Islam: a historical judgement

The River War, Volume II, 1899 by Winston Spencer Churchill

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects, are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property—either as a child, a wife, or a concubine— must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die: but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science—the science against which it had vainly struggled—the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome. — The River War, Volume II, by Winston Spencer Churchill, Longman Greens and Co., 89 Paternoster Row, London, New York, and Bombay 1899, Page 248.

Winston Spencer Churchill

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Regarding the book I, Rigoberta Menchu…

“As the proverb tells us that a single drop from the largest vessel suffices to tell us the nature of the whole contents, so we should regard the subject now under discussion.  When we find one or two false statements in a book and they prove to be deliberate ones, it is evident that not a word written by such an author is any longer certain and reliable.” [i]

furthermore…

“For naturally the fact is that one makes falsehood more credible if one mixes a little truth with it…” [ii]

and so…

The story of Rigoberta Menchu, a Quiche [K’iche’] Mayan from Guatemala, whose autobiography catapulted her to international fame, won her the Nobel Peace Prize, and made her an international emblem of the dispossessed indigenous peoples of the Western hemisphere and their attempt to rebel against the oppression of European conquerors, has now been exposed as a political fabrication, a tissue of lies, and one of the greatest intellectual and academic hoaxes of the Twentieth Century. — David Horowitz

———————————————————————————————————-

I, Rogobert Menchu

[i] Polybius, The Histories, Volume IV, The Loeb Classical Library (LCL 138), Book XII, Page369, year 2000.

[ii] Polybius, The Histories, Volume VI, The Loeb Classical Library (LCL 161), Book XXXIV, Page299, year 2000.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A Conjecture…

Stephen Hawking

“…if we do discover a complete theory, it would in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason ̶ for then we would know the mind of God.” ̶ A Brief History of Time, Copyright © 1988, 1996 by Stephen Hawking, a Bantam Book, Page 191.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

On the pestilential habit of hastily attributing motives…

Often, old advice is the best advice, to wit: Judge not, that ye be not judged.  For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? — Matthew 7:1-3, King James Version

Dr. John Lukacs, Historian

“Here is the essential difference between historical and legal evidence ― or between historical and legal thinking.  Law (at least in a state governed by a constitution) can deal only with actuality, not with potentiality.  “The law is a coarse net; and truth is a slippery fish.”  Yes, but the purpose of law has nothing to do with truth: it is the establishment of justice.  Truth and justice are not the same things, even though the pursuit of truth and the pursuit of justice may, on occasion, overlap.  But besides the question (or, rather, the obvious primacy) of truth over justice, there are other important differences between historical and legal evidences and thinking.  One is that law, after all ― inevitably and necessarily ― is a closed system, within its own definite rules and regulations.  For instance, it does not and should not allow multiple jeopardy: a case, when and if properly tried, is decided once and for all.  History (and our memory) is open and never closed; it specializes in multiple jeopardy: its subjects and people are rethought over and over again, and not even necessarily on the basis of newly found evidence. . . .  Another great difference ― I am again referring principally to Anglo-American law ― is the one between motives and purposes.  These two are regrettably confused because of the vocabulary and the practices of twentieth-century psychology and thought, the attribution of motive having become a pestilential habit [my italics].  But we must distinguish between the two.  Motives come from the past; purposes involve the pull of the future.  At its best, Anglo-American law will admit only a “motive” which has been, in one way or another, expressed; in other words, an actuality, not a potentiality.  (As Dr. Johnson said: “Intentions must be gathered from acts.”)  At its worst, unexpressed motives are sometime attributed and accepted in some courts on the basis of psychological characterization and other dubious “expertise.”  A proper comprehension of the essential difference between motives and purposes is an essential condition of the pursuit and of the protection of justice and of truth ― and of all historical thinking and speaking and writing.” ― Remembered Past; On History, Historians, and Historical Knowledge, by John Lukacs, Chapter I, Page 8, edited by Mark G. Malvasi and Jeffrey O. Nelson, ISI Books, Wilmington, Delaware, © 2005 ISI Books.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Transgender and the Military: incompatible

When thinking about or discussing homosexuality remember that: “…probabilities and plausible arguments involve no knowledge concerning truth, but trial and disputation and wrangling conflict and contentiousness and everything of that sort.” [i]

Homosexuality ̶ The Gay Lifestyle; Being Gay; Gayness; Queer; Lesbianism, LGBTQ and other similar or derivative descriptives no matter their provenance is, like schizophrenia or pedophilia, a psychiatrically treatable mental disorder, which begs these questions:

  • “Why do those suffering from mental disorders avoid treatment?”
  • “Why do those suffering from mental disorders wish to mainstream and legitimize their own behavioral illness?
  • “Why does an otherwise rational community cave to the wishes of those suffering from mental disorders?
  • “Why not mainstream and legitimize other mental disorders as well, like schizophrenia or pedophilia?

Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are, quite historically (and morally), wrong about homosexual activity, which is flatly forbidden in the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Holy Qur’an. Normalizing, mainstreaming, or medicalizing[ii] such mental disorders and behavior has become pestilential in the post-modern west, and makes no more sense than normalizing schizophrenia or pedophilia.

Schizophrenia: “A worldwide prevalence of nearly 1% makes schizophrenia one of the most widespread disorders known, and its impact on affected individuals, family members, and society as a whole would be difficult to overstate. Primarily characterized as a disorder of disrupted cognitive and emotional processing, the disease strikes at those characteristics that make us human. It’s usual onset in early adulthood tends to derail social relationships and interrupt educational or career plans. Coupled with the chronic nature of the cognitive and emotional debilitation, affected individuals most often experience lifelong occupational disability and disrupted social relationships. In the United States alone, the cost of disease regarding treatment expense and lost productivity was estimated at more than $30 billion in 1990. As a further measurement of the impact of the disease, most estimates indicate that as many as a third of homeless Americans have schizophrenia.”[iii]

Gender Dysphoria (Homosexuality): This disorder is more widespread than schizophrenia. “Based on the 2013 NHIS data, 96.6% of adults identified as straight, 1.6% identified as gay or lesbian, and 0.7% identified as bisexual. The remaining 1.1% of adults identified as ‘‘something else,’’ stated ‘‘I don’t know the answer,’’ or refused to provide an answer. Significant differences were found in health-related behaviors, health status, health care service utilization, and health care access among U.S. adults aged 18–64 who identified as straight, gay or lesbian, or bisexual.”[iv]

Gender Dysphoria is more prevalent than Schizophrenia, yet there is a rush to normalize, mainstream, and medicalize it than any might consider for Schizophrenia or pedophilia, which is non-sequitur.

And why, pray tell, does anyone pay attention to lawyers and their arguments? Why are lawyers trusted at all? After all, and again their “…probabilities and plausible arguments involve no knowledge concerning truth, but trial and disputation and wrangling conflict and contentiousness and everything of that sort.” [v] And yes, this is how we have arrived at the mainstreaming of behavioral disorders like Gender Dysphoria, through specious argument and vexatious molding of American youth by the American Academy abetted by the U.S. Department of Education and the mainstream media, a most shameful and unforgivable trespass. Too, this mainstreaming has needlessly, and dangerously, degraded our military.

This latter is a problem that demands immediate address because such mental disorders and behavioral neglect are prejudicial to the good order and discipline of our armed forces.[vi] Homosexuals bring disorder because they are disordered. Integrating homosexuals into military service by President Obama and his political party was wrong, wrong-headed, and dangerously careless.

This will remain a contentious issue for many, which also suggests unforeseen dangers for society and the west in particular.

———————————————————————————————————-

[i] Philo, Volume I, Book III, edited by G. P. Gould, The Loeb Classical Library (LCL 226), Page 459, year 1991.

[ii] “Mainstream medicine objectifies the body and its processes, and what I called medicalization extends this objectification to vice.” ― from A Secular Age, Copyright © 2007 by Charles Taylor, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England, 2007, Page 507.

[iii] http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)62528-7/fulltext

[iv] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr077.pdf

[v] Philo, Volume I, Book III, edited by G. P. Gould, The Loeb Classical Library (LCL 226), Page 459, year 1991.

[vi] UCMJ: § 934. Art. 134. General article Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 76.)

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

North Korea Musings…

The Author, 1972

Extracts from Punchy Company, Pages 14 & 15:

“On the 15th of April, just two short months after my arrival in-country, at 1:30 p.m. local time, a U.S. Navy reconnaissance plane, an EC-121 Warning Star, was shot down by North Korean fighters over the Sea of Japan, killing all 31 aboard. North Korea claimed it had violated their air space.”

“North Korea’s behavior was, is, and remains bad.  It has not, in the intervening decades [since the end of the Korean War, 1953], improved a whit. They kill, cheat, lie, torture, steal from and starve their own people, and spew their venomous hate without surcease. Should we then negotiate?  Talk?  Find common ground?  “No!” I say, “Talk is cheap, and in this case, most demonstrably fruitless.” In truth, the North Korean government ought to be destroyed, lock, stock, and barrel.  General MacArthur had been right; Truman wrong.  No good can come of North Korea’s continuance.  Lawyers−who comprise an inordinately large percentage of our three branches of government−endlessly argue this. That’s what they do, argue.[i]  Yet it remains true that “The law‐abiding pace is a cold, deliberate, and constrained one, and is not the kind that can hold up against a lawless and unbridled pace.”[ii]  North Korea is, however, a lawless and unbridled pacer, 46,000 square miles of trouble, controlled by an undeniable, demonstrably evil dictatorship, yet legal ‘thinkers; politicians, continue their endless protests; their trifling language, wholly foreign to the rest of us, yet nothing more, in fact, than full employment for lawyers. Montaigne saw this with great clarity more than 400 years ago.[iii]  Lawyers like to claim they are concerned with justice and truth, but what does that mean?  Are not justice and truth the same?  Wiser, more astute and knowledgeable people than I have considered this question in great depth, and happily; they agree with me: No. Justice and truth are not the same, not at all.[iv] Even so, because few understand this completely, I record it here in the fervent hope of improving understanding, and this with as much objectivity as I can muster, and unvarnished, undecorated, and unadorned.  I have thus concluded that the word negotiation ought to be removed from our language.  It is more trouble than it is worth.  It is, in fact, mere talk, and again, talk is cheap, which a blind man can see: North Korea=unmitigated poverty; South Korea=unimaginable prosperity.  Which embodies virtue?  Which would you choose?”

———————————————————————————————————-

[i] “…probabilities and plausible arguments involve no knowledge concerning truth, but trial and disputation and wrangling conflict and contentiousness and everything of that sort.” — Philo, Volume I, Book III, edited by G. P. Gould, The Loeb Classical Library (LCL 226), Page 459, year 1991.

[ii]The Complete ESSAYS OF MONTAIGNE, Translated by Donald M. Frame, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California; Copyright 1943 by Donald M. Frame, renewed 1971. Copyright © 1948, 1957, and 1958 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, Page 89.

[iii] “Why is it that our common language, so easy for any other use, becomes obscure and unintelligible in contracts and wills, and that a man who expresses himself so clearly, whatever he says or writes, finds in this [the legal] field no way of speaking his mind that does not fall into doubt and contradiction? Unless it is that the princes of this art [lawyers], applying themselves with particular attention to picking out solemn words and contriving artificial phrases, have so weighed every syllable, so minutely examined every sort of combination, that they are at last entangled and embroiled in the endless number of figures and in such minute partitions that they can no longer fall under any rule or prescription or any certain interpretation.” ― The Complete ESSAYS OF MONTAIGNE, Translated by Donald M. Frame, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California; Copyright 1943 by Donald M. Frame, renewed 1971.  Copyright © 1948, 1957, and 1958 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, Page 816.

[iv] “Here is the essential difference between historical and legal evidence ― or between historical and legal thinking.  Law (at least in a state governed by a constitution) can deal only with actuality, not with potentiality.  “The law is a coarse net; and truth is a slippery fish.”  Yes, but the purpose of law has nothing to do with truth: it is the establishment of justice.  Truth and justice are not the same things, even though the pursuit of truth and the pursuit of justice may, on occasion, overlap.  But besides the question (or, rather, the obvious primacy) of truth over justice, there are other important differences between historical and legal evidences and thinking.  One is that law, after all ― inevitably and necessarily ― is a closed system, within its own definite rules and regulations.  For instance, it does not and should not allow multiple jeopardy: a case, when and if properly tried, is decided once and for all.  History (and our memory) is open and never closed; it specializes in multiple jeopardy: its subjects and people are rethought over and over again, and not even necessarily on the basis of newly found evidence. . . .  Another great difference ―   I am again referring principally to Anglo-American law ― is the one between motives and purposes.  These two are regrettably confused because of the vocabulary and the practices of twentieth -century psychology and thought, the attribution of motive having become a pestilential habit.  But we must distinguish between the two.  Motives come from the past; purposes involve the pull of the future.  At its best, Anglo-American law will admit only a “motive” which has been, in one way or another, expressed; in other words, an actuality, not a potentiality.  (As Dr. Johnson said: “Intentions must be gathered from acts.”)  At its worst, unexpressed motives are sometime attributed and accepted in some courts on the basis of psychological characterization and other dubious “expertise.”  A proper comprehension of the essential difference between motives and purposes is an essential condition of the pursuit and of the protection of justice and of truth ― and of all historical thinking and speaking and writing.” ― Remembered Past; On History, Historians, and Historical Knowledge, by John Lukacs, Chapter I, Page 8, edited by Mark G. Malvasi and Jeffrey O. Nelson, ISI Books, Wilmington, Delaware, © 2005 ISI Books.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Korea-1969-1974: The way it was…

The Author, 1972

An Extract from Punchy Company; the author’s first impression when first confronting the Camp Red Cloud Officers Club: “It’s delightful,” I thought, “especially the conformance in style and finish everywhere; matching designs; heavy leather on every surface for resting one’s forearms; brass rails for feet, and matching bar stools enclosing the bar’s “U” shape with seating for 24 patrons (I counted them).  I saw too that the bartenders were uniformed in a style and color complementing their surroundings.  Each wore a black bow tie and red leather arm band, and shirts and slacks, likewise, color-coordinated. They were all neatly and professionally groomed with close-cropped hair.  But they paid me no heed.  They were busy.  The boom of the band started again but with a vengeance.  It was louder now, powerfully so, even on this side of the two remaining muffling doors.  It shook the very walls of the building, rattling glasses both on bar shelves and overhead glass hangers.  I stepped to the doors and pressed the right door slowly open allowing me to peer inside. It was breathtaking; bizarre! It most certainly was so for an unwashed, largely innocent young officer not previously witness to such wild revelry.  At the head table, red-faced, jovially inebriated, with two very racy, young, exotic, beautiful Korean women under each of his outstretched arms was the Commander of 2d Bn (HAWK) 71st ADA!  But he was nothing like colonels I’d previously met: all business; serious and reserved.  He was flanked by staff officers similarly engaged and equally red-faced; jovial and chattering excitedly like fraternity boys on their first drunk.  A lieutenant shook a bottle of Champagne — it seemed a fitting act — and pointed it over his shoulder to the table immediately behind popping the cork.  “Fire!” he screamed, and the cork, propelled by a gush of Champagne, sprayed everything and everyone in its path.  His victims were equally giddy, chattering and giggling boyishly as well.  They laughed harder when struck, uncontrollably so shaking their Champagne and popping their corks in retaliation, “Return fire!”   The women, heavily made up and very alluring were moving suggestively, protected from the spray by their men who were all the while hugging, groping, and kissing them in mutual delight.  The laughter and the non-stop drinking went on for the remainder of the night; at least three more hours.  Witnessing this I mused, “Well, maybe the Army isn’t so bad after all!”

———————————————————————————————————-

PUNCHY COMPANY, A Memoir of the Cold War

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment