Leitmotif

Reason as the Leading Motive

Archive for the ‘Islamo-loony’ Category

What Can India be Proud Of?

Posted by Jerry on August 14, 2008

The celebration of Indian independence should be more than a record-keeping of years. Yes, it is undeniable that India has progressed appreciably in recent years; however, realize that while India rides on the shoulders of foreign and multinational giants, who lead this march towards prosperity, India simultaneously shackles them under the burden of its contradictory and arbitrary legal dictats. In truth, India’s freedoms are not yet secured; and the greatest threat to it is the Indian government empowered by the Indian Constitution, which is the entire basis upon which this country is founded. We are building castles of concrete and glass upon thin air.

I am reprising an article I wrote sometime around last year’s independence day. The specifics are different now, but the general theme continues to be relevant.

=======

I find it rather apt that, in the run-up to the day of India’s independence, the nation finds itself embarrassingly servile to the hooliganism of some idiots who sit in the legislatures of this country.

The well-known Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen was attacked by Islamo-loonies at a book launch event here in India, and the only people protecting her were–no, not the police–but the media persons. Nasreen was physically attacked by members of a muslim political party who alleged that her books were insulting to their “prophet” Mohammad. The leader of that muslim political gang demanded that Nasreen’s head be chopped off. Even the most widely read muslim Urdu newspapers faulted the muslim thugs not for attacking the author but–get this–for not having done enough! They wanted her blood.

Carrying pictures of [the muslim party] legislators hurling bouquets [at the author], a newspaper came down heavily on the leaders for allowing her to leave Hyderabad unhurt.
Considered a critic of MIM, the Siasat newspaper lampooned the legislators for their failure to inflict injuries to a woman. The paper suggested that Nasreen could have been killed as the police reached the scene 30 minutes after the attack.

Not to be outdone by this height of vicious irrationality, the Indian police decided to register a case against Miss Nasreen, faulting her for writing a book that stoked communal discord and unrest, while letting the rioting Islamic marauders go scot-free!!

So, as we get closer to the day of India’s independence, we are faced with a political party whose members sit in the people’s house of the Indian parliament; we have a bunch of muslim idiots who get on a brutish rampage against an author and demand that her head be chopped off–a clear and actionable threat that warrants arrest; we have an unarmed, helpless author who had no police protection of any sort; and finally, we have the Indian police registering a criminal case against the author for writing a book, for which she could be imprisoned for up to two years, while those savages who made the actionable threat are roaming the nation free to celebrate India’s independence day.

Is this merely a one-off incident? Most certainly not. Rioting marauders epitomize the Indian democratic machinery at work. In this country, democracy means rioting on the streets, attacking innocent civilians, going on strike every two days, stifling expressions of speech, destroying property, and spreading civil terror. Most of these marauders are religious-political parties, political leaders, and their hired goons. In other words, the very people who pull the levers of this democratic machinery are the ones looting and plundering on the streets.

Political power wielded through violence is the predominant medium of “democratic” expression in this corrupt nation–a nation founded upon a ridiculously long, obtuse, and inept constitution that guarantees no rights to any citizens. Truth be said, Indians should properly have nothing to be proud of about their country–and should rightfully be enraged that this is the case!

If you choose to point out the economic progress achieved over the past 17 years in India, note that it has been achieved mostly despite the mangled laws and institutions of the Indian democracy and predominantly by the willingness of non-Indian investors to take on the high risks of functioning in this chaotic, corrupt system, and persevere in the face of it all.

Indians are being made complacent by the illusion of a sanguine future made possible by the global enterprising system of the free market; however, we are missing the crucial fact that the future of this free market is precarious given the lack of a rights-protecting institutional system. Where there’s an institutionalized political system of force and violence, where the government is itself the perpetrator and idle spectator of violence, there can be no freedom.

What exactly can we claim as the proper achievement of Indians? Certainly not the wealth and prosperity we see today made possible mostly by the foreign entities. The legacy that properly and wholly belongs to Indians is the abject poverty among the masses and the hopelessness of a dim future among the youth that permeated this nation prior to the early 1990s. It is no wonder that all those who could, scrapped every loose rupee to flee India during those years. If we are to be proud of all the 60 years of our independence, we must answer the question why were our parents fleeing the freedom of a newly independent India? What were they running from? Did they not share the sense of pride in a free nation? Were we truly free? Are we still?

Happy 62nd, India.

==============

Related posts:

Dangerous Democracy and Fundamental Freedoms
The Contradictions of the Indian Constitution
Not a Tourist Brochure: India

Posted in Culture, General Work/Life, India, Indian Blogs, Islamo-loony, Mumbai, My Theories and Ideas, Philosophy, Political Issues, Rights and Morality, The Best of Leitmotif, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 22 Comments »

The Sword of Wafa Sultan

Posted by Jerry on March 7, 2008

Syrian-born political commentator and American psychiatrist, Wafa Sultan, speaks with the ferocity of a sword-wielding soldier in the battlefield of ideas.

“I have decided to fight Islam; please pay attention to my statement; to fight Islam, not the political Islam, not the militant Islam, not the radical Islam, not the Wahhabi Islam, but Islam itself… Islam has never been misunderstood, Islam is the problem…. (Muslims) have to realize that they have only two choices: to change or to be crushed.”

This video of her interview on Al-Jazeera is a must-see:

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/1704.htm

Go to fullsize imageWhen Islamic barbarism was revealed in the wake of the Danish cartoons fiasco, Wafa Sultan and members from the Ayn Rand Institute got together on panel discussions across the United States to stand up against the Islamic threat to freedom, liberty, and western civilization. The ARI website has the video of one their events in which Wafa Sultan participated:

Totalitarian Islam’s Threat to the West
A panel discussion featuring Daniel Pipes, Yaron Brook and Wafa Sultan
Recorded April 12, 2007
View video playback (requires RealPlayer®)
Part 1 (55 min.)
Part 2 (60 min.)

Watch more videos of this brave woman. [HT: Rule of Reason]

Posted in Atheism, Ayn Rand, Culture, Islamo-loony, Philosophy, Political Issues, Religion, Rights and Morality, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments »

Book Reviews and My Room Videos

Posted by Jerry on January 26, 2008

I realize I haven’t been blogging at all lately. I find that I have very little free time to myself; and the precious little that I do have, I must choose between spending it on finishing a book that I’m reading, watching something on TV to just relax blankly, or typing up my thoughts on innumberable things on my blog. Invariably, I end up choosing from the first two options.

I just finished reading Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. It’s an explosive book!–what a fascinating story, a heroic life, an incredible journey of a real heroic giant of a woman! It should be compulsory reading for every crazy multiculturalist and Islamic fundamentalist out there. In fact, everyone should read it, and be inspired by it. Ayaan Hirsi Ali defies cultural determinism, cultural bonds, traditions, religious injunctions, the threat to life and soul, family, clan, nation–practically everything that an average mediocrity finds as constituents of his self-identity. Rising from the tribal muck of primitive Somalia and the backwardness of Islamic traditions, Ayaan charts her own course, explicitly based on reason, individualism, and enlightenment ideals. Infidel is the autobiography of this strong, young, and heroic woman. It’s the story of a woman that exemplifies Ayn Rand’s words: “man is a being of self-made soul.”

Then, I plodded through a terribly clunky, horribly-written book on Poincare’s Conjecture in the mathematical field of Topology. The book is about the story of an unknown Russian mathematician Greg Perelman, who suddenly shot to fame after quietly submitting a paper on the Internet in which he had written up a proof for Poincare’s Conjecture—a problem that had remained unsolved until then for several centuries. This incident had happened on a few years ago, and at that time (sometime in 2001, I think), I remember reading about a Russian man solving a centuries-old problem in the newspaper. I still recollect being intrigued by the story and wondering what the details of this solution and the mathematical problem was. 

Now, I love reading books on mathematics, although I am terribly weak in the subject myself. I have never been good with numbers: we are as mutually repelling as opposite poles of a magnet. However, I am fascinated by the story of mathematical achievements, geniuses, mathematical research, inventions, explorations, thoughts, etc. I had immensely enjoyed reading about Godel’s theorems and Fermat’s proofs. And the more I read about the field of mathematics, the more I understood it, because each new book contains several references to similar themes, ideas, topics, problems, and personalities–and they approach it from different angles; and when you identify these similarity and begin making integrations in your mind based on these vantage points, the feeling of awe and wonder is more than gratifying.

However, as I was reading Poincare’s Prize, I thought to myself that the contributors to Wikipedia write far superior articles, and they are more captivating as well! The author of Poincare’s Prize seems completely scattered in his organization, overwhelmed by the complexity of the subject matter he’s tackling, and unsure of how to simply progress from one paragraph to the next. His transitions are clunky and distracting. He dwells on irrelevant–almost encyclopedic–details of personalities that add little to the progression of the storyline.

In any case, all of these deficiencies can be overlooked as nothing more than mild annoyance. However, what I found most egregious is the author’s gall to inject his sense of morality and judgment on the actions of the mathematicians he discusses. Instead of staying clear of such moral evaluations in a topic dealing with objective facts and dry logic–or at least letting the reader make his own moral judgements of the characters, the author generously indulges in moralizing. It should go without saying that my heightened senstivity to this aspect of the book is primarily because I deeply disagree and detest the author’s moral evaluations.

Anyway. Moving on to something unrelated. For my recent birthday, I was gifted a Nikon CoolPix L11 digital camera. I decided to tinker around with it in the privacy of my room. Here are some short videos of my room.

And another:

And finally:

Posted in Books, Culture, General Work/Life, India, Islamo-loony, Movies, Mumbai, Personal, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments »

Hell on Earth

Posted by Jerry on September 26, 2007

From what I know, living in Iran must be like living in hell on Earth.

Recently, the prestigious Columbia University lent the honor of addressing its students, faculty, and community members to the Islamic Iranian president Mahmoud Adhmediwhatever. This clown comes to the United States and makes the declaration that Iran has no gays. Well duh! We know that already: they’re all DEAD!

07.09.24.Outed-X.gifI am thoroughly disgusted with the moral depravity of the United States government for letting that bastard enter its borders and step on US soil. It’s like allowing the murderer of your most cherised values into your home. He is the same lunatic who doubts that the holocaust ever happened and whose government openly finances the terrorist attacks of Hamas.

This is a clear example of the moral altruism that guides the US government policy. It believes that it has taken the “high road” by letting this murderer into its borders in the name of liberty and free speech. That is a disgusting equivocation of two moral opposites: a murderer has already invalidated the premise of human rights with the introduction of force; he has erased the rules of intellectual persuasion and has rejected the moral conditions upon which rights are based. He cannot appeal to that which he has invalidated. The US has no obligation to respect the demands of a murderer to his non-existent rights.

This moral travesty is particularly stark when you place this situation against the backdrop of the immigration issue: the millions of highly talented, skilled, honest, earnest, and productive people who wish to enter the United States to escape the repression of their home countries and legitimately seek the recognition of their human right to life, liberty, property, and happiness; the millions of undocumented immigrants already in the United States living lives in the shadows, stunted from productive and material growth, denied basic human rights, living in constant fear of the uncertainty of their future, living in fear of being separated from their family and loved ones.

This is why I am righteously enraged that that criminal from Iran was permitted to set foot on the land of liberty.

I am also hugely disappointed with Columbia University, although they are well within their rights to do what they did.

Go here for the YouTube videos of the speech.

For some really alarming information, like 45% of Americans would like Mahmoud as their president, visit Cox & Forkum.

Below is a picture of two homosexual Iranians hanged to death in public.

Posted in Culture, Homosexuality, Islamo-loony, Philosophy, Political Issues, Rights and Morality, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Allah Advocates Glory Holes!

Posted by Jerry on April 13, 2007

If you thought that the so-called moral police in India had gone off the deep end, then check this article out. An Islamo-loony in Egypt’s academia–a faculty member of Al-Alzhar University–has issued a fatwa asserting that a husband and wife must not be naked during sex lest their marriage be annuled according to Islamo-loony sharia law!

Oh, and there’s MORE:

In protest, another Islamo-loony–the University’s fatwa committee chairman, Abdullah Megawar–has “argued that married couples could see each other naked but should not look at each other’s genitalia and suggested they cover up with a blanket during sex.”

NO NUDITY FOR SEX 

Cairo – An Egyptian cleric’s controversial fatwa claiming that nudity during sexual intercourse invalidates a marriage has uncovered a rift among Islamic scholars.

According to the religious edict issued by Rashad Hassan Khalil, a former dean of Al-Azhar University’s faculty of Sharia (or Islamic law), “being completely naked during the act of coitus annuls the marriage”.

The religious decree sparked a hot debate on the private satellite network Dream’s popular religious talk show and on the front page of Sunday’s Al-Masri Al-Yom, Egypt’s leading independent daily newspaper.

Suad Saleh, who heads the women’s department of Al-Azhar’s Islamic studies faculty, pleaded for “anything that can bring spouses closer to each other” and rejected the claim that nudity during intercourse could invalidate a union.

During the live televised debate, Islamic scholar Abdel Muti dismissed the fatwa: “Nothing is prohibited during marital sex, except of course sodomy.”

For his part, Al-Azhar’s fatwa committee chairman Abdullah Megawar argued that married couples could see each other naked but should not look at each other’s genitalia and suggested they cover up with a blanket during sex.

No Sodomy! Aaack! How do gay Islamo-loonies have sex in Egypt??

Stories like these make me glad I live in India!

[Hat tip: LGF]

Posted in Islamo-loony, Political Issues | 6 Comments »

Marriage of Collectivism and Religion

Posted by Jerry on February 16, 2006

Collectivism is an ideology that trumps the supremacy of a group over an individual. It is the lack of a strong or coherent identify of the individual self. Many philosophers believe that it is impossible to know, let alone define, what the “self” really is. They argue that identity is only derivable from the Other-than-Self. Sartre, among others, held this belief as the crux of his philosophy and his formulation of the Being-for-Itself. In fact, according to Sartre, a person would be acting on bad faith and would be insincere in making any claims of “I am” because not only is one’s consciousness always changing and never static but also there isn’t any concept of self-consciousness that is unamendable to objectification by the Other.

Sartre’s entire metaphysics places individuals in a state of constant conflict against each other. According to Christine Daigle who discusses Sartre’s key concepts in Philosophy Now, Issue 53, “Sartre made such a good case for this conflictual relationship [that] he had made it impossible for him to elaborate a workable ethics…. Sartre is struggling to establish an ethics that rests on reciprocity and authenticity.”

My own view is that a metaphysic that does not recognize the identity of the individual is a metaphysic of Collectivism. And any such metaphysic that is based on collectivism simply does not allow or permit any coherent and consistent ethical or moral theory to be formulated which can be applicable universally without individual conflict. Hence, every attempt to extrapolate an ethics from such a metaphysic will inevitably run into problems and dangerous inconsistencies.

Collectivism, by definition, has to mean the supremacy of the ethic of a group over the individual — the repression of a minority voice or opinion, the lack of self-determinate autonomy. Any mob mentality has to smother individual mentality. Human beings do not think alike, behave the same way, and have similar tastes or opinions. Thus, the concept of majoritarianism (the basis of democracy), mob mentality (collectivism), sacrifice of the one for the many or the other (utilitarianism and altruism), necessarily has interpersonal conflict inseparably built-in to the ethical system. A universally applicable ethics of no conflict cannot ever arise from such a system unless it is accompanied by force or divine dogma, which itself presumes a conflict and is therefore a contradiction. (This hopeless of view of universal ethics has been so deeply and unquestioningly accepted by society that now people believe it is impossible to live in a society where there can be no conflict among free and rational human beings.)

People can gather in groups and be affiliated with collective bodies based upon their chosen or accepted values. However, the attempt to spread those values upon an entire population by force or doctrine without accepting or recognizing the right of the other to choose their values is the essence of ideologies based on collectivism – at their very fundamental root, they begin by the violation of the rights of the individual; thus, they cannot possibly sustain any ethical principle that can be universally applied to all individuals.

This is where religion comes into play. Religion and cultural collectivism share an insidious synergy. An alliance of religion and collectivism necessarily leads to gross, widespread, and unspeakable violations of human rights in all cases. As I said earlier, collectivism is an ideology that simply cannot justify any ethics that could even fake a veneer of benevolent morality. Religion, however, comes in and easily paints a layer of supernaturally justified morality on the ethics of a collectivist ideology.

Violence and the violation of human rights comes most easily to those societies that have no concept of individualism; hence, no idea of individual human rights. What religion provides is a unifying and collective vision to rally around; but even more importantly, it provides a moral–and often claimed to be divine–justification for collective action. Thus, religion firmly grounds the locus of morality outside and beyond the rational faculties of an individual and in some irreproachable dogmatic authority of a supernatural Being.

For example, the collectivist tribalism observed among Africans engaged in looting, plundering, rape, and chaos reflect the interplay between their faith and their collectivist culture. Many of these Africans are Christians and many of them are Muslims, both engaged in bitter tribal war and “ethnic” cleansing. They equally revel in their depraved existence in violence; although, for the most part, the Christian Africans concede to their own genocide and thus remain consonant with their religious ethic of self-sacrifice whereas the Islamic Africans remain consonant with their religious ethic of jihad against the “infidels.”

Collectivist mobs in India have incited many protests and riots over religious, political, cultural, and social issues: each mob justifies their enforcement of morality by their respective religious beliefs: Hindu, Islamic, or Christian beliefs (e.g., Shiv Sainiks plundering cybercafes, Islamic Jihad against the “decadence” of the free West, and the Christian demand to violate freedom of speech by banning offensive movies). 

The tendency of collectivist cultures to quickly take up arms and tear the limbs off of other people or destroy someone else’s property reflects not directly a zealous practice of their respective doctrinal beliefs of religion, but their mind-set of non-identity, drowned in a mass of collectivism, that recognizes no individual body, no individual property. Religion only provides the veil of moral justification.

Their claims to religiously motivated actions merely cloaks their tribalism and evil in glossy euphemisms of “moral fiber,” “unity,” “community,” “traditional mores,” “martyrdom,” and “heavenly reward.” Their religion provides them with the psychological and spiritual justification for their violent actions that their collectivist ideology cannot possibly provide. 

In the above examples, regardless of how many voices speak out in dissent of those activities, if collectivism is the mind-set of the majority, all they need is religion to paint a veneer of a high-minded moral principle in order for them to feel justified in not only suppressing the minority dissent, but also in carrying out their dastardly evil acts.

Collectivism is not only just a philosophical ideology; it is an incredible evil in itself.  It is not enough to just study philosophical ideologies as abstract principles; rather one must think of the ramifications in concrete reality if those principles were to be put into practice. By advocating the impossibility of defining the notion of “self” and thereby abdicating the “self,” philosophers like Sartre are committing grave errors in thought, which has often led to grave evils in reality.

Posted in Culture, General Work/Life, India, Islamo-loony, My Theories and Ideas, On Collectivism, Philosophy, Rights and Morality, The Best of Leitmotif, Uncategorized | 7 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: