October 20, 2011 § Leave a comment
Congrats NATO you murdered yet another person, a ruler who kept the country together and united.
Congrats you ruined yet another country
Congrats Libya will now be in hell
Congrats Libyans will now lose all their national wealth to private corporations for a low price
Congrats NATO the tool of Zionism
June 18, 2011 § Leave a comment
It has been often said, with good reason, that this world is too complicated, moves too fast, and is too concerned with materialism. There is much evidence to support such an assertion. To keep things simple, however, I offer one simple way to combat this state of being.
Pick up a book and read it from cover to cover.
That’s all. Do it as often as you can and at your own pace.
Why would this be important? Well, while there are many other ways of slowing down and removing ourselves from this hectic world reading and books are in the unique position of offering almost limitless pleasure while stimulating the intellect at the same time. You could take a walk around the block every day but that will get boring and repetitive; not so with books. With millions of them out there, the pages within a book have to give.
The more practical reason is also because we simply don’t read enough. We have access to more information almost instantaneously and yet we have huge numbers of citizens shockingly ill-informed about the world they live in. Many waste their time in pursuit of the most trivial things life can offer.
However, since I’m not one to order people around and tell them what to do (that’s the libertarian in me) I will not go any further. I will end by suggesting that you find yourself a good book and start reading.
May 24, 2011 § Leave a comment
Constant propaganda from imperialist and warmongering politicians of all stripes (with a few notable exceptions) has them claiming that a non-interventionist foreign policy is equal to ‘isolationism’. This is false simply because no country can in this day and age isolate itself from the world. In a by gone era both Japan and China did exactly that and history shows that they fared badly because of it. Also, no one actually wants to sever all ties with the rest of the world.
So what would be the benefits of non-interventionism then?
Well for starters countries would be saving boatloads of money and debt that could either be saved, not borrowed at all, or utilized domestically. Actually, the best possibility would be to have that money returned directly to the taxpayer. Next, worldwide conflicts would dissipate more quickly or simply become irrelevant to the vast majority of people; the situations in the Middle East and Central Asia, or even more specifically, the ongoing and tedious conflict in the Holy Land.
Further, the global image of that country that chooses peace, trade, and communication over guns, bombs, and never ending wars would increase dramatically. No more dealing with terrorists hell bent on killing their enemy either in their country or abroad.
My personal favorite is that one wouldn’t have to bother keeping up with events in countries most other people have never heard of simply because their government thought that it looked like a decent target in a moment of martial unthinkingness (which seems to happen quite often these days).
In short a foreign policy of non-intervention means there is more peace, prosperity, and liberty all over the world. What could possibly be wrong with that?
May 13, 2011 § Leave a comment
Read the mainstream media and you’ll quickly realize that we are running out of everything; oil, water, gold, coal, uranium, trees, etc. What is forgotten in practically all of these cases is that we’ve been through this before. Again this is an issue that would benefit (what wouldn’t?) if there was a greater knowledge of history. In Great Britain in the 1860s, there was a Peak Coal crisis fuelled by the writings of a man believed that Britain possessed just a few more decades worth of coal and thus needed to pay off its debts before running out of its most precious resource. Unhampered, the free market always supports the most efficient possibility meaning that energy sources, like everything else, would change over time. Before coal it was simply wood or dung. Afterwards we had oil and its derivatives with shale gas being its latest and possibly greatest form.
While we’re on the topic of oil let us also remember that vast areas of Alaska, the Dakotas, and Canada hold massive amounts of untapped oil reserves. Also to consider is the idea that oil is probably not formed in the manner assumed by conventional science (over millions of years under great pressure) but comes from the Earth’s crust and is abiotic rather than being a product of dead animals and plants. It is important to note that Peak Oil would generally favour the Big Oil companies rather than harm them.
With regards to the other resources noted above, two things can be mentioned so as not to make this post into a book. The first is that we are never going to run out of most of the resources in any real sense of the word simply because they are all present under the oceans. The market, seeing that these resources are not so readily available on land would signal that it would be time to mine them from the seas. And like with any other innovation, after some investment and experimentation, there would again be a steady and cheap supply of whatever we may need. At this point you say that this would cause much pollution and destruction. This can be answered with a question: surely not more destruction than is caused on land?
The second point that should be made, and this will tie in with the above, is that the free market along with private property can easily find an answer to all our problems. As an example I give the elephants of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) vs those in Kenya. In 1978, Kenya banned the hunting of elephants; populations plummeted. In 1979, Rhodesia made elephants the property of those on whose lands they were traversing; populations exploded.
Something that no one owns, no one will care about.
May 11, 2011 § Leave a comment
Across the English-speaking world, if not the West, there is an appalling lack of knowledge of history but also more importantly, a profound and ingrained disrespect for it. Memorizing dates may not be sexy stuff but it puts you, your existence, and your world in perspective. In history class you are taught to always see things in context. This means that you have to look back to find the origin to a problem. Only then can you find the solution to your problem. The problem is clearly visible in schools where the statistics are truly horrifying and I’m not even referring to those young kids who did not know who Osama bin Laden was. I refer to the more basic facts about our common past; in Canada only 8 percent of citizens knew that Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state. The woman is on the back of all the coins for a reason! In America more than one-quarter of college students believe that it was the Civil War battle of Gettysburg that had ended the War of Independence. While in Great Britain a survey of 16 to 24 year olds found that a third of them thought D-Day marked the end of World War II. Perhaps a saving grace is that more than 10% believed knowledge of history made them more attractive to the opposite sex!
It also exists at the political level where, arguable, it is vastly more important. Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats in Britain felt that it would be horrible if some MPs (who had abused their parliamentary expenses about a year ago) were to go unpunished “because of some law dating from 1689”. The law that he refers to is the Bill of Rights which gave England and later the rest of the English-speaking world, protection from the power of the state. Yes, the men need to be punished but certainly not by brushing aside the most basic set of laws in the West. What is missing is principle. It was definitely missing during the Bush Administration in the United States as well as during the Conservative minority (now majority) government in Canada.
Everyone big or small needs to look at the past; at what made their country great, prosperous, and free when deciding what changes to make (if any) for the future. In practice this means that they need to respect individual freedoms and liberty and keep the interference of the state to a bare minimum. That’s what history tells us.
May 9, 2011 § 2 Comments
A seemingly little noticed Rassmussen poll from April 2010 had the Texas Congressman just one percentage point behind Obama in a hypothetical 2012 presidential race. Support for the champion of the Constitution was at an amazing 41%. This of course may have been because so many would simply not vote for the current President of the United States and would cast a vote for anyone else. However, just over an year later, a new poll has shown that Paul would be just seven points behind Obama with 45% of the vote against Obama’s 52%. Paul would have the best chance out of all the best GOP candidates; beating Huckabee, Romney, Gingrich, Palin, and Trump. While this poll was taken before the widely reported assassination of Osama bin Laden, as the economy gets worse under the Democratic Administration and the celebrations wear off, Obama’s lead will surely shrink as Paul is consistently proven right about his warnings regarding the American economy.
As he is clearly the most consistent and prinicipled candidate currently running (this category includes the President) as time goes by more and more Americans will get the chance to hear his name and realize that he is the only viable choice they have to save their country from utter catastrophe. I am not exagerating when I say that the 2012 vote will be between the forces of freedom and those of liberty. While Paul also ran in the 2008 campaign with the exact same message of peace and porsperity through the Constitution, the ultimate winner was portrayed as one who could bring hope and change to America because of his supposed skills and his unique background. The sane ones among knew that could never happen through anything else expect freedom. Big government would not be able to fix the problems it itself caused.
Therefore, this presidential election, more than any other before will give Americans the chance to redeem themselves and their country by walking the path that originally made America the freest and more prosperous nation the world had ever seen.
May 8, 2011 § Leave a comment
AHMED THE HOLOCAUST DENIER?
Word by word translation:
Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).
“..The word “regime.” pronounced just like the English word with an extra “eh” sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase “rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods” (regime occupying Jerusalem).”
“So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want “wiped from the map”? The answer is: nothing. That’s because the word “map” was never used. The Persian word for map, “nagsheh” is not contained anywhere in his original Farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase “wipe out” ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran’s president threatened to “wipe Israel off the map.” despite never having uttered the words “map.” “wipe out” or even “Israel.”
^ The best article I have found to disprove this fallacy.
THE NUMBER GAME AND HOW THE MEDIA DISTORTED THE TRUTH
Other sources of evidence:
“…They ignore the fact that Ahmadinejad’s 62.6 per cent of the vote in this year’s election is essentially the same as the 61.69 per cent he received in the final count of the 2005 presidential election, when he trounced former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.”
Now, the only people here suffering are the Mousavi protestors who believe they are right and their vote was actually stolen. This is propelled my Mousavi himself and possibly outsiders as well..
The simple fact that Mousavi claimed victory before the results came out is confusing…to say the least.
“According to a wide variety of news sources (for example, London Telegraph, Yahoo News, The Globe and Mail, Asbarez.com, Politico), “Before the polling closed Mr. Mousavi declared himself ‘definitely the winner’ based on ‘all indications from all over Iran.’ He alleged widespread voting irregularities without giving specifics and hinted he was ready to challenge the final results.” Other news sources, which might not have been aware that the polls were kept open several hours beyond normal closing time in order to accommodate the turnout, reported that Mousavi made his victory claim the minute polls closed.”
This article by Paul Craig Roberts an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration explains that Mousavi was prime minister from 1981-1989 and knew about the Beirut bombing which killed American solders and he was the same guy who started Iran’s nuclear program. So why is he suddenly a “reformist” and better than Ahmed.?
“..More evidence of orchestration is provided by the protesters’ chant, “death to the dictator, death to Ahmadinejad.” Every Iranian knows that the president of Iran is a public figure with limited powers. His main role is to take the heat from the governing grand Ayatollah. No Iranian, and no informed Westerner, could possibly believe that Ahmadinejad is a dictator. Even Ahmadinejad’s superior, Khamenei, is not a dictator, as he is appointed by a government body that can remove him.”
Lastly, the famed statistics which have “shown” the elections were a fraud:
>>But Silver doesn’t find the evidence compelling. He examined results for the presidential race between Barack Obama and John McCain, plotting six points on the chart where results would have come in on election night, and found a similar linear progression. He says it’s not hard to find such progression in other elections as well.<<
>>Silver also examined how conservatives fared in Iran’s 2005 election to see if individual provinces voted differently this time. He found a couple of anomalies, but only one that stood out glaringly: In Lorestan, where conservative candidates altogether got only about 20 percent of the vote in 2005, Ahmadinejad alone got 71 percent of the vote this year.<<
“[It’s] nothing I would consider conclusive proof,” Silver says
>>In earlier versions of this report I mentioned that “fraud is certainly a reasonable inference in light of reports that ‘Iran’s Guardian Council has admitted that the number of votes collected in 50 cities surpass the number of those eligible to cast ballot in those areas’ (Press TV, 2009).” Whether that finding by the Guardian Council is evidence of fraud is disputed. The Guardian Council itself reportedly found nothing suspicious in their
investigation, citing the fact that voters in Iran can vote wherever they choose.<<
^ This article gives the reader a perfect example of how the media chooses to present its news. It focuses most of its attention in favour of fraud yet concludes that statics may not be able to show the whole picture based on a number of other factors. So, if you havent read the whole article you come to the conclusion that the Iranian elections are fraud.
In conclusion, ive given more than enough evidence showing the Western world has influenced Iran and this case cannot be any different this time. The lies that are surrounding Iran in our media outlets are only to be used as a reason to invade the country for its riches just as Amerika has done in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s the same tactics being used with just a different name…