| Home | About | Contact | Books | Links | Search |
 |
|
 Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores by Michelle Malkin
[Autonomist Books]
Find more
For the largest selection, lowest prices, and fastest delivery of books for liberty lovers: |
|
ASAP
I have to explain this sometime, somewhere, and ASAP seems the right place to do it. The Philosophy Series continues with the latest two articles (actually one article in two sections) on metaphysics. Next up, ontology, which will be both more interesting and more controversial To the question, which philosophy is this series about, the answer is just philosophy. A lot of it will be identical or similar to Ayn Rand's Objectivism, some of it will not, and some will be like no other philosophy because it has never been written before. Is this my philosophy? It is my philosophy if you mean, is this the philosophy I hold and live by; it is not my philosophy if you mean, did I think it all up all by myself. Where did my philosophy come from? It comes from forty years of studying philosophy, the major philosophers, and most minor ones, as well as Christian theology and the teachings of most other religions, it comes from studying history, psychology, anthropology, and science. It comes from thinking, refusing all contradictions, and not accepting anything as an answer to any question that cannot be clearly understood, explicitly stated, and rationally verified. I must also say something about the series. Philosophy is a very big subject and I intend to cover the whole field of philosophy from metaphysics to aesthetics. I am fully aware of the enormity of such a project. Anything approaching an exhaustive treatment of so large a field is impossible, at least in the number of years I have left. It will be necessary to take some shortcuts. If you have read the first few articles, you will notice a great many subjects have been introduced, but in most cases, there is not an in-depth treatment of these subjects. I have tried to make the essential principles under each subject as clear as possible, but there are many nuances, side issues, and interrelationships with other subjects that have been omitted. The first task is to get the principles down, then, as there is time and opportunity, a more in depth treatment of the more important subjects can be made. Also, along the way, when I believe some subject has already been fully developed by another philosopher, I may simply point to that philosopher's work on that subject, with whatever comments I think are necessary. The essentials of my philosophy were established over twenty years ago, and I am still using notes I made thirty years ago. Along the way, I am certain to have learned and adopted ideas from many resources I have consulted. Some of the ideas in my philosophy that are not original may simply be coincidental, some may be derived from sources I have forgotten, and some I know I learned from others I will attempt to acknowledge. I will not try to go back and discover where, and from whom, I learned every word I write however. If anyone notices anything in this philosophy they believe someone else deserves credit for, I hereby give them that credit, and if I am made aware of it, I will give them that credit explicitly and publicly. There are things in this philosophy which are bound to be controversial, and others that will be strongly disagreed with, and still more that I may not explain well enough to be readily understood. I hope everyone will feel free to make their views, their disagreements, and questions known, and will use the forum for that purpose so we all can share in the discussion.
Did AIDS kill Arafat? Well according these stories in the Israel Insider Hospital concealment strengthens suspicion: Arafat died of AIDS and the Jerusalem Newswire Homosexual Arafat said dying of AIDS, it did. It certainly fits, since his homosexuality is well known from such sources as, a "set of surveillance videos taken by his former communist allies in Romania showing Arafat in perverted encounters with his bodyguards."He may be the richest queer in history, too. Do you know where he got his money? Well some of it was from the drug trade but a good piece of it came from you if you are tax-paying American. Its how your government fights terrorism, by making the terrorists rich." We can see how well that tactic works in this CNS story Arafat Leaves Legacy of Violence, Terrorism, Chaos. Besides documenting the crime and corruption, it says, "His legacy was to create a "whole generation of death culture," ... "He's done more than anyone to promote terrorism." Did Arafat die of AIDS? PastaBagel says he did, but more importantly, if you don't want any more Arafat's, he knows what to do. "Now, I say kill them, and let someone else take their place. And then kill the replacement a day or two after he takes over. Make it clear that you will kill anyone who takes the job. After a half-dozen iterations, you’ve wiped out the entire roster. People don’t take these jobs because they want to become martyrs. That’s why bin Laden is spelunking, Saddam was hiding, and why Arafat fled to Paris to have Chirac kiss his boo boo. These guys want everyone else to be a martyr for them. But they want power for themselves. "... If “Arab revolutionary leader” becomes synonymous with “corpse", people will stop fighting over the job. Who is the current leader of Hamas? You don’t know. That’s because Israel killed the old one, and then killed his replacement. People are now reluctant to step forward." When it comes to terrorists, I suppose it is really a tough political decision our leaders must make. Kill them, or make them rich. I wonder which they will choose.
The Autonomist is not my favorite subject, Freedom and Truth are my favorite subjects, The Autonomist is just a good place to find them. This is about freedom, and the fact most people do not want it, and go out of their way to prove to you, they not only do not want it, they do not even know what it is. I posted my Freedom Poll ASAP to Free Republic yesterday and the responses are very revealing. Have a look. I have received some criticism/questions about "my writers." That, evidently requires some explanation. The truth is, "Writers" listed on the home page, Articles By Date page, and Articles By Author page are writers whose work is featured on The Autonomist, and nothing more. The are not The Autonomist's writers. Some articles are solicited from these writers by The Autonomist, some are written specifically for The Autonomist, and most are submitted by the authors or their agents to The Autonomist. The Authors are listed so anyone looking for articles by a particular author can find them more easily. I know most of my readers understand these things, but there are some who are not familiar with Internet publications and suppose they are the same as print publications. For example. another criticism regarded the copyright notice, which appears at the bottom of each page. That copyright, of course, is standard "boiler-plate" for Internet pages. It does not pertain to all the content, which is frequently the property of the authors or their agents, and is not an attempt to claim a copyright on anyone else's work. Since the Autonomist is not an advocate of so-called intellectual property, the copyright notice at the bottom of The Autonomist pages is primarily for the protection of the authors whose works are copyrighted. And that's that!
There has been some recent interest in my series on intellectual property, "Patent Absurdity and Tyranny of the Mind," which prompted me to include the article: "Patents Are An Economic Absurdity". The article is superior to my own series, which is only a compilation of discussions on the subject which does not give the subject the serious treatment the current article does. It is also interesting because it primarily deals with software patents and from a European perspective. It also fits in with my current emphasis on freedom and the fact that most people do not really want it, or even know what it is. However much people claim to be for individual liberty, almost everyone is certain there is something about individual's lives that must be regulated and enforced at the point of gun. One of the revealing concepts about person's view of freedom is their stand on the question of intellectual property. Many of those who passed Russ Madden's "THE FREEDOM QUIZ" in my10/22/04 ASAP as, "gold standard," would not have if he had included a question on intellectual property. I know just how the question ought to have been worded: The government must sometimes prevent people from being free to act and choose on their own ideas, if someone else happens to think of those ideas before they do, or they happen to have learned those ideas from someone else. Yes or No? Stay tuned, because that is exactly the question that will be asked in an upcoming poll.
In yesterday's 11/05/04 ASAP I said no one wants freedom. According to at least three writers, when people have a chance to vote for freedom, they do not. But I already knew that. I introduced Russ Madden's "THE FREEDOM QUIZ" in my10/22/04 ASAP. So far only eleven people both understand what freedom is and want it. Everyone else is, we presume, for some kind of limits on individual freedom. Russ Madden makes the point in his article, "One Freedom," that there is only freedom, and one is either free or they are not. There are not degrees of slavery. If you want to know just how badly the nature of freedom is understood, take a look at the latest version of Russ' Atlas magazine. I am convinced, most people really do not want to be free. This weeks poll, How Much Freedom Should There Be? Please vote in this poll. (Please wait for the page to fully load. The poll is on the left side.)
One of the advantages of a "free market of ideas" is it provides an opportunity to see where those seeking freedom, above all other things, agree. There are often shared insights from very diverse views that would otherwise never be made apparent. Sometimes those insights are very subtle, and for that reason, much more important to make explicit. One that I was very surprised to discover came from three very different points of view—from two article about the recent election, one by an evangelical Christian, the other by a Libertarian, and a third article by a radical individualist about the morality of taxes. What could these possibly be in agreement about? Beginning with "The Moral Case Against Taxation" by David MacGregor, who certainly doesn't believe religion is the solution to anything, nevertheless understands that freedom means, those who do think religion is the solution must be free to practice and promote their religion. His article is about the immoral nature of taxes. One of the immoral aspects of taxes is that it forces people to involuntarily support government actions which they find morally reprehensible, and provides, among others, this example: "If you are a fundamentalist Christian, would you be happy paying tax to a government that was offering free abortions on demand? Would you feel comfortable knowing your money was paying for something you personally believed to be immoral?" According to Chuck Baldwin, in his latest (very entertaining and poignantly humorous, even if you disagree with his religious views) article, "Christians And Conservatives Can Go Back To Sleep Now, Because The Boogey Man Is Gone," Christians apparently do not mind funding government's outrages at all, no matter how immoral, they just don't want the Democrats to do it. Scott Kauzlarich then makes the same observation in his very provocative article, "Is Politics the Answer?" When people have an opportunity to vote for freedom, he says, they don't. David MacGregor agrees, "Forget about voting for change. It will never happen." And he asks, "What is the solution? Well, I can't see any government making a decision to voluntarily give up taxation," or any of the other oppressive measure it has planned for us, I might add. Scott Kauzlarich doesn't believe there is a solution either, at least not one that has been identified. And he's right, because what these men of widely diverse views all agree on, is people just do not want freedom. Of course, that is what The Autonomist has been saying all along. It is hopeful, at least, that more and more people are beginning to wake up to that fact. The question is, what if you happen to be one of those few who really do want freedom, one who does not want the government funding what anybody finds morally unacceptable, one who knows how to live your life without the government telling you what to do and when to do it? What is the individual who does want freedom to do? Chuck probably does not worry about it, since he believes, ultimately, someone else is going to take care of it. Scott is right, there is no political solution, but that does not mean there is no solution. David is the only one who identifies that solution. It is the same one the Autonomist has identified. If you want to be free, from taxes or anything else, you are going to have to free yourself.
In the midst of work and wrangling with issue and dealing with people, the normal clamor and dust of business sometimes makes us loose sight of what is really important. I think that has happened here on The Autonomist, although not so much on it as around it. My recent series on the corruption of Objectivism has spawned a number of minor dust storms, which were not entirely unexpected. The material is controversial and since all material has some source, the source of the ideas and methods being criticized could not be avoided. In fact, the source was quite frankly named in the title of the series, SOLO. Since SOLO is an organization of people, and it is people, not organizations who are the source of ideas, it has been impossible to discuss those ideas without referring to the individuals responsible for them. But I am not interested in organizations or individuals, themselves, only the ideas for which they are responsible. It is that fact that is being obscured by the dust. To remedy that, I want to make it explicit that is my only intention and purpose, to address the ideas, not who holds them, or where they are being propagated from. To further clarify that position, I have changed the title of the remaining articles on these issues to, "Wrong Premises, Errors, and Corruptions." This does not mean we will hide the identity of the individuals or organization from which these wrong premises, errors, and corruptions eminate, only that it will the be ideas themselves that will be addressed. So What Has Been Going On? When the first two articles in the series "SOLO Perversion of Objectivism: Part 1—The SOLO Style" and "SOLO Perversion of Objectivism: Part 2—Why Lindsay Perigo Hates Me" were posted, I sent out emails notifying all those who might be interested, as well as to those who were mentioned in the articles, as is the usual courtesy. All of the latter asked to be removed from the distribution list, and subsequently, any of those, or their friends and supporters, who think they have anything to do with the Autonomist, have asked that they, and any of their material, be removed. I only mention this in the unlikely event you should notice anything missing. So What's Important Certainly none of that was important. It is just the kind of trivia and pettiness that I am going to spend no more time with. There are much bigger fish to fry. It is the reason I am changing the name of the series, to eliminate our attention to such. Our objective is philosophy, not personalities. On that score, you should be reading the next two "out of order" articles in the Autonomist Philosophy Series. There has been some good response to the "Desires" article on the forum. These two articles compliment one another and both ought to be read to fully understand them. I hope you enjoy them.
This ASAP entry originally made reference to a Barbara Branden article. In light of recent events I have chosen to spare my readers attention to such unpleasant minutia.
Just a quick heads-up for those following The Autonomist Philosophy Series. There will be a short "side trip" to make preparation for the other, not so philosophical series, SOLO Perversion of Objectivism. Upcoming discussions will be concerned with the nature of the emotions and desires, and a short article on the nature of feelings will be the next philosophy series article. As perparation for that article, I stronly suggest for those interested, having a look at two earlier related articles: Perception Explains some serious errors in the Objectivist explanation of consciousness and provides a complete theory of perception that corrects those Objectivist mistakes. Since the emotions are percepts, the principles of perception are necessary to a complete understanding of their nature. Commentary - Humor Commentary on humor and emotions from the Autonomist's Notebook. This article discusses the nature of emotions, their purpose, and their importance to human consciousness and life.
The first in series to do that, SOLO Perversion of Objectivism: Part 1—The SOLO Style is published today. The reason for this series of articles is as stated in this first article:
"The danger is to those who are new to Objectivism and who are seeking to understand their own nature and the nature of the world they live in, and have already grasped that Objectivism is the only philosophy that adequately addresses those issues. The danger is they will be duped into believing what is found on SOLO is a true representation of both the teachings of Objectivism, and the kind of minds and personalities that philosophy produces."
SOLO is promoting its own version of Objectivism, which is a mixture of Ayn Rand's Objectivism and some very dangerous forms of mysticism, subjectivism, and a priorism. These false concepts attack the philosophy of Objectivism at its very heart, perverting the understanding of the rational/volitional nature of man.
Both the nature of the philosophical errors, as well as the practical consequences of those errors being propagated by SOLO will be thoroughly examined. In one sense, we are indebted to SOLO for being so blatant about their perversion of Objectivism, because it has revealed a flaw in Objectivism itself which makes it vulnerable to exactly the kind of perversion SOLO is perpetrating.
That flaw was not the doing of Ayn Rand, but someone else who influenced her, and who injected certain false concepts in the corpus of Objectivism that are inimical to it. I shall make a thorough examination of the nature of those false concepts and the individual responsible for them.
It is my personal relationship with SOLO and some of its principles and my somewhat extensive experience with that organization that has made me aware of these issues and which obliges me to make as public and clear as possible the nature of the corruption of Objectivism SOLO is.
Speaking of voting, be sure to vote in the Autonomist's current "ungrammatical" Poll. Yes, I know it should be "whom," and a sentence should not end with a preposition. Since when do voters, or candidates for that matter, care about grammar?
If you think voting makes a difference in anything, have a look at Russ Madden's Freedom Quiz which I referred to in the last ASAP, then compare the candidates' stand on the issues recorded on Project Vote Smart (or take my word for it); not a single candidate listed there would make the "gold standard." Which means, none of them know what freedom is, or just do not want you to be free.
By the way, Mr. Firehammer is "gold standard." You'll have to take the quiz to know what that means.
Finally, one of the main reasons for The Autonomist's existence, the Autonomist Philosophy Series, has been launched. I'll say some more about that, but it is only one of the purposes of The Autonomist. Since those purposes have never been made public in any explicit way, I thought I would do that here, and make it a permanent article later.
The Purposes of The Autonomist
I have already described this idea in my articles, "The Autonomist Free Market of Ideas" and, "Shoot The Bastards?" One of the reasons I am so interested in creating this open market of ideas, is because when I looked around for one to sell my ideas, there was not one. Now there is.
The extent to which individual liberties, the right to life, liberty, and property, have been taken away is one of the most important messages and ideas I want to sell. The slave that enjoys his slavery and the slave that does not know he is a slave and the slave that does not know there is anything else will never rebel.
Philosophy is like vitamins and essential minerals and proteins. All knowledge is like food for the mind, necessary to all our reasoning and choices, but like food for the body, without the vitamins and essential minerals and proteins, the body cannot properly use the food one eats, without philosophy, the mind cannot properly use any other knowledge it gains.
The Autonomist Philosophy department is a mental health-food store.
The Autonomist Philosophy Series
It's just the beginning, but it is the best place to begin and an opportunity for everyone interested in studying philosophy to start without having to "catch up." Only the first two articles of a planned sixty or more, which will cover most of philosophy as outlined in the first article, "From Objectivism, Where Are We Going?" have been posted. The second article, "Metaphysics Introduction | Existence and Reality," is the first of the philosophy proper.
This is not the way to freedom for all people, but it is one way, and it is one that is both proven and being practiced and enjoyed by a growing number of people. The method is called PT, and some of our readers have been waiting for more information on this principle. Here is the first installment of information about this proven method of establishing one's permanent freedom in this world today.
General Changes
First, another answer to the the most frequently asked question, "what is The Autonomist." This answer is more about the WEB site itself, its purpose, and what can be expected from it by both those who use it for their own pleasure or enrichment and those who contribute to it, "The Autonomist Free Market of Ideas".
Related to that, you will find some minor changes. Articles will now all be categorized to reflect the diversity of views a free market of ideas is bound to represent. Each article's category will be indicated in the upper right hand corner. Those categories will generally fall within one of The Autonomist Departments, "States and Affairs," "Personal Liberty," or "Philosophy."
You will also notice that "States and Affairs" has been expanded on the main page to include all the sub-catgories under that department. Most articles will fall into one or more of those categories.
The Forum
The Autonomist Forum is functional. There are already nine members, although the conversations, so far, are somewhat esoteric. However, the forum is still under development. For example, the whole Autonomist site will be moved just to make spell-check functional. If you know how to spell, you can begin using the forum immediately. Even if you do not know how to spell, you can still use it. I do.
The Thanks you Get
As some of you know, as a result in my participation in the "great debate" I described in the last (9/16/04) ASAP entry, I have been banned from the WEB site that originally invited me to participate in that debate. It is a good lesson. If you are invited to present an opposing view on a WEB site, unless you have no interest in participating their again, do not agree to the debate, or, if you do, don't win.
I did apologize for my mistake, publicly.
The second to last round: Response To "In Praise of Hijacking," in which I answer Dr. Sciabarra's first criticism of my book, published in the Free Radical, and republished on SOLO/HQ, "In Praise of Hijacking."
The final two rounds, which includes my final article, and Dr. Sciabarra's final-final rebuttal, "Sciabarra's Rejoinder to Firehammer," are published on SOLO.
This debate has been the most objectively and non-emotionally argued debate on homosexuality, I suspect, there may have ever been. I have great respect and admiration for Dr. Sciabarra and have thoroughly enjoyed this challenging and serious exchange of ideas.
Dr. Sciabarra has made, I think, the best possible case for the normalization of homosexuality, although I obviously do not believe it was convincing. I do believe he has made the case that their is no place for the kind of irrational abuse and mistreatment of individuals who choose to be homosexuals in a civilized society. That is one view of homosexuality we shared long before the debate.
My Response To "In Praise of Hijacking," may be the only comprehensive, objective, secular repudiation of the movement to normalize homosexuality that is totally without rancor.
Objectivism
The article on the Homosexual debate, and one other Objectivist oriented article will be posted over the next couple of days. Following that there will a number of short articles on various Objectivist themes which will be announced here but no published a main articles. All of these will be available in the Philosophy and Objectivism department.
I think Mr. Antle missed one issue himself. It is the one issue that serves as a litmus test for all politicians and all other issues. I mentioned L. Neil Smith's description of this issue in an earlier ASAP article. With his permission, we have posted his article, "Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?," today.
Because guns are always the issue, and always the key. The politicians will talk about crime and about defending us for terrorism, but you know it is all bunk if they are not for the individual citizen being able to arm himself against those threats the government so far has not protected us from.
Because this issue is so important, it is the subject of this week's poll. If your not sure how to vote, please read Neil's article, and two other recent articles, "How Do We Protect Our Children," by Barbara Stanley and, "Media Bias Against Guns," by John R. Lott, Jr.
However, you will be relieved, as I was, to see what Burt really has in mind, and delighted too, I think, with his spot-on evaluation of politicians.
His contempt for politicians may not be as thoroughgoing as the Autonomist's, but it is close.
"Government is the great fraud. The most successful politicians are those who have no illusions about the true nature of government and operate accordingly, that is, as consummate con artists." —The Autonomist's Notebook, Fraud.
So far over fifty percent are now convinced all Muslims are potential terrorists and Islam is an evil ideology like Nazism or Communism and ought to be eradicated. The rest must be those dumb Democrats Mike Shaw says are not yet awake in todays article, A Wake-up Call for Everyone but the Dems.
(We had at least one extra-terrestrial vote for, "There is no relationship between Islam and terrorism." I think this is an Interenet first. No one from this planet could have voted for that.)
This week's Poll, " Islam and Terrorism—what is the relationship?" attempts to determine if people are finally waking up to the true nature Islam and its threat to all civilization in light of the Russian Islamic terrorist horror story (see Muslim Pedagogy.)
To help you make up your mind, the fact an Al-Qa'ida Women's Magazine, Al-Khansaa (Saudi Arabia) says that, " Women Must Participate in Jihad," might help. If you still think Islamic cruelty is an anomoly, maybe the fact Omar Bakri Mohammed, spiritual leader of the al-Muhajiroun spiritual leader of al-Muhajiroun said he would support hostage-taking at British schools if carried out by terrorists with a just cause, and that holding women and children hostage would be a reasonable course of action for a Muslim who has suffered under British rule.
So, what is the federal government doing in the light of the recent terrorist attacks in Russia, like the deadly twin airliner bombings in Russia last month, carried out by female Chechen terrorists? Are they encouraging citizens to arm themselves, in the schools and on airlines to protect themselves? No, the Feds solution is to do body searches on you, especially if you are a female, since they are the terrorists who blow up planes in Russia.
Of course the press and media will now take a stand for Second Amendment rights and demand that citizens arm themselves, won't they? Don't hold your breath. The media will continue its relentless attack against guns so well described in todays article, Media Bias Against Guns.
|
If you must vote, The Autonomist endorses Mike Bay of the
|
