"Cuba’s communist-led intelligence services are aggressively recruiting leftist American academics and university professors as spies and influence agents, according to an internal FBI report published this week.
Cuban intelligence services “have perfected the work of placing agents, that includes aggressively targeting U.S. universities under the assumption that a percentage of students will eventually move on to positions within the U.S. government that can provide access to information of use to the [Cuban intelligence service],” the five-page unclassified FBI report says. It notes that the Cubans “devote a significant amount of resources to targeting and exploiting U.S. academia.”
“Academia has been and remains a key target of foreign intelligence services, including the [Cuban intelligence service],” the report concludes.
One recruitment method used by the Cubans is to appeal to American leftists’ ideology. “For instance, someone who is allied with communist or leftist ideology may assist the [Cuban intelligence service] because of his/her personal beliefs,” the FBI report, dated Sept. 2, said.
Others are offered lucrative business deals in Cuba in a future post-U.S. embargo environment, and are treated to extravagant, all-expense paid visits to the island."
Friday, September 5, 2014
Why Of Course: American Leftist Academics Being Recruited As Cuban Spies
Academics seem not to profit that much from crony capitalism, and only somewhat from government grants, so this could boost their bottom lines considerably, and further their agenda to derail and destroy the USA:
Mehta and Humanism
Over at Mehta's "Friendly Atheist" site, he has posted a reader's image without critique. I reproduce the image here:
This is a cartoon in the form of a chart. Let's take the items one at a time, Christian side first.
First, Christianity is based on the admonition to "question everything". There are a great many churches who invite non-believers to bring their concerns to the fore and discuss them. While there is some point where Atheism as a belief diverges from Christianity as a belief, there is plenty of dogma on the Atheist side to which a Christian would have to assent in order to convert from Christianity to Atheism.
For example, Philosophical Materialism and its offshoot, determinism, are requirements, and anyone presupposing dualism is rejected as an incompetent Atheist. Also: the immaculate conception of the universe, of the laws of physics, of mind, of consciousness, and of life on earth as well as the denial of agency and free will, are all necessary dogmas under Atheism.
Second, Christianity is divisive both when it is abused by Christians, and when Atheists become incensed at having moral consequences injected into their way. But under biblical Christianity, their is no abuse, except for the placement of moral consequences onto a libertinist populace. What Atheists see as abuse actually is the limitations of human actions, which they want none of. And rejection of limitations of human actions is precisely what produced the Atheist atrocities visited on very large portions of humanity by Atheist governments.
Third, Atheists are ignorant of the science which they promote as their own. There are no Atheist scientific "Facts", as touted in the chart; there are merely scientific contingent factoids, most of which are failing to produce any real knowledge at the moment due to being incomplete or flat out wrong. Atheists who make the claim in the chart are illiterate in both current science and extablished logic. Not to mention the philosophy of science.
Also, Atheists (who hate literalism) always take every sentence of the Bible literally. While there are a few Christians who do this, it is neither necessary nor sufficient for the theist to argue theism without fear of refutation.
Fourth, as discussed above, questioning and doubt are NOT disallowed by Christianity. To make this claim, the Atheists has to be either ignorant about that which he makes claims, or he is dishonest in making them.
Now let's discuss the Humanist side of the chart:
First, "socialized ethics" is not a morality, and not all humanists adhere to it. (First Humanist Manifesto). The idea of basing ethics in a social environment is merely situational ethics. And situational ethics is not ethical at all, and definitely not a set of moral principles. The idea that humanists subscribe to a set of common morals is false.
Second, humanists use a purely materialist belief in "reality", which they do not question, nor attempt to prove in any fashion. Nor do they question their Atheism, or their lack of real morals, or their personal elitism, or their concept of utopia made in their image, or anything of their own creation. In fact, the only questioning they do is of cartoon religion. They do not address actual theist claims, ever, because they cannot. Nor do they ever prove their own beliefs, because they cannot.
Third, the reason that Atheists and humanists are distrusted is NOT for using reason; they are distrusted because their morality is unknown and unknowable, being either situational, Leftist totalitarian, or personally congruent elitism (or all three or none). So this pitch is an attempt to claim victimhood from the high ground, which humanists do not actually occupy.
Just because humanists like to "think up" some morals that they want everyone to accept and adhere to, does not make the humanist a reasoning creature, much less rational. If anything, the New Man humanist is a wannabe dictator, who very likely wears a Che tee-shirt and demands economic equality for himself, to be taken out of the possessions of others and redistributed to him.
Humanism is a pretend space where intellectual miscreants gather to propose their victimhood to each other, and to fantasize their elitist, messiahist takeover of society while marching arm in arm toward their personal control of the global utopia in their religion-hate-fevered minds.
By publishing such falseness, Mehta demonstrates once again that he is not actually "friendly", but publishes false accusations and hate propaganda frequently.
This is a cartoon in the form of a chart. Let's take the items one at a time, Christian side first.
First, Christianity is based on the admonition to "question everything". There are a great many churches who invite non-believers to bring their concerns to the fore and discuss them. While there is some point where Atheism as a belief diverges from Christianity as a belief, there is plenty of dogma on the Atheist side to which a Christian would have to assent in order to convert from Christianity to Atheism.
For example, Philosophical Materialism and its offshoot, determinism, are requirements, and anyone presupposing dualism is rejected as an incompetent Atheist. Also: the immaculate conception of the universe, of the laws of physics, of mind, of consciousness, and of life on earth as well as the denial of agency and free will, are all necessary dogmas under Atheism.
Second, Christianity is divisive both when it is abused by Christians, and when Atheists become incensed at having moral consequences injected into their way. But under biblical Christianity, their is no abuse, except for the placement of moral consequences onto a libertinist populace. What Atheists see as abuse actually is the limitations of human actions, which they want none of. And rejection of limitations of human actions is precisely what produced the Atheist atrocities visited on very large portions of humanity by Atheist governments.
Third, Atheists are ignorant of the science which they promote as their own. There are no Atheist scientific "Facts", as touted in the chart; there are merely scientific contingent factoids, most of which are failing to produce any real knowledge at the moment due to being incomplete or flat out wrong. Atheists who make the claim in the chart are illiterate in both current science and extablished logic. Not to mention the philosophy of science.
Also, Atheists (who hate literalism) always take every sentence of the Bible literally. While there are a few Christians who do this, it is neither necessary nor sufficient for the theist to argue theism without fear of refutation.
Fourth, as discussed above, questioning and doubt are NOT disallowed by Christianity. To make this claim, the Atheists has to be either ignorant about that which he makes claims, or he is dishonest in making them.
Now let's discuss the Humanist side of the chart:
First, "socialized ethics" is not a morality, and not all humanists adhere to it. (First Humanist Manifesto). The idea of basing ethics in a social environment is merely situational ethics. And situational ethics is not ethical at all, and definitely not a set of moral principles. The idea that humanists subscribe to a set of common morals is false.
Second, humanists use a purely materialist belief in "reality", which they do not question, nor attempt to prove in any fashion. Nor do they question their Atheism, or their lack of real morals, or their personal elitism, or their concept of utopia made in their image, or anything of their own creation. In fact, the only questioning they do is of cartoon religion. They do not address actual theist claims, ever, because they cannot. Nor do they ever prove their own beliefs, because they cannot.
Third, the reason that Atheists and humanists are distrusted is NOT for using reason; they are distrusted because their morality is unknown and unknowable, being either situational, Leftist totalitarian, or personally congruent elitism (or all three or none). So this pitch is an attempt to claim victimhood from the high ground, which humanists do not actually occupy.
Just because humanists like to "think up" some morals that they want everyone to accept and adhere to, does not make the humanist a reasoning creature, much less rational. If anything, the New Man humanist is a wannabe dictator, who very likely wears a Che tee-shirt and demands economic equality for himself, to be taken out of the possessions of others and redistributed to him.
Humanism is a pretend space where intellectual miscreants gather to propose their victimhood to each other, and to fantasize their elitist, messiahist takeover of society while marching arm in arm toward their personal control of the global utopia in their religion-hate-fevered minds.
By publishing such falseness, Mehta demonstrates once again that he is not actually "friendly", but publishes false accusations and hate propaganda frequently.
Victor Stenger Ceases To Exist...
...under the principles of Materialism and Atheism. Stenger died on Aug 27, 2014, in Hawaii.
Stenger is remembered for at least two particular things:
First, his Atheist bumper-sticker slogan:
And second, his book titled, "God, The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist", which I reviewed here.
For the terminally uncritical, these two bits entitled Stenger to the appellation, "Fifth Horseman". And his fans are heaping glory on his memory now after his death. Stenger was as prejudiced toward both Scientism and Philosophical Materialism as any other Atheist-scientist-Materialist-evangelist. That his conflation of religion with terrorism shows that, and plainly so. Yet this prejudice, hatefully stated, is seized upon by many Atheists as Truth, in the religion which actually claims, "No Truth". In reality, the anti-intellectualism which exists in the Scientistic worldview comes to express itself in hate speech, an indulgence with which Stenger was comfortable.
In his book, Stenger refers to the symmetry breaking hypothesis origins theory as if it were Truth, immutable. But unfortunately for him, symmetry is now a defeated shell of a scientific hypothesis, being eviscerated by the complete lack of complementary particles found at the CERN high energy particle accelerator. And it is entirely possible that the entire pursuit of particle-sifting from the shards of particle collision is a fantasy, not a science.
So when he makes the claim that the laws of physics came from nothing in the same manner as mass came from nothing, he has barked up a tree which is now decayed into sawdust by science itself. And that is the function of science, to produce tentative factoids, contingent upon the limitations of current technology and the current knowledge of limited intellectual power.
The problem for Scientism is that its Truth claims are frequently nuked by the progression of science itself. It's as if the religion has been created specifically to be falsified under its own worship of science as the path to Truth.
But Stenger also failed to appreciate the utility of philosophy in reining in the abuses of Scientism. If he had had any respect for the Philosophy of Science (under which real science is done), he would have had to admit to Popper's falsification boundary as a limitation to the purview of science. By not accepting that limitation, or perhaps any limitation at all, for scientific ability to produce incorrigible Truth, Stenger became a religionist, even as he scorned religion.
And that is his biggest failure.
Stenger is remembered for at least two particular things:
First, his Atheist bumper-sticker slogan:
"Science flies to the moon; religion flies into buildings."
And second, his book titled, "God, The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist", which I reviewed here.
For the terminally uncritical, these two bits entitled Stenger to the appellation, "Fifth Horseman". And his fans are heaping glory on his memory now after his death. Stenger was as prejudiced toward both Scientism and Philosophical Materialism as any other Atheist-scientist-Materialist-evangelist. That his conflation of religion with terrorism shows that, and plainly so. Yet this prejudice, hatefully stated, is seized upon by many Atheists as Truth, in the religion which actually claims, "No Truth". In reality, the anti-intellectualism which exists in the Scientistic worldview comes to express itself in hate speech, an indulgence with which Stenger was comfortable.
In his book, Stenger refers to the symmetry breaking hypothesis origins theory as if it were Truth, immutable. But unfortunately for him, symmetry is now a defeated shell of a scientific hypothesis, being eviscerated by the complete lack of complementary particles found at the CERN high energy particle accelerator. And it is entirely possible that the entire pursuit of particle-sifting from the shards of particle collision is a fantasy, not a science.
So when he makes the claim that the laws of physics came from nothing in the same manner as mass came from nothing, he has barked up a tree which is now decayed into sawdust by science itself. And that is the function of science, to produce tentative factoids, contingent upon the limitations of current technology and the current knowledge of limited intellectual power.
The problem for Scientism is that its Truth claims are frequently nuked by the progression of science itself. It's as if the religion has been created specifically to be falsified under its own worship of science as the path to Truth.
But Stenger also failed to appreciate the utility of philosophy in reining in the abuses of Scientism. If he had had any respect for the Philosophy of Science (under which real science is done), he would have had to admit to Popper's falsification boundary as a limitation to the purview of science. By not accepting that limitation, or perhaps any limitation at all, for scientific ability to produce incorrigible Truth, Stenger became a religionist, even as he scorned religion.
And that is his biggest failure.
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Erasing Obama
Obama is no longer viewed as the "permanent president"? In fact, he is not president at all, except for his enjoyment of presidential perqs as a prolifically decadent lifestyle.
"This past weekend, the American Political Science Association (ASPA) held its annual meeting in Washington, DC. It was a huge affair, involving 53 “divisions” and 60 “related groups,” and featuring more than one thousand separate panels. Here is the kicker: this year, there were no sessions at all devoted to an assessment of the foreign policy of Barack Obama, and not one panel was dedicated to an examination of Obama’s domestic policy."The lack of critical assessment of Obama's tenure as president is a similar intellectual and moral abdication as that of the Rotherham Leftists who refused to out the mass child kidnapper/rapists. Obama still cannot be criticized. He is in good standing as a Protected Victim Class Leftist become president. The silence in the history books regarding the Obama years will be deafening.
...
"One cannot, however, really explain the complete absence of panels assessing Obama’s domestic and foreign policy in this fashion. To be sure, what passes as political science in America really is an attempt to reduce politics and political disputation to something more manageable. But, in 2006, when the second midterm elections of the George W. Bush administration were approaching, there were plenty of panels devoted to denouncing the foreign and domestic policy of the younger Bush. The fact that there was nothing on the program of this year’s APSA pertaining to the Obama administration is a sign that there is nothing good to say on the subject, nothing to celebrate, and nothing to take pride in. Left with no recourse, the academy turns silent.
It was eerie. It was as if there has been no Obama presidency. If I am right in my analysis, the complete absence of panels assessing Obama’s record is an indication that the academy now regards Obama as an indefensible embarrassment. This, in turn, may well be a sign that we are in for a wave election in November. What cannot be defended is apt to be jettisoned."
Rotherham Ignored
1,400 Girls Are Raped in Rotherham, and Feminists Don’t CareI think that there is slightly more than just that. The criminal enablers were strictly obeying the Leftist principles of Tolerance, Non-Discrimination, and Inclusion on top of their fear of Islamic-style retribution. In fact, their fear of being booted out of the Leftosphere by implicating the serial kidnapper-rapists was probably the greater fear. So they used their Leftist principles as justification for enabling the atrocities. Further, I doubt that there is any serious soul-searching or conscience-aching amongst these Leftists, because they did not violate their Leftist principles and thus see no error in their ways.
"You might expect this would be a feminist field day. After all, rape is their favorite and most important issue, the original sin of the male sex, and the primary source of their victim power. So, tipped off by an article by Ian Tuttle in the National Review, I took a look to see what they had to say. And what I found was … nothing. Complete and total silence.
As of this writing, Google can find no mention of Rotherham (except for one or two discussion comments) at any of the feminist websites I examined: Feministing, Feministe, Bitch Magazine, Ms. Magazine, Bust, Crunk Feminist Collective, Jezebel, Broadsheet, and The XX Factor. Progressive news sites including MSNBC, Daily Kos, Think Progress, and Truthout were also completely silent on this topic.
Let’s take Feministing as an example. Demonstrating the feminist obsession with rape, there are currently five links to articles discussing rape or sexual assault on the front page of this well known feminist blog: The Police Violence We Aren’t Talking About, 17 Beliefs About Sexual Assault That Are Totally Wrong, UNC-Chapel Hill revamps sexual assault policy, California legislature passes “yes means yes” bill, and Why the anti-rape nail polish doesn’t work in a nutshell. But no word about 1,400 girls groomed, gang raped, prostituted, and beaten, repeatedly and over many years. Absolute silence.
What’s going on here? Why isn’t there a feminist feeding frenzy over a topic with so many lurid details, so many juicy examples of society’s violence and indifference to women?
There are two facts that explains their silence. The perpetrators were Pakistani Muslims. And the victims were white."
Perhaps the above explanatory analysis is correct: For the Left, Muslims are always the Victims; whites are always the Oppressors. The designated Victims have the moral right to their activities, be they terror, beheadings, kidnappings or rape. On the other hand, whites always deserve what they get. That is morality as viewed through the Leftist kaleidoscope.
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
Actual US Rape Stats
The much ballyhooed rape epidemic is falsified by actual statistics.
Apparently the "war on women" trope being used by the Left is based on just whatever lies they put forth. Interestingly, the 77% wage reduction for women is actually used by the White House, Pelosi, Reid, and a number of senators and administration agencies, according to recent news releases.
Apparently the "war on women" trope being used by the Left is based on just whatever lies they put forth. Interestingly, the 77% wage reduction for women is actually used by the White House, Pelosi, Reid, and a number of senators and administration agencies, according to recent news releases.
Rotherham: The Left Completely Owns This Atrocity
The child-rape enablement culture at Rotherham has produced the most rationally absurd result possible, one that not even a Monty Python skit could anticipate:
When social workers are enablers of atrocity, they should be imprisoned for life, at a minimum, and perhaps put to death as an immutable signal to others. They have destroyed by neglect the lives of over a thousand children who they could have helped, but instead abandoned to their fates as white sex slaves.
Rotherham abuse whistleblower reportedly ‘booked on diversity course’ after raising concernsFor the Left, it was racist to object to Pakistani rape culture, on the basis of “diversity”. Such an objection must itself be attacked by "re-educating" the whistleblower back onto the Leftist reservation. This fully decorates the Leftist amorality and lack of actual empathy.
” Forbes contributor Roger Scruton blamed political correctness for the lack of action, writing that “police forces lean over backwards to avoid the accusation of racism, while social workers will hesitate to intervene in any case in which they could be accused of discriminating against ethnic minorities. Matters are made worse by the rise of militant Islam, which has added to the old crime of racism the new crime of ‘Islamophobia’. No social worker today will risk being accused of this crime.””So far gone, lost in the anti-rationality and anti-morality of both Leftist political correctness and fear of Islamic retribution, the “social workers” referred to the perps as “Asian”, rather than their actual Pakistani backgrounds; and they then actively ignored the Pakistani crimes against white children, who they could have - should have - helped.
When social workers are enablers of atrocity, they should be imprisoned for life, at a minimum, and perhaps put to death as an immutable signal to others. They have destroyed by neglect the lives of over a thousand children who they could have helped, but instead abandoned to their fates as white sex slaves.
Monday, September 1, 2014
Albert Camus and the Metaphysical Rebel
According to Albert Camus,
And yet modern rebels claim that death, for them the end of everything, is welcome on the one hand, and that evil doesn’t exist on the other.
So why do they fret so about Hell? And how is it that a non-existent deity is evil?
From "The Rebel", by Albert Camus, 1956.
Thanks to Anshuman Reddy for the tip.
“Metaphysical rebellion is a claim motivated by the concept of a complete unity, against the suffering of life and death and a protest against the suffering of life and death and a protest against the human condition both for its incompleteness, thanks to death, and its wastefulness, thanks to evil.”
And yet modern rebels claim that death, for them the end of everything, is welcome on the one hand, and that evil doesn’t exist on the other.
So why do they fret so about Hell? And how is it that a non-existent deity is evil?
The rebel can't himself be supreme, if he is subject to a deity for both his life and his death. Since he controls neither the onset of his life nor the termination and annihilation of his essence, he is neither deity nor special nor capable of creating unity of any type; he can only rail at his fate and the circumstances which provide limits on his confounding relative powerlessness.
“At the same time that he rejects his mortality, the rebel refuses to recognize the power that compels him to live in this condition. The metaphysical rebel is not definitely an atheist as one might think him, but he is inevitably a blasphemer. Quite simply he blasphemes in the name of order, denouncing God as the father of death and as the supreme outrage."
From "The Rebel", by Albert Camus, 1956.
Thanks to Anshuman Reddy for the tip.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)