Saturday, October 25, 2014

Face Book post about pride and judgement

By Nicolas Begley
The most judgmental people I know are those who condemn others for being "judgmental."

The most hateful people I know are those who condemn others for being "hateful."

The most prideful people I know are those who condemn others for being "prideful."

The most immature people I know are those who condemn others for being "immature."

The most condemning people I know are those who condemn others for being "condemning."

This list can go and on. One of my former youth pastors once told me over a decade ago that such people (mentioned above) do so because it reaffirms their self-hatred for their own sins. I believe him to be correct on this matter. Sometimes, such people will imagine their own sins in other people in order to superimpose accusations and condemnations upon them. In case you are wondering, I do admit to having fallen into these traps many a time myself.

some marching or appreciation song about kurdish women

http://vimeo.com/109725220

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

textual history of the koran

THE UNALTERED QURAN



I have a lot of Muslims telling me that the Qur'an is the unaltered word of God.

Hadith(Al Bukhari, Tabari, Sahih Muslim, et al) record Aisha narrating how surahs, written by scribes, from the dictated words of Muhammad ibn Abdullah Muttalib, having been stored beneath her bed, were destroyed by an invading wild goat[or sheep] were eaten. Muhammad was unable to reproduce them, claiming it was "allah's will".

The Qur'an was only compiled in written form during the rule or the third Caliph Uthman. He ordered all previous copies destroyed and had them burnt.
This written record was in response to the memorisers, or 'hafiz' having been all but killed in wars of Islamic conquest.
Yesterday, over 50 Qurans were discovered in a sewer in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia.[Source: Arab News].
Over 300 ancient Quranic codiciles were uncovered during renovations of a mosque in Saana, Yemen. They are the oldest extant Qur'anic texts ever found. Each dated from the 8th century, lacked diacritic dots[indicating vowel sounds], and contained loan-words from Hebrew-Aramaic, Greek, Syriac, Farsi/Persian, amongst others.
99 'names' or 'attributes' are afforded to the Islamic Allah.
Most surah begin "in the name of allah, the compassionate, the merciful".
Yet the Qur'an contains un-translatable words.
"Alif. Lem. Mim" is un-translatable. Islamic scholars are unable to agree, despite some suggesting it is the name of allah. The question remains, why is it not thence translated as such? If it is an alleged 'holy name' this is shirk and fitnah/ blashemy and sin as no name must be given to "the nameless god" save 'al ilah/allah' or 'the god'.

The Qur'an mentions Jesus as "Nabi 'Isa".
It says He was born of a virgin. (Yet Allah can have NO son).
He is called:
Al Misiah, the Messiah, the Christ.
Al Kallam'allah, the Word of God.
Ru'h-'allah, the Spirit of God.

Israel is mentioned whilst not once is there a reference to Philistinia/Palestine.

David is revered as a Prophet.
Yet the Israelites and Jews are detested above all.

Allah is described as a 'Deceiver':

"And they[the disbelievers; Jews, Christians et al] schemed[deceived],
and Allah schemed (against them);
And Allah is the best of schemers [deceivers]".
The Qur'an 3:54 (see also: 8:30; 10:21).

The Arabic used is 'makr' or 'makar', meaning 'deceiver, liar, plotter, schemer'.

Al Makkah or Mecca is home to the Kaaba and the Haram Masjid or 'Forbidden Mosque', Islam's holiest site.

Judaeo-Christian Scripture in contrast calls God Truth.
Satan is "the father of lies".

Below is a table describing Qur'anic transmission.
The current Quran dates from a standardised version issued first in 1924, then again in a revised format in 1936-8.

It is a plagiarised, man-made writing based on late Hellenistic Jewish writings, falsely understood Torah, parts of the Gospels and other early non-canonical early Christian writings(such as the Protovangelium of James) which date from the 4th century or later and were rejected by the majority of Christians.

This is blended with the deluded self-agrandisement of a man intent on global domination via conquest, and is a hate-filled manifesto expressing the most extreme misogyny yet witnessed, depraved sexual yearnings, sadism, war-mongering and the advocating of rape, torture, kidnap and theft.
It is a declaration of war, and if published today, would certainly be deemed illegal and immoral.

It is the work of Satan.


from Face Book group The Deception of Chrislam

Sunday, October 19, 2014

ebola highlights a problem

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/10/17/ebola-capitalism-and-the-idea-of-society/

Ebola, Capitalism and the Idea of Society

by ROB URIE
Thomas Duncan didn’t have health insurance when he entered Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital with Ebola. The hospital claims that he was initially turned away because important information about his condition didn’t find its way to the admitting physician. Without specific knowledge that he had Ebola a temperature of 103C didn’t require the hospital to admit him. With the two days it took the hospital to confirm Ebola on his return visit, Mr. Duncan risked hospital bills in the tens of thousands of dollars that he reportedly didn’t have. The hospital ‘risked’ providing expensive treatment to a man who likely couldn’t have paid for it.
Missing from this ‘process’ that now finds Mr. Duncan dead, two nurses who attended him with Ebola themselves, the American health care system revealed as wholly unprepared to deal with what at present seems a moderately communicable disease, is any notion of a public interest.  This can be seen internationally as well with the U.S. sending soldiers to West Africa while Cuba has sent a large contingent ofemergency health care workers. The difference is fundamental: Cuba sees both public purpose and moral imperative to help those stricken with Ebola and the U.S. sees a threat to profits at ‘home’ and a military exercise to ‘contain’ the spread of Ebola abroad.
urieebola1
Chart (1) above: what could have and should have been a quickly contained outbreak of Ebola through response by health care workers from rich countries was instead militarized and ignored. From the CIA using fake tuberculosis screening as a premise to gain intelligence to the history of ‘humanitarian’ interventions that slaughtered thousands to illicit pharmaceutical testing and dumping by Western drug manufacturers the nations of Africa have every reason to mistrust Western intentions there. This written, the only response that the U.S. apparently could muster was to send troops to ‘contain’ the crisis. Anyone with knowledge of Western imperial history in Africa should cringe at what the word ‘contain’ might be a euphemism for.  Source: WHO
At the more fundamental level the far ‘poorer’ Cuba sees health care and education as human rights for its citizens and for those of other countries. Despite claims of capitalist ‘efficiency,’ the U.S. has the worst health care outcomes among ‘developed’ countries at a price of twice or more per person.  Illustrated in the Texas case is the radical inefficiency of a health care system whose public purpose is subverted by the profit motive. With a fever of 103C Mr. Duncan was turned away but shitting and vomiting himself he was admitted. And lest this remain unclear, it isn’t until a clear emergency can be claimed that hospitals in the U.S. are mandated to provide treatment.
Even in capitalist economics the distinction was long ago made between ‘public’ goods that have social value, but that businesses are unwilling to provide, and ‘private’ goods whose production is best left to capitalists. This public / private frame had political leaders in the U.S. supporting public health programs paid for by the federal government, publicly funded schools and the building of the infrastructure that ultimately supported the ‘private’ economy and private profits. Whereas many of the ‘contracts’ for public programs went to private contractors, their historic purpose was public service and this was the measure of their success.
urieebola2
Graph (2) above: in the U.S. ‘private’ railroads were built with land grants (‘free’ land) from the federal government. Setting aside for the moment the goal of genocide against the indigenous population that was part of their motivation, by the end of the nineteenth century the accumulated fortunes of the railroad ‘barons’ were put forward as the bounty produced by capitalism.  Today many of the drugs being sold by ‘private’ health care companies were developed in government labs at public expense. And much of the health care infrastructure being increasingly privatized was developed either wholly or partially at public expense. Source:http://users.humboldt.edu/ogayle/hist383/CentralPacific.html
Beginning in the 1970s under Democrat Jimmy Carter what had formerly been considered quasi-public goods like transportation infrastructure was privatized under the theory that the capitalist profit motive produced more ‘efficient’ outcomes. With airlines and railroads heavily unionized at the time the major component of this ‘efficiency’ came through breaking organized labor and driving wages down. However, even in capitalist economics shifting wages to capitalists as profits is only ‘efficient’ if the increase in profits is greater than the wages lost.
What was lost in this shift was the sense of a public interest. The idea had always depended on dubious circumscription— class; race and imperial interests had left most of the world and much of the U.S. on the outside. What happened was that the private interest consumed the public interest. The railroads had been built through federal land grants and airlines flew mandatory routes to serve both public and private interests. By the 1970s the private fortunes built on this ‘partnership’ decided they wanted it all for themselves. That a Democrat President (Jimmy Carter) was behind the shift to the private takeover of the public realm ties Mr. Carter to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama as effective proponents of the neo-liberal program.
To tie this back to Cuba and the human rights view of health care and education, there was and remains no capitalist class in Cuba to subvert the public interest. The U.S. had public and private interests and the private interest consumed the public interest. Public health care and educational infrastructure were ‘public’ and served public purposes. Through privatization this public purpose has been subverted. As with the railroads and airlines, their public-private conception and the public-private resources that built them were simply taken by capitalists through privatization.
The idea that the profit motive produces ‘efficient’ outcomes in the public realm depends on redefining it. ‘Private’ drug companies didn’t develop an Ebola vaccine because doing so wasn’t estimated to be profitable. What state of the world must exist for such a vaccine to be profitable? An Ebola pandemic would provide the needed ‘customers’ to make it profitable. Stopping an epidemic and preventing it from becoming a pandemic is costly for ‘private’ interests with few profit opportunities from the direct ‘customers.’ But as was understood and inconveniently forgotten decades ago, what is ‘inefficient’ as capitalist enterprise is often astonishingly efficient as public policy.
Ebola has the public imagination because it is deadly and a horrific way to die. However, left out of press reports are the preventable and curable medical conditions that poor people face every day that go untreated. And what ‘Obamacare’ reinforced is the private takeover of the public interest for private gain.
Obamacare proceeds from the premise that health care exists to serve private interests by subsidizing ‘customers’ of private health care providers. Persons with health insurance who contract a communicable disease are forced into the ‘personal’ (‘private’) calculus of whether they can afford the insurance co-pays and deductibles of getting health care. And as ‘businesses’ health care providers calculate how to provide the most profitable health care, not the best. With stopping the spread of communicable diseases in the public interest, the profit ‘motive’ that in theory supports capitalist efficiency is the antithesis of social efficiency in the public realm.
The shift from public to private interests in the West isn’t an accident of history. It comes through bi-partisan support for the crudely ideological capitalism that re-emerged through the conflation of public and private interests. And in fact, this conflation has it perfectly backwards— private interests never served the public interest but private interests owe everything to this public interest from land grants to government research given / sold to ‘private’ corporations to bank bailouts. As Albert Camus had it in his book ‘The Plague,’ perhaps a modern plague will be the road back from the Western nation-states of the ‘self.’ But why should it come to that?
The poor and beleaguered nation of Cuba has maintained the social and moral bearing that places the public interest above private interests. Outside of the implausibility of Western ‘profits’ capitalism is the antithesis of the public interest and must be gotten rid of. Health care profiteers have taken the public interest and put it into their own pockets. And for-profit health care is a plague every day for the people who don’t get health care because they can’t afford it.

Paracas Skulls

http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/paracas-elongated-skulls-new-dna-info-reveal-shocking-information/

not mentioned in the article, is that the skull stutures are mostly
inconsistent with human skulls.

Monday, October 13, 2014

Kurdish female warriors in a combat unit from twitter

Islamic State Forced To Fall Back Near .You Won’t Believe Who's Standing In The Way "

Friday, October 10, 2014

For those who think modern feminism is the only kind there ever was

On October 10, 1866, the pro-life founder of the women's movement, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, declared herself a candidate for Congress from the 8th Congressional District of New York, even though women did not yet have the right to vote. As a mother and a feminist, Stanton reported "four hundred murders annually produced by abortion in [one] county alone," Condemning the "murder of children, either before or after birth," Stanton "pointed to the only remedy, the education and enfranchisement of woman...."
http://www.feministsforlife.org


NOTE: Stanton did make the error of focussing on "anti woman" stuff in the Bible and denouncing The Bible therefore whether at the same time or later, these points however taken in the overall picture show that it was an allowing not a demanding and the created order was nothing of the kind,
all male rule came as part of the curse after the Fall, and the mechanism was the default of the woman "your desire will be to your husband and he will rule over you." mitigation of curses on Adam was never called a sin (labor saving inventions like the plow and harnessing animals to do work) so why should mitigation of the curse on women be a sin? But it has to include changing her attitude and helping women develop what in Stanton's time was called "a man's mind." Paul warned women can be deceived, and refers to a woman being in subjection "as says the law." Now the Torah never dictated subjection except that one point, the curse, all other subjection was moderating an existing situation that was coming into play noticeably in Laban's time.

Jacob's wives complained of behavior that was normal later on, "he has treated us like strangers," devoured their inheritance and sold them. Clearly this wasn't the way it was in their childhood memory or they would not have thought it bad or strange.

So it would seem Paul is arguing (unless talking about local and Roman law in which case it was a matter of public relations only) that if a woman insists on having Eve's flaws she can keep her curse. The converse is implied of course.

male supremacy hinged on the bride price, and theoretically if a savvy girl were to save or beg money and buy herself from her father, she could start her own lineage, marrying only a man who would abandon his own lineage and adopt hers. bilateral or even revived matrilineal. No indication anyone did that. But shifts in inheritance based on adoption existed, I Chronicles lists a man of Judah who had no sons, so married his daughter to his Egyptian slave and raised the child to his own name, and it was in the rolls of Judah. Because this adoption erased legally the Egyptian blood, the rule in Deuteronomy that required three generations from an Egyptian ancestor before the child could be counted as Israelite did not apply. Effectively, the bride price compensated for loss of the labor of the girl as a field hand, and transferred the produce of her womb from her father's lineage to that of her husband's father.

The neo matriarchist crew argue women are pacifist by nature and men rebelled and slavery developed from first enslaving women, but I think a more credible scenario is this: matrilineal amazonian tribes or extended family groups were short of women because of wars, and bought women from other groups. These were of course in subjection to the matriarch through her sons and nephews, so children grew up seeing their mothers bossed by their fathers, which set a pattern in their minds. Slavery in general started as war captives, and probably predated this, but once YHWH was forgotten, and one did not credit her children as Eve did to YHWH but to themselves, then with this attitude, whether it be father or mother in charge, the child is an object, the produce of your body ergo your property to sell or kill (or abort) at will. This laid the groundwork for other forms of chattel slavery.

oddly enough, the sentimental icky notion of oneness between mother and child, a total falsehood since it begins as free floating non attached conceptus which then implants and feeds off her like a parasite for a while until it is ready to be born, this notion, while it may support the child's survival if the notion motivates care for the child, is also at the root of abortion - that the child is just an extension or part of the mother, and she can therefore do as she please with it, incl. abort. In ancient times, it was usually after birth that the child's life was on the line, if it was sickly or deformed it might likely be killed or abandoned.

A quiver full of children was a collection of future workers and warriors, useful. Of course God prohibited extreme manifestations of this attitude, killing the child for any reason but it being evil and both parents had to agree and get the town elders' permission. In the absence of God's Law however, the utilitarian view of human life incl. that of your children prevailed.