Racism - The Ultimate Collectivist Act

Ayn Rand in an article written about racism started out the article with this sentence, "Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism." It is an article what every American should read because it reveals so clearly the root cause of racism. Racism is not based on the individual, it is based on the collective or group.

Only with thinking about people as a group or collective can you have racism. If you think of people as individuals, you cannot. When blacks say all white people are one way or white people say something similar about blacks, you are saying that all people with a particular skin pigmentation are collectively the same. If you sincerely believed that all people are individuals and you need to judge them only by their own actions, you cannot rationally make that kind of statement.

So, where is current American society heading?

It does not seem that there has ever been a time in our history where skin color or ethnicity means more to Americans than now. From Martin Luther King's dream of a "color-blind" society we have become a color-obsessed society. MLK must have wanted everyone to be treated as an individual since this was the only way that you could achieve his dream society. So why are we so obsessed with something as superficial as skin color?

Collectivism is the political strategy of the Democratic party here in the US. Their strategy is to first create smaller collective groups, and then merge them into the larger collective, the party. They create victim/minority groups and then say that only their party will create a program to help them while villifying the Republicans for not caring about "their" concerns. Rather than treating people as individuals, they treat them as collectives, or groups. It has been very effective for them politically but is it good for the country?

Republican political philosophy is individualism, not groups, which leads to such positions as smaller government, less taxes, complete freedom of speech. Democratic positions are almost the opposite with bigger and more powerful government, more taxes, and restrictions on speech (political correctness).

Rand's prediction is that the more collective a society is, the more racist it is. Even after our last election, which in some ways likely proved Rand to be correct, America is breaking into collective groups who are competing for government money and power. Unless Americans start considering themselves as individuals rather than groups competing with each other for government largess, Martin Luther King's dream can turn into a nightmare.

Republicans Want Soldiers - Dems Want Felons

It was a fascinating contrast between the Republican party and the Democratic party on a new 'get out the vote' drive by the Democrats for this upcoming election. Who do the Democrats feel will vote for them to return to power in office? Felons! That's right, the Dems feel that convicted felons are the kind of people that agree with their policies (and ethics).

On the other hand, Republicans have always encouraged those in our brave military to vote since they tend to agree with Republican values and vote the same way.

So, here we have two kinds of classifications of people, one convicted felons and the other young people who are willing to sacrifice their life for the freedoms we all cherish. One group that breaks our laws, murders our citizens, and have no moral standards at all vs. the other group who are risking their lives every day so that we can go about our daily routine. One group that will rob you of everything you own because they believe their entitled to the rewards of your labor and the other believing that the discipline and honor they earn in the military will help them obtain their own success when they get out. One group who will use their guns to commit crimes and the other will use their guns to keep us free.

It is very revealing which group appeals to which party. I know which group of people I would prefer to belong to my party and agree with my principles (hint: it is not the criminals).

Where Hitler Left Off

There was a brief time when the world recognized the danger of anti-semitism as a sign that injustice to Jews was injustice to all. After the carnage of WWII where millions of people died, including 6 million Jews, the world was sensitive to the signs of intolerance and hatred by a large group against a minority. They were educated in the fact that the Jews were simply the proverbial "canary in the coal mine" and that Hitler's ambitions went much further than only elminating the Jews. The lesson was very expensive, causing the unnecessary deaths of over 40 million people.

Unfortunately, this sensitivity only lasted a few decades after the war and Jews (particularly Israeli Jews) are once more on the forefront of another hate campaign. According to the ADL (Anti Defamation League) in a recent statement by Abraham Foxman, the Muslim press is even worse than Nazi propaganda in demonizing the Jewish people. Muslims have taken the banner of Hitler with his Jew-hatred and are carrying it proudly aloft into battle.

What is the world doing this time?

The same thing they did last time - making excuses for the anti-semites. Once again we are being led down the primrose path that if only we understood Arabs and Muslims better we would be able to talk them out of this kind of behavior. The problem is that history has shown us time and time again that there is a time to talk and a time to fight. You will never talk these fanatics out of their hatred of Jews (and every other infidel) until you either kill them or the majority of Muslims stop supporting the idea that they are superior to Jews and any other non-Muslim. The Germans and Japanese thought they were superior as well and look what happened to them.

Islam is not superior, it is just different. The key is that just because someone is different than you are does not make them a target for you to kill. Forget the liberal hogwash about tolerance. This is true tolerance and respect that everyone on the planet should have for each other. Yes, we have differences but we still deserve respect from one another to live our lives in the pursuit of happiness for ourselves and our families.

Until the world remembers once again that Muslim hatred of Jews is a sympton of a much larger problem and they need to deal with the root of that problem even if it requires force, we will continue to march toward a time that may kill more innocent people than even Hitler did.

"Humiliating for Islam"

Abdul Raoulf, a cleric at the Herati Mosque in Afghanistan who is generally considered a moderate and was jailed several times by the Taliban for disagreeing with them was asked about Abdul Rahman, the Christian Afghan who refused to convert back to Islam. His comment was that Rahman's refusal was "humiliating for Islam" and that they should "cut off his head" for refusing to become a Muslim again.

What I find that should humiliate Islam and all Muslims is the thoroughly repugnant idea that if you become a Muslim and change your mind that you should be murdered for it. What kind of religion is that? Are we in the 21st century or are we back in Medieval times? For those individuals who may have thought about Islam as a religion for themselves, you should think again. There appears to be no turning back once that decision is made.

So, this is the Islam of tolerance and peace that we hear so much about? This is the Islam that has been hijacked by radicals but whose current laws demand that if you become an apostate from Islam you should die? How many more examples of Islamic cruelty and intolerance do Americans need before they realize that this is not just another world religion, it is a religion of hate, violence and intolerance if it is practiced in it's original form.

Anyone who still believes that Islam is equal to Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and other world faiths as a peaceful, tolerant religion which respects all people is either blind or cannot read. We have seen too much of what Islam is all about over the last decade and the sight is not pretty. Unless Muslims make a huge concerted effort to rid themselves of the ancient and barbaric laws of Sharia and join the 21st century with the rest of us, Islam will continue to humiliate itself and it's followers.

Muhammad Cartoons

Michelle Malkin has the big story on the ridiculous controversy that has been backed up by our own US State Department regarding whether or not anyone can mock Muhammad in a cartoon. So-called "peace-loving" Muslims from around the world are calling for the death and destruction of Danes and Denmark for publishing a few cartoons protraying Muhammad in various caricatures.

Here are the cartoons:




















I am publishing these on my blog to re-affirm the liberties of free speech that we cherish in this country. No angry Muslim mob will intimidate Americans and try to prevent them from exercising this right. I would call on the US State Department and President Bush to re-affirm these rights as well.

Once you start kowtowing to angry mobs you will never stop.

Broken Back Agenda

It was no surprise that "Brokeback Mountain" was nominated for eight Oscars. The Academy Awards which awards the Oscar was taken over many years ago to promote Hollywood's political agenda, not to bestow honors on the best pictures and actors. If you would have normally thought that sounded like a conspiracy theory rather than objective analysis, this nomination for Best Picture should make it perfectly clear what their agenda is.

Brokeback Mountain is a homosexual agenda film that took the macho image of the western cowboy and turned it into a homosexual fantasy piece. The film made no money when it came out despite the push to get viewers to go by film critics. Then along came the film awards where Hollywood could not wait to weigh in about how wonderful and daring they thought the film was. It started with Screen Actors Guild awards and is ending with the Academy Awards in a blatant attempt by the Hollywood elite to convince all of us, even heterosexuals, that two men in cowboy hats kissing is the most precious thing we can see. I don't think so.

Hollywood is making less money today even with increased prices at the box office. Frankly, they have lost touch with the heart of America and simply use their position, money and influence to push their own political viewpoints rather than make good movies. Out of the five movies nominated for best picture in 2005, three of them (Brokeback Mountain, Good Night and Good Luck, Munich) were clear agenda films.

What can we do? We can continue to do what we have already started doing and that is to stop supporting these agenda films with our hard-earned dollars. If you want to see a movie, pick out some of the old classics where the story lines are creative, the plots actually exist, and no one is trying to shove their political views down your throat. There was a time when Hollywood just wanted to provide good entertainment for the folks instead of indoctrinating them. Some of that period films are excellent to watch over and over again.

Since Hollywood is trying to push their Brokeback agenda on us, we should break their backs by voting with our dollars. No matter how much you hear about how "wonderful", "touching", "path-blazing", "daring" and other subjective adjectives used by the press and Hollywood over the next few weeks trying to get you to be "open-minded" and see this film, keep on riding past the theater cowboys and cowgirls.

When Good Guys Kill Bad Guys They're As Bad As The Bad Guys?

This is the simplistic morality of Spielberg and Kushner in their most recent film " Munich." It is moral relativism to the extreme. It continues to confirm a long-standing suspicion of mine that creative minds are not analytical minds and should never be trusted in serious matters such as those dealing with morality. Just look at Hollywood.

In the new Spielberg/Kushner code of morality as displayed by the moral lessons of their story of Munich is that those who kill innocents and those who kill the guilty are equally wrong. In other words, the intentional killing of any human being is wrong no matter what the circumstances. This is a purely pacifistic moral philosophy that denies the reality of evil in the world.

According to Spielberg/Kushner, we should never have retaliated for 9/11 by going after and killing those responsible. Using that same moral standard, the US should never have gone to war with Japan over Pearl Harbor or against Germany in WWII. Since it is never right to kill humans in the name of justice we should never defend ourselves when we are attacked or killed.

Fortunately, for Spielberg and Kushner, we did defend ourselves in addition to defending Europe at the cost of thousands of American lives or they would not even be alive today. In case either of them have forgotten, the Nazis were intent on killing all Jews which I assume would also apply to film directors and screenwriters. Since present-day Arabs have taken on the prestigious mantle of the Nazis as Jew-haters, they probably feel the same way.

There is a Talmudic verse that says "If a man comes to kill you, kill him first." According to Jewish law, life is always the highest moral concern. The only way to choose life when someone is intent on killing you is to kill them first. What Spielberg and Kushner also left out of the movie is that this was not just an act of vengeance but also to prevent further attacks by these same Palestinian planners in the future. From what I have read of those responsible for the decision to go after the terrorists is that the latter reason was more important than the former. The Israeli hit team served a dual purpose of carrying out justice while preventing further bloodshed of innocent Israelis in the future.

If it comes to traditional Jewish law of choosing life and self defense or the new Spielberg/Kushner moral code of surrender even if it means your life - I will always choose the traditional Jewish position. Spielberg may be a good film director but he is a terrible moral philosopher.