What if Islam were not a religion?

So I started thinking the other day about the so-called peaceful religion of Islam. Take a look at the internet on any given day on any given news website, and you will see pictures and stories that do not paint Islamic people in a very good light. As a matter of convenience go to google and type in 'terrorism", and see if you can find a story that does not involve Muslim, Islamist, or some variety of an Islamic person. You cant. My apologies the Christian Terrorist, Hindu terrorist, and the Wiccan terrorist groups but you must fall really low on the terrorist interest on Google, because on the first 10 pages I find nothing but Muslims.
    But the Muslims claim that they are peaceful, and that these are just extremist who distort their peace loving religion, into this violent and venom spewing front. Here is the problem with their assertion. As a majority Judea-Christian Society we do not put up with a few bad examples tarnishing our religions. Sure there are fringe elements like Eric Robert Rudolf, and the Westboro Baptist Church, and you have the old nutbags, like Pat Robertson always putting their feet in their mouth. But overall, we (the Judea-Christian majority) are quick to denounce these groups, and in the case of Eric Robert Rudolf we hunted him down, and helped the authorities. I remember on 9-11, watching the images of the Islamic world. Of these people celebrating in the streets, as our fellow citizens were dead, or dying. Burning the US flag, as they celebrated doing their little chant. I swear if I were the President of the United States, I would have sent cruise missiles into the streets of these Islamic Cities and killed every "muthafuckin last one of em". That's the day I decided that they (Muslims) were not friends, not allies, not misunderstood, not oppressed by Israel and the west, not a peaceful religion. They were killers. Cold blooded murderers that celebrated the murders in their streets, and to me that meant that they were all guilty.
     So what if Islam was not a religion? What if it were the Boy Scout instead? The Boy Scouts have a book (the Scout Handbook), the have a Law which they are required to follow, they have a Motto, and even swear an Oath to the Boy Scouts. So, what if the Boy Scouts were all around the world (they are) and each week they went out camping in the woods, and they talked about how life would be best in the world if everyone followed the Scout Law? As a matter of fact they decided that anyone who would not follow the Scout Law, and swear allegiance by reciting the Scout Oath, would be killed. What if the Boy Scouts made it know in videos, newspapers, websites, magazines, and other media outlets that this was their desire, to convert eveyone to become Boy Scouts (or Girl Scouts I suppose), and that they would kill anyone that didn't go along ith their wishes. they would probably be widely ignored, but what if then they actually started sending in the younger Cub Scouts into crowded marketplaces with bombs strapped on them., set to blow up innocent not Boy Scouts. they kidnap other non Boy Scouts, and take videos of them slicing off the heads of people that would not become Boy Scouts. How would we react to the Boy Scouts? Would we allow the Boy Scouts to enter our country, because some other Boy Scouts proclaim that Boy Scouts are a peaceful organization. I mean there is nothing in, A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent that would cause any alarm, so they must be just mis-understood. But would they get the benefit of the doubt? The violence has been perpetrated by the Boy Scouts, there is evidence to this, as a matter of fact violence and terrorist hits happen almost every single day with thousands of people dieing every year, and in 99.9% of the time there are Boy Scouts involved. How friendly would we all be to the Boy Scouts if this were the case?
      Yet this is exactly what we do with Islamists. Every day around the world people are killed by them, and the people of Europe allow them to enter their countries and not integrate, but force them to allow their culture to remain, even though their culture requires the submission of the in place culture. If Islam wasn't a religion but were like the Boy Scouts we would not be falling all over ourselves like our weak and pathetic Attorney General who cant bring himself to recognize the enemy. He cant say the words Islamic and terrorist in the same sentence, so how are we to believe that this administration can fight against it. If it were the Boy Scouts they would have no problem attacking them. They have already been attacked by the left. Maybe if the Boy Scouts were a religious organization they wouldn't be attacked, but then again they had better be a non-Christian religion or else they would still be fair game. 
    So I claim now and forever, that Islam is not a religion. If anything they are a cult, and as such, they have no special rights here in this country, nor around the world.  If they are not a cult, or a secular organization, then they have blown it. The "peaceful" part of their "religion should have culled out the bad apples, because now the whole bunch is spoiled. And what should one do with spoiled apples but to throw them away.

Damn NeoCons!!

I love how so many people label others"neo-cons" without a full understanding of the term. I decided that there are so many on this "Libertarian-Anarchy-Ron Paulian" tack that if one says, "The Iraq war was justified" how quickly these folks scream NEOCON!!!. As if someone with a different opinions on the foreign policy than Ron Paul, suddenly qualifies them as a NEOCON!!!!. God forbid they also may love Jesus or something. That's a sure way to spot NEOCONS!!!. I've determined that most of the Libertarian-Anarchy-Ron Paulians (see how easy it is to throw labels on people) are just liberal-progressives that realized they couldn't believe that bullshit anymore, They opened their eyes a little and saw a way they could still hate Bush, and not be a dumbass. Anyway. I think I heard something from a Neocon the other day that made sense. The American People do not have the willpower to win a war anymore. I agree with him. We should get the hell out of all foreign countries immediately. There is just no need for us to be anywhere but here. With technology today, we can absolutely, positively destroy anything, and kill anyone that we would like, without having to leave the comforts of our air conditioning.

Being Barack Hussein Obama

 I've decided to go where no man has gone before; inside the head of the President of the United States of America, the "leader of the free world", the commander in chief, Barack Hussein Obama.

Let me be clear....  for part one of my speech I will use my superior ability to say a lot of shit without saying anything that people will see on the top as bad, but once they actually see what I say, the right in the country will go mad, and the left will also go mad with kissing my ass. So first of all, BP bad, and I'm gonna make those suckas pay regardless of whether I have the authority. I just told not only the American public, but also the world that if a company does something wrong, I will personally make them pay. Regardless of what contracts we may have had with them, I will pull a Hugo Chavez on their asses, and MAKE them pay into a fund. (A fund? You mean like the Social Security lockbox?) Not only do they have to pay for actual damages, but also perceived damages. (this is similar to the jobs, saved or created just FYI) Forget the court system that has been put in place for people to sue an individual for harm that has been caused them, I will MAKE them pay based on what we think they owe. Of course we get to decided who has been damaged, and who will get what compensation. In other words BP, it would behoove you, to pack up all of your shit, and leave the American continent and do business elsewhere, cause I am gonna fuck you, and use you as my personal piggy bank to fund those that I like. If you don't think I can take over your company, take a look at General Motors. I mean  I have nationalized other industries of US companies, I should be able to use my Fascist ways to nationalize foreign companies too. I bet companies the world over are going to be running towards the US to set up shop now. ha ha! This will ruin the economy even quicker that I have planned. Muwhahahaha!

Part 2 of my speech will be focused on Climate Change. Never letting a crisis (even one that I caused, or could have stopped quickly) go to waste. I am going to spend the majority of my time tonight campaigning (really the only thing I do is campaign. It's one media program or stump speech to the next. I have no ability to actually lead or govern, but I give a great stump speech and the main stream media is really just an arm of the White House propaganda corps (pronounced corpse) and they help me with my empty suit rhetoric, so that most of the dumb masses will buy the media bundle of opinions that we provide for them, as they are too concerned with the NBA finals, or American Idol, or the Real Housewives of some place, to really notice I am raping and pillaging this country better than Nikita Kruschev, or Adolph Hitler could have done. Those guys were brutes, and look at how I take it all without firing a shot. Oh back to my speech part b) I will call for legislation and regulations on an enemy that does not exists, but as previously mentioned we have sold to the dumb masses, with the help of the dumb masses' heros like Leonardo DiCaprio, and Ben Affleck, and of course my brother from another mother, Al Gore. We will tax energy (kill jobs) and promote industries that provide "green job" (not sustainable without government subsidies, once again killing real jobs and the economy), all to combat Global Warming, or Climate Change, or whatever nifty phrase the front groups of anti-capitalist organizations want to sell. It matters not at all that there is no evidence of any "climate change", the celebrities have sold it, and if it kills the economy so that I can instill a new version then it is doing as intended.

Finally, I will say a few words here, that will try to endear you to me. To the right, and other smart people these words will hurt and disgust them like masturbating with a cheese grater, but to the useful idiots, and the dumb masses, it will comfort them, and reassure them that I really care about them and the country, whereas I could give a shit about them, and as far as the country,  am just here to destroy the economy, and make the US weaker to it's enemies. So far, so good. God bless the United States of America. (I am so laughing inside my head every time I say this. I am not only mocking the country but "God" too. I kill myself, I am so funny)

Why I am anti-abortion, and don't care if you are not.

"Pathetic Insignificant Bitch" deleted me today because I posted an anti-abortion picture.  He called me intellectually dishonest. I am positive I could really not give a flying fornication whether  "Pathetic Insignificant Bitch"  is a friend of mine or not, but when I am accused of "intellectual dishonesty" I take offense at that. I posted no opinion about the picture, I just put it on my page because I found it to be informative, and I believe that many of the pro-abortion folks think of this as a medical procedure the likes or removing a cyst, or a tumor. I suppose  "Pathetic Insignificant Bitch"  is a pro-abortion guy, who does not want to face the fact that what he supports is the removal of a little individual human. DO you hear that  "Pathetic Insignificant Bitch" ??? A little individual, the smallest minority, a being with it's own unalienable rights, among those being LIFE, LIBERTY, and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

I don't play in the "Pro-life, or Pro-choice" lexicon because I find both labels incorrect. The procedure is called abortion, and they occur naturally, and that is sad, but the abortions I am concerned about ore the abortion induced by another person. People are either pro-abortion or anti-abortion. This whole "pro-choice" label is stupid on the face, and dis-honest in it's use. Whenever anyone uses the term "Pro-choice" the user is already submitting to an untruth. By calling a living individual a "Choice" they are granting ownership to the mother. If one is "pro-choice" meaning that they are allowing themselves to make a choice whether an individual being lives or dies, then why are they inconsistent? If it is okay to kill this individual being at 30 days of life, why is it then not okay to kill the individual at 6 years of life? Does an individual gain more right to life as they grow? So to be "intellectually honest" let's stop by being dishonest in the "pro-choice" cutesy label.

You are either pro-abortion, or anti-abortion.

I dont really care if someone is pro-abortion. I disagree with them on this position, and would try to persuade them towards my position. However, someone making a stand against me because I am anti-abortion is stupid. This one issue is the most dividing issue in our country. A FB friend compares it to slavery, and I think she has nailed it square on the head. Slavery was the most divisive issue of it's day, and although there were many that argued for it's continuation, and many would still agree today, that  they had valid reasons for trying to keep the despicable institution, however, just because they had  valid reasons, does not change the fact that human beings can not own another human being as property. So if it is a truth that one can not own another individual human, what gives a mother the right to kill and dispose of another human. I suppose the grand question is when does the dividing cells become a human? I have no idea. Frankly I would like to think that as soon as the cells have a heartbeat that that is life. Maybe your instinct is that it is as soon as sperm meets egg, implants and begins to divide, but surely it is not 4 months in, with eyes, ears, nose, and arms, and toes.

Unfortunately, there is a religious aspect to this whole issue, and I feel that the reason this is unfortunate is that there are many people who would come off as religious zealots with this issue, and others that run away from anything that has to do with religion at all. I am not anti-abortion because of religion. I personally follow Jesus, but I would not say that it has any bearing on my opinion of this. Contrary to what "Pathetic Insignificant Bitch"  has said, I have chosen the anti-abortion side of this debate because of the rights of the individual. It is exactly Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, and Objectivism that led my to change my mind on this. Why is the rights of a women allow that individual to kill another individual. The second individual is the responsibility of the first individual. I contend that the act of having sex is an implied contract between two people. These two people are agreeing that they are responsible enough to have sex, and accepts the responsibility of the act. One of the side effects of sex is pregnancy. There are many different ways to stop this from happening, but the only 100% way of preventing pregnancy is not having sex. If after a woman has taken preventative measures, and the man has taken preventative measures, and a pregnancy still happens, I would look at this as a medical miracle, and not have the guts to kill the miracle child. I do not believe however that most women, and men who engage in sex, actually take the precautions that could be taken to prevent the pregnancy. Therefore, whenever a pregnancy occurs, that individual has rights. In my opinion the only valid reasons for an abortion is in the cases of incest, rape, or if the mother's life is in danger. Otherwise, it is the mother's responsibility to carry the baby,taking care of the baby during the gestation period, and deliver the baby. If the child is unwanted, then it can be given up for adoption at that time. There are thousands of groups that will take a baby for adoption. This living being inside a woman is not a tumor to get rid of. It is not a cyst that can kill the mother. What can possible be a valid reason for killing this little individual? The way I see it besides the reasons I gave above, the only reason that an abortion is performed is the convenience and comfort of the mother. And one's convenience and discomfort do not override another's right to Life.

{Updated 10-12-12}

So why do I make the exceptions for Life of the mother, Rape and Incest? Because with Rape and Incest (at least incest involving a minor) are not done willingly. The female has NOT consented, and therefore is NOT responsible. Is that baby/fetus/little humanoid less valuable than another baby/fetus/little humanoid? No, however it does not exist as a result of irresponsibility, but of instead an unjust act. Personally I feel like it should be preserved as well, but I will not make a negative moral judgement against a victim for deciding to kill it.

Why life of the mother is excluded? Because if B/F/LH may kill the mother, then it's the mother's right to defend themselves, as an individual. There are women who will choose to sacrifice themselves for their baby, and that is beyond admirable, but I would not blame a woman for having an abortion to defend her own life, anymore than I would blame a person who kills a bad guy breaking into their house.

{End of Update 10-12-12}


 Saying that I am being intellectually dishonest, or that  I am not an "Objectivist" because I hold this view is a lot over the line. a) I've checked the Objectivist Handbook(doesn't exist) and there is nothing in there about abortion. b) I have not claimed to be an Objectivist, a Christian, an Atheist, a Republican, a Libertarian, a Randian, a Paulian or any other ist or ian. I have "owned" to be a part of the John Galt Party of One. Not the Ayn Rand Party, or the Atlas Shrugged Party or the Ron Paul Party. The John Galt Party of One, which basically means that I can believe in whatever the fuck I want.

So really, who has put more thought into this than me?

Why Ragnar?

Why Ragnar? Why not the hero, John Galt, or the perfect Francisco D'Anconia? Why not the stubborn Hank Rearden, or Dagny Taggart who fought till there was no more fight in her? Why Ragnar?
John Galt is a leader, someone to look up to, and ideal man, and an heroic figurehead. He stands as a perfect example, almost Christlike, in his single purpose, his clarity of vision, his philosophy, and his will. I am not an entire 180 degree oppositie of that, but almost. I am not perfect certainly would never be confused with Christ, I have things that I am currently working on, my philosophy although unique, is constantly changing. I may be a rock solid theolgian of Objectivism today, Christianity tomorrow, Conservatism next week, Libertarian the week after. I change, and am not a devotee of any of these poitical oer religious philosophies. I see Ragnar as being the same about those thoughts. Think about it, if the perfect John Galt, and Fransisco D'Anconia didn't agree with Ragnar's methods, does this alone not prove my theory; that Ragnar Danneskjöld is indeed the individual of the three friends? John hatches the plan, and Frisco follows the plan exactly, but not Ragnar. Ragnar when he is shown the plan understands the injustice, and instead of being passive like Frisco and John, he is the only one that takes proactive measures to bring about change. So when I am on a social networking site and somebody tells me that "This guy does not honor the nickname he uses, Ayn Rand would be ashamed of you Ragnar." or "No, you are a criminal, and Ragnar was the contrary of that. Ragnar was a hero who used violence, and not someone who initiated the use of violence against innocent individuals. You have no ethics."  This sort of thing makes me a little miffed. I have put a lot of thought into this whole Ragnar persona. I could have chosen another pseudonym like Bob Smith, or Lucy Miller, but I chose Ragnar for a specific purpose. I aspire to be like Ragnar, or at least how I perceive Ragnar to be, which is a lot more than what Ms. Rand put him to doing in fiction.


Best!
RD

Get in their faces!

A Facebook friend I was helping a little today, brought up a great point to me. I was recommending my friends to become friends with him, and as the folks started becoming facebook friends with him, I started warning him that some folks are a little different. I have liberals, libertarians, Randians, Paulians, conservatives, Yankee conservatives, and a variety of different backgrounds. He asked why I would try to warn him of these folks, and I said, well some of them are very different philosophically or ideologically then he was, and some of them are very abrasive and such. He then told me something that should have been obvious, but for some reason I had not grasped yet. He said, "you know what...? we need to start infiltrating more liberal sites and pages and other wankers like that...
this is doing no good to preach to the choir..." I replied back "I've been feeling that a lot of what we do is sit around telling each other how awesome and brilliant we are."

So there it was. A gauntlet has been thrown down. I realized that I "liked" things that I supported, and if someone had posted something I didn't agree with, I just ignored them. That is going to stop now for me. There is one lady in particular that if I last until Monday before she drops me, I'll be surprised. I see her threaten to drop people all the time. It makes me laugh.

So my plan is this. We could sit here and cannibalize each other, by disagreeing on small issues, while the large issues that we do agree on get pushed aside, OR We can get in the face of the real enemies. The leftist and the statists, the Obama apologists, those that say we are racist due to our dissent, the anti-capitalist, and the populist ( I know many of the "conservatives and others on the right also have this populist slant, but we will delve into that later. Lets move out of our comfort zones, of being in groups with people who only think like we do. Jump in the middle of a hornets nest, and fight these liberals, with facts, statistics, and logic. Try to leave personality, race, and other non-factors out of it. If yuou call someone a Fascist be able to tell them why you think they are. If they are a collectivist, be able to explain how that is different than a socialist.

So that's it. Nothing mind-blowing, but just a little different than what we may be doing right now. Jump in the ring, and get bloody. Hit someone and make a difference. The far left, there is no hope for, but there are middle people in these forums with the far left. Go for the middle folks. Explain why freedom and liberty are our only hope, and how the Statist are taking these freedom and liberties away. GET IN THEIR FACES AND FIGHT!!!

BEST!
RD