Ode to the little green ostrich behind the curtain

What should a free people do about those whose ideology demands that they enslave or slaughter you and yours? Who believe that in imitation of their "Ideal Man," raping your nine-year-old daughter -- and your wife just after they've beheaded you -- pleases their deity? Who consider Beethoven, Shakespeare, and the Sistine Chapel examples of jahiliya? Who would replace the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution with totalitarian and discriminatory laws regulating every aspect of life? Who consider submission to edicts of hell preferable to the freedoms of speech and conscience and the equality of rights for all people?

Deportation of those who refuse to renounce in word and deed such seditious, treasonous, and murderous positions is not "mass murder," it is self-defense. It is common sense. And it is certainly much less violent than free people having to exercise their Second Amendment right in defense of hearth and home.

Would the little green ostrich behind the curtain have defended two million Nazis moving freely within America's borders during World War II? Based on the acuity of his thought on today's jihad and how to defend ourselves against it, the answer is obvious.

Islam is an ideology, not a race.

So, here is a tribute to the self-appointed arbiter of all things "American" (apologies to Emma Lazarus):

Unlike the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates did stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

was the imprisoned lightning, her name now

Mother of Infidels. From her amputated hand once

Glowed world-wide welcome; her mild eyes

above and below by black cloth framed.

"Keep ancient lands, your sympathy!" cries she

With silent lips. "Keep your tired, your poor,

I've got huddled masses drowning in shari'a;

The wretched refuse of my teeming shore

Did nothing while the mujahideen, Tempter-tost to me,

Lifted my head beside the golden door!"

More on Darwin's creation myth

In response to this comment from Slumbering Behemoth:

All very interesting conjecture, but it does nothing to disprove scientific theory that has been worked at and proven for over a century.

Well said, and that is exactly why creation myths, any creation myths, will forever remain unprovable mythology.

Ironically, I'm not the one offering guesswork. I'm offering fact -- what we can observe and therefore know is true. It is Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary theorists who just makes things up.

Darwin's explanations have not been "proven for over a century."

Some of his earliest and staunchest opponents were paleontologists. They knew the fossil record didn't support his theory. Darwin admitted he needed such evidence to materialize.

Instead of Darwin's slow, gradual, random mutations, the fossil record shows a sudden explosion in the diversity of life, a fact for which Darwinists couldn't account, so they came up with Punctuated Equilibrium.

Darwin himself acknowledged that his explanation for something as complex as an eye was preposterous:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible."

(And no, our misunderstanding of the movement of the planets around the Ssun is not analogous: We have been able to observe that in fact, we orbit it. No one has demonstrated -- as Darwin confessed someone would need to do -- that an eye can arise from non-life by only random, natural processes.

Since Darwin brought it up: Just as a quasi-religious body fought vigorously centuries ago to protect its authority by defending its erroneous understanding of Nature, so today a quasi-religious body defends vehemently its power and its own false doctrine. Now that's ironic!)

Finally, Darwin knew nothing of genetics. If he had, I doubt he would have uttered a word about complex genetic program arising by accident.

And as for "creation myths . . . unprovable mythology"? Scientifically-speaking, since no scientist was present to observe and record abiogenesis, and since no scientists have demonstrated that abiogenesis and macroevolution can even occur, I would agree that it is beyond Science's ability to speak definitively on how Life began and developed.

However, to which explanation of Life's beginnings does evidence and experience offer support? To the one that claims Life arises apart from Life and its programs, or the one that speaks of a great Intellect designing and programming that Life?

A last thought: Science is not omniscient. It is not the only way of determining truth.

Darwin's creation myth

Here's another brief analysis of Darwin's creation myth. Couple it with the false dichotomy between the Word of Christ and Science, and you've got not only a great excuse for blasphemy, but ugly, anti-Christian bigotry also.

And nothing says, "Intelligent" like making things up to look down on Christians.

Posted in response to Charles's post here:

It's sad and ironic that one demanding truth of others would promote uncritically the pseudoscience of Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory.

Abiogenesis and macroevolution are not only unsupported by the empirical (scientific) evidence we possess, they're contradicted by it.

"Science" is not the untestable assertions of fallible men, it is a process by which we study natural phenomena. It is a process that is testable and repeatable.

In other words, if you cannot observe the subject, test it, and repeat that process, it isn't Science.

What do you know is actually true about Evolution?

Apart from the random, minor genetic mutations occurring within organisms (usually resulting in severe illness and death, but never newer, more complex genetic program, structure, and function), what can be demonstrated to be true about Darwin's explanations for the origin of Life?

No scientist has observed abiogenesis or macroevolution occur.

We know empirically that Life arises only from Life and Life's programs. No scientist has ever observed otherwise.

We know that no machine or program has ever arisen apart from a designer or programmer, but a living cell is a complex, metabolic, Von Neumann-type machine. And according to one state university's biology textbook, one human cell contains enough program to fill hundreds of such textbooks (all text, no pictures).

The fundamental logical error into which Darwinism falls is mistaking similarities in design for a chain of causation.

What Darwinism asks us to believe -- despite Reason and experience to the contrary -- is not only that the first abacus appeared spontaneously by only random, natural processes, but that somehow that abacus replicated and naturally (accidentally!) developed new structure and function and that this process occurred over and over again for billions of years until the computer with which you're reading this comment appeared. (This analogy is a bit weak: A human being is much more sophisticated than any computer.)

Asserting truths beyond Science's ability to test -- or worse, contrary to what Science, Reason, and experience shows us -- results in science fiction, not Science.

Perhaps he didn't know all that much about European politics in the first place

Which calls into question his judgment regarding the "experts" in whom he put his trust.

You can't hide what happened here by calling it a "typo." It's called, "ignorance," and it should have served as a caution against rushing to judgment and condemning as Nazi-sympathizers -- absent conclusive evidence -- those opposing jihad.

If Charles can err regarding Lionheart's sympathies, if Lionheart can err regarding the nature of the BNP, if Pamela can err regarding Charles's intentions, then all should be able to step back, take a deep breath, and admit where they went wrong.

This whole 'blog fight (that's silly, isn't it?) has been four months of friendly-fire among people of good will who should never have been arguing in the first place.

An important question regarding a political group led to an overreaction by a fellow anti-jihadist. Since then, it's been one spiteful, vindictive ad hominem after another, sustained by the statements of experts some of whom would not have been trusted perhaps but for the fact that their posts supported the 'blogger's position against their opponents. (Extreme leftists would never demonize their political opponents, would they?)

Charles wants to avoid allying with racists and Pamela denounces the "British Nazi Party" (BNP). Both oppose the tyranny of Allah.

So regrettable. Will either admit their error(s)? Will either apologize? Who will take the first step toward reconciliation?

Here was Charles's unsteady first step into the unfamiliar world of European politics (emphasis mine):

#13 Charles 10/24/07 12:07:46 pm . . .

re: #11 Defeater of Defeatism

"Dutch Vlaams Belang party"? Dutch-speaking perhaps. They're Belgian, or more specifically, Flemish. But Dutch, not so much.

Will add additional thoughts later on (being a Dutch citizen residing in Belgium and all).

Thanks. Typo corrected.

Here's more evidence that perhaps a little more research is needed, in response to a post by Charles gloating that "Lionheart drops the mask" regarding the BNP:

#489 Amillennialist 1/20/08 2:28:07 am . . .

re: #486 Pickle

re: #476 gunjam

Well said. We are kicking a guy who has taken a bullet -- not for being a fascist -- but for CRITICIZING JIHADISTS!

No. Charles defended him for doing that, and so do I. We're all excoriating him for his association with the BNP, which is not mitigated by his anti-jihadism.

Following links I found this from Lionheart:

I have written posts in support of the BNP in the past which I will explain . . .

. . . within the BNP there is an internal struggle between what has been termed the modernizers and traditionalists.

The modernizers want to reform the party to take it away from its anti-semetic and white supremacist roots and make it more inclusive for the British people and thus make it a respectable electable political party within Great Britain.

. . .

Being non-political a year ago I never knew the complexities of political parties and their origins, but now I am becoming aware of some critical things that I cannot support which is why in my mind since this rebellion started I removed my support of the present BNP which can be proved with documented evidence.

Articles on my blog supporting the BNP were written months ago when the only people out there doing anything about the Islamification of Great Britain were the people of the BNP. I support any good and decent British citizen who is a BNP member who is not a racist, neo-Nazi fascist . . . .

I personally reject, racism, fascism and neo-Nazism and would never knowingly support those traits because it is not who I am as a person.

To answer your question; do I support the BNP? No.

. . .

Q. . . . The BNP charter claims that membership should be limited to whites only, do you support that?

A. No I do not support that because being whites only makes you a racist organization, I never wrote posts in support of the BNP because of this issue, I wrote posts in support of the BNP regarding other issues like the Islamification of my homeland, uncontrolled immigration and the injustice that is aimed at people like Mark Walker.

Q. Nick Griffin the party leader for the BNP has made some very anti-semitic statements. What are your views on Jews and on Isreal?

A. Putting my life on the line twice for Israel and its Jewish residents within the Holy Land, [?] and being a very vocal supporter through my blog should speak for itself.

. . .

Q. And the holocaust?

A. The Holocaust happened during the Second World War and we should not let it happen again as is stated throughout my blog . . .

Too much jumping to conclusions, too much mob mentality, too much uninformed, hair-triggered self-righteousness.

We need to stop the friendly-fire.

Private clarifications ought to precede public eviscerations.