View Video By Clicking Here -> Nassim Nicholas Taleb talks about The Black Swan

Black Swan, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Unpredictability, 9/11

The Muslim Viewpoints, 10-part compilation of videos from MemriTV presenting views of Muslims on issues distorted by the mainstream media:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Part 9

Part 10

Muslim Viewpoints, Iran, Ahmadinejad, Khamenei, Israel, Egypt, Palestine, Zionism, Iran does not want nuclear weapons, Iran does not want to dominate the world, Iran does not want to exterminate the Jews, Israel = Nazi Germany, Fox news is more harmful than cyanide, Noam Chomsky

Alex Jones, 9/11, September 11, September 11th, Bush, World Trade Center, Truth, 9/11 Was An Inside Job, 9/11 Is An Inside Job

Visit Counter Propaganda. There I discovered that people think that Adolf Hitler is more honest than George W Bush. I agree. But the depths of their evil I would say are equal.

I am halfway through Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine.

Really, Kapitalocratic Fascism is the evil of our time, not terrorism. Terrorism is just a method, not an ideology.

Counter Propaganda, Adolf Hitler, George W Bush, Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine, Kapitalocratic Fascism

The funniest movie yet from Participant pictures, the studio that brought you the Al Gore hypocrisy-fest, An Inconvenient Truth.

Watch it.

Participant pictures, Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth, Charlie Wilson’s War, CIA, Afghanistan, USA, America, Israel, Pakistan, Zia Ul Haq, foreign policy, Zia did not kill Bhutto, Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts

One day I’m going to co-author a book with Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein or William Blum (or all of them together) titled, “Democracy: Kapitalocratic Fascism in Disguise”.

Kapitalocratic Fascism is a term I coined to describe the unmentioned but overarching ideology that inspires United States foreign policy for the past few decades.

What is Kapitalocracy?

It comes from the words Capital and -cracy combined.

It means a form of rule dominated only by those with capital, acting in their interests of yielding increasing profits to said capital of theirs, with no regard or consideration for social justice, human rights, political freedom, ecological sustainability or democracy (as democracy should be, not the farce that the kapitalocrats have been staging for almost a century).

Recommended Reading That Might Give You The Idea That There Is Such A Thing As Kapitalocratic Fascism:

• Rogue State
• The Shock Doctrine
• Hegemony or Survival

Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, William Blum, Kapitalocratic, Fascism, United States, foreign policy

Rogue State - A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower by William Blum will not be an easy read for fans of Clinton, Bush & Co. But if you’re someone who admires Noam Chomsky but can’t understand his level of scholarly language, then Rogue State might be a good fit for you.

Usually I announce a book on my blog right after borrowing or purchasing it, but this time I am announcing it as I am reading it halfway through.

If only this book attains the viral word of mouth success that has been enjoyed by the likes of The Da Vinci Code or The Kite Runner. Perhaps we would have a massive mutiny of conscientious soldiers from the American Imperial Military Machine and a 2nd Boston Tea Party.

Here I’d like to quote, paraphrased and without permission, what the author said he would do if he were to become President:-

“I could stop terrorist attacks against the US in a few days - I would first apologise sincerely and publicly to all widows, orphans, the impoverished and tortured, and the millions of victims of American Imperialism. I would announce that America’s global military interventions have come to an end. I would inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but a foreign country. I would reduce military spending by 90% at least and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims and repair the damage from many American bombings, invasions and sanctions. That’s what I’d do on the first 3 days in the White House. On the 4th day, I’d be assassinated”.

Rogue State, William Blum, Noam Chomsky, The Da Vinci Code, The Kite Runner, Boston Tea Party

Why Steve Jobs should run for US President -

AppleIrag - The best bloopers are a click away

Steve Jobs, US President

Finally, I have completed reading The Dawkins Delusion. Funny that I realised it is only 75+ pages long after I’ve completed it.

The Argument that Religion is the Root of Evil.

In any group of people who are holding on to any particular set of beliefs, ideas or world views, there will always be the rational and practical people and the extreme, emotion-driven and radical people. The irony is that even this is a simplification of reality.

The polemics of binary opposition (i.e. “If you’re not with us, you’re against us” / “If you’re not one of us, you’re one of them”) is flawed no matter the context in which it can be found - even in the Dawkinsian atheism rhetoric.

While it is a tragic fact that there have been terrible atrocities committed in the name of religion via the process of ‘transcendentalising’ certain principles or values such that these ideas trump all other notions rooted in reality (for an extreme example, some people believe abortion - no matter what the situation - is murder and it is Godly to kill the murderer before he commits an act of murder - and this has been manifested in reality in the murder of an abortionist in America by people who interpreted the Bible in a twisted and narrow manner), this ‘transcendentalising’ of values to the point of extremism at the risk of human rights and life is universal and not to be found solely in religion.

Recently more attention has been directed at the atrocities committed under religion’s banner due to the sudden (perceived) rise of terrorism early this century. These terror acts were perpetrated supposedly for religious reasons, hence, it is natural that in the collective consciousness of the world, there has arisen that growing feeling of threat from the darker side of religion.

But this shift in consciousness should not detract our attention from other equally (if not more) terrible atrocities committed in the name of something else other than religion - be it a political ideology, an economic model, or even extremist secular fundamentalism itself.

I believe Richard Dawkins himself does not unquestioningly believe that religion is the root of evil. It was just a title he (or his marketing reps) constructed for a documentary he made as a tie-in promotion for his new book, intended to sensationalise the topic and attract attention, discussion and debate.

In The God Delusion, Dawkins attempted - in vain - to ‘disprove’ the so-called myth that the ideas influencing Nazism stemmed from godless Darwinian / Malthusian values. His arguments in this motion are weak, as is many others in his far-from-’scientific’ book. Yes, Hitler tried to twist in some Christianity into his Nazi ideals, but that does not make Nazism a product of Christianity. If anything else, Hitler was pretending to make it seem as if Nazism is Christian, in order to appeal to his German subjects, but in his true form, he is a godless and malevolent megalomaniac altogether.

Thousands of Argentinians suspected of being socialists were tortured or killed during and after Pinochet’s brutal coup in the name of establishing ‘free market economics’ in that country.

Millions of religious people had been persecuted, deprived of their essential rights and murdered under the essentially godless Soviet regime.

The informed person will know that to limit terror, violence and evil solely as a product of religion is a Sisyphean attempt.

Evil acts can come about due to any number of influencing factors, but mostly they occur due to a situation in which the perpetrator is pushed to a corner (or perceived to be pushed into a corner) to the point of desperation where no other options of escape or redress is available to him. That is the justice-seeking view of the cause of acts of atrocities.

Another more common reason for atrocities to be committed is simply greed - the perception that there is not enough or a severe lack of something that is wanted hence everything should be done to acquire more of or get exclusive access to that something at the expense of other’s rights to the same thing and their freedoms. The stronger, more resourceful the agent is, the more able she is in procuring that thing to the exclusion of others’ rights to it. Acts of atrocities can come about as a by-product of the process of trying to gain exclusive access to said limited resource.

That the Separation of Religion and Politics is the Highest Ideal that should be strived for.

One thing I’d like to clarify for my more religiously-inclined friends (I am one of you, God willing) - you should not fear the word Secular or Secularism as if it is Nazism to a Jew, or Polytheism to a Muslim (especially during the Prophet’s time).

Secular, while essentially it means that which has nought to do with the religious, the spiritual or the godly, need not mean the exclusion nor demands the eradication of religion per se.

Religion can still exist in all its splendour and glory in a secular society. Or in the case of Singapore, more than one can co-exist in relative harmony.

A secular state can be inclusive of any number of religions as long as the common values of such religions are in line with the ideals of the state, namely, justice, equity, freedom and individual rights, etc, and as long as the differing values of these religions are respected within their bounds and are not being used to cause unnecessary tensions, frictions and conflicts that cost human lives, dignities and property.

But a reform I’d like to see in the model of the secular state that is inclusive of a multiplicity of religions co-existing in relative peace and harmony is a more two-sided or bilateral approach to the way things are being done.

While the beliefs of one particular religion should not dominate the political domain of a secular state such that it affects to disadvantage people of another religion or of no religious affiliation who are also citizens of said state, the ethical, moral and sociological views of the different religious views can inform (but need not influence or dominate) the decision and policy making processes of the political domain of the secular state.

Here the word secular has transmuted its definition from its original non-religious or void-of-religion meaning to one that is more inclusive.

On the other hand, while the policies, laws and acts of the secular political administration should not trample on, restrict or transgress the various sanctities, sensitivities, requirements and prohibitions of the different religious belief systems, the political domain can inform the peoples of whatsoever persuasions amongst its citizens of the importance of taking a more proactive or at least cooperative role in the advancement of its society sans any form of social discrimination whatsoever.

In fact, the model I am describing closely resembles that of Singapore. Though far from perfect with a vast room for further improvement and reform, I am glad things are the way they are and it should stay this way or get better.

However, in practical reality, there is bound to be clashes between the secular interests of the state and the ideals of a particular or a number of religions. The present protocol is for the secular interests of the state to trump the ideals of religion. While I am not calling for the ideals of religion to dominate over secular interests either, a more mutually beneficial and win-win approach should be worked out in great detail and with the sincerest effort, such that the secular interests are appeased and the religious ideals are preserved, both in just measure.

Because if secular interests consistently trump the religious ideals of its people, the state risks alienating its own citizens, the very people who, although faithful in their own traditions, were willing to contribute their life, money, time, energy, economy, service, allegiance, etc, to the advancement of the society. Since the state is composed of people and the people’s rights, freedoms and responsibilities are not attended to, what use is the state that has disgruntled people as its building blocks?

The Dawkins Delusion, terrorism, secular fundamentalism, The God Delusion, Dawkins, Hitler, Pinochet, free market economics, Soviet, Secularism

I remember on the 7th of July 2005 I was still training to be a combat medic in the Army. Without any connection to the outside world, I heard news of the so-called terror attacks from one of my medic instructors. While I felt bad that all these attacks kept on coming and killing innocent civilians, I had this tiny notion that it could be an inside job like 9/11. Yes, I am one of “those people” who absolutely believe 9/11 was just the beginning of this decade’s series of Reichstag events to sustain justification for the “War on Terror”.

In light of these facts (and other overwhelming evidence), I am utterly sick of so-called moderate Muslims who are actually just apologists for this entire Islamic terrorism farce, who go about declaring, “We condemn the terrorist actions of the marginal few amongst us. We condemn the extremists”. Blah. Blah. Blah. Since when do people have to apologise for actions not their own? It’s like 21st century Germans having to apologise for the Holocaust under Nazi regime.

I know condemnation is not apology but the way these ’statements of condemnation’ are declared, and the way certain ‘moderate’ Muslims suddenly want to go all-out and ‘reach out’ to the non-Muslim communities (e.g. in America, Singapore, etc), just seems to me to be the kowtowing of Muslims to the propaganda agenda of Bush & Co in their lust for oil, power and blood.

This “Oh, we’re moderates and we have nothing to do with these extreme factions and we feel sorry for the victims too and we condemn these cowardly terrorists” message is sickening. Muslims are humiliated, terrorised, looked at condescendingly (consciously or subconsciously). Even the “Oh, we know you guys are moderates. We support and respect your beliefs, moderate Muslims” message is subliminally a form of insult. As if sane and rational Muslims (i.e. the majority non-terrorists amongst us) crave approval and respect.

Respect, rights, freedom - nobody can give these things to us. We have to take it. But in the first place, we by right should already have it; so if we have to ‘take it’, then we must have done something stupid to have ‘lost it’ or allowed others to ‘take it from us’ in the first place.

The fact is, while all these ‘reach-out’ actions are good, the intention behind them have to be clear. It should be genuine. It should come from a basis of common humanity. Not propaganda. Not advertising the message that “Islam is a peaceful religion”. That’s like wasting billions of dollars advertising, “1 + 1 = 2″ or “Do you know that the sky is blue?”. DUH!!! We know that! Move on! It is insulting to the intelligences of both Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

And why is it that we see mostly non-Muslims at the forefront of these conspiracy propagation campaigns and justice movements? Since when do we have to surrender the defence of our dignity to non-Muslims while we sycophantically throw ourselves at the banner of the “Islam is a religion of peace” propaganda agenda fueled by Bush & Co while our brothers and sisters are routinely subject to holocaust-like actions (close to 1 Million Iraqi civilians killed since Gulf 1.0 and Madeleine Albright saying, “It was worth it” - not including Palestinians, Bosnians, etc) from the Zionist and Revelationist regimes?

There were Muslims among the victims of 9/11 and 7/7 and other ‘Reichstag’ terrorist attacks. Imagine the sorrow of the families of these Muslim victims compounded by the stupid apologetics of other so-called moderate Muslims who were not victims plus the harassment by the State and ignorant Islamophobes.

Here’s a suggestion. The next time, God forbid, another terror attack occurs, and Fox news (or other propaganda agencies) mentions the “believedtobelinkedtoalqaeda” word, Muslim leaders should come forward and, instead of saying the usual “We feel sorry for the victims and condemn the extremists”, should first say, “We question the legitimacy of allegations by government agents that these terror attacks were perpetrated by Islamists. We demand incontrovertible empirical evidence assessed by an overwhelming number of government-independent parties and a thorough investigation of the sources of such evidences as well as free access for the general public to the sites of these terror attacks. For the meantime, we express our heartfelt sorrow to the families of these victims and condemn all forms of terrorism - be it government-sponsored (as is usually the case) or religiously-inspired”.

7th of July 2005, 9/11, Reichstag, War on Terror, moderate Muslims, Madeleine Albright