The politically incorrect guide to why the Arab world hates the Jewish State:
SCREW! phil donohue.
This is funny, I've been reading Atlas Shrugged for the first time (I should have read it sooner!), and just a few days ago in reply to an Islamic apologist at Jihadwatch, I commented, making the connection between the "looters" described in the book and the Palestinians who not only try to loot Israel, they seek vindication for it. The parallels are striking, especially the way the general public in the book (those who call those against their policies "anti-social") treat both the victims (poorly) and the looters (like some kinds of heroes).
now go read "We The Living", her semi-autobiographical account of Russia. very small, very powerful.
I'll have to put that on my "too read" list. I was thinking of reading The Fountainhead next.
(That is, the coincidence, not the article itself is funny. )
Also, yeah, Donahue is a moron.
So are those members of the audience who cheered Donahue's rants.
Rand's critiques are echoed in Wafa Sultan's "A God Who Hates" based on her own experience growing up in the Arab Muslim culture of Syria. And the shortcomings of Middle East countries are laid out in the UN Development Programme's series of Arab Knowledge Reports, written by Arab sociologists.
". . . . the millions of men, women and children, who are Arabs, who find themselves in the middle of this horrible conflict, and who wonder where peace will be, . . ."—WHO FIND THEMSELVES?? Well, Mr. D., even the irrationality of even throwing rocks at tanks—Arab rocks at Israeli tanks—those Arabs make and are glad to take as but one ear-mark of a culture of the kind of violence which they would see perpetuated into an infinity of days forward; almost savages, like brute beasts, living but to be caught and killed, wishing for, and designing mayhem against an advanced neighbor, those Arabs don't FIND THEMSELVES there, nor anywhere else, . . .
Ford Hall Forum 1974:
The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it's the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are. Israel is a mixed economy inclined toward socialism. But when it comes to the power of the mind—the development of industry in that wasted desert continent—versus savages who don't want to use their minds, then if one cares about the future of civilization then support Israel.
Phil Donahue is a girlieboy and an Leftist a-hole. Remember he's married to a Arab (supposedly Christian but sure unlike her father) shrew who probably is out bopping other guys.
That was really uncalled for, saying that his wife is probably whoring around, but I do appreciate you pointing out that he is married to an Arab, or is he? Danny Thomas was a Lebanese Catholic. That's why his wonderful hospital is dedicated to St. Jude, a Catholic saint. His daughter, Marlo, would then be part Lebanese. Does that make her an Arab? She and her husband Donahue are simply Hollywood liberals. Phil was a Catholic, too, but extremely liberal from the get-go. These are Americans expressing their views which differ from ours. I am sad to see character assassinations being thrown at them and no cognitive argument surfacing here.
Yes, both Marlo, Phil and her now deceased father did and still do a great deal of good for St. Jude's Hospital.
Ayn Rand is exactly right. It is not just Arabs, it is Islam, a theo-political construct (i.e. a political philosophy posing as a religion). They have been doing this sort of thing for hundreds of years – it is only the oil wealth and the stupidity of the West which props the Islamic world up at all. Without the oil wealth or western funds they would all be living in hovels and fighting each other. Islam teaches them the highest value is hating those who are not Moslems, it is not a religion of peace, it is a religion of war (incidently Grover Norquist had a lot of influence in the Bush 43 WH, and Norquist' wife is a "Palestinian"). Islamic cultures are dominated by a culture of death, constitutions which inshrine hatred – what's not to like? No wonder the left has gotten in bed with Islam and their hatred of women, homos, and Jews. Women produce life, Jews celebrate life, and homosexuals celebrate their sexual decisions and freedom from traditional authority.
There is an attorney. He is born in Iran. He is helping of what one describes the wife is looting. He is more what one may believe is a result toward Americanization and away from Mohammedanism or a certain way. He continues, it sounds, questioning Israel, or people in Israel to cause to exit Palestinians from their homeland,he indicates, and adds he continues believing it not right they are to vacate and leave what is theirs. It may appear awkward to indicate to him, it is Israel's, not The Palestinian's, the names of Palestinians are not on the deeds, Palestinians and more would want to loot from Israel when and where Israelies have and deserve to have the property they have, and it is wrong to want to loot the property it looks they rightfully have.
One may note various I sraelies obtain the land by developing it. Their Jewishness may not interfere with their access to it either. It looks various Americans from Europe develop and get to own land. It may be separate from American Indians not owning ,developing, and hunting on certain land. To a number, it may not be American Indian land. Maybe to a number it is. Maybe to a number one can believe what one sees is theirs. One can believe it same or not with Israel and Palestine.
It may look awkward because the attorney is to get from a looting, a number may describe,wife what is not hers. Money, possessions, property. She gets money not hers off of the sale of a house which is not hers. She pretends to the title company she has permission from the ownership. She has no permission. The title company deviates from an agreement and sends her the money. She disposes of it by misappropriation. With it, the attorney looks to be against people not getting to keep their property or land because of wrong coercion. It looks wrong commiters coerce people off their rightful land. The leave and vacate it. They want repossession.
It looks against incorrectly separating owner from one's possessions, property, and money. It may be wife from husband. It may be nation from nation. It may be people from people. It looks Jews, including Israelies and Israeli Jews, would not adopt the manner. The basis of the formulation of The State Of Israel includes a homeland sanctuary against Nazi aggression. They loot properties of various Jews in Europe before. It is not one wrngs the next, nor the separate one.
It looks most Moslems want peace. No fewer than 70%. If the religion is not one of peace and the preceding is right,most Moslems disagree with the religion lots of people believe they have. If most people believing in religion want peace, it may be there is no religion not wanting peace. It may be each "major" religion wants peace. With it, to adherents of peace, who is not wanting peace, is not a believer of a "major" religion.
Ayn Rand disagrees with a way of same sex. It looks most religionists, too. One describes Ayn Rand with a certain term of it. There is freedom of choice. It includes no group to interfere with sexual choice. It may not be a topic of the founding fathers.
she also defends freedom, individuality, and free market capitalism from personal experience. She lived through the Russian revolution, experiencing totalitarianism first hand. To a number, it may not be American Indian land. Maybe to a number it is. Maybe to a number one can believe what one sees is theirs.
The opposition to Ayn Rand's criticism of the Arabs is ridiculous. The "elite" left refuses to believe that Arabs can hate and kill for no more reason than the hated is a Jew or Christian. They prefer that Rand excuse the hate away and make the dispute one between two friends that just can't get along. As if the Arab who raised a suicide bomber is identical to the Jew that raised a doctor that was called on to serve in the IDF to defend against that suicide bomber. THERE IS NO equating to be done here; none at all! As Golda Meir said "there will be peace when the Arabs love their children more than they hate the Jews". A corollary is: If the Arabs gave up their weapons there would be peace. If the Jews gave up their weapons there would be death to Israel.
The U.S. is not to give up, either.
OK, I get it – IT'S THE KORAN, STUPID!
al-wala' wa'l-bara' folks!!
now can I have my pork ribs?
Just go to the Allahu Snackbar on Tuesday or Thursday where they or half price.
Ayn Rand is definitely more popular and influential among neo-conservatives. However, paleo-conservatives were more suspicious of her because of her atheism and her apotheosis of the will. Her critics thought that in order to defend freedom and individuality against totalitarianism, she reflexively jumped to the other extreme: the anarchist-libertarian pole.
Although much of her thought comes from the lineage of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, she also defends freedom, individuality, and free market capitalism from personal experience. She lived through the Russian revolution, experiencing totalitarianism first hand.
For Rand, one is banished from civilized society and discourse when one murders political opponents in a conflict. This is the totalitarian way which she despises. She also sees terrorism as a destabilizing force of a society. Think of all the left-wing violence prior to the Russian revolution: assassinations, bombings, and robberies.
Ayn Rand is not libertarian. She believes it communistic. She disagrees with Schopenhauer and maybe most of Nietsche. She is not a Schopenhauerian. Much of her thought is not from the two. Noting it, it more frees one to write and think of her an advocate of freedom and more without traits with the word"although" preceding them. Where there are, and it is good, and who are the neo-conservatives indicating influence by her?
"It is to the Mohammedans, the Buddhists, and the cannibals — to the under-developed, the undeveloped and the not-to-be-developed cultures — that the Capitalist USA is asked to apologize for her skyscrapers, her automobiles, her plumbing, and her smiling, confident, untortured, un-skinned-alive, un-eaten young men!" – Ayn Rand
Notice how Donahue didn't even try to refute Rand's characterization of Arabs/Muslims. The only thing he could do was try to imply that being critical isn't nice. Donahue is a walking case of left-wing intellectual bankruptcy.
First of all, all these comments support one another. Way to empower spirit not logic. You live in the 'civilized western, developed world' with 'advanced economies' espousing principles of freedom. Yet you lack a free banking system, you submit yourself to unscrupulous, volunteered searches in the process of boarding a plane with the ticket you paid for, your country is dominated by duopoly of political power whose different means result in the same ends, increase in spending, debt, and war, you've allowed oligarchies to infest all industries and feed you foods that toxify the body then purchase drugs to mask the symptoms from the same oligarchs, you've lost the ability to produce and gained the ability to serve, and are being lead to 'globalization' by the very same policy-makers that have looted every last moral premise that founded America, when rational men took on the task. Where there are contradictions check your premises. You call Arabs savages? You say they are uncivilized? Have you ever entertained the thought that maybe the Arabs like you are held under that 'evil force' just in another form? The reality is the same loss of human life, mind, and values.
I was actually shocked after reading 'Atlas Shrugged' to see Mrs. Rand answer about this subject. It didn't seem that Mrs. Rand had a moral premise other than hatred of life. You’re living in the past; the days of Galt or Rearden are over. Minds now are collectively organized to produce via the technologies the very same minds produced. Today there is no man greater in knowledge nor ability then the collective processing power of brilliant minds organized around a purpose, vision, and goal. The inter connectivity, connection, and cotangents of minds today can out produce those of one by factors not existent in the days of Galt or Rearden.
So for Mrs. Rand to select the status to Israel because of an intelligent, productive, technologically advanced country derived from men of ability is false. Israel like any other advanced country is 'intelligent, productive, and technologically advanced because of the interconnected, organized collection of minds sharing a common goal, vision, and mission and for their freedom to do so. This leaves the question; who are the men who are organizing the brilliant minds and setting the vision, mission, and goals of this new reality, the complex organization of brilliant minds? I juxtapose that they are not men of logic or rationality or with the moral premise of John Galt but that of the looters in Mrs. Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged'. Except in the nonfiction existence of what actually is John Galt lost and the looters won, today, now, in the perceivable, touchable and knowable world that you and I share. John Galt lost and Rearden and Dagny Taggart are still together.
The only flaw that Mrs. Rand left out was the significant historical fact that when the looters get desperate they take the country to war first by creating an enemy, then by escalating it, and to the inevitable result human death. Through this process they transfer the economic result of their irrational policies, wipe out the minds of society through death, and indoctrinate the youth through their ‘education programs’ to start the process of looting once more. Although she did flirt with it through the menial example of Project X and its operation in the destruction of the Taggart Bridge but that is all just a flirt, a brief subconscious acknowledgement of the truth. I am sure she was aware it because she was a student of history and in her genius brain knew it would ruin the very book she wrote and the very life she professed she lived for, which I value. The fact is the looters don’t have to be in the government to control the policy of it they just have to own it and not by means of objective values of wealth but by fictitious papers claiming no value other than the victims own denouncement of sovereignty.
Please tell me I’m wrong. Please free me from death. Explain to me why the paper money? Tell me why central banking? Tell me why ‘central’ anything [i.e. centralized military, centralized intelligence, centralized government, centralized medicine, etc]? Tell me why bail outs? Tell me why too big to fail? Tell me how a nation can be prosperously bankrupt? Tell me how a bank can own property by lending money it never had? As far as I am concerned this is the world John Galt or any of our earlier presidents like Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, or Abraham Lincoln would have avoided cooperating with by working at their lowest capacity and saving their mind for their private joy. How could you expect any capable human with a mind to cooperate and work at the best of his ability when he is nothing but a number measured as the velocity of money or the rate at which he receives a piece of paper, derived by the surrender of his sovereignty, and turned over to the next servant. Don’t forget that his sovereignty or his depreciation of it is relinquished at a rate his owners set and which server their purpose. This reality is more unbearable than Mrs. Rand’s ‘Atlas Shrugged’, a cavity without a bottom, a black hole. Now if any of you are producer tell me is this logical to you? Was the justification for a purely debt-based, paper monetary system to speed up man’s technological and productive advancements or was it the justification for the looters to speed up the transfer of wealth from the productive minds, before the very same minds woke up to the result of the looters deepest desires, death of the mind, of man? Do you profess to support such a system? Do you suggest that it is civilized, becoming of a man like John Galt, or worthy of your life? If you do like Mrs. Rand suggested you have the want of death not life. At least the Arabs are not cooperating with these globalized looters. I have to give them thanks for that. This is the rubber reality.
If Rand is so opposed to physical force, what about the murder of a sweet little girl named Rachel Cory, tens years ago, and the theft of land from Palestinians? Is her problem, perhaps, to put in Randian language, that Israel is not getting "the sanction of the victim?"
Another point: In praising Israel's technological superiority, she is quite literally saying "Might makes right." This directly and totally contradicts her maxim against the initiation of the use of physical force. Aristotle, who Rand claims to admire (thouogh one wonders why since he certainly was no individualist), never did say "A is A." That was Leibniz some 2000 years later, who thought it was but a trivial "truth of reason" with no bearing upon any objective reality. Nor did Aristotle (or any other serious philosopher) ever say anything so silly as "existence exists," because that is just outright false (unless of course, one wants to maintain that empty and meaningless abstractions have a real existence). Aristotle did, however, say that there was one fundamental law of reason: the law of contradiction. Here, in a matter of a minute or two, Ayn Rand flouts the very law she claims to hold dear. But this is not the only place she does this. She does it throughout her writing. In my book on Rand, I have dubbed this "The fallacy of the ditched premise."
May 21st, 2013
Beverly Hills, CA
Charles C. Johnson
June 19th, 2013
Los Angeles, CA
Return to top of page
Copyright © 2013 · FRONTPAGEMAG.COM