THE VOICE OF REASON Solon, (born c. 630 BCE—died c. 560 BCE), Athenian statesman, known as one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece (the others were Chilon of Sparta, Thales of Miletus, Bias of Priene, Cleobulus of Lindos, Pittacus of Mytilene, and Periander of Corinth). Solon ended exclusive aristocratic control of the government, substituted a system of control by the wealthy, and introduced a new and more humane law code. He was also a noted poet.
If you feel you are being treated like a heretic, then you should behave like a heretic. You should pull your socks up and get your guns out.
Why won't we tell students that Kant is better than the Koran? Brendan O'Neill on relativism and Islamism. http://t.co/IODEEHBOcl
— spiked (@spikedonline) March 2, 2015
@ntfem The article was pure tripe. He went on about how superior "western Enlightenment" is to the Quran but never demonstrates how.
— Colisha Harris (@sweet_coloosh) March 3, 2015
@ntfem He gives no concrete reason why those students shouldn't scoff at the mess that is today's western democracy.
— Colisha Harris (@sweet_coloosh) March 3, 2015
@ntfem He didn't even cite the Quran but based his opinion of Islam on attitudes & dress of ppl he views as "backwards" and "non western"
— Colisha Harris (@sweet_coloosh) March 3, 2015
@ntfem I see a talk about extremist Muslims in the article but no explanation as to why Kant is better than the Quran. Why is it better?
— Bilal Mahmood (@bilalmahmooduk) March 3, 2015
@bilalmahmooduk Brendan O'Neill exemplifies the chauvinism and arrogance of libtards.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 3, 2015
@mikesey1 @UKIP_Candidate Why doesn't @spikedonline hold a debate on just this motion and invite @anjemchoudary to oppose the motion?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 3, 2015
@mikesey1 @UKIP_Candidate @spikedonline @anjemchoudary Would Brendan O'Neill like to tell us why he thinks Kant is better than the Koran?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 3, 2015
@mikesey1 @UKIP_Candidate @spikedonline @anjemchoudary Would Brendan O'Neill like to tell us what Kant actually said?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 3, 2015
@mikesey1 @UKIP_Candidate @spikedonline @anjemchoudary Kant did no more than repeat the golden rule already present in the Bible/Koran.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 3, 2015
@spikedonline Does Brendan O'Neill agree that the cleverest thing Kant said was: To establish the truth use both rationalism and empiricism?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 3, 2015
@spikedonline Empiricism is learning from your own mistakes and rationalism is learning from the mistakes of others. Kant just said do both.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 3, 2015
@spikedonline What laws can we derive from Kantian principles which say no more than "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you"?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 3, 2015
@spikedonline What laws can we derive from the Kantian principle of "Do not use others as a means to an end"? There is not much to go on.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 3, 2015
@spikedonline If you wanted principles to form the basis of your law it cannot be denied that the Koran is infinitely superior to Kant.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 3, 2015
@spikedonline The problems of Western government are problems of Christianity and its failure to maintain morality.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 3, 2015
@spikedonline Religion comes from the Latin "religare" - to bind. Religion is for social cohesion to bind society with common values.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 3, 2015
@spikedonline Marriage = social stability. It was always the intention of feminism to destroy marriage and by extension the patriarchy
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 3, 2015
@spikedonline Marriage can only be maintained by a belief that extramarital sex was a sin or that it would be punished as a sexual offence.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 3, 2015
@spikedonline All the Abrahamic faiths promote patriarchal moral values and PC Liberalism is the antithesis of this.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 3, 2015
@spikedonline ISIS is the international patriarchy reasserting itself against the effeminate degenerate demented matriarchy of the West.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 3, 2015
@spikedonline In a military and ideological war between the patriarchy and the matriarchy the result is a foregone conclusion.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 3, 2015
@spikedonline The Neanderthals were matriarchal, Homo Sapiens who superseded them practised marriage, which established the patriarchy.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 3, 2015
@spikedonline Who will not support marriage? Sluts, Slut Single Mothers, bastards, MCSFs (Morally-Compromised Slut-Fuckers) - ie most voters
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 3, 2015
@spikedonline Who will unambiguously and uncompromisingly forbid extramarital sex and respect marriage? Muslims, but not Christians.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 3, 2015
@spikedonline Why has Christianity failed? Because it entrusts a corruptible clergy to maintain morality while Islam uses the law.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 3, 2015
@spikedonline What the Westerner hates most about Islam is the threat it poses to their access to extramarital sex.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 3, 2015
@spikedonline What is the religion of the West? It is not Christianity but PC Liberalism. The West is as Xtian as a skeleton used 2b human.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 3, 2015
@spikedonline The religion of the West is slut -worship, its sacrament extramarital sex. This "religion" is the antithesis of marriage.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 3, 2015
@spikedonline Brendan O'Neill's should know that marriage is eugenic, while bastardy is dysgenic. Most Britons are singly-parented bastards.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 3, 2015
@spikedonline In a war between bastards of sluts and the sons of mothers married to their fathers, who will win?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 3, 2015
@spikedonline Which is better at discouraging civilisation-destroying sluts from producing degenerate bastards? Kant or the Koran?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 3, 2015
WATCH: John Humphrys dusts off his hip-hop skills with Radio 1's expert @CharlieSloth #r4today http://t.co/tOf5qzEwmC
— BBC Radio 4 Today (@BBCr4today) September 25, 2014
"Hello there. I am the British citizen abandoned by my government and a long-term prisoner of the Islamic State.
In this program, we’ll see how the Western governments are hastily marching towards all-out war in Iraq and Syria without paying any heed to the lessons of the recent past, and how they are using the persuasive approach to lure the public back into the conflict.
So, let’s get straight to the point with a quote from former- C.I.A.-chief-turned-vigorous anti- intervention-campaigner Michael Scheuer: ‘President Obama does not have the slightest intention of defeating the Islamic State, which would require the aerial slaughter and boots in on the ground and the demolishing of the mujahedin' - Michael Scheur whose knowledge of the Muslim Nation and the complexity of their society is considerable adds "18 years into our war with the Islamists our government has given no public sign that it has the slightest awareness of what its enemies are fighting for.
Now, there are two solid points here.
The Obama Administration is so perplexed as they marched back into Iraq that they tap-dancing on the issue in a "we're getting involved but we're not really getting involved" kind of way. You know, air strikes but no troops on the ground, limited operation time, no mission creep, all those pre-combat agreements that tend to get forgotten after the first six months of nasty tough stuff.
The pre-9/11 Afghans are already back in control of large areas of Afghanistan while the full might of the American war machine couldn't destroy the Islamic State in Iraq before.
So, now the State is far stronger now than ever it was.
What is this latest ill-advised foray really supposed to achieve? And Scheur's point is aptly made. As ever, the entire reason why we are at war with the Islamists and what they are fighting for is brilliantly avoided by all.
Senior US politicians seem content to call the Islamic State nasty names: "awful", "vile", "a cancer", "an insult to our values", but such petty insults don't really do much harm to the most powerful jihadist movement seen in recent history. That the Western governments were caught napping by the sheer speed of the Islamic State growth is now a given. "Intelligence officers failed to anticipate the emergence of the Islamic State", says Tom Kean, the former New Jersey Governor. "We certainly didn't anticipate them going across the border into Iraq and declaring themselves a Caliphate."
Obama and his allies were well and truly caught by surprise. [Photos of Obama and his allies being caught by surprise.]
The President once called George Bush's Iraq conflict "a dumb war" and couldn't want to distance America from it when he came into power. Now he is being inexorably drawn back in. But he is at pains to point out that this not the equivalent of the Iraq War. In fact, it is far more complicated and prone to failure. There is a newly-elected pro-American Iranian regime in Iran. They wait eagerly for further American intervention to strengthen the Iranian Crescent in the Middle East.
But the appointment of a new puppet is an important piece of the puzzle in America's Gulf War Free[?] as it allows them to get involved quickly via a proxy. Iraq's leaders should know that "America will stand shoulder to shoulder with Iraqis as they implement their National Plan", gushed John Kerry on the 9th of September - meaning our National Plan to tackle the Islamic State. Everyone now is getting involved. Denmark and France have sent air power. Britain is arming the Kurds. Iran is sending troops. Contracts are being sought in Iraq and even Bashar Al Assad until earlier this year - the most hated and villainised tyrant in the Arab world - is being approached for permission to enter Syria.
"Can the Islamic State be defeated without addressing that part of their organisation that resides in Syria?" asked General Martin Dempsey.
The answer is NO.
It's all quite a circus - air strikes, the creation of last-minute puppet governments, advisory teams of the ground, wooing previous enemies to join in and trans-border incursions into a country that has been in a state of civil war for three years - all the while completely underestimating the strength and fighting zeal of the opponent. Not since Vietnam have we witnessed such a potential mess in the making.
Current estimates of 15,000 troops needed to fight the Islamic State are laughably low. The State has more mujahideen than this. This is not some undisciplined outfit with a few Kalashnikovs.
We started with Michael Scheuer, so let us give him the final word for now: "Think what you will of the Islamists and their brand of war-making," he says, "but they have been in the field fighting since 1979 and their movement has never been larger, more popular or as well-armed as it is today.
Join me again for the next programme."
Don't care didn't care,
Don't care was wild:
Don't care stole plum and pear
Like any beggar's child.
Don't care was made to care,
Don't care was hung:
Don't care was put in a pot
And boiled till he was done.
.@CharlieSloth calls John Humphrys 'Johnny' (amongst other things) and gets away with it: http://t.co/JhqpiJ86Gb pic.twitter.com/gCAfVB4735
— BBC Radio 4 (@BBCRadio4) September 25, 2014
@BBCRadio4 @CharlieSloth John Humphrys looks ill with disgust.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) September 25, 2014
 |
| What is democracy but government by Western voters who don't know and don't care about foreign policy and who don't care what is being done in their name? What is democracy but lots of dumb Western voters happy to accept that Muslims want to destroy the West just because they are Muslims ? What is democracy but Western voters not getting why Muslims don't just have another drink and forget about their government's foreign policy like they do? |
26:00 Psyop is just another word for state propaganda. 35:39 @DigitalGnosis I dont believe Homer was a person Homer was a pagan. There wi...
