointed up not simply a mechanical but social failure,
which had brought not only buslines but the space-program down. The
tragedy can be traced to 1956 in Montgomery, Alabama, when officials caved
in to demands to "integrate" the city's busline. Americans quickly fled
the busses, leaving not only riders but operators and, eventually,
management in the hands of Negroes. As the scenario repeated itself across
the South and, then, the nation, most bus-companies went bankrupt, with
the federal government stepping in to "bail out" the shattered systems.
But financial "bail-outs" were only a stop-gap. As the buslines grew
progressively darker, crashes increased, shoddy maintenance abounded and
injuries and deaths skyrocketed. The federal-government, even, took over
many buslines, outright, because no insurance companies would provide
coverage. The same thing has happened in the medical field, as minority
and alien doctors have been forced in under "affirmative-action,"
resulting in staggering losses in life and burgeoning malpractice,
prompting some to push for the federal-government to take over medicine,
as well. The legal and other professions hardest hit by
"affirmative-action," are reeling, as well. "Mr. Bush is going to have to
explain to me why, in a country of 300-million people, there weren't any
Americans more qualified than an Indian, Negro and Jew to be on Columbia,"
said Eric Pirkle. "So this is where affirmative-action has got us?"
Siporen referred to "Mission-Specialist" Kalpana Chawla, who had emigrated
from India, as the Migrant Astronaut.
Lower-intelligence and woeful-inexperience
The term "integration" was attempted to be changed by its apologists
to "de-segregation" in the Seventies. Then to "affirmative-action" in the
Eighties. And, finally, to "diversity" in the Nineties. However, critics
call it a move to "Africanize" or "de-Americanize" the nation. Authors of
the Bell Curve ascribed the lower-intelligence of Negroes as grounds to
keep minorities "in their place." Courts have ruled that minorities could
not be forced into jobs and schools because such "quotas" or "preferences"
violate the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits special privileges for
anyone. However, while the rest of the nation was backing away from
"affirmative-action," NASA was forging ahead with its "diversity" plans,
resulting in what the agency finally conceded was Columbia's woefully
"inexperienced" crew. Ironically, Made-in-America once signified
craftsmanship, prior to integration of the workplace. Whereas,
Made-in-Japan, from the least "diverse" country in the world, has now
supplanted the standard for quality workmanship.
"Diversity" has not only resulted in shoddy workmanship and lowered
standards, but sabotage. During the Vietnam War, when all-American units
were forcibly integrated, "fragging" began, in which new, Negro draftees
shot American soldiers in the back. The war-effort was, eventually,
scuttled as a result. Following the reduction of the Army, the Navy, which
had become a refuge from minorities along the same lines as ice-hockey,
was targeted for integration by Admiral Elmo Zumwalt in 1970. New, Negro
conscripts quickly scuttled various ships, some by throwing debris into
the engines, while those who opposed integration, such as Charles Hersch
and Eamon McCardle, were drummed out of the service with dishonorable
discharges. Siporen, a staunch opponent of "affirmative-action" who
chronicles disasters, murders and tragedies emanating from "diversity,"
had labeled the ill-fated Columbia, the Diversity Shuttle.
Incompetence of a lone Negro on some assembly line at NASA would
probably have been caught, in time, by some supervisor, had the ranks
remained all-American. But, the installation of materials, in a negligent
or purposefully deficient manner, in retaliation against the authority and
way-of-life of "The Man," becomes all the more difficult to detect, when
minorities begin to be forced into managerial jobs, as well. And,
oversight becomes all the more difficult when directors fear being accused
of "discrimination" for even mentioning that a minority is culpable for
anything. Such horror played out on the streets of Washington DC when the
local Negro police-chief held back identifying two snipers as Negroes for
fear of "racial profiling," crippling identification and apprehension of
the killers and increasing the death-toll. Pro-majority proponents have
said that divestment of minority favoritism will reintroduce a homogeneous
society, in which teamwork, craftsmanship and pride, which once connoted
Made-in-America, will be reestablished.
Military regulations now purport to make it a "crime" to be a
"supremacist," a pale which has overshadowed NASA as personnel cringe from
offending the "Gods of Diversity." David Harris, a Marine recruit from
Mississippi, quit the service, reporting that the level of lesbians,
minorities and aliens in the ranks had become "intolerable." Justin
Oliver, a 19-year-old Marine from Louisiana, had offered to write articles
for All The Way, a pro-majority newspaper, but was squelched by his
commanding-officer from participating. Don Murphy, a Naval reservist from
Missouri, quit the military entirely, as a protest against an order that
he cease being a cameraman for Nationalist Television in his free-time.
The term "conservative" had come to stand for "going back" to
pre-1964 Civil-Rights-Bill days, by scrapping all of the programs which
had forced minorities, misfits and aliens into society. It appeared that
the move had come into its own as the "Republican Revolution" of 1994
reversed many of the "diversity" programs then in place and, even, cut off
funding for the "Black Caucus." Each new "civil-rights" bill proposed in
the Congress was defeated and Presidential Candidate George W. Bush
campaigned as an opponent of "affirmative-action" and as a "conservative."
Expectations were that Bush would reverse previous Executive Orders, which
had forced homosexuals into the military and women into combat.
Nationalists, even, were optimistic about erasing the Truman Executive
Order, which had integrated the military, in the first place.
Broken campaign promises
However, no sooner had Bush taken office than he abrogated his own
campaign promises, naming Negroes to high office and failing to return the
military to its pre-integration status. Bush, even, ignored
post-September-Eleventh clamor to send aliens back, seal the borders and
increase "profiling" of criminals. NASA, consequently, fell under the Bush
aegis, as WASPS, who had formed, led and piloted the agency, were
increasingly shunted aside, stigmatized, forced to retire and replaced.
Although Americans still piloted spacecraft, minorities, women and aliens
soon dominated the crews, leading up to the Columbia debacle. Chawla had
already been rebuked for having negligently spun a satellite out of
control, but was kept on at NASA in deference to "diversity." So, there
would be no last-resort to correct some switch wrongly turned by
"Payload-Commander" Michael Anderson, "Payload-Specialist" Ilan Ramon or
Chawla, herself, miles above the earth.
"Diversity" is, actually, traceable to Communism. Before his
supporters called Communism "integration," Karl Marx had advocated erasing
all lines of demarcation between races and nations to form a "one-world,"
integrated Utopia. Communists, terming themselves "diversity supporters"
or "anti-racists," frequently turn up in public to riot against
pro-Americans and Nationalists. At George Washington's headquarters in
Morristown, New Jersey, rioters shouting "Kill, Kill, Kill" and flying the
flags of the Soviet Union and Puerto Rico, who described themselves as
favoring "diversity," attacked speakers at Fourth-of-July ceremonies.
They, also, tore up petitions seeking repeal of the Civil Rights Act.
The term Diversity = Death was coined by Nationalists, who thwarted
a murderous onslaught by anarchist Matthew Sheard at their ceremonies at
the Morris County Courthouse. Ken Jansen, a Sheard cohort, bragged to
reporters that opponents of "diversity" "should be going out of here in a
body bag," The same "diversity" proponents then secured passage of a law
in York, Pennsylvania purporting to ban the Bill of Rights by preventing
opponents of "diversity" from meeting in public. Nationalists had the
measure declared unconstitutional and, also, brought down No Place For
Hate, a city-sponsored program to brand opponents of "diversity" as
"haters." Nationalists, who had strongly criticized the decision to
integrate Challenger, have said that they will push for the complete
eradication of "diversity" in America, in heightened reliance upon the
Columbia debacle.
Chief Justice Tom Brady of the Mississippi Supreme Court dubbed the
day that Earl Warren had ordered the integration of schools as Black
Monday. According to Brady, the US Supreme Court ruling would "wreck" the
public-school system. His prediction has come true, as American schools,
once tops in the world, have plummeted, in integrated areas, to worse than
those in Third-World countries. Perhaps someone will name the day that
integration wrecked the space-program as Black Saturday, not only as a
condemnation, but as a bid to repair the damage. Not just to put parts
back in place, but to mend a fractured nation. Not only to abolish
"diversity," but to scrap all wrong-headed social-programs, which bring
death, destruction, decadence and decline to America. "We owe that much to
future generations," said Gardner.
Disastrous
Challenger
First "diversity" space-disaster
Columbia
Latest "diversity" space-disaster
Diversity = Death, Once Again
Another "affirmative-action" spaceship explodes
NASA dogged by integrationist policies
Diversity = Death. Once again, the same fate has befallen the latest
"diverse" mission into space as befell the Challenger in 1986. Columbia,
whose seven-member crew contained only three American men, blew up upon
re-entry from a sixteen-day mission. All on-board, dubbed "Diversonauts"
by columnist Mark Siporen, were killed. The seven-member crew of
Challenger had included only three American men, as well, together with
one Negro, one Jewish woman, one American woman and a Chinaman. Aboard
Columbia were a Jewish man, an Indian woman married to a white man, an
American woman, a Negro and an American man married to an Oriental. "What
an insult to Christopher Columbus, who established civilization in the New
World," said Wendell Gardner," to have named such a motley crew, including
even an Indian, after him."
The idea of a "diverse" spacecraft was first proposed in 1986 as
part of fledgling "affirmative-action" proposals advanced by failed
Democratic Presidential candidate George McGovern. Until that time, all
crews of spacecraft had been highly-skilled, American men, in top physical
and mental condition, picked from the "cream-of-the-crop" of military
pilots. The demise of Challenger, however, prompted NASA to retrench to
banning all but Neil-Armstrong types from space-flight. The plan held and
success returned to space-exploration, until "affirmative-action" began to
creep back in, culminating in the latest explosion. "Diversity," actually,
had returned not only to the cockpit, but to the ground crew, as more and
more Negroes and aliens, some even from foreign countries, were forced
back into the space program. Initial reports indicated that some materials
had broken off of Columbia, damaging the vehicle, which could have
resulted from shoddy workmanship on the ground or, even, sabotage.
On-board error could not be ruled out, either.
The explosion recalled the scene in Jackson, Mississippi where a
city bus had burst into flames. The sleek, new vehicle, smoldering at the
side of a street, pointed up not simply a mechanical but social failure,
which had brought not only buslines but the space-program down. The
tragedy can be traced to 1956 in Montgomery, Alabama, when officials caved
in to demands to "integrate" the city's busline. Americans quickly fled
the busses, leaving not only riders but operators and, eventually,
management in the hands of Negroes. As the scenario repeated itself across
the South and, then, the nation, most bus-companies went bankrupt, with
the federal government stepping in to "bail out" the shattered systems.
But financial "bail-outs" were only a stop-gap. As the buslines grew
progressively darker, crashes increased, shoddy maintenance abounded and
injuries and deaths skyrocketed. The federal-government, even, took over
many buslines, outright, because no insurance companies would provide
coverage. The same thing has happened in the medical field, as minority
and alien doctors have been forced in under "affirmative-action,"
resulting in staggering losses in life and burgeoning malpractice,
prompting some to push for the federal-government to take over medicine,
as well. The legal and other professions hardest hit by
"affirmative-action," are reeling, as well. "Mr. Bush is going to have to
explain to me why, in a country of 300-million people, there weren't any
Americans more qualified than an Indian, Negro and Jew to be on Columbia,"
said Eric Pirkle. "So this is where affirmative-action has got us?"
Siporen referred to "Mission-Specialist" Kalpana Chawla, who had emigrated
from India, as the Migrant Astronaut.
Lower-intelligence and woeful-inexperience
The term "integration" was attempted to be changed by its apologists
to "de-segregation" in the Seventies. Then to "affirmative-action" in the
Eighties. And, finally, to "diversity" in the Nineties. However, critics
call it a move to "Africanize" or "de-Americanize" the nation. Authors of
the Bell Curve ascribed the lower-intelligence of Negroes as grounds to
keep minorities "in their place." Courts have ruled that minorities could
not be forced into jobs and schools because such "quotas" or "preferences"
violate the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits special privileges for
anyone. However, while the rest of the nation was backing away from
"affirmative-action," NASA was forging ahead with its "diversity" plans,
resulting in what the agency finally conceded was Columbia's woefully
"inexperienced" crew. Ironically, Made-in-America once signified
craftsmanship, prior to integration of the workplace. Whereas,
Made-in-Japan, from the least "diverse" country in the world, has now
supplanted the standard for quality workmanship.
"Diversity" has not only resulted in shoddy workmanship and lowered
standards, but sabotage. During the Vietnam War, when all-American units
were forcibly integrated, "fragging" began, in which new, Negro draftees
shot American soldiers in the back. The war-effort was, eventually,
scuttled as a result. Following the reduction of the Army, the Navy, which
had become a refuge from minorities along the same lines as ice-hockey,
was targeted for integration by Admiral Elmo Zumwalt in 1970. New, Negro
conscripts quickly scuttled various ships, some by throwing debris into
the engines, while those who opposed integration, such as Charles Hersch
and Eamon McCardle, were drummed out of the service with dishonorable
discharges. Siporen, a staunch opponent of "affirmative-action" who
chronicles disasters, murders and tragedies emanating from "diversity,"
had labeled the ill-fated Columbia, the Diversity Shuttle.
Incompetence of a lone Negro on some assembly line at NASA would
probably have been caught, in time, by some supervisor, had the ranks
remained all-American. But, the installation of materials, in a negligent
or purposefully deficient manner, in retaliation against the authority and
way-of-life of "The Man," becomes all the more difficult to detect, when
minorities begin to be forced into managerial jobs, as well. And,
oversight becomes all the more difficult when directors fear being accused
of "discrimination" for even mentioning that a minority is culpable for
anything. Such horror played out on the streets of Washington DC when the
local Negro police-chief held back identifying two snipers as Negroes for
fear of "racial profiling," crippling identification and apprehension of
the killers and increasing the death-toll. Pro-majority proponents have
said that divestment of minority favoritism will reintroduce a homogeneous
society, in which teamwork, craftsmanship and pride, which once connoted
Made-in-America, will be reestablished.
Military regulations now purport to make it a "crime" to be a
"supremacist," a pale which has overshadowed NASA as personnel cringe from
offending the "Gods of Diversity." David Harris, a Marine recruit from
Mississippi, quit the service, reporting that the level of lesbians,
minorities and aliens in the ranks had become "intolerable." Justin
Oliver, a 19-year-old Marine from Louisiana, had offered to write articles
for All The Way, a pro-majority newspaper, but was squelched by his
commanding-officer from participating. Don Murphy, a Naval reservist from
Missouri, quit the military entirely, as a protest against an order that
he cease being a cameraman for Nationalist Television in his free-time.
The term "conservative" had come to stand for "going back" to
pre-1964 Civil-Rights-Bill days, by scrapping all of the programs which
had forced minorities, misfits and aliens into society. It appeared that
the move had come into its own as the "Republican Revolution" of 1994
reversed many of the "diversity" programs then in place and, even, cut off
funding for the "Black Caucus." Each new "civil-rights" bill proposed in
the Congress was defeated and Presidential Candidate George W. Bush
campaigned as an opponent of "affirmative-action" and as a "conservative."
Expectations were that Bush would reverse previous Executive Orders, which
had forced homosexuals into the military and women into combat.
Nationalists, even, were optimistic about erasing the Truman Executive
Order, which had integrated the military, in the first place.
Broken campaign promises
However, no sooner had Bush taken office than he abrogated his own
campaign promises, naming Negroes to high office and failing to return the
military to its pre-integration status. Bush, even, ignored
post-September-Eleventh clamor to send aliens back, seal the borders and
increase "profiling" of criminals. NASA, consequently, fell under the Bush
aegis, as WASPS, who had formed, led and piloted the agency, were
increasingly shunted aside, stigmatized, forced to retire and replaced.
Although Americans still piloted spacecraft, minorities, women and aliens
soon dominated the crews, leading up to the Columbia debacle. Chawla had
already been rebuked for having negligently spun a satellite out of
control, but was kept on at NASA in deference to "diversity." So, there
would be no last-resort to correct some switch wrongly turned by
"Payload-Commander" Michael Anderson, "Payload-Specialist" Ilan Ramon or
Chawla, herself, miles above the earth.
"Diversity" is, actually, traceable to Communism. Before his
supporters called Communism "integration," Karl Marx had advocated erasing
all lines of demarcation between races and nations to form a "one-world,"
integrated Utopia. Communists, terming themselves "diversity supporters"
or "anti-racists," frequently turn up in public to riot against
pro-Americans and Nationalists. At George Washington's headquarters in
Morristown, New Jersey, rioters shouting "Kill, Kill, Kill" and flying the
flags of the Soviet Union and Puerto Rico, who described themselves as
favoring "diversity," attacked speakers at Fourth-of-July ceremonies.
They, also, tore up petitions seeking repeal of the Civil Rights Act.
The term Diversity = Death was coined by Nationalists, who thwarted
a murderous onslaught by anarchist Matthew Sheard at their ceremonies at
the Morris County Courthouse. Ken Jansen, a Sheard cohort, bragged to
reporters that opponents of "diversity" "should be going out of here in a
body bag," The same "diversity" proponents then secured passage of a law
in York, Pennsylvania purporting to ban the Bill of Rights by preventing
opponents of "diversity" from meeting in public. Nationalists had the
measure declared unconstitutional and, also, brought down No Place For
Hate, a city-sponsored program to brand opponents of "diversity" as
"haters." Nationalists, who had strongly criticized the decision to
integrate Challenger, have said that they will push for the complete
eradication of "diversity" in America, in heightened reliance upon the
Columbia debacle.
Chief Justice Tom Brady of the Mississippi Supreme Court dubbed the
day that Earl Warren had ordered the integration of schools as Black
Monday. According to Brady, the US Supreme Court ruling would "wreck" the
public-school system. His prediction has come true, as American schools,
once tops in the world, have plummeted, in integrated areas, to worse than
those in Third-World countries. Perhaps someone will name the day that
integration wrecked the space-program as Black Saturday, not only as a
condemnation, but as a bid to repair the damage. Not just to put parts
back in place, but to mend a fractured nation. Not only to abolish
"diversity," but to scrap all wrong-headed social-programs, which bring
death, destruction, decadence and decline to America. "We owe that much to
future generations," said Gardner.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
On Potrayal of Dalit icons
Here is an article on Ayyankali written by Anoop kumar of Insight magazine.
http://insightjnu.blogspot.com/2005/09/our-icon-ayyankali.html
Here is a review of a book on Ayyankali
http://www.countercurrents.org/nafih031108.htm
If you read Anoop's article Ayyankali comes out as a militant tough guy who stood up against injustice and beat the hell out of the opressors. He fits in with arhcetype of a universal hero. However the review of this book , shows him just as a gandhian of some kind. Nowhere are his proactive toughman measures even hinted at.
To a guy like me, who didnt even know about Ayyankali, reading the review of this book does not even make me associate with Ayyankali. I just saw honoring him as an intellectual excersice, without true emotional attachment. It was only when I read Anoop's small article that I realized what a legend Ayyankali really was and why discovering him is of prime importance to the national dalit movement.
I really feel that for a community like the dalits marginalized for such a long time and which has just started fighting back, explicit examples of their heroes fighting back should not be hidden, just to conform to the ethics of an excercise in academic political correctness.
My thoughts on " Your request is being processed... Frank Schaeffer: Anti-Obama Religious Rhetoric Is "Trawling For Assassins" (VIDEO)"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/18/frank-schaeffer-anti-obam_n_362151.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't disagree with the phobic reaction towards obama's occupation of the highest american office by a sizeable portion of the american populace.
I am talking about the negative impact of the psalm as a message for somebody to carry out unlawful acts against the president. I find the statement that verse 8 was chosen as a coverup for verse 9 as a means of avoiding prosecution, to be of loose bearing. Prosecution is a possibility even if verse 8 is considered, as it is the part of the same paragraph as verse 9 just as you have said. Such an argument could possibly not hold a grain of salt if a counter argument could be given that most sentences in the bible are read independently of one another as a common practice. Now, if this is actually common practice, then assuming that the verse 8 was advertized in order to cause physical harm to the president seems wrong.
The psalm verses were actually in full public view, but it would not be too wrong to assume that even filthier dangerous sermons wishing wrongdoings to obama are given in many faith houses in america. Especially the one's in the south.
I am talking about cause and effect relationship that the advertising of the 8th verse really has. It is not like the advertisement of the 8th verse was really required to cause some nutcases to pick up the bible and actually read the rest of the verses and make up his mind about what has to be done to obama. This is because if such a guy believes in the bible, then he is already the member of a church and his church must already have inculcated in to his mind about the actions he needs to take and he wouldn't really require an advertisement to make up his mind.
I don't see a necessary correlation between the possibility of harm to obama and the psalm, even though the question of a malicious intent cannot be totally excluded.
As I have said before, I am not totally up to date with the political situation in America. I wrote my previous comment after going over the rachael maddow show clip. Ms. Maddow gave me an impression that these verses were just some propganda item, because they followed some clips of glenn beck and bill o'reilly which had nothing to do with harming of the president. Neither were alternatives towards prosecution talked about instead she brought a guest who seemed to bolster her standing that it was a religious tone of the present opposition to obama that was different from other oppositions of the president and somehow the segment seemed to link religious opposition, bill o' reilly and glenn beck to verses that talk about harming obama. When I didnt see any logical connections in the same and neither did I see any discussions on methods of persecuting the verse advertizers, it seemed that possibly ms. maddow herself didnt look at the verses being of actual harm to obama, but were more of an excuse as a propoganda item for a smear campaign against the right in general.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't disagree with the phobic reaction towards obama's occupation of the highest american office by a sizeable portion of the american populace.
I am talking about the negative impact of the psalm as a message for somebody to carry out unlawful acts against the president. I find the statement that verse 8 was chosen as a coverup for verse 9 as a means of avoiding prosecution, to be of loose bearing. Prosecution is a possibility even if verse 8 is considered, as it is the part of the same paragraph as verse 9 just as you have said. Such an argument could possibly not hold a grain of salt if a counter argument could be given that most sentences in the bible are read independently of one another as a common practice. Now, if this is actually common practice, then assuming that the verse 8 was advertized in order to cause physical harm to the president seems wrong.
The psalm verses were actually in full public view, but it would not be too wrong to assume that even filthier dangerous sermons wishing wrongdoings to obama are given in many faith houses in america. Especially the one's in the south.
I am talking about cause and effect relationship that the advertising of the 8th verse really has. It is not like the advertisement of the 8th verse was really required to cause some nutcases to pick up the bible and actually read the rest of the verses and make up his mind about what has to be done to obama. This is because if such a guy believes in the bible, then he is already the member of a church and his church must already have inculcated in to his mind about the actions he needs to take and he wouldn't really require an advertisement to make up his mind.
I don't see a necessary correlation between the possibility of harm to obama and the psalm, even though the question of a malicious intent cannot be totally excluded.
As I have said before, I am not totally up to date with the political situation in America. I wrote my previous comment after going over the rachael maddow show clip. Ms. Maddow gave me an impression that these verses were just some propganda item, because they followed some clips of glenn beck and bill o'reilly which had nothing to do with harming of the president. Neither were alternatives towards prosecution talked about instead she brought a guest who seemed to bolster her standing that it was a religious tone of the present opposition to obama that was different from other oppositions of the president and somehow the segment seemed to link religious opposition, bill o' reilly and glenn beck to verses that talk about harming obama. When I didnt see any logical connections in the same and neither did I see any discussions on methods of persecuting the verse advertizers, it seemed that possibly ms. maddow herself didnt look at the verses being of actual harm to obama, but were more of an excuse as a propoganda item for a smear campaign against the right in general.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Should the Marathis really trust Raj Thackeray
Where did raj thackeray make so much money from. He is not the son of an industrialist after all. Neither was/is a maverick of the workings of the share market. Can the motivation of a guy who made money through non-hard work actually be trusted, even if the guy makes statements that strike an emotional chord with the majority of his followers. Movie actors also play parts in movies, but the characters they play need not represent their values in real life. When an individual commits a sin against society, corruption being one of them, can the individual in all honesty stand up to the idolatory representation of an impeccable character in public, in the depth of his heart. If he does make statements in public as a means of survival in a valueless society may be his motivations can be excused. But if he takes an initiative to represents stands that do strike an emotional chord with a section of a society that demand a change, from what they percieve as a source of oppression, real or imagined; in such a case can his motivations still be excused.
Mr Thackeray does seem to represent a case of corruption amounting to a sum of 300 crore rupees. If such an individual is the poster boy for saving the marathi's from real or imagined threats, does it not speak tomes about the progress that the marathi's will make under such a leadership.
When a person really believes in his motivations, no matter how evil they may be to the liberal at heart, the base emotion that produces the motivation can atleast be understood if analyzed from a viewpoint that take in to consideration the fallacies of human nature. But if the motivations expressed are not even true to the core fiber that make up the individuals sense of integrity, then the question that needs to be answered is; how big of a crime is it, if such motivations fuel the drives for freedom, sacrifice and everything else innocent and noble in the collective conciousness of the group to whom the motivations are directed. The nature of this crime should really be be pondered over by people who can think and who do believe in the non-relativeness of the evil of acts involving brainwashing of innocents.
Where did raj thackeray make so much money from. He is not the son of an industrialist after all. Neither was/is a maverick of the workings of the share market. Can the motivation of a guy who made money through non-hard work actually be trusted, even if the guy makes statements that strike an emotional chord with the majority of his followers. Movie actors also play parts in movies, but the characters they play need not represent their values in real life. When an individual commits a sin against society, corruption being one of them, can the individual in all honesty stand up to the idolatory representation of an impeccable character in public, in the depth of his heart. If he does make statements in public as a means of survival in a valueless society may be his motivations can be excused. But if he takes an initiative to represents stands that do strike an emotional chord with a section of a society that demand a change, from what they percieve as a source of oppression, real or imagined; in such a case can his motivations still be excused.
Mr Thackeray does seem to represent a case of corruption amounting to a sum of 300 crore rupees. If such an individual is the poster boy for saving the marathi's from real or imagined threats, does it not speak tomes about the progress that the marathi's will make under such a leadership.When a person really believes in his motivations, no matter how evil they may be to the liberal at heart, the base emotion that produces the motivation can atleast be understood if analyzed from a viewpoint that take in to consideration the fallacies of human nature. But if the motivations expressed are not even true to the core fiber that make up the individuals sense of integrity, then the question that needs to be answered is; how big of a crime is it, if such motivations fuel the drives for freedom, sacrifice and everything else innocent and noble in the collective conciousness of the group to whom the motivations are directed. The nature of this crime should really be be pondered over by people who can think and who do believe in the non-relativeness of the evil of acts involving brainwashing of innocents.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Language and Politics Part 6
Might be I am goin completely off topic here and possibly goin in a philosophical direction. But only tamil or possibly sanskrit (even sanskrit language does have a historical relation to caste based slavery) can actually fall in the purview of being a national language. Hindi comes from hindavi dialect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindavi a language that actually came in to existence to help the islamic invaders, communicate with the native indian populations.In some sense hindi can be tied historically to enslavement compared to regional dialects. The concept of a unified india even came about because of the british invasion. Finding unifying clues in pre britsh past of india, will always cause us to come up with loopholes as no motivations for an unified india do come up.
A case for solidarity on the national level centred around an emotional affection for hindi against a regional language does not necessarily stand the test for nationalistic fervor if analyzed closely.
The reason that people in the north speak hindi compared to south indian states has more to do with the regions being under stronger mughal influence. This influence decreased as one went away from Delhi. Hindi had more to do historically with easing the mughal control over their conquered areas, rather than an emotional drive for unification based around the concepts of a free india. The historical use of the language had more to do with unification of the mughal kingdom and well beings of the mughal elites than the welfare of the people in the kingdom.
It is a well known fact that hindi is scarcely spoke in the southern belt of india. Demanding that these states show a bias in their affection towards hindi is more of an artificial construct, because the people of these states have no emotional history towards the language and whatever monumental moments in the history of their civilization as a part of the indian subcontinent, which give the people an identity inculcated with values of freedom, liberty among other things were played in the regional language rather than hindi.
When the framework for the indian nation was being put forward, it was initially suggested that there be 2 national languages with 2 centres of power. One in the north and other in the south. The only reason that such an idea was given up was because it would be an impediment against the conception of an unified india. It was not a question of emotion, but a case of practicality. However formation of states did not serve as an impediment in this direction as the union constructed of states as a whole, would be stronger than any individual state in general.
Every nation by definition has a language tht it defines as the natinoal language. Hindi was chosen only because it was spoken by the majority of indians. However as I have talked about above suggesting an emotional bias for hindi compared to regional languages as a requirement for display of patriotism falls short on quiet a few levels.
A case for solidarity on the national level centred around an emotional affection for hindi against a regional language does not necessarily stand the test for nationalistic fervor if analyzed closely.
The reason that people in the north speak hindi compared to south indian states has more to do with the regions being under stronger mughal influence. This influence decreased as one went away from Delhi. Hindi had more to do historically with easing the mughal control over their conquered areas, rather than an emotional drive for unification based around the concepts of a free india. The historical use of the language had more to do with unification of the mughal kingdom and well beings of the mughal elites than the welfare of the people in the kingdom.
It is a well known fact that hindi is scarcely spoke in the southern belt of india. Demanding that these states show a bias in their affection towards hindi is more of an artificial construct, because the people of these states have no emotional history towards the language and whatever monumental moments in the history of their civilization as a part of the indian subcontinent, which give the people an identity inculcated with values of freedom, liberty among other things were played in the regional language rather than hindi.
When the framework for the indian nation was being put forward, it was initially suggested that there be 2 national languages with 2 centres of power. One in the north and other in the south. The only reason that such an idea was given up was because it would be an impediment against the conception of an unified india. It was not a question of emotion, but a case of practicality. However formation of states did not serve as an impediment in this direction as the union constructed of states as a whole, would be stronger than any individual state in general.
Every nation by definition has a language tht it defines as the natinoal language. Hindi was chosen only because it was spoken by the majority of indians. However as I have talked about above suggesting an emotional bias for hindi compared to regional languages as a requirement for display of patriotism falls short on quiet a few levels.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
http://mediamatters.org/bl
didn't know how such puerile stuff was published in a respected newspaper. This seemed to be the only useful information in the rachael maddow clip
The rachael maddow clip seemed to be biased. She started with views put up by glenn beck and bill o'reilly, which even though were emotional, have nothing to do with criminal acts against president obama.
Then we have Mr. Frank Shaffer ranting about this psalm sticker issue and the example of a single nutjob carryin a gun during a rally, as a rallying cause for a blood revolution against obama. That pslam 109.8 does not even talk about killing. I cant believe that all these idiot right wingies are buying psalm 109.8 shirts and actually believin they are wearing pslam 109.9 shirts.
Mr. Shaffer even talks about mini messages put up by fox news asking god to kill obama. Arent these just conspiracy theories.
then he compares these guys to the taliban that quote the koran out of context. But the taliban quotes, explicitly talk about killing. Psalm 109.8 does not talk about killing.
The bible is a text which is written as a word of hope for a society that was either a slave to the forces of nature or to other humans. It was written as a word of god for a society tht was at the recieving end of life's ordeals. If there are passages in the bible that talk about freedom from a dictatorial occupier, it is natural to expect wish of evil doings happening to this occupier in the same chapter. If in the 20th century people that believe in the bible actually use quotes from the book to express their frustations against their present leader, these frustations should not be considered evil just because these quotes lie close to the "harm inflicting" quotes in the bible.
There is always a possibility of misuse. But putting up a conspiracy theory which says that the right wingers in reality wanted to inculcate their followers in to the language of pslams 109.9 etc in disguise of psalm 109.8, seems quite like a silly propoganda item or atleast that is the impression that i got by the presentation made by Ms. Maddow and Mr. Shaffer
Mr. Shaffer keeps referring to his book, seems like he is rabble rousing just to advertise his book.