Truthiness

As a sworn enemy of reality, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has found a home in the ironically-named "truther" movement. He has publicly stated his belief that the attacks of 9-11 were a "big fabrication" and were a pretext for the invasion of Afghanistan (read about his comments here).

In the context of my recent postings about world leaders and conspiracy theories, I thought this story was very interesting. While he doesn't represent any real executive power in Iran, it is certainly alarming that even a titular head of state can say such things in public. It's even scarier that these kinds of comments tend to rally his base, rather than embarrass them.

Are there ANY voices of reason out there?

New World (dis)Order

A few years ago I read a book called "Them: Adventures with Extremists." The book was written by a British journalist named Jon Ronson (the same guy who wrote "Men Who Stare at Goats"). The book chronicles Mr Ronson's experiences as he travels around the world (ok...mostly the US and the UK) visiting with extremists of all stripes, including firebrand Islamic cleric Omar Bakri Muhammad, Klan leader Tom Robb, Randy Weaver (of Ruby Ridge fame), and radio shock jock Alex Jones. He attempts to understand and convey to the reader some integral parts of their world view. What he finds is that they all have the common thread of being conspiracy theorists. While they don't necessarily agree on many points, they do seem to think that the world is controlled by some shadowy cabal that seeks to enslave and/or subjugate everyone else.

I really enjoyed the book. Secure in the knowledge that this kind of thinking is relegated to the outer fringe of society, I found such ideas interesting. Even entertaining.

Not anymore.

I'm not sure if conspiracy theories have gotten more popular, or if I'm just more sensitive to this sort of thing, but they seem to be everywhere. From celebrities (Rosie O'Donell and Charlie Sheen) to Heads of State (Chavez [see last posting] and even European leaders), everyone is espousing pet theories. It seems as though this has gotten out of control.

When contemplating the origin of all these theories, only one possible explanation emerges. The theories themselves were created by the Illuminati in order to measure intelligence. Only the dumbest, most useless oxygen thieves actually believe them. They will be the first to die when the zeta reticulans land. Don't believe me? Then allow me to create a pseudo-scientific YouTube video about it. Then you'll see. And if you say you don't believe it, then I'll just assume that you either a) stupid or b) one of "them."

In all honesty, I find this kind of thinking dangerous and destructive. It allows people to assume the worst of their leaders and institutions, and to form opinions that far exceed their level of actual knowledge. It can poison clear thinking and breed paranoia. And worst of all, it disguises lies to appear as truth.

Just to be clear; I'm not saying people don't conspire. But I am saying many of the popular theories out there are, in my view, complete BS. It seems like the nut jobs are monopolizing the microphone these days, so please allow me to add a voice of reason to the fray.


Eh hem!

May I have your attention please! You should be aware of the following:

• The moon landings were not faked. They really happened.


• 9-11 was not an inside job. Please, PLEASE do not try to refute this. I will lose. much respect for you. If you mention Building 7, I may explode.


• None of the earthquakes that have occurred were deliberately caused by the US.


• The US government did NOT blow up any levees in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina (sorry Spike Lee).


• Obama is not using FEMA to build concentration camps around the US.


• There are no black helicopters waiting to pounce on the US.

So, let's talk about this. Has anyone else noticed an increase in this kind of thinking? Why is it happening? What makes a conspiracy theorist tick? Why do these ideas persist?

Love is Blindness

Romance in the Middle East can be a minefield. First there is the prevalent phenomenon of incestuous cousin marriages. Not only does it happen, it is often viewed as the optimal course of events. Forgive a culturally insensitive "yuck!" This issue is finally making some headlines casting some much-needed doubt on the practice.

Well, let's say you do it right, and are looking for a girl who isn't a close blood relative. Well, don't even think about trying to walk up and talk to them. You might just end up in a Saudi jail (read here). Instead, you'll need a willing mediator to help facilitate the relationship.

Which brings me to this (hilarious) story coming out of Dubai. It had all the makings of a succesfull Arabian marriage: engagement between non-relatives, a mother acting as mediator, and a wealthy diplomat who based his decision on a photograph provided by the mother. What could possibly go wrong?

They met on multple occaisions, but the bride-to-be donned the all-covering niqab (pictured above). But he had seen her photo, right?

Well....no. Turns out, the cunning mother provided the rich diplomat with a picture of the intended bride's sister (who must be pretty hot). He made this discovery when he lifted her veil at the wedding ceremony. To make a long story short, let me copy a line from the news item:

"An Arab country's ambassador to Dubai has had his marriage contract annulled after discovering the bride was cross-eyed and had facial hair."

Shocking! Everyone knows you should shave before your wedding.

Earthquakes and Idiots

This posting is about the earthquake in Haiti. You might be wondering how a posting featuring a picture of Hollywood superstar Danny Glover and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez could possibly be related to the largest tragedy currently on the world stage.

In a word: Stupidity. Both of these guys had unbelievably silly things to say about the cause of the earthquake.

First, let's review Mr. Glover's brilliant comments. Here's Glover's quote taken from a commentary piece on Fox News' website:

• "And I hope we seize this particular moment because the threat of what happens in Haiti is the threat that can happen anywhere in the Caribbean to these island nations, you know? They're all in peril because of global warming; they're all in peril because of climate change. When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I'm saying? But we have to act now."

If you can cut through the rambling, quasi-retarded language he used, then you come to the conclusion that he thinks that global warming caused the earthquake. Huh? This from a grown man?

There are two interpretations of this statement that come quickly to my mind, both of which are stupefying.

1. The warming of the atmosphere by a couple degrees has caused the movement of the tectonic plates to change in their behavior. Leaving the debate about climate change aside, I'm having a hard time with this one.

-OR-

2. The Earthquake was a divine act of retribution to pay us back for our bad behavior at Copenhagen. In other words, God decided the best way to punish the polluting, industrialized portions of Earth's population was to destroy the capital city of the poorest, most benighted country in the Western Hemisphere. It's the Angry Old-Testament style wrath, but with bad aim.

Why not just come out and blame America for the Earthquake?

Well, that's exactly what Hugo Chavez did. Fox News, once again, carried the story (read here). Yes folks, the US has an Earthquake Weapon. The earthquake was used a pretext to occupy Haiti. As if we didn't have enough money-pits already.

How do you respond to something like this? Incidentally, the only other major news source I observed to report on Chavez's comments was a state-owned Iranian English-language Press TV (read here). I guess Rupert Murdoch and Ahmadinejad have similar news agendas.

And if you wanted a less crazy, more erudite reason to blame the US for the debacle in Haiti, then check out this article by a Swedish intellectual from Al-Jazeera English. Sigh... Can we do nothing right?

As a citizen of the country who is by FAR contributing the most to the rebuilding of that poor shattered country, I'm a little annoyed with so many fingers pointing blame at us.


*Cartoon taken from cagle.com.

The Future of European Immigration

You may have noticed this story coming out of Switzerland: the Swiss just voted to ban minarets in their country. While this has very little actual impact (there are only four minarets in the entire country), it seems to represent just the latest development in Europe demonstrating a pervasive backlash against liberal immigration policies. From Geert Wilders' Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, to the British National Party in the UK, groups and individuals in Europe are challenging the "Immigrationist" policies that have been in place since the end of WWII.

The one thing that unites the various parties seems to be an aversion to Islam, or more precisely Islamism in Europe. Islamism is defined as "a popular reform movement advocating the reordering of government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam[www.m-w.com]."

Let's look at Britain as an example. Perhaps the most glaring example of widespread malaise over this issue happened in elections held for European Parliament in June. The British National Party (BNP) won seats in the European Parliament for the first time ever. This is especially alarming, given that the BNP voted just this month as to amend the party's charter and allow non-whites into the group [there is a Sikh who is lined up to be the first non-white member, based on their anti-Islamist platform.].

If you want more evidence that this is a grass roots movement, the last few months have witnessed demonstrations all over Britain by a group calling itself the English Defense League (EDL). Several hundred people have shown up to drink alcohol, wave English flags, sing "God Save the Queen," and spar with counter-protesters. If you visit their website, the EDL are quick to portray themselves as anything but the "racists" and "hooligans" the British press makes them out to be.

And finally, more evidence of a popular uprising against immigration comes in the form of results of a survey, conducted by Angus Reid, from November in which 68% of Britons would like to see a decrease in immigration (read the report here). This is up 5% since August.

What's to blame for this trend? I would attribute it to a natural human tendency to distrust the "other," along with some terrorist bombings in Europe, firebrand clerics that don't know when to shut up, assassinations of public figures (Theo Van Gogh), and flagrant expressions of antipathy towards native populations by immigrants.

I'm sure I'll post more about this topic in the future. I predict that immigration will play an important part in coming elections throughout Europe. Don't be surprised to see parties with anti-immigration policies make significant gains, despite the repeated charged of "racism," "xenophobia," and "fascism" that will certainly be hurled at them relentlessly.

Armchair Attorney

If anyone has been reading the news this week, they probably recognize the photo above. It is associated with a story coming out of Chicago. Here's the summary (or read the story here):

Some University students wanted to go to a club. 200 White students were admitted, and 6 Black students were denied entry, allegedly based on their "baggy pants." One of the black student swaps pants with a white student to see what would happen. The white student gets into the bar without delay, and someone takes a picture of him. Voila! All the makings of an inflammatory race story.

So, let's examine 'Exhibit A.'

This picture shows two people wearing the same exact pair of pants. The gentleman on the right was not allowed into the club, supposedly based on the pants, but later that night the gentleman on the left was admitted, wearing the same pair of pants. So, if it wasn't really about the pants, what other variable is at play? Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, it is clearly a matter of race. I rest my case.

But wait a second. Let's take a second look at that photo, paying attention to the person circled in yellow. I guess someone got past the racist goons at the front door. Or is there something else going on here? To be honest, I don't know. If I were on the jury, before passing judgment there are a couple of things I would want to know, such as:

• How was the gentleman on the right wearing his pants when he was denied entry? Was he "sagging?" This may be a small point, but it is certainly germane.
• In the initial group of students, were any White student denied entry? Were any Black students admitted?
• Did the same club employee both deny entry of the Black student, and allow entry to the white student?

As of now, it seems this story will just fizzle out. The students agreed not to sue if the managers of the club underwent some "managerial diversity training." No marches organized by the oh-so-relevant Reverends Jackson and Sharpton. Pity.

I just thought it was great how one photograph can both support and undermine an argument.

Further on 'Terrorist=Hero?'

While scanning the news today, I came across this headline:

Lockerbie Bomber Gets Standing Ovation from African MPs

Huh? Really?

Before I go on, let me state a key assumption on my part. I assume that Megrahi is guilty. I have read reports that there was pressure on the judges to reach a guilty verdict, but this does not mean Megrahi wasn't guilty. It seems there was ample evidence to convict the guy.

Anyway, the article includes a quote from the Speaker of the Parliament of the African Union, Idris Ndele Moussa. He said "We came to express our solidarity. He is the victim of international injustice and a policy of double standards." (Read article here)

A 'double standard,' eh? Well, perhaps there was a double standard here. I agree that the universal standard for treatment of convicted terrorists should have been applied. He should have stayed in prison, according to the established standard. Somehow, I don't think this is what Mr. Moussa meant.

And a member of the Libyan Parliament made a stunning moral equivalency when he said "the visit by the African Parliament to Mr. Megrahi is no different from the reception given to the Bulgarian nurses by European Parliament." (Read about that incident here)

This is remarkable for two reasons:

1) Assuming that the Libyan MP thought that the meeting between the MEPs and the Bulgarians was in some way immoral, isn't he admitting that the visit by the African MPs similarly immoral? Shouldn't he be condemning the visit? Or is this another case of "what's right for me isn't necessarily right for you?"

2) He is also equating the actions of the Bulgarian nurses, which at worst might amount to criminal negligence, with an act of terrorism that deliberately targeted a civilian flight. So intentions mean nothing.

So, what can we learn from this interesting lesson?

That in large parts of the world:

Terrorist = victim of injustice

Negligence = Mass murder

Terrorist = Hero

Can you spot the terrorist in the crowd?

No? That's because he's not in the crowd. The terrorist is the reason the crowd showed up. He's the reason they're all so darned happy. This is a picture from the arrival of the Abdel Baset Al Megrahi, of Lockerbie infamy, in Tripoli after being released from a Scottish prison on humanitarian grounds (read here).

For a thoroughly disgusting take on the events, read this article from an English Language Lybian newpaper (here). Summary: "Thanks for giving him back after he killed 270 of your innocent citizens, but couldn't you have taken better care of him?"

Releasing him was a mistake. I hope we learned our lesson.

The Future of Europe?

I have been reading a lot about Europe lately. Specifically the role of the growing Muslim minority, and its effect on the indigenous culture (when's the last time you heard Europeans referred to as 'indigenous?').

I have been reading one book in particular called "America Alone." It is written by a very conservative Canadian author, Mark Steyn, who sees a very bleak future for Western civilization.

My gut reaction is that he is overstating the problem. As he sees it, Muslims in Europe, with the complicity of the roll-over-and-surrender-at-the-first-sign-of-trouble leftist ruling elite, will fundamentally change the culture and government systems of the continent, in a process he calls "re-primitivization." Liberal democratic institutions will be undermined in the name of multiculturalism, and anyone who opposes this will be called "racist" or "fascist." And that this process is going to happen much sooner than anyone expects because Europeans simply aren't having enough kids. Unless they happen to be Muslim Europeans.

I don't want to believe that this is true. But he cites several compelling examples, the most alarming of which is some poll data showing that not only do Muslims, in large part, have different values, but many ascribe to a different version of reality. And that instead of becoming assimilated, they are actually becoming more segregated and more radical in their beliefs.

Anyway, I was reading the BBC website today, and I found this story: click here. From what I can gather from this short article is that some English folks were showing a little pride in their country (heaven forbid!), and expressing concern over the influence of Islamic fundamentalism. Then a bunch of anarchists and Muslims showed up (an interesting and diametrically opposed mix, it seems to me) and trouble ensued.

As a big fan of Western Civilization, I find this trend very disturbing.

[For an intro to Mark Steyn, see a video about multiculturalism here. It has some great sound bytes.]

The Rise of Monotheism

“They invoked also their own wit, by name of Muses; their own ignorance, by name of Fortune; their own lusts by name of Cupid; their own rage, by name of Furies”

Thomas Hobbes
Leviathan
Half of the people in the world are monotheist of the Abrahamic tradition. What explains the rise and dominance of this religion over vast portions of the globe?

Believers would argue that its victory is because of the underlying truth of the narrative. Skeptics might assert that its power is because of the zeal with which its adherents persecuted and stamped out completing and threatening religions.

However, number of adherents cannot necessarily equal truth, because these numbers vary over time. And intolerance cannot be the deciding factor, because these particular religions are not unique in their persecution of other beliefs. Furthermore, Christianity was in no position to persecute for the first formative centuries of its existence.

What do you suppose it is about monotheism that enough of our ancestors found compelling?

(This posting was contributed by Dane, and incorporates a few minor changes from me)