We Cannot Legislate Evil

File Under: Handwriting on the Wall

(If you cannot see the article above, refresh this page or view article on webpage)

You probably will not see this give much if any attention at all in the American Mainstream Media (MSM).  However, you need to bear witness to the simple truth that no matter what laws you pass, it is not the law, but rather it is failed governmental policies and the evil in humankind's hearts that leads to violence.

“When he was dead, they dragged him out into the road and left him there. It was strange, they didn’t run off, they just stood there as if they were waiting for the police. It must’ve taken about 20 minutes for the police to arrive, I think it must’ve been because they were waiting for armed police. [...] Lou Peluola, 53, arrived on the scene shortly after the incident when he saw one attacker standing over a body before the police arrived 20 minutes later. He said: "People were afraid asking: ‘where are the police?’ They took a long time to arrive. [...] I panicked, rang the police and ran away."

This happened not in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or some Sub-Saharan African war zone, but rather this happened in broad daylight, in the middle of one of the world's leading First World nations.  How many people could have put these two sociopaths down while the police took their time arriving?  What if they had targeted civilians?  Well Lou, when your right to defend yourself is violated by your government, that is all you can do - wait 20 minutes while the police find firearms - because, when you criminalize the right to bear arms, only criminals will bear arms.

What will the UK do now: ban cars? Ban kitchen knives? Ban Islam? Give each one of these murderers two consecutive "life" sentences?  Which one of those measures would have prevented this man's untimely, grizzly demise?  None of them.  Not one law could have saved this man because no law would have dissuaded these two monsters from committing this heinous act by any means necessary.  They did not care about having concealable firearms or how many people they could shoot before reloading - hell, they did not even care about escaping justice.  They were intent on venting their hatred and emotionally traumatizing as many people as they could in the process.

All those years ago, when the UK thought they were doing something about the violence in their country all they did was turn their backs on it, close their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears, and pretended it no longer existed.  Ignoring it, did not make it go away.  Evil exists.  It can take root inside anyone one of us; and, no amount of legislation will protects us from ourselves.

"We Didn't Start the Fire (Original)" by Bill Joel from Storm Front released 1989 on Sony

Why Barefoot and Pregnant Is Best...

File Under: Think About It

Copyright (c) 2013 The Knowledge Movement
Decades after the Bicentennial women in the United States still feel the squeeze of societal control.
I guess that makes the U.S. pretty extreme also, huh?

...For corrupt, power-hungry governments.  Got your attention? Great!  It is ironic that Clinton jabs religion but doesn't realize that it is also the answer to her own question.  Examining Judeo-Christian mythology:


The Devil also sought to attack (control) the younger Eve, rather than the older Adam in the parable of the Garden of Eden. Why? If you want to win a logic-based argument do you attack a 15-year-old or a 50-year-old?  I supposed it greatly depends on the intelligence and wisdom of each.  The Devil recognized his ploy was a one-shot deal, and he knew that the older, wiser Adam was not going to believe his argument about the knowledge of Good and Evil or being like God.  However, without Adam's cooperation the Devil's plot would have failed completely - they both had to eat the fruit.  Despite knowing better, Adam would eat the fruit if Eve implored him to do so, and if he knew Eve had already eaten it because Adam did not wish to live without Eve.  Therefore, by controlling the woman, the Devil controlled the man, thus controlling the family, thus controlling everything that spawned from it - humanity and the world.

Over the centuries, other institutions have knowingly or unknowingly borrowed from the same playbook.  The mother is the bedrock, the very foundation of the family and thus society.  If you can control her then you can destabilize the family and control society.  That was considerably easier to do in the days of patriarchal, theistic societies but has become harder with the advent of modern industrialized nations.  No longer is the woman kept hidden away at home, uneducated, cooking, cleaning, and raising children.

Even in the West, control of women has greased the wheels of democracy and capitalism.  When women broke through financial, secular, and political barriers - the machine responded by breaking apart the traditional family, increasing the income disparity between men and women, and creating the Welfare State to keep families dependent upon institutions.  Why? They would use the maternal bond - physical, emotional, spiritual - against women to control them and the children (future cogs in the machine) left behind once they split up the family.  With dad out of the picture the last line of defense to the Precious are the women, for as the saying goes: the hand that rocks the cradle, rules the world.  There you have it Madam Secretary, mystery solved.

Stay up-to-date on all my latest mad ravings in The Office of R. Conrad Bane on Facebook.

That Faint Rustling Sound is God's Hair Moving Side-to-Side as He Shakes His Head at Us

File Under: I Imagine God is Laughing at Us, Because I Do Not Want to Imagine God Crying

Copyright (c) 2010 Harry A. Gaylord

This was hurriedly scrawled in response to the Draw Muhammad and anti-Draw Muhammad pages on Facebook:

As outrageous as everyone who is against the event believes it is, it will not or I should say should not be stopped - at least in countries with constitutions guaranteeing freedom of speech. Would it be nice if everyone respected everyone's individuality and culture? Yes. Should we violate basic constitutional tenants to force everyone to do so? No.

Freedom of speech protects even the willfully ignorant too. See, I just bashed stupid people...because it is my right to voice an opinion. Would you have the host of this blog ban me for it? Every major religion, race, ethnicity, color, and creed, who has even remotely occupied a space of strategic or economic value, has been a target of persecution, oppression, denigration, or ridicule. All of them. Just ask the Tibetan people they will tell you all about it. Moreover, when the tables turned many of these groups turned around and repeated the process to others. This is not a new process.

One day we just might all get along and this will all be a moot point. However, until such a time comes why are we outraged over the comments of a few financially and intellectually immobile individuals? I found a draw Muhammad page that barely had a thousand fans. I do not think we should all tremble at this woefully non-fearsome coalition of socially unimportant cowards sitting at their computers pontificating about peoples and religions they know nothing about, and who do not intend to make an effort to learn anything either. Do you expect people with actual power and influence, who participate in real world events, will listen to such individuals anyway? Stupidity might be contagious, but it is not that contagious.

Finally, the arguments that religiously defamatory messages or irreverent behavior draws the wrath of God in turn leading to the harm or death of Christians, Westerners, Capitalists, or democrats abroad, is utterly ridiculous. When God decides to descend from where he resides when he is not out smiting people, I think we will all realize it and will not need anyone to point it out for us. Until such time, anyone who may die dies because of the willful actions of another individual or group - not because God mandated it. Period.

Freedom of speech is protected all over the democratic world. I wish people did not say or do disrespectful things. However, just because I do not like it does not automatically preclude it from being protected speech. Unprotected speech would be something that calls for or encourages violence, not something that merely inflames passions. If you feel so defamed, then take your complaint to a court and try to see if you can get some recompense. Just remember, in times of trial and tribulation your emotions are yours to control. I believe that is a tenant, in one form or another, within all popular faiths.

"Father, glorify your name!" Then a voice came from heaven, "I have glorified it, and will glorify it again." - John 12:28 NIV

It seems God does not need any help protecting his reputation. Perhaps all he or she wants is for us to love each other and live in peace. I will not beat on my we-have-more-important-things-to-worry-about drum today, but I will tap lightly on my get-over-ourselves-already tambourine.