Dear MJ and other thoughtful Readers: As I have mentioned in many
contexts, the media is stepping-over-its-bounds to be swaying voters—
left, right or middle—via their 24/7, 365 day a year, running-
commentary on political events relative to pending elections and
referenda items. But the media is tremendously beneficial when it
shows live or recorded news events, without commentary, within a day
or so after such events. Ubiquitous cell phone cameras now allow
instantaneous airing of 'breaking' news stories just about anywhere in
the world.
One such news event is the attack on the US Embassy in Cairo. It is
easy for us in the USA to see just an angry mob doing immoral things.
When inner-city youths in some of our own major cities do similar
'immoral' things, how many of you can see the group-psychology
connection? I am convinced that religious separatism, with bias
toward none, is the dominant and most threatening influence in the
world. But such need not destroy the human race, nor threaten any of
its disparate groups, if the people of the world will realize simple
truths and see common solutions to the problems facing us.
Though I have not studied Islam as a religion, I have reached several
conclusions using a combination of 'osmosis' and reason. First,
Muhammad was an exceptional and highly motivated man. His Koran was a
race-unifying document, perfect for the 7th century in which it was
written. It was an instruction book on how to live a successful life
in an era dominated by world barbarism. It used such things as prayer
rituals to help unify the faithful against their common enemies. And
it protected women from becoming the spoils of conflicts, by dressing
them in 'non-provocative' ways. That was fourteen centuries ago.
Today, Muhammad probably wouldn't put so much emphasis on rituals that
are now causing much of the world to be riled. When over a billion
people start acting the same way, the 'group' identity becomes
stronger than normal moral judgment.
Typically, the larger the group, the more insignificant a member
feels. Feeling insignificant as individuals is what motivates Black
youths to form 'rule-the-night' gangs, complete with well defined
"turf" that they will defend with violence. A youth's status in the
group depends on their having near total adherence to the accepted
code of conduct of that group.
Throughout the ages, people have rallied around the strongest and most
committed leaders who emerge. In becoming a follower, there was
little discussion of morals nor of ideology. It was: Take sides under
the leader of the group most likely to WIN. That same almost-primal
desire to side with a strong, and even immoral leader, accounts for
Obama's recent 'bounce' in the poles following the DNC. When people
are "stressed"—as by the present economy and political fisticuffs—they
want a leader who looks and sounds like someone who will fight and
win. They couldn't care less that morals favor Romney and Ryan.
What they did notice is that Romney deliberately avoided having any
emotional attacks be leveled at Obama. The suggested rationale for
pulling his punches was that it wasn't desired to 'offend' any of the
on-the-fence undecided voters who might switch to Romney. But by
seeming to be too calm and passive, Romney and Ryan may be shooting
themselves in the feet.
A Democrat is someone who will lie and cheat, without apparent
remorse, if doing so will improve the chances of winning. The voters,
even those on the left, probably know lies are being said, but they
see any person willing to lie and cheat as being a stronger person
than someone who is moral and straight. Apparently, Paul Ryan jogs
and works out, and is a darling with some of the women. But on a
stage, he looks like a wimp rather than a strong leader. My well-
considered recommendation to the Republicans is to start showing
yourselves as being FIGHTING mad, rather than trying to convince the
voters how "nice" and well-intended you are. Nothing about Barack
Obama, the anti-Christ, is well-intended. Yet, the poles show his
following is far higher than any such rascal like him should be.
The group psychology for Islamic youths places the 'power' in the
hands those who are the most militant and adamant supporters of Islam
and of Sharia Law. The resulting acts of violence stem from the group-
wide feeling of insignificance among the poorer Islamic youths.
Capitalism is attacked because capitalism represents success, and the
USA represents success. Amazingly, learning how to succeed in a
Capitalist world will help to defuse the colossal anger that seems to
be pent-up in Islamic communities. Israel, in particular, should take
a major role in teaching capitalism to Muslims, because they took land
not their own by military force.
If Muhammad could see two different worlds, which of these do you
suppose he would prefer for his followers: 1. A world ruled by
violence and wars being carried out in his name. Or… 2. A world in
which his followers are successful and happy, and are being accepted
as equals without having divisive rituals and dress, and without
violating the human rights of any of the members. I know which one
Muhammad would choose. Do you?
Respectfully submitted,
John A. Armistead
Author and Patriot
__________
On Sep 10, 12:53 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Some people attribute man's life as 'given' by God. This does NOT change the fact that man exists. Similarly, some people attribute man's right to life as 'given' by God.
> Rights -- natural rights -- are inherent in man's being. This is not unlike his having opposable thumbs, for instance. If you wish to claim that God gave you opposable thumbs OR that a rock gave them to you ... it simply does not change the reality that man has opposable thumbs.
> The CENTRAL premise is that every man has a right to life; his own life; self-ownership. I man had no right to his life, he would be a slave.
> Legitimate Government, then, SECURES that right to life (and its legitimate corollaries) <period>.
> Regard$,
> --MJ
> From all which it is evident, that though the things of Nature are given in common, man (by being master of himself, and proprietor of his own person, and the actions or labour of it) had still in himself the great foundation of property; and that which made up the great part of what he applied to the support or comfort of his being, when invention and arts had improved the conveniences of life, was perfectly his own, and did not belong in common to others. -- John LockeAt 08:28 AM 9/10/2012, you wrote:MJ: There has been a lot of discussion, lately, about "rights" coming
> from God, not from government. It seems to me that the Founding
> Fathers' mention of God as being the fountainhead of our rights is a
> short synonym for "the moral consensus'. Moral consensus certainly
> trumps government power, including the treasonous dictatorial power of
> Obama and his unconstitutional czars. There is a very neurotic
> tendency of a large percentage of the population (but not the
> majority) to see "God" as the giver of all good things. Those same
> people all too willingly excuse God for the bad things that happen,
> like killer storms. They feel "highly connected" by supposing they
> are being "favored" by God, because of their ritualistic devotion. My
> own definition of God is: "The personification of all of the Natural
> Laws in the Universe, which have always existed and which will always
> exist."
> It is a very bad thing, indeed, when neurotic people like Mike
> Huckabee, lambaste those Democrats who had desired that their platform
> be secular. The "mentioning" of God in any political context is a
> movement to allow (a) religion, with all of its head-buried-in-the-
> sand blindness, to ultimately control our government in much the way
> that Muslims want religion to control theirs. There is this not too
> flattering attitude among the Bible Thumpers that they are better than
> others because they "worship" the law of probability that allows them
> to have (thus far) gotten good things from the "laws of nature".
> Being 'addicted' to one's religion doesn't bode too well for such
> people being very deep and self-determining thinkers. But those who
> are so addicted aren't necessarily bad people, just naïve ones. — J.
> A. Armistead —
> On Sep 4, 10:52 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > EVERY Individual has a (natural) right to life; their own life; self-ownership. EVERY other (natural) right is a corollary of this ideal. EVERY other (natural) right is NEGATIVE -- it requires no one to provide for it.
> > Government -- LEGITIMATE Government -- secures (natural) rights <period>.
> > EVERY action a Government does CONTRARY to securing (natural) rights NECESSARILY provides advantage to some at the expense of everyone else. Said government NECESSARILY violates (natural) rights.
> > What is a 'logical, agreed-upon' amount of theft?
> > I say it is ZERO and do not agree upon *ANY* amount greater. Therefore, it is not 'agree-upon'. No what?
> > You want a Government that does MORE? Fund it VOLUNTARILY rather than by theft. What better measure of 'want'? What better application of 'democracy'?
> > Regard$,
> > --MJ
> > "If the government can take a man's money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists." -- Lysander SpoonerAt 05:38 AM 9/3/2012, you wrote:MJ: Many of the 'natural rights' regard what one does with their own
> > time and money, not what gets done by governments after some logical,
> > agreed-upon portion of one's taxes get allocated to be spent by
> > governments. Most of these philosophical issues are ballooning out of
> > control, lately, because too many people see governments as the cure
> > for every ailment. You and I don't think that way, do we.
> > Personally, I'm unhappy with having so much of our money being spent
> > to fight largely un winnable wars. I'm with Ron Paul on what the
> > scope of governments need to be: smaller!
> > It offends my logic, greatly, that so many of the right-to-lifers
> > value the "innocent" blue-print-only early dividing cells following
> > conception more than they value the lives of grown men and women with
> > families who are getting killed and maimed in wars. I believe the
> > unborn have rights, but not beginning at conception. An aircraft
> > taking off on a runway will pass what is known as the point-of-no-
> > return—meaning that its ground speed is too great to allow slamming-on-
> > the-brakes and returning to the terminal. For me, I would place the
> > "pro-choice" time limit at 2.5 to 3 months. After that time, the
> > rights of the unborn should begin to take precedence. I'm offended,
> > even more so, by those people, including many say-anything-to-win
> > politicians, who think they are being pious-next-to-God for putting
> > diapers on a speck of cells too small to be seen without a magnifying
> > glass. Those same pious, mental lightweights think they are being
> > 'closer to God' to suppose that the Universe was constructed in just
> > six days, and that any scientist who thinks otherwise is an
> > underling. Religions, taken as a whole, are divisive and hurtful
> > institutions offering little assurance that the various members will
> > be getting a favored route to heaven. When the Founding Fathers
> > wanted our government to be secular, they surely knew what they were
> > doing! Those who get mad at symbols, like the 9/11 cross in the
> > debris, simply need to be minding their own business, NOT trying to
> > tell others how to mind theirs. — J. A. Armistead —
> > On Aug 19, 5:37 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > I truly do not know WHY ....At 01:23 AM 8/19/2012, you wrote:The pending lawsuit is unconstitutional, because having no belief
> > > isn t a protected religion. Even if it were, the mere paying of some
> > > of one s taxes to construct the 9/11 museum would not empower Atheists
> > > to dictate anything to anyone. Yes, every right can have a
> > > corresponding opposing right so long as the latter isn t a crime or
> > > isn t disallowed by the present Constitution.Natural rights are negative -- they require nothing on the part of others.
> > > Rights have NOTHING to do with what some group decides is a 'crime' NOR what the Constitution allows/disallows.
> > > All legitimate (natural) rights are derived from an Individual's right to life; his own life; self-ownership.
> > > It is certainly IMMORAL as well as a violation of one's rights to have their money forcibly taken.
> > > Legitimate Government SECURES (natural) rights <period>. A Government that does *anything* beyond such necessarily violates rights and is immoral -- no different from any other gang.
> > > Regard$,
> > > --MJ
> > > There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him. -- Robert Heinlein
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment