On the note of Offense.

This week in Slate, lexical God Christopher Hitchens wrote an article entitled

“Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?” the main points of the article:

Why, then, should we be commanded to “respect” those who insist that they alone know something that is both unknowable and unfalsifiable? Something, furthermore, that can turn in an instant into a license for murder and rape? As one who has occasionally challenged Islamic propaganda in public and been told that I have thereby “insulted 1.5 billion Muslims,” I can say what I suspect—which is that there is an unmistakable note of menace behind that claim. No, I do not think for a moment that Mohammed took a “night journey” to Jerusalem on a winged horse. And I do not care if 10 billion people intone the contrary. Nor should I have to. But the plain fact is that the believable threat of violence undergirds the Muslim demand for “respect.”

And he makes a very Cogent point regarding the place of Hate-Crime legislation and the stifling of freedom of speech in order to make sure that the feelings of the few are not hurt. As Salman Rushdie quipped “What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.”

Why are the freedoms we so espouse as being the cornerstone of our western democracies being thrown headily out the window in order to soften the violent cries of sects of a populous that wishes us harm? Surely we are mature enough to know that we should, in no situation, put up with bullying or intimidation tactics no matter the political fallout? It seems that as the political sphere has evolved we have conflated the notion of being an Arab with the religion of Islam. While it would be logical to state statistically that a large percentage of Islamic individuals are Arabic, it is imprudent and downright foolish to say that criticism of the Islamic Religion is tantamount to racism. In fact it would be as ludicrous as conflating HIV with Africans, saying that a large amount of African individuals have HIV and thus trying to cure HIV is eugenics and Naziism gone drunk with power!

We are at the moment, hopefully, on the cusp of a dichotomy between the teaching of the old world religions and the development of science and scientific philosophies. It was once said that Religion is just a dried up old Philosophy; “Philosophy with all the questions removed” – again a point of contention as one could say that many answers to the questions of religion are still being sought (c.f the Virgin birth from the point of view of the Catholics versus other religious groups) but they are coming up empty in the face of science that seems to take the less self-involved viewpoint providing a rationalisation rather than a solipsism.

What we must understand that by self-censorship of this type, by stating that we feel our culture has elements of freedom and expression and certain inalienable rights (Inalienable in the sense that it takes ’emergency and temporary legislation’ to remove them) do we wish to commit such an hilarious irony in the name of political correctness?

If our society is so strongly based upon these rights then why must we remove them in order to sate a society that feels they are not inalienable? Down this rabbit hole of circular logic and needless guilt only madness lies. One would think it would only take a matter of time for us to come to the realisation that we’re being incredibly self-indulgent and moronic in regards to this and only this.

Who the fuck bulk Bills?

I’d hulk bill.

Socialised medicine, Crushulised Brutalism

Hulkan Smash. HULKAN SMASH.

ERIC BANA FOUGHT REAGAN AND REAGON WAS PART OF THE DOJ SUBCOMMITTEE ON MODERNISTIC AMBIVALENCE.

Google Maps allows you to stalk people you don’t even know.

AJ Fish and Chips, I’ve read your blog. and your luscious lips shall soon be mine.

I wait outside their houses in the bushes, it’s what gets me off. … Off the chain!

All the people that I know that have been murdered have been murdered by Sailors

I was reading this book the other day called ‘the sensual tones of the modern oligarch’ by /b/ auteur and Nubian Scholar Anoanoys and I realised that several people I know have been murdered or at least have been close to being murdered but then were not as affected by the action as one would traditionally assume. You see it seems that sailors have gone drunk with power, the maritime union instituting curfews of $AlltheTime and fire extinguishers have been lobbed into submarines that seem to loathe everything that lives above the surface. All for what? Some pitiable Dubloons? I won’t hear of it. Sailors of many years have fought for their right to rum (Tucket PARTY!), sodomy and the lash all in manner of drinking from the whetted facet of the malleable fountain that vomits dubloons openly on broken puppies lining the silken gutters of our fractious society.

Sailors in their power-hungry mania have murdered most people. Why do we give them swords. You can’t hug your children with nuclear swords, I own the patent for those swords and hugging children is not in the specifications for them.

I don’t make threats, David, I just tell it like it is. Good luck to you fellow believer.

The breasts of famous people.

Sometimes I just can’t take movies seriously, or actresses seriously. Most of the time this occurs because I know they’ve been naked and caught on celluloid or the bangbros traincam at some point in their life.  You could call me an anti-female chauvinistic pig, and you would be incorrect because I think females are great, everyone should own some. Despite the chicken loving yes-brigade squawking about how breasts are the rhododendronous emancipation of milk-growing, and despite several members of the NSW YL’s having breasts that you could easily start an agricultural society in, I think the marvels of breasts have been long forgotten for this big brother voting craze.

In fact the latest SMS poll I said had the following options

Which is the bestorest of the things that are listed in this list that is after this text, if it is good:

• Oxymoronical Fishbowls
• Kittens with bells on
• Breasts and or Breasticles depending on the local vernacular and the development of the bogan lexical foundation for greater syllable furtherance
• That there them homosexuals what with their Haneef and their bibles what I done reads on the foldable book papers.

All of these clearly options derived from a pet belief that one day we shall not have breasts. You see, examining breasts from a purely economic viewpoint you find out that economics don’t really relate because breasts are pretty awesome. I’m sure someone’s written a treatise on the position of breasts in the masturbatory habits of the rowdy indonesian peninsulas (or rather the lack of masturbation that occurs with members of the Mujahadeen and they are so sexually repressed they’re just fit to blow [boom, boom]) but that is not the purpose of this blog.

I mean, Hayek, the manliest man since Stephen Colbert went back in time and fathered him, ate chickens because the marxists watched them, so who says we can’t thoroughly enjoy breasts and women, and hell, objectify them if the masses of feminists the paper says are lying under my floorboards don’t want to. Also, about the floor boards, I found quite a large stack of possum and dog skeletons/skulls under the house when I was laying cable. There is some inhuman beast from beyond slaying the neighbourhood pets/possums and depositing them into low interest accounts under my house.

If anything this shows that the financial knowledge of demon beasts is slim to none.

What we must do is quite simple, if you know anyone that is female, pay them, or bribe them to expose themselves to you and record it for posterity. Because if they become famous and are on TV, you can tell everyone you’ve seen them naked and that is what life is about.

At least, I hope so, or I’ve been seriously doing it wrong for the past nineteen years.

There was initially a point to all this, please don’t sue me. Michael Moore and Richard Alston wanted to create a web 2.0 child porn site called rapr… they did not get governmental approval.

Strangely they did get Angel Funding from Hewlett-Packard. I think the men at HP should definitely watch what their RnD Departments throw money at.

Child porn with soft gradients and AJAXIFIED submission systems make the baby jesus cry, and that just gets the paedophiles all tore up.

Speaking of tore up, I’m off to get crunk on cask wine and pass out underneath the neon lights in some pharmacy back room.

Good night and good luck.

Why Rudy Giuliani will never be President

Let’s put politics aside for a moment. Let’s ignore the fact that he’s a pro-choice communist in a pro-life small government party. Let’s examine the man himself:

What’s the first thing you notice? The man is bald.

Now let’s consider, when was the last time a chrome dome held the presidency?

Gerald Ford, who was President 1974-77. But hang on, he wasn’t even elected!

So we have to go back even further:

Harry Truman, elected in 1948. What we must not forget, though, is that his opponent was also bald.

The conclusion we reach is that America doesn’t like bald men, and that poor Rudy’s presidential bid doesn’t stand a chance.

Michael Moore is a Partisan Downer

In one of his recent posts Mr Moore informs us that a whole heap of Democrats have pledged to work for the minimum wage, should they be elected president. He applauds this.

But he fails to recognise that Mitt Romney has declared that he would work for nothing and that Ron Paul has never voted in favour of a congressional pay rise and returns a portion of his office budget to the treasury each year. Oh, and Paul, being a doctor, might actually have some idea about the direction America’s health system should take, as opposed to a man who continues to endanger his own health by being a whiny fat cunt.

lolfeminists

Have a read.

Is a person’s will inalienable?

I’m writing this because (after a couple of chapters) I’ve reached a major point of disagreement with Rothbard’s Man, Economy and State, specifically on the issue of free will. He claims that:

…a person cannot alienate his will, more particularly his control over his own mind and body. Each man has control over his own mind and body. Each man has control over his own will and person, and he is, if you wish, “stuck” with that inherent and inalienable ownership. Since his will and control over his own person are inalienable, then so also are his rights to control that person and will. That is the ground for the famous position of the Declaration of Independence that man’s natural rights are inalienable; that is, they cannot be surrendered, even if the person wishes to do so.

This, to me, creates a paradox. If a man’s rights to his free will are inalienable, and his will is to permanently and irrevocably sell himself into slavery, does this not mean that his free will is being intruded upon? The very essence of property is that we may choose to do what we will with it, and if a man’s own will is not his property in this sense, then how can we say that it is self evident that anything else is?

I’d argue that a man’s will is given to him at birth, and remains his until such point as he chooses to relinquish it without coercion, and thereafter belongs to the purchaser because, as shown above, this is the only consistent way we can say he has free will at all.

Are there any other schools of thought on this issue?

Unions Fail at Supply/Demand

Private sector union membership has dropped to crisis levels, a leaked ACTU document states.
The issue has sparked calls to maintain a special levy on members to raise millions of dollars to build an election war chest to further union interests no matter which party wins government.

So demand for unions is going down, and their first reaction is “Let’s increase the cost of membership!”. Economics does not work that way.