Monday, February 20, 2006
Mental Baby Bush...
...has declared that the world needs to be littered with nuclear plants, spreading that criminal shit even wider than those revisionist dog heaps mentioned in the preceding post. Our valiant John Zube, more outspoken against the "peaceful" nuclear folly than any other libertarian you may run into, even than some Greens in power these latter-day days, leads a quixotic battle, not in general, but in one case, against one of his compatriots (or in Zubish panarchist parlance: prison inmates), let's name him Keith, because that is his first name which he is sharing with others. As a jailbird he is seemingly enjoying his life sentence. An exuberant joy I can only attribute to the stock he must hold in the enterprise.This Keith now is as obtuse on this and other matters as John is stubborn in trying to convince him, John the noble missionary never giving up, even in front of the most unredeemable sinner. So those several who are witnesses to the correspondence between the two get first rate entertainment making their freedombound prison life slightly more bearable, as unnerving it may be that John doesn't follow my repeated advice to give that battle against "windmills" (so to speak!) up.
Among the many treats let me quote the following most recent one. Keith, in one of his victory-minded messages, had jubilated about the news item "Lithuanian president: To achieve economic independence Lithuania needs new nuclear reactor". John's answer now:
"Dear Keith,
I find all kinds of nonsense taught and practised in law, politics, economics, ethics, the arts, fashions, religions, psychology, warfare, revolutions, "education", philosophy, medicine, biology, in diets, life-styles etc., etc. So why should nuclear "scientist[s]" be the exception, rather than the rule?
Against a regime like that of Hitler or the Japanese empire they had nothing better to propose than "nuclear weapons", which shows already, that they were soft in the head.
Too much exposure to radiation from radioactive substances?
The first and rather risky nuclear reactor experiment was set off close to or within Chicago, I believe in its university grounds! Which, again, showed to me that these "scientists" neither think nor care sufficiently.
If you think that nuclear reactors are so good for you, why don't you creep into one, thus serving your fellow human beings by being turned into energy?
Or if you still plan to have children, place a packet of unshielded isotopes near your privates, in the hope that the resulting mutations will be supermen or supergirls.
Why not also start a new religion, worshipping nuclear power?
Which would mean something like a return to the worship of the "Sun god".
Be consistent!
As a libertarian, anarchist and panarchist, I am not interested in territorial national independence and its various spleens and wrongs, except in trying to render them harmless, by confining them only to their genuine volunteers.
PIOT, John."
To this he got the answer:
"Dear johnzube You are certainly eloquent. Consistency is not much of a quality if you are consistently wrong. The Lithuanians are building a new nuc reactor after experiencing old Russian ones. Are they crazy? You carefully dont comment on this.People who quote Hitler & Holacausts [CB: holla! as the Germans say][CB: Don't forget to bring me several, Minna, I am tempted to call to my virtual skivvy just leaving for the super-market or eBay] in ordinary correspondence should be examined especially those who do it repeatedly!!!! With kund regards & best wishes keith......." [CB: last name considerately withheld]
Keith has his own consistency, always being beside the point, totally escaping it. Affaire à suivre or maybe crawling back (not as far back as the Stone Age Keith is working on bringing us back to eventually) to previous exchanges I may post here. So that you can "examine" them, as this is "ordinary" correspondence. ;-)
So much for the time being for mental Baby Bush's mental offspring...
Posted by Christian Butterbach @ 11:23 AM GMT+1 [Link]
Assholes...
I got a comment from a friend regarding the preceding post:"So what do you think? That the freedom of speech should protect some idiot's right to deny the holocaust... or not? I can't tell, based on your latest post to CB's Notewok. It seems to me that you think freedom of speech shouldn't protect this. I don't know. I think you'd have to be an asshole to deny that the holocaust (or Holocaust) happened. But I think you'd also have to be an asshole to deny someone's right to say whatever assholic thing is on his mind. It's a tough issue. But not because it's a tough decision to make. No, it's a tough issue, because it's tough to deal with human beings, who are almost universally, inexplicably stupid, inhumane, and insensitive. It's hard to know whose rights ought to be revoked -- the rights of the holocaust denier to deny the holocaust, or the rights of the people not to hear it -- because, inevitably, idiots will be involved. And idiots don't deserve rights, I think. Or so I hear. I don't know...
"
My answer:
I don't really get you. I thought that the post in CB's Notewok was quite clear. Which I can't say of your comment. By the way, not a single word of that post is by me. It is by Dr. Sean Gabb. Maybe his very British ways in language, reasoning and information background make it difficult for you to fully look into the fortune-teller's sphere. Or did I make some mistake when coding it? I will have to check.
I posted it because I totally agree with Sean or the Libertarian Alliance here. Like you, I think that the world is full of assholes and to Dr. Irving I would tell in the face that he is a major asshole. All holocaust deniers are assholes and mostly even evil minded ones. Still, nobody is to decide what anyone thinks, says or prints. One could even better answer those assholes if them and us had the full freedom of speech that we don't have. To that extent I accuse the State to be prejudiced in favour of those guys rather than of us, in spite of the appearances.
Dr. Irving and consorts would be a bit less of assholes if they restricted themselves to criticizing some manipulations that seem to have been made, some details, instead of denying the holocaust wholesale. But as assholes go, they litter the world with undigested, putrefied and bad smelling dogs' heaps.
And the State needs these red herrings to divert from its own greater, more basic, steadier crimes... While the "Zionists" have astigmia too. About this see for instance "In Defense of Jews (or Not?)"<http://www.butterbach.net/jews.htm>, "Libertarians and Terrorists ~ Common Traits: Iraq, Ireland, the US and the State of World Affairs"<http://www.butterbach.net/jz2.htm>, "Instead of cartoons..."
<http://www.butterbach.net/blogs/net/archives/00000268.htm> on this site, as well as many other instances to be found on it also. And in this connection I also warmly recommend "no god zone"<http://nogodzone.blogspot.com/> or its following overview <http://search.blogger.com/...>.
I don't know if David John Cawdell Irving earned a doctoral degree, I think rather not, but I instinctively called him Dr. Irving, as that makes him look more German (he will be pleased!) and especially more Austrian (culturally, not regarding economic theory), like Hitler and Schwarzenegger. 
Idiots do deserve rights. They just don't deserve power (over others). And this they have in common with intelligent people, including geniuses.
Posted by Christian Butterbach @ 09:34 AM GMT+1 [Link]
Saturday, February 18, 2006
"FREEDOM OF SPEECH MEANS RIGHT OF DAVID IRVING TO DENY HOLOCAUST", SAYS FREE MARKET AND CIVIL LIBERTIES THINK TANK
At 9:30am on Monday the 20th February 2006, Dr Sean Gabb, Director of the Libertarian Alliance, will appear on Sky News to defend freedom of speech in general, and in particular the right of controversial historian David Irving to say anything he likes about the holocaust.Mr Irving is awaiting trial in Austria for the supposed crime of denying or minimising the holocaust.
Commenting ahead of the broadcast, Dr Gabb says:
"Either freedom of speech means the right to say anything at all about politics, religion, science or history, among much else - or it means nothing at all.
"There are those who say they believe in freedom of speech, but then insist that the promotion of "hatred" does not come within the meaning of free speech. The Libertarian Alliance utterly rejects this supposed distinction. What some call the promotion of hatred others call telling the truth. In any event, we believe in the right to promote hatred by any means that do not fall within the Common Law definition of assault.
"Whenever the State involves itself in arguments about the truth, disputes between opinions become disputes between opinions and power. And the State has neither special ability nor the right to decide what opinions may be true or false.
"Whatever we may think about what he claims, whatever we may think about the motivation for his claims, the claims Mr Irving makes regarding the holocaust are a matter to be settled by historical debate - not by the criminal law.
"If Mr Irving is found guilty by the Austrian court, he will be as much a prisoner of conscience as any of the politically correct prisoners that the Potemkin "human rights" organisations - such as Amnesty International - like to defend, while refusing to defend the rights of holocaust deniers and anti-semites.
"We also note with distaste that those journalists throughout Europe who are congratulating each other on how brave and liberal they have been over the anti-Moslem cartoons have not said a word for the freedom of Mr Irving to express himself.
"The Libertarian Alliance believes in freedom of speech for all - WITH NO EXCEPTIONS."
The Libertarian Alliance further believes:
* That no law should be made in the United Kingdom to criminalise sceptical comment on the holocaust;
* That the Race Relations Act 1976 should be repealed;
*That the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 should be repealed;
*That, pending repeal, the Race Regulations subsequent to these Acts should be withdrawn;
*That those sections of the Public Order Act 1986 dealing with speech and publication should be repealed;
* That the whole of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, particularly those sections dealing with "racial aggravation" of offences should be repealed;
*That the Commission for Racial Equality and all similar organisations should be abolished, and their records burned;
* That all those convicted of thought crimes under the above laws should be pardoned and, where appropriate, compensated;
* That the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill now before Parliament should be abandoned;
* That the Terrorism Bill now before Parliament should be abandoned;
* That the Human Rights Act 1998 should be amended to protect the right of people to say anything they like about public issues, and to associate or not associate as they please.
Posted by Christian Butterbach @ 10:49 PM GMT+1 [Link]
Friday, February 17, 2006
Will we all have to become cartoonists?
In order to follow in the footsteps of Jewish Harry Heine, later Christian Heinrich Heine, just replacing words with images, which is more consistent with our modern world some seem not to have reached yet.Today is the 150th anniversary of the death of Henri Heine, as his third and final first name incarnation goes. He who said "Dort wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man auch am Ende Menschen." (where one is burning books one will end up burning people) [or flags or embassies or Jews].
This is a good and right occasion to draw your kind attention to Ilana Mercer's topical column Buchanan of Arabia [how's that for a subtle title?! I hope it will find many readers in Great Britain and some parts of the Uncommonwealth...] and when you have read it, enjoying the kung-fu of her vocabulary, please go to her Barely A Blog for a little surprise and very important point. And I hope you will forgive me for having been very obtuse in this case.
To return to Ilana's column, please take note of an important piece of a sentence in it: "... and Allah duly obliged him." About which I remarked in an email to a selection of 13 of the most important and perceptive, not to say canny, fighters for freedom now alive and active: This is the core trick of all monotheist religions (and more or less all others) and of power and despotism in general. And I would like to give the following advice to a good many of our contemporaries: Please come to your senses on this.
Finally, I also take the opportunity to add something to the preceding post called "Instead of cartoons...". As the author, John Zube, had written "Has any Islamic State so far committed atrocities like the establishment of mass extermination camps for people whom they considered to be 'undesirable'?", I had remarked the following to him: "I can think of the Turks who committed a genocide against the Armenians. And more recently against the Kurds, to a lesser extent. And that the Kurds' liberation front is largely inspired by Marxism is no valid excuse to exterminate them. Then I can think of the chemical war in Iran and Iraq against the Kurds mainly." And to his saying "Pakistan may still be the only Islamic country whose government has nuclear 'weapons'." I had retorted "Doesn't India also have nuclear 'weapons' and cannot one consider it largely a Muslim nation? The number of Muslims in India is very large and not uninfluential in some parts. Also, there are many Sikhs and they indeed are extremely influential and form a religion which is a synthesis of Islam and Hinduism, with maybe largely a better result than the original ingredients. It's like spiced Indian cooking some don't like. ;-)" To these two remarks of mine his answer was: "You are right! My excuse: It is hard to keep all of the atrocities in mind." Let's at least keep in mind that we should not submit to terror and nitwits.
Posted by Christian Butterbach @ 11:25 PM GMT+1 [Link]
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Instead of cartoons...
A letter to a panarchist friend who thinks that Muslims are not for tolerance...One of the troubles with various Islamic sects is that they cannot even stand each other, just like Catholics and Protestants did not, for a long time - and they tend to be even more intolerant towards "unbelievers".
I have met tolerant and decent Islamic people. Haven't you?
But even the intolerant Islamic governments do trade extensively with Western countries, e.g. selling them oil and also invest some of their profits in the West.
Nor should you forget the numerous Islamic people, who live quite peacefully in many Western countries (eastern countries, really, if you include e.g. Australia and New Zealand from the viewpoint of Mecca) and that terrorist minded people are only a small minority among them, a minority which hasn't even studied the Islamic teachings very well but has still the warrior mentality of Mohammed and some of his successors, who established the Arab-Islamic empire.
Terrorism is not an invention of Islamic people or of the Nazis or Soviets. Before Israel was established, there happened also terrorist actions by private Jewish organizations, like e.g. the "Stern Gang". Irish terrorism has lasted a long time, and anarchists, particularly of the left "action" types have often been blamed, rightly or wrongly, as being terrorists. In the Boer war the English established concentration camps for women and children of the Boers, in which many of them died. Read up on the terrorism and extermination practices in the Old Testament, upon the "highest orders".
During the Civil War in the US in some prison camps, on both sides, atrocities happened, comparable to some of the SS actions.
Has any Islamic State so far committed atrocities like the establishment of mass extermination camps for people whom they considered to be "undesirable"?
Pakistan may still be the only Islamic country whose government has nuclear "weapons". How many "Christian" ones are "armed" with nuclear weapons? Is that their way to "love" their enemies to death?
Unfortunately, the State of Israel is also so "prepared" with ca. 200 - 300 nuclear "weapons", each with approximately the capacity of one extermination camp, only with the difference, that it would operate even faster and more "scientifically".
When I think of the Palestinian suicide bombers, while I do consider them to be more or less mad and clearly murderous, I also compare them with bomber pilots, who bombed cities systematically, causing e.g. firestorms e.g. in Hamburg and Tokio or who wiped out cities like Hiroshima and Nagasaki with a single super-bomb. These pilots did not have the courage of their convictions - which the suicide bombers have. The Allied flyers - and those of the Nazis - tried to survive their own attacks. Only the Japanese Kamikaze flyers could be compared with these Palestinian fools and criminals.
Can you blame such crimes on Islam?
For a few centuries there were Christian crusades against Islamic countries. Czarist Russia was on and off at war with Turkey for about 200 years.
During the colonialist age, and well into the twentieth centuries, there were many military occupations and domination attempts against Islamic countries. Think e.g. of the World War II battles in North Africa.
Think of the tradition of "Capitulations" in the Near East and in the Far East. The Chinese "unequal" treaties, which did not allow autonomy to Chinese in Western countries.
Did Islamic regimes establish something like the Inquisition? The tortures that were practised by regimes like that of Saddam Hussein were more politically than religiously inspired.
If I were a follower of Mohammed and adopt an overview of all these events and generalized a bit too much, then I can understand that at least some Islamic people have come to believe that they are still in a religious war with the "Unbelievers" of the West and the North - and some of the South, like Australians and New Zealanders.
How much tolerance have "free" western countries shown e.g. regarding money and currency, free trade, free migration, tax resistance, secession from the State?
Have Western States really set shiny examples of tolerance in every sphere, as yet?
Isn't it also wrong to force a uniform territorial democracy of people still largely organized in tribes or thinking in tribal terms? (Iraq, Afghanistan.)
Even the original Arabic empire builders were tolerant of "people of a holy book", which meant, largely, Christians and Jews, as long as they paid their annual head tax.
And that tax, as U. v. Beckerath pointed out, was a strong inducement, for centuries, for the rulers, to remain relatively tolerant towards other religions. Compare that with the "stand" or atrocities that many "Christian" countries and their priest-inspired fanatics took at the same time against Jewish people!
But most of the Islamic people at the bottom were illiterate and some of their fanatic priests semi-illiterate. In that situation intolerance can flourish and persist.
You cannot condemn all Islamic people as intolerant for the simple reason that there are all kinds of other ideologies spread among them as well, even libertarianism.
Always judge individuals only by their own actions, never by their religions, race or other outward appearances.
And do not forget, how many intolerant people there were and still are e.g. among the "Christians" and also among e.g. the Atheists, e.g. during the Spanish Civil war.
In spite of relatively small scale atrocities committed by most of the few Islamic people, who are fanatics (Some large and prolonged atrocities happened, too, e.g. in the Sudan, with racism there coming into it.), can we blame them, for the last 100 years, to have been as intolerant as e.g. the followers of "prophets" like Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Castro??? were?
And even when it comes to the relatively few and quite intolerance Islamic fanatics: Have you sufficiently explored all the social, economic and political problems behind this fanaticism? Do you clearly enough see the connection? Do and did the terrorists enjoy panarchistic options? Did they even hear about them via Western mass media or in Western universities, if they had a chance to attend them?
As far as their collective responsibility practices go: Have white men, with carpet bombing and ABC mass murder devices, "free fire zones" and mass executions, been quite free of them?
For centuries Islamic, Jewish and Christian people lived relatively peacefully together in many countries.
Then the "religion" of statist territorialism and uniformity arose - and led to huge slaughters, the largest, probably, among Christians, Chinese and Indians.
So, please, do not generalize too much. There is not just "one truth": There are millions, even billions!
Rather let us work towards institutions in "western" countries that would practise a maximum of tolerance and also utilize this tolerance whenever they would still somewhat clash with totalitarian or dictatorial regimes.
Let us set shiny examples of tolerance in action, in every sphere.
The French Revolution paid largely only lip service to the maxim: "War to the palaces. Peace to the cottages!"
If we applied this ruling systematically and developed it further, and used it also against our own bureaucratic palaces or systems of domination, then we would, indirectly, undermine Islamic and other terrorism almost everywhere, efficiently and fast.
Then we would also prevent most wars and bloody revolutions or bring them rapidly to a successful conclusion, without excessive bloodshed and, as far as possible, no bloodshed of innocents at all.
Setting armies in march against "them" (terrorist groups), is obviously not the solution. In most cases, they cannot even find "them".
Or when they try to "bomb" "them" or hit "them" with rockets, they tend to kill more innocent than guilty people.
I am not a friend of governmental police forces - but, in most instances, they are not made up of all too indiscriminate and professional killers, under orders like those of "Bomber Command" were.
John Zube
~~~
PS:
http://www.cagle.com/news/Muhammad/main.asp (20 pages of cartoons)
http://www.surlering.com/article.php/id/5023 (in French)
Seen in a popular department store in France:
Regarding the above, Philippe Douste-Blazy, the French foreign minister, wrote to José-Luis Duran, chairman of the board of Carrefour (source: Guysen.Israël.News):
''Alors que l'affaire des caricatures danoises provoque en Europe, et dans des pays musulmans, une forte émotion et des actes de violence inacceptables, des magasins de votre groupe ont mis en place le boycottage des produits alimentaires originaires du Danemark.
De telles pratiques ont eu lieu, pour l'essentiel, dans la région du Proche et du Moyen-Orient. Je tiens à vous faire part de mon indignation quant au fait que des produits en provenance d'un pays membre de l'Union européenne aient pu être ainsi retirés de la vente, en manquement au principe de solidarité entre partenaires européens. Ces discriminations choquantes ignorent ces valeurs de générosité et de tolérance qui sont au cœur de l'entreprise européenne. Vous [aurez] à cœur de témoigner de l'engagement de votre groupe en faveur du respect de ces principes, même au sein de vos magasins franchisés.''
My quick translation:
''At a time when the question of the Danish cartoons is provoking in Europe and in Muslim countries strong emotions and unacceptable violent acts, shops of your group have implemented a boycott of food products originating in Denmark.
Such a practice has essentially taken place in the region of the Near and Middle East. I am making a point of telling you my indignation about the fact that products originating in a member country of the European Union could thus have been withdrawn from sale, departing from the principle of solidarity between European partners. These shocking discriminations ignore those values of generosity and tolerance which are at the heart of the European venture. You will be bent on giving evidence to the pledge of your group in favour of the respect of those principles, even within the shops of your franchisees.''
The editor
Posted by Christian Butterbach @ 07:18 PM GMT+1 [Link]
Warning
During the week starting tomorrow, Monday, February 13, 2006, this group of sites will (again) be moved to a new server, much better and safer, with greatly enhanced bandwidth and web space and other features, and, I guess, in these imperial-patriotic days, as an homage to my uncooperative efforts, a direct line to Laura Bush's drawing room. The decision wasn't mine, but the one of my provider and whoever lurks behind their operations, whichever nanny is nursing there and putting an occasional foot on a cable or in the door. ;-) The official reason though is the experience made with hurricane Wilma, when my sites had been almost two days off the map of the Internet.I cannot guarantee that there will not be any short interruption in the accessibility of the sites or of my email, especially since my long standing IP number 209.238.255.5 will change. Please bear with me and don't think that I made myself scarce, fed up with my thankless job...
Posted by Christian Butterbach @ 11:00 AM GMT+1 [Link]
