Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra

Glossary of the Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism

2009-02-24T09:59:00.002-05:00

Glossary of the Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism

click on

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger ©,
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra ©, and
The Metaphysical Naturalist ©,
are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
© 2008-2009 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®
mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

On the Death of Yaoi Shonen-ai

2009-02-21T11:23:00.004-05:00

Yaoi Shonen-ai was a good man, always friendly, always willing to answer personal questions about philosophy that his readers sometimes had.

He didn't understand why he couldn't tell people his blog address was posted on his Yahoo profile. That was why Yahoo killed him. They said he could:

"If you have years of experience in something, have a special hobby, own your ownbusiness, [ ] it's OK to accompany a good, on-topic answer with a link to yourwebsite, blog, or email to offer more information."

But they also said it could contain no advertising. Google competes fiercely with Yahoo; bitter rivals, sometimes, but other times they try to buy each other out. This blog contains advertising. Yaoi had to be killed.

I will miss Yaoi Shonen-ai, but he can always make a comeback as some other nom-de-plume.

Perhaps his salvation will come by ressurection, a new name with the same hot body of Marky Mark!

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger ©,
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra ©, and
The Metaphysical Naturalist ©,
are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
© 2008-2009 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®
mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

Yahoo Boots Yaoi Shonen-ai from Answers

2009-02-21T11:18:00.002-05:00

Yahoo has a forum they call Yahoo Answers. In this forum, users may choose between dozens of categories in which they may either ask questions, or answer them.

In the category of "Philosophy" the top dog for more than six months had been Yaoi Shonen-ai. Who is Yaoi? I am Yaoi.

Yahoo has this aggravating desire to make people conform to their rules. I mean I do understand them sometimes, but they have this rule that says if you are expert at something you can post a link to your website. Yaoi was an expert. Not only that, Yaoi had his own blog.

So I posted a link to this blog. It seems they also have a rule that says if your site contains advertising, it is a violation to use that link. Instead, it counsels, post the link in your Profile. So that is where Yaoi put it, in his Profile.

In the mean time, Yaoi continued to answer every question with this post-script (P.S.):

I am a source. I write one of the Liberty Blogs. Yahoo is
censoring that address here, but you can find it on my profile. Isn't it ironic
that they censor the address of a Liberty Blog? LOL This is the reason I quit
Yahoo 6 months ago.

Let me quote their own guidelines: Guidelines state: "If you
have years of experience in something, have a special hobby, own your own
business, [ ] it's OK to accompany a good, on-topic answer with a link to your
website, blog, or email to offer more information."

They are not following their own guidelines, and they never
do. Yahoo sucks, but as long as they don't prevent me from publishing this as
"source," I will continue to answer questions. If I disappear again, you'll know
why."

Ok, so I was a bit harsh on them, but my blog address was posted only in my Profile. And it wasn't just the Academy Blogger address YA censored; it was also the address to Liberty Blogs in general.

And even after coming back after a six month hiatus, no one had bested my score in Philosophy. After six months I was still at the top of the pyramid. Seriously, I was shocked. I had some stiff competition, people who apparently had people who provided them with up to 73% in "Best Answers," while Yaoi did, at most, 35%. I merely answered more questions.

I had well over 8,000 answers on Google, which I do not believe are the exclusive property of Google. I'll have to check that out. However, now all you can see when you Google "Yaoi Shonen-ai" on Answers is this:

"Oops: The information you are looking for is not available."

So if any of you were fans of Yaoi on YA, YA won't, to paraphrase Dick Nixon, "have Yaoi Shonen-ai to kick around any more!"

Good-bye, cruel world! I am crushed!

Yaoi Shonen-ai Gets the Boot at Yahoo Answers

2009-02-21T11:05:00.003-05:00

Yahoo has a forum they call Yahoo Answers. In this forum, users may choose between dozens of categories in which they may either ask questions, or answer them.

In the category of "Philosophy" the top dog for more than six months had been Yaoi Shonen-ai. Who is Yaoi? I am Yaoi.

In the mean time, Yaoi continued to answer every question with this post-script (P.S.):

I am a source. I write one of the Liberty Blogs. Yahoo is
censoring that address here, but you can find it on my profile. Isn't it ironic
that they censor the address of a Liberty Blog? LOL This is the reason I quit
Yahoo 6 months ago.

Let me quote their own guidelines: Guidelines state: "If you
have years of experience in something, have a special hobby, own your own
business, [ ] it's OK to accompany a good, on-topic answer with a link to your
website, blog, or email to offer more information."

They are not following their own guidelines, and they never
do. Yahoo sucks, but as long as they don't prevent me from publishing this as
"source," I will continue to answer questions. If I disappear again, you'll know
why."

Ok, so I was a bit harsh on them, but my blog address was posted only in my Profile. And it wasn't just the Academy Blogger address YA censored; it was also the address to Liberty Blogs in general.

"Oops: The information you are looking for is not available."

So if any of you were fans of Yaoi on YA, YA won't, to paraphrase Dick Nixon, "have Yaoi Shonen-ai to kick around any more!"

Good-bye, cruel world! I am crushed!

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger ©,
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra ©, and
The Metaphysical Naturalist ©,
are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
© 2008-2009 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®
mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

Metaphysical Naturalism

2009-02-15T10:55:00.004-05:00

Alcoholics Anonymous and Atheism

2009-02-05T00:14:00.001-05:00

God, Prejudice, Reason, and Alcoholics Anonymous

I Am A Successful Atheist in the AA "God Program"

Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

Bill Wilson is responsible for writing the book "Alcoholics Anonymous," referred to as the Big Book. AA is a spiritual program, and a "God program," meaning it depends upon what AA terms a "higher power" to relieve the alcoholic of his/her need to get drunk.

In many places in the Big Book we read specifically that other things than God can be considered a higher power. The use of the AA group itself with people you come to rely on, friends, and other people with whom you can discuss your problems, are often suggested as a higher power. A man can think of his wife and children, and use them as his "higher power" because of the very real possibility that if he goes on another binge, or gets arrested one more time while drunk, he could lose them.

Anytime one of us who is alcoholic goes to a meeting and says anything like, "When I fought with my son over something stupid, I knew I had to get to a meeting"; or "I realized I was letting myself become hungry, angry, lonely, tired--I knew I had to get to a meeting," we are then using the group and our time there, away from the "outside world", as our higher power, to recoup a bit of our spirituality.

But in the end, AA members are expected, not by any membership requirement, but through the incessant urging of Wilson to "accept" that the higher power he expects us to discover is God. (Accepting God is not a requirement because there is only one membership requirement: the desire to stop drinking. But the constant urging to accept God has made many people see AA as a multi-denominational religious cult.)

"We found that as soon as we were able to lay aside prejudice and express even a willingness to believe in a Power greater than ourselves, we commenced to get results, even though it was impossible for any of us to fully define or comprehend that Power, which is God." [emphasis added] The Big Book

page 46

Naturalism, to Wilson, was unnatural. Naturalism was prejudicial. "To be doomed to an alcoholic death or to live on a spiritual basis are not always easy alternatives to face." For Wilson, his own prejudice made him believe that "to continue as he is [as an atheist or agnostic] means disaster, especially if he an alcoholic of the hopeless variety. page 44

An alcoholic of the hopeless variety can only be hopeless because he does not accept God; to accept God means he isn't hopeless. "There Is A Solution" touts the previous chapter's title, and that way is through God. "This is the great news this book carries to those who suffer." p 17

The expectancy is that eventually all AA members will have "made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the power of God as we understood him"; and it expected to come sooner than later; turning over one's will is the third of twelve "steps". AA dogma, gathered up from the first few years of attempting to find the steps and the means to make them work, was that you could not get to Step Four without "doing" steps one, two and three first. (Step Two is admitting that only "a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity"; Step One is "admitted we were powerless over alcohol--that our lives had become unmanageable.")

But Bill Wilson was an extremely prejudicial and biased man. Do you notice in that quote from page 46 how he deftly turned "a power greater than ourselves" into God Himself, without even the pretext of qualifying "God" with "as we understood him"?

The phrase "as we understood (or understand) him" is always italicized in the Steps, in an effort to be inclusive of all religions. But Wilson had to be talked into accepting that phrase, and then only grudgingly. Yet whenever he wrote of his own experience and how it ought to be used by others, God stood alone and every member was expected by Wilson to "graduate" from using the group or other people or a hope as his/her higher power, to using God Himself--who in Wilson's mind stood alone without need of "understanding." After all, he wrote, "it was impossible for any of us to fully define or comprehend that Power, which is God." How could He be a God of anyone's understanding when Wilson admits that it was impossible for "any of us" (the original members) to understand Him?

Naturalism, which is necessarily an atheistic doctrine, and agnosticism, were, to Wilson, biases which the new members had to let go of.

"We found that as soon as we were able to lay aside prejudice and express even a willingness to believe in a Power greater than ourselves, we commenced to get results..." [emphasis added] page 46

Page 46 is in the chapter of the Big Book entitled "We Agnostics." Wilson was never an agnostic, and he wrote no chapter for atheists, though he mentions them there. He speaks to the agnostics as though he had once been there himself, putting his brotherly arm around them in words, comforting them in the knowledge that things will be alright if they just let go and let God.

He writes in the first paragraph that "you may be suffering from an illness which only a spiritual experience can conquer." Many naturalists and others don't believe in the "spirit" because they have always been told it is linked to God, and God is what they are trying to discard by using an epistemology that admits of nothing supernatural. But this is not a problem for all naturalists.

The Deists were theistic naturalists. Thomas Jefferson wrote,
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

In Metaphysical Naturalism (MN) the spirit, the soul, is a naturally occurring non-supernatural physiological phenomenon of the fact of being human. When someone says he could not do something or was compelled to do something because his "conscience was being affected," it is the naturally occurring physiologically emotive phenomenon we perceive as our soul, that he is referring to.

MN understands existence to be natural and only natural, with nothing supernatural existing within existence. And of course, there is no existence outside of existence. Not even a God can be outside existence, though many believe a God could.

God could not--not without causing an irreparable contradiction within human language. If you believe in God and believe, as did America's Deist Founders, that it was God who gave us Reason in order to be able to solve our own problems without His intereference or help, then such a God would not also have allowed us to conceive acceptable contradictions; they break all the rules of the logic of linquistics. Allow one, you must allow them all. Then "nothing" will be "something," "yes" will be "no", and Reason will be worthless. We will return to the growling animalistic expressions of Man before he gained language, because without Reason language has no expression.

Boethius told us to join faith to reason, "insofar as is possible." Thomas Aquinas and others did that, and the juxtaposition led us to the scientific and then to the industrial revolutions. But at the same time, it did not banish faith by elevating Reason, and the Founders were forced to conceive a nation with a Constitution which assumed the separation of church and state. The assumption was common, was therefore not included in the Constitution in those words, and that common assumption allowed the Supreme Court to declare it a de facto part of the Constitution. The Deists would say it was Reason that dictated the Constitution.

Yet, Wilson tells us we must abandon Reason, for the blindness that comes with "accepting a power greater than ourselves" in the realm of the spirit while upholding Reason in the realm of all other things.

"Instead of regarding ourselves as intelligent agents, spearheads of God's ever advancing Creation, we agnostics and atheists [There he goes again!] chose to believe that our human intelligence was the last word... Rather vain of us, wasn't it?" page 49

But Thomas Paine, in "The Age of Reason", wrote: "The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall. [ ] I know, by positive conclusion resulting from [my] search, that there is a power superior to all [ ] things, and that power is God."

Paine was one of the most outspoken Deists, even fleeing to France for his life because his devotion to God would not allow him to have faith in anything but a Reasonable God, and no organized religion is Reasonable to a Deist.

"The Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient
Mythologists," wrote Paine, "accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious fraud."

"If a mere code of morals or a better philosophy of life were sufficient to overcome alcoholism, many of us would have recovered long ago," Wilson wrote. [p. 44/45] Yet, isn't that what blind acceptance of a higher power is--a supposed better "code of morals" or "a better philosophy of life"?

Actually, Wilson must have realized they were not the same, or he would have said so. Instead he said, "We could wish to be moral, we could wish to be philosophically comforted, but the needed power wasn't there.

"Lack of power, that was our dilemma," he wrote, instead.

Their lack of power was from the desire to turn a wish into reality, without the "mere code of morals" or the "better philosophy." Philosophy is nothing without epistemology. Faith in God is the epistemology of disavowing Reason; faith is the only thing that Wilson serves up.

"Besides a seeming inablility to accept much on faith," Wilson wrote, about the problem of human intelligence as the last word, "we often found ourselves handicapped by obstinancy, sensitiveness, and unreasoning prejudice. [ ] This sort of thinking had to be abandoned. [ ! ]

"Some of us had already walked far over the Bridge of Reason toward the desired shore of faith. [ ] We were grateful that Reason had brought us so far. But somehow we couldn't step ashore. Perhaps we had been leaning on Reason that last mile and we did not like to lose our support.[ ]

"Did we not have confidence in our ability to think? What was that but a sort of faith? Yes, we had been faithful, abjectly faithful to the God of Reason. So, in one way or another, we discovered that faith had been involved all the time! [ ! ]

"[A religious doubter] recounts that he fell out of bed to his knees. In a few seconds he was overwhelmed by the conviction of the Presence of God. He had stepped from bridge to shore. [ ]

"His alcoholic problem was taken away."

I sit here and copy and paste and write these things, in order to tell the reader that I had my own spiritual experience, and my "alcoholic problem was taken away."
But my spiritual experience was not what faith would have me believe it to be; it is what Reason tells me it was. Spiritualism is not supernatural. Spiritualism is completely natural, and is psychological, combining the mind with emotions.

The mind is the most powerful force in human life. My experience was one of a comgination of mind and that natural phenomenon, the human soul, because they are irrevocably connected even in death; the soul follows the mind and the body into the grave. If I could bottle my experience and release it in a room with someone who was looking for God, he would claim his experience that came from my bottle was God, and then try to convince me of it.

Humility seems to be the greatest virtue in AA. It is mentioned specifically on nine pages of the Big Book and those mentions carry various descriptions of how it works and why it works and why we need it. There are many more references to humility in the other AA "approved literature," such as the "Twelve Steps and the Twelve Traditions". Honesty is mentioned on twelve pages, but we all know a man cannot be humble if he is not first honest.

Men whose humility does not extend to allowing the possibility that an atheist such as myself can have a spiritual experience and become sober by it, despite "the choicest gift of God to man, the GIFT OF REASON;" wrote Paine, "and having endeavored to force upon himself the belief of a system against which reason revolts, he ungratefully calls it human reason, as if man could give reason to himself."

Bill Wilson believed in the elevation of faith over Reason. Rather vain of him, wasn't it, to despise the "choisest gift of God to man," Yet, with all this strange appearance of humility and this contempt for human reason, he ventures into the boldest presumptions;" wrote Paine, "he prays dictatorially; [ ] he follows the same idea in everything that he prays for; for what is the amount of all his prayers but an attempt to make the Almighty change his mind, and act otherwise than he does? It is as if he were to say: Thou knowest not so well as I."

Wilson's prayers were like that: "Relieve me of the bondage of self," goes his Third Step Prayer, "that I may better do thy will. Take away my difficulties, that victory over them may bear witness to those I would help of Thy Power..."

The strictest adherence to Reason is the act of binding one's self to one's self; altruism was conceived as the act of giving one's self completely over to God, without asking for such things as the removal of one's difficulties: one took what God met out. And what kind of humility is it to ask God to remove one's difficulties, then turn and call that "victory over them"?

"It is only by the exercise of reason that man can discover God. Take away that reason, and he would be incapable of understanding anything; and, in this case, it would be just as consistent to read even the book called the Bible to a horse as to a man. How, then, is it that those people pretend to reject reason?" Paine

The rejection of Reason was not all Wilson's. It was, and is, endemic of the kind of organization that AA is. The co-founder of AA, "Dr. Bob," wrote in his own chapter of the Big Book, that atheists, agnostics, and skeptics have a form of "intellectual pride which keeps [them] from accepting what is in this book, [and] I feel sorry for you." [emphasis added]

He also ended his chapter saying, "Your Heavenly Father will never let you down!"
Rather prejudiced of him, wouldn't you say?

Note: I got my 3 year token in January, 2009. That spiritual experience that I had in my soul didn't put the fear of God in me; it put in me the fear of being drunk--and of dying that way or of killing someone else. That is a stronger deterrent, apparently, than God who I do not accept as existing.

But I am grateful to have found an AA community in which my outspoken atheism is not rejected. I am fully accepted by my home group and other groups, but spiritualism is something we must never loose sight of. It is a gift of reason. Without reason it is blind, groping for any supernatural explanation it can grasp.

AA works if you find the higher power of your understanding. Mine,"the most formidable weapon against errors of every kind," is Reason. I trust I will never use any other weapon, a weapon which leads me to the positive conclusion that it is a power superior to all things available to man including the irrational prejudice of belief in God.

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
© 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

majicJack rips off consumers; leaves behind spyware

2009-01-27T14:16:00.000-05:00

Have you heard of "majicJack"? It is a usb port device and you plug any phone into it, after which you get unlimited local and long-distance service for only

$19.95 YEAR.

Yes, you read right, only it's a rip off.

It won't work on anything as old as Windows 2000. Fortunately, I own a newer computer, too, so I installed this rip-off phone service on that computer. It was then that I discovered all the available AREA CODES were 200 miles away on the other side of the state. My neighbor would have to call me long distance.

So I tried to uninstall it. But it leaves behind PERMANENT spyware. You don't think so? It's worse than that. Read this site from BroadBand Nation. It will scare you.

Read the good and the bad at PissedConsumer.

AIG and Sharia Compliance

2008-12-17T07:36:00.003-05:00

Lawsuit Filed Against Treasury Dept:

Stop AIG Bailout Financing Terrorism

December 15, 2008

As you may recall, over the past two weeks we have sent out several emails exposing AIG’s promotion of Shariah-compliant insurance products. Many of you have contacted AIG to express your disapproval, and one of our members received an email response from AIG, which we distributed late last week.

Today we are excited to report (see press release below) that our respected friends David Yerushalmi and the Thomas More Law Center have filed a federal lawsuit against U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and the Federal Reserve Board to stop bailout funds from going to AIG. The lawsuit charges that tax dollars that are being used to bail out AIG are in fact being used in violation of the Constitution and are “promoting and financing the destruction of America.”

This is an explosive new development that is sure to raise government, media and public awareness of the danger inherent in U.S. businesses entangling themselves in Shariah-compliant finance. As we noted last week, “Shariah-compliant” finance means just that – compliance with Shariah law, which, among other things, oppresses women and calls for Jihad against infidels.

Here is the press release the Thomas More Law Center issued yesterday. There will likely be much more information to pass along to you in the days and weeks to come.

ACT for America
P.O. Box 6884 Virginia Beach, VA 23456
www.actforamerica.org

We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
© 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

The Coalition to Stop Shariah in the United States

2008-12-17T07:02:00.008-05:00

The Coalition to Stop Shariah in the United States

We are Americans opposed to the “stealth jihad” being waged in this country by those who promote Shariah - authoritative Islam’s theo-political-religious program for establishing a global theocracy. As such, Shariah and its espousal of violent and stealthy jihad constitute sedition. We are determined to resist efforts now underway to create “parallel” Muslim societies and otherwise to insinuate Shariah into this country via its mosques, prisons, campuses, media, government and financial institutions.

Of particular concern is the progress being made to establish Shariah-Compliant Finance (SCF) within Western, and most recently, U.S. banks and other institutions that trade securities. Islamic finance’s leading Shariah authorities have made plain that they consider SCF to be “jihad with money,” “financial jihad” and a means of promoting their objective of destroying the West’s economic system and replacing it with an Islamic one.

Incredibly, in recent days, the U.S. Treasury Department has begun embracing Shariah-Compliant Finance. Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Robert Kimmitt has professed an interest in “studying the salient features of Islamic banking to ascertain how far it could be useful in fighting the ongoing world economic crisis.” According to a press report out of Saudi Arabia, he has declared that “experts in the Treasury Department are currently learning the important features of Islamic banking.”

To this end, the Treasury Department hosted in its headquarters building on Thursday, November 6th a “seminar for the policy community” entitled “Islamic Finance 101.” This event was co-sponsored - and, it would appear, orchestrated - to promote Shariah-Compliant Finance by one of America’s leading promoters of the industry: the Islamic Finance Project at Harvard Law School. Harvard has benefitted from the infusion of millions of dollars from a Wahhabi Saudi prince and his government. Such funds are evidently translating into its fealty to the Islamist agenda and the promotion of Shariah and SCF by Harvard professors such as Frank Vogel (who will preside at the Treasury seminar).

It is especially alarming that the Treasury Department is now in a position to impose its submission to Shariah on the various financial institutions which it has bought in recent weeks or otherwise controls. With the nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, its purchase of - at last count - 17 banks and the enormous leverage associated with its $700 billion slush-fund, Treasury can be an irresistible force should it actively promote Shariah-Compliant Finance. The fact that Assistant Treasury Secretary Neel Kashkari, the official charged with administering that slush fund, is the host of “Islamic Finance 101″ certainly looks like active promotion of Shariah-Compliant Finance.

The Coalition to Stop Shariah called on the Treasury Department to cancel this indoctrination session, to cease its efforts to promote Shariah-Compliant Finance and to recognize Shariah for what it is - sedition - and treat it accordingly by banning its use in U.S. financial institutions and products.
Individual speaker statements here.

See Video from the Press Conference - Robert Spencer, Frank Gaffney

Speakers included Robert Spencer, renowned author and expert on Shariah law, Jihadwatch.org project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center; Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy; Dan Pollak for Morton Klein, Zionist Organization of America; Andrea Lafferty, Traditional Values Coalition, and others.

Members of the Coalition include Concerned Women for America, ACT for America, Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, the Zionist Organization of America, Traditional Values Coalition, Center for Security Policy, Endowment for Middle East Truth, Unity Coalition for Israel, Let Freedom Ring, Christian Solidarity International, Tradition Family & Property Inc., Women United, Jewish Action Alliance, Florida Security Council, Society of Americans for National Existence and the Center for Security Policy- see the full updated list here.

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
© 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

Jihadist's Blog from Inside Gitmo

2008-12-16T00:08:00.006-05:00

December 8th, 2008

Guantanamo’s Jihad:

The Show Begins…

by
Walid Phares

Al Qaeda’s great moment for propaganda has arrived, just as I predicted AlQaeda’sgreat moment for propaganda has arrived, just as I predicted it would when I wrote about this in June. The Guantanamo trials will provide leading figures in the 9/11 massacre their “moment” to deliver a blow to America’s psyche, image and legal system.

As predicted, almost to the letter in my analysis in June, the men charged with plotting the September 11 attacks have declared their readiness to make confessions. According to the Associated Press the military judge assigned to their war crimes trial at Guantanamo Bay read aloud a letter in which the five co-defendants said they request an immediate hearing session “to announce our confessions.” The AP report added that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (aka KSM) has already told interrogators he was the mastermind of the attacks. “Now he’s telling the judge that he and the others want to make confessions at the trial.” The judge at the pre-trial hearing, Army Col. Stephen Henley, is asking each defendant if they are prepared to enter a plea. Three have agreed to do so.

So, is there an Al Qaeda plan being put into motion on the inside? Most likely there is as our knowledge of Al Qaeda training instructions has shown. –Both the government and media of the United States are ill-prepared for this type of jihadi propaganda warfare. Seven years after the beginning of the so-called “War on Terror,” the enemy’s ideology, strategies and methods still haven’t been officially identified. It is like using a Word War I mind set to fight World War II terror strategies.

Here is what the jihadists, both on the inside and the outside of the Guantanamo detention center are planning for:

First, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his comrades will use the so-called confessions deal to build a psychological environment for a martyrdom case: “istishaad.” They aren’t interested in saving their lives (at first, although they think they could) but in providing a maximum damage to their enemy through the tribunal proceedings. They will claim the court is not legitimate, the entire Guantanamo process as illegal and that they are ready to die as Jihadis in the path to Allah. Their first target is to grant themselves, in the eyes of millions of militants around the world the status of “Shuhada,” martyrs, even though they could survive it.

The “confessions” turned declaration of victory will be picked up by Al Qaeda and other jihadi groups and transformed into vital material for propaganda: videos, audio and texts. The “show” inside court will be used for indoctrination purpose around the world. A myth will be set in motion and emotional reactions to the “story” will be mutated into future revenge operations.

From there on, leave it to the architects of jihadi propaganda: statements made by the defendants will be used by operatives online, in the chat rooms but also on Al Jazeera (by callers and guests), and in other medium to widen the radicalization of youth in the Arab and Muslim world and within the West as well. An Al Qaeda “control room” will use the feed from the Guantanamo trials to produce a victory in their war of ideas against democracies. The fate of the 9/11 detainees isn’t the issue to Al Qaeda. By pledging loyalty to the “mission” through the so-called “confessions” or statements they have already sacrificed themselves ideologically. What KSM and his comrades are offering to their “brothers” around the world is an unbeatable series of images, footage and audio — pure gold for Al Qaeda propagandists and ideologues.

Ironically, during this time of transition between the two administrations in both the Bush and Obama teams may find they overlook the direct goals of Al Qaeda’s plan. As national security teams meet and wrestle over future options in the War on Terror (will some possibly end up just calling it a “war”?) the other side is waging its own war methodically, relentlessly and unstoppably. Every inch of room to maneuver is used to the maximum to weaken the enemy, even from within the walls of the detention centers. And that is only at Guantanamo that the defendants are openly admitting their responsibilities in spreading terror. Wait until the processing of jihadists hits our U.S. courts here on the mainland. What we see now is just the beginning.

Dr. Walid Phares is Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the author of The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad.

American Congress for Truth

P.O. Box 6884Virginia Beach, VA 23456

http://us.mc590.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=member@americancongressfortruth.org http://www.americancongressfortruth.org/
Every day, American Congress for Truth (ACT) a 501c3 non-profit organization is on the front lines fighting for you in meeting with politicians, decision makers, speaking on college campuses and planning events to educate and inform the public about the threat of Islamofascism.

To maintain and bolster our efforts, we need your continued solidarity, activism and financial support. We are only as strong as our supporters. We thank you for helping us carry on this important work.

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
© 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

Muslim lawyer Brands Christmas 'Evil'

2008-12-13T00:18:00.008-05:00

Muslim preacher Anjem Choudary has branded Christmas "evil" in a sermon posted on the internet.

By Murray Wardrop The Daily Telegraph (London)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3699565/Muslim-lawyer-Anjem-Choudary-brands-Christmas-evil.html

The lawyer, who recently praised the Mumbai terror attacks, urged all Muslims to reject traditional Christmas celebrations, claiming that they are forbidden by Allah.
The 41-year-old shocked Christians and even those of his own faith by branding yuletide festivities as "the pathway to hellfire".

Choudary, who is chairman of the Society of Muslim Lawyers, ruled out all celebrations, including having a Christmas tree, decorating the house or eating turkey.

In the sermon posted on an Islamic website, he said: "In the world today many Muslims, especially those residing in western countries, are exposed to the evil celebration Christmas.

"Many take part in the festival celebrations by having Christmas turkey dinners.
"Decorating the house, purchasing Christmas trees or having Christmas turkey meals are completely prohibited by Allah.
"Many still practise this corrupt celebration as a remembrance of the birth of Jesus.
"How can a Muslim possibly approve or participate in such a practice that bases itself on the notion Allah has an offspring?
"The very concept of Christmas contradicts and conflicts with the foundation of Islam.
"Every Muslim has a responsibility to protect his family from the misguidance of Christmas, because its observance will lead to hellfire. Protect your Paradise from being taken away – protect yourself and your family from Christmas."

Choudary is Principal Lecturer at the London School of Shari'ah and a follower of the Islamist militant leader Omar Bakri Mohammed.

Earlier this year, he led a meeting at the heart of the area where the liquid bombers lived, which warned of a British September 11. [emphasis added]

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
© 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

Sharia-compliant Insurance Invades U.S.

2008-12-11T17:55:00.002-05:00

AIG After the Bailout Offers Discriminatory,

Anti-Capitalist Insurance

As you know, we have encouraged our members to contact AIG to express our disapproval with AIG’s decision to market a shariah-compliant insurance product. One of our members received an email response from AIG, which we have copied below. Beneath the AIG response is our response.

“We received your email expressing your concern over our announcement that we would begin marketing Takaful insurance products in the United States. AIG operates around the world and endeavors to provide products that meet the diverse needs of its 74 million customers living in 130 countries and jurisdictions. Marketing to specific ethnic constituencies is not new or unique to AIG. For instance, AIG businesses have tailored programs for a range of religious organizations, including Methodist churches and synagogues. The concept of Takaful is similar the concept of reciprocal exchange, or mutual insurance. What makes the structure somewhat different is that premiums are held in non-interest-bearing accounts, and any excess profit is distributed back to the policyholders or given to charity. While the Takaful structure is desirable to those whose religious convictions preclude them from engaging in traditional interest-bearing structures, Takaful is also increasingly popular among non-Muslims who feel that the excess charitable aspect is a socially responsible mechanism for the purchase of insurance. In the United States, AIG plans to direct excess profits to U.S. based charitable organizations. These policies are standard homeowners’ policies and are guided by U.S. law. The funds for these policies are held in Shariah-compliant, non-interest bearing accounts at HSBC. We hope this addresses your concerns.” The AIG response is a fairly typical one companies provide when asked about shariah-compliant products. They usually compare shariah-compliant products to special products offered to other religious groups, and they almost always characterize the shariah-compliant product as “socially responsible.” Note AIG’s comparison to “Methodist churches and synagogues” and the phrase “socially responsible mechanism.”

There are at least three problems with AIG’s response.

The comparison to “Methodist churches and synagogues” is faulty. Methodist churches and synagogues do not require financial products that advance religious law that oppresses women and has at its core the call to jihad, as shariah-compliant products do. “Shariah-compliant” is just that – in compliance with Shariah law. The tenets of Shariah Islamic law include permission for forced child marriages, the beating of disobedient women, death sentences for Muslims who chose to convert away from Shariah Islam, and the obligation to wage offensive military Jihad against non-Muslims. By offering shariah-compliant products AIG, whether knowingly or unwittingly, is legitimizing and, by extension, endorsing shariah law. Think of it this way. Would AIG offer a product that was “apartheid compliant”? Of course not, because AIG would know that doing so would legitimize apartheid. To argue that a company can offer a product that is “compliant” with shariah law, but is not legitimizing shariah law, is disingenuous. So we repeat, AIG is either knowingly or unwittingly legitimizing a religious law system that oppresses women and is animated by jihad.

The advisory board for AIG’s Shariah-compliant insurance includes Muhammed Imran Usmani, the son and disciple of Muhammed Taki Usmani. The elder Usmani is a “who’s who” in the Islamist world and an outspoken proponent of aggressive jihad. For example, he has issued numerous fatwas (religious rulings) that provide material support for terrorism. What “socially responsible mechanism” does AIG provide to “Methodist churches and synagogues” that has an advisory board which includes the disciple of an internationally-known advocate for terrorism? Let’s use the apartheid example again. Would AIG offer a product that had an advisory board which included the son and disciple of an internationally-known advocate for apartheid? Of course not.

Note this statement in AIG’s response: “In the United States, AIG plans to direct excess profits to U.S. based charitable organizations.” Shariah-compliant finance requires such charitable giving to go to Muslim charities. Who directs where the money goes? The Shariah-compliant advisory board, which in this case includes the son and disciple of an internationally-renowned advocate of terrorism.

But that’s only one problem. Currently over two dozen Muslim charities have been identified by the U.S. government as having links to terrorist organizations. How many other Muslim charities have links to terrorist organizations and have not yet been identified? The recent convictions in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing trial illustrate the complex web that some Muslim charities have created to funnel charitable contributions to terrorist organizations. What AIG is thus doing is offering a financial instrument that may very well wind up as a conduit for funds to terrorist organizations. Even if that never occurred, why would a company want to put itself in such a position? Why would a company want to entangle itself with the son and disciple of an advocate for terrorism? Why would a company even take the chance that a financial product it offers could end up serving as a conduit for funds to terrorist organizations? How is this “socially responsible”? What’s more, doesn’t AIG recognize that, if funds from its shariah-compliant product did end up going to terrorist organizations, it could be facing, at best, a public relations nightmare, and at worst, lawsuits alleging negligence, and even criminal investigations? This is no mere hypothesis. David Yerushalmi, a legal expert on the issue of shariah law, has written a lengthy legal article spelling out the potential civil and criminal liabilities for companies that engage in shariah-compliant finance. (To read the article click here). We will continue to press for more information and for the opportunity to educate AIG as to the dangers of what it has ventured into. We’ll keep you posted. Please forward this email to everyone you know so they will become aware of this issue – and encourage them to sign up for our email alerts! This is how we get the word out!

ACT for America

P.O. Box 6884 Virginia Beach, VA 23456

www.actforamerica.org

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

HOW CAN I TELL OTHERS ABOUT YOUR ORGANIZATION?

Send a personalized version of this message to your friends.

HOW CAN I SUPPORT YOUR ORGANIZATION?
Click here to give an online donation.

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
© 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

Sharia in England

2008-12-10T00:06:00.007-05:00

The End of the Secularity of Western Law:

Brief Introductions to Sharia in England

"Five sharia courts have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester and Nuneaton, Warwickshire. The government has quietly sanctioned that their rulings are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court. Previously, the rulings were not binding and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims. "

The Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2957428/Sharia-law-courts-operating-in-Britain.html

Anarchy in the U.K.?

"The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence. Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through county courts or the country’s High Court, a part of its Supreme Court system. Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims." The New York Times
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/anarchy-in-the-uk/?ref=opinion Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts

Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts

"Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

Britons Will Have A Religious War At Their Front Doors--Commentary by CEC

Britain is a separate nation from all other nations, including the United States. This needs to be said, because the rights of other nations are sovereign laws unto those nations, where such sovereignty does not violate basic human rights. Even then, in places like Ghana, China, North Korea, Iran, and others, violations are often brutal and inhuman and must be stopped by the international community when it can do so.

Sometimes even here in the U.S., laws are often anti-individualistic, and we have a system of rule-by-law that can be checked, by the independence of the third branch of our government, the courts, when anti-libertarian laws are passed and an attempt is made to enforce those anti-individualistic laws.

(This is the case, notwithstanding the truth that the laws of the U.S. are no longer based on the sovereignty of the individual to be protected by the government, to whom the individual grants away certain of his rights to the common sovereignty. "Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day..." Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. http://www.friesian.com/ellis.htm

(Since the inception of the "citizen of the United States" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, individual sovereignty has been virtually wiped out, to be replaced by creeping nationalism of the sort fought against by the Federalists. And as many libertarian thinkers have elaborated upon, the American public has come to see this nationalism as natural and as what the Founders had planned all along. This public has gotten the idea of "common sovereignty" whereby the government rules from the consent of the governed, mixed up with modern social liberalism whereby the governments' sole purposes are to literally provide for the common good.)

But in very-liberal Britain's attempt at being "multiculturalists [seeking] the hegemony of the West" [see "20th Century" article above] the mis-guided allowance of sharia law courts to be held and upheld under English law is a breach of the idea of "common sovereignty" given to us by Locke, Hobbes, and others. It is a breach of the abstraction made by America's Founders from that concept of "common" into "individual" sovereignty.

"Lawyers have issued grave warnings about the dangers of a dual legal system," states one of the articles on sharia law, above. It was not intentional that England allow this dual system. A sheik found a hole in English law big enough to drive his truck full of society-destroying ideas, and Parliament has yet to fill the hole and destroy sharia courts within the jurisdiction of the English Common Constitution.

Not to mention that if this is allowed to continue, radical (and I don't mean terroristic) Muslims in the United States will someday attempt the same; but it means the destruction of the secularity of America's closest political ally. What will become of that alliance if such dualism is allowed to continue? Will the U.S. be able to count on England if it comes time to go to war against another terrorist nation that happens to be Muslim?

It cannot be said for certain that such a day will never come in the life of American jurisprudence. Liberals here are more radically bent on multiculturalism because they are thwarted at their efforts of introducing it lawfully. They are, however, very capable of introducing it into the minds of Americans through the liberal educational process, where individualism is not politically correct unless the purpose of allowing it is to allow multiculturalism to destroy the authority of the political body that is trying to allow individualism (to whatever degree it sees fit or is able to appropriately manage.)

School boards all across the nation are bombarded by suits brought by individuals and organizations, suits which are intended only to prove that the "rights" of the student are violated when he/she cannot wear a shirt that says "God Is Dead" as a response to a shirt worn earlier by someone else that said "God Rules!" Or, rightfully, when a school board prevents the association on compas of a gay organization when other organizations including religious-based groups are allowed.

Secular tolerance demands that both shirts, or neither, are to be allowed into the school, that no extra-curricular groups are allowed, or all groups are allowed that fit within the context of civil associations. But multiculturalism's claims that "diversity" demands one side be allowed to speak without being argued with by the other side is contrary to civil association and speech, and therfore to individual sovereignty. Besides, there is no "rule of multiculturalism" ensconced in the history of our laws in the way that such things as "the wall of separation of church and state" are ensconsed. School boards are allowed to make policy that says all students must dress alike to prevent taking attention from education where attention is allowed, so it is not focused instead on the poorly dressed v. the richly dressed; the hippie from the preppie; the religious students from the atheists; the skin heads from the Jewish students; and to cell phone or iPod use--just to name a few examples.

Dualism in American regulations are un-American, which has the proud distinction of meaning "anti-individualistic." We don't allow it where we find it; we could not allow it in our own court system.

England must take action to deny the dualism of having two separate-but-equal systems of jurisprudence within its jurisdiction, before the secular Muslim community there is unjustly involved; before this dualism rallies the radical Muslims into an unstoppable cohesion; and before that unstoppable cohesion becomes an anti-social force against the secular common sovereignty of the British people who are themselves being unfairly blind-sided by a Euro-multiculturalism that will eventually bring a religious war right their literal doorsteps and in their streets.

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
© 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

Scientific Naturalism: Deterministic

2008-11-25T14:21:00.005-05:00

Determinism: the doctrine that all the facts in the physical universe, and hence also in human history, are absolutely dependent upon and conditioned by their causes. In psychology: the doctrine that the will is not free but determined by psychical or physical conditions. Also called scientific naturalism.

This doctrine is expressed in the late 20th c. (and now 21st c.) thinking expressed by Susan Blackmore, Paul Bloom, Paul Broks, Daniel Dennett, Sheldon Drobny, Owen Flanagan, Ursula Goodenough, Joseph Hilbe, Nicholas Humphrey, Brian Leiter ,Thomas Metzinger, Tamler Sommers, and John Symons, a list supplied by the website The Center for Naturalism, operated by Tom Clark.

Clark himself explains the doctrine this way:

"Each of us is an unfolding natural process, and every aspect of that process is caused, and is a cause itself. [ ] Seeing that we are fully caused creatures - not self-caused - we can no longer take or assign ultimate credit or blame for what we do. [ ] We don’t have free will in the sense of being able to choose or decide without being fully caused in our choices or decisions. Instead, as individuals we are part of the natural unfolding of the universe in all its amazing complexity.

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
© 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

Man qua Man: References

2008-11-21T06:25:00.009-05:00

"Man’s survival qua man” means the terms, methods, conditions and goals required for the survival of a rational being through the whole of his lifespan—in all those aspects of existence which are open to his choice."
Ayn Rand; “The Objectivist Ethics” The Virtue of Selfishness, 24

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/standardofvalue.html

Also: Introduction to Aristotle

Also:

Metaphysical Naturalism's Direct Correlation with "Man qua Man"

Also: Thomas Aquinas to Duns Scotus

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
© 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

Power Reserved to the People--Description

2008-11-20T08:15:00.004-05:00

1) The Bill of Rights: Reserved Powers; byJacob G. Hornberger

The Constitution brought into existence the most unusual government in history. It was a government whose powers were limited to those enumerated in the document itself. If the power wasn’t enumerated, the government could not exercise it. Fearful that the newly formed government might try to break free of that enumerated-powers straitjacket, the American people, through their duly authorized representatives, enacted the Bill of Rights.

The first eight amendments to the Constitution expressly prohibit the federal government from denying people fundamental rights and important procedural protections. To ensure that federal officials would not later claim that the list of such rights was exclusive, the Ninth Amendment was enacted.

Then, to ensure that powers not expressly delegated to the federal government could still be exercised by the states, the Tenth Amendment was enacted. It reads as follows:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

2) "Description: American judges and legal scholars have long misunderstood the intended meaning of the Ninth Amendment and its relationship to the Tenth. Because of misinterpretation, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments have not been used to fulfill their original purposes. The limited and unlimited powers of the federal government have been shaped greatly by that error. In this book the authors clarify the actual meaning of the Ninth Amendment and its connection to the Tenth Amendment in order to provide a clear understanding of the full potential of the two amendments. Historical and contemporary details are included to provide an appreciation of the intended purpose of the amendments.

"Issues regarding the misinterpretation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are clearly outlined and explained in depth, including such topics as: *The drafting of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments *Enumerated, necessary and proper, and reserved powers of the state governments and *Substantive due process. The book also includes a bibliographical essay with information on alternative sources for grasping the intended meaning of the amendments." [emphasis added]

http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/GR1372.aspx

Muslims Have Special Privileges in American Society

2008-11-13T19:11:00.002-05:00

Muslims get last laugh at Swift: Plant must pay $365,000 to Muslims fired for walking off job http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/023476.php

An update on this story, which played out essentially as predicted although that earlier post referred to the controversy at a different plant. The principles in play are the same. "Minnesota Plant That Fired Muslims for Taking Prayer Breaks Will Pay $365,000," from AP, November 11 (thanks to Islam In Action):

MINNEAPOLIS — Under a settlement to a federal lawsuit, up to 100 Somali Muslims who are current or former workers at Gold'n Plump Inc. will receive a total of $365,000.

The settlement was filed in Minneapolis on Friday. It sprang from allegations of religious discrimination at the company's chicken processing plants in Cold Spring and Arcadia, Wis.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed lawsuits against St. Cloud-based Gold'n Plump and the Work Connection Inc., an employment agency in St. Paul, which handled some hiring for the plant.

Under the settlement, Gold'n Plump agreed to pay $215,000 to workers who were terminated for taking prayer breaks.

The Work Connection will pay $150,000 to workers who were asked to sign a form acknowledging that they might be required to handle pork, which many Muslims consider unclean....

So the proposition that Muslims have special privileges in American society, to which others are not privy, is now enshrined in precedent.

ACT for America P.O. Box 6884 Virginia Beach, VA 23456

www.actforamerica.org

We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

HOW CAN I TELL OTHERS ABOUT YOUR ORGANIZATION?

Send a personalized version of this message to your friends.
HOW CAN I SUPPORT YOUR ORGANIZATION?

Click here to give an online donation.

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:

© 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

Ontology of the Soul Part 2, Cont.

2008-10-29T17:04:00.004-04:00

Identifying the Entity Called "Soul", Part 2, Continued

To repeat from Identifying the Soul, Part 2: There is clearly a difference between voluntary and involuntary volition. So we cannot say at the present point in this discussion that the soul did or did not animate the newborn of any species. Catholics, who believe human life is endowed at conception with a soul would say it does animate the newborn. The antithetic argument is that human volition begins with the first syllogism.

These antithetic arguments will be the basis for making the identification of the entity we call the soul. But it must be stated at the beginning that there is a school of thought that says what is self-evidential to the senses as the thing called the soul is no more than the physiological workings of the brain and body. This thinking does not deny that something is self-evidential to the senses; instead, it denies the metaphysical importance of that which is self-evidential, and uses language other than the word soul to identify what it admits is self-evidential.

As was stated in the first part of this discussion, ontology is a branch of metaphysics. "Zygote," "embryo," "fetus," "chimp," "bonobo", "consciousness" and "soul" are all metaphysical classifications, made by identifying characteristics, differences between them and similar entities, differences based on scientific descriptions where science has made them, but identities and differentiations of ontology represent metaphysical values. Why? Because ontology itself would not exist without metaphysics, and is a branch of it.

The Religious Identity of "Soul"

"The term 'mind' usually denotes this principle [called 'soul', by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated,] as the subject of our conscious states, while 'soul' denotes the source of our vegetative activities as well." Catholic Encyclopedia (CE)

Thereby volition--will--is either 1) a quality of the conscious mind; and/or 2) an entity not of the conscious mind. Objectively this is correct, because the body does have the ability to remain alive even while the mind is comatose.

By this definition, a person in a vegetative state of coma has a soul. Practically speaking, this "source of our vegetative activies" makes our stomachs digest food, causes our lungs to breathe, and our noses to sneeze. Should we call this "source" by the name soul?

One of the difficulties of nailing down a classification, either of genus or of species, is where to draw the line. What line of demarcation, either scientifically or metaphysically, is there between the volition of the conscious will, and the volition of the body apart from the conscious mind?

As an object of ontological identity, the CE says "our vital activities proceed from a principle capable of subsisting in itself, [and] is the thesis of the substantiality of the soul: that this principle is not itself composite, extended, corporeal, or essentially and intrinsically dependent on the body, [and] is the doctrine of spirituality. If there be a life after death, clearly the agent or subject of our vital activities must be capable of an existence separate from the body. The belief in an animating principle in some sense distinct from the body is an almost inevitable inference from the observed facts of life."

Ok, what does all that mean? It begins--and ends--with the "thesis of substantiality." The CE does not list "substantiality" as an entry, but of the thesis of "substance" it says this: "A genus supremum, cannot strictly be defined by an analysis into genus and specific difference; yet a survey of the universe at large will enable us to form without difficulty an accurate idea of substance."

So it gets back to taxonomy, i.e., genus and specie. Calling it a "genus supremum", followed by the explicit lack of specie and the anti-definition given means the soul is not definable in human terms, i.e., "genus and specific difference."

There is a reason for this. Onlologically the Catholic Church cannot allow itself to be pinned down on a definition, because it believes the soul to be "genus supremum," ergo, supernatural.

Oddly (or not, as you prefer,) the CE does not have a definition for supernatural. The only two "supernatural" entities in its pages are these:

"Supernatural Gift - Something conferred on nature that is above all the powers (vires) of created nature

"Supernatural Order - The ensemble of effects exceeding the powers of the created universe and gratuitously produced by God for the purpose of raising the rational creature above its native sphere to a God-like life and destiny"

This can only lead us to conclude that the most powerful and ancient Christian Church cannot define "genus supremum." As a matter of fact, that definition is another entry missing from its pages. The Church obviously prefers not to ontologically identify the entity soul, while at the same time describing its qualites as those which "animate" the human being. No wonder it defines the soul as a "principle."

Qualities described will necessarily lead one to an ontological ID of the entity that possess those qualities, unless the qualities are themselves not concretely identified. The definition given by the CE of soul is not concrete.

Tomorrow: The Secular Identity of the Entity Called "Soul"

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

Bigot Dobson Honored by Broadcast Museum

2008-10-24T18:40:00.005-04:00

Bigoted, Lying James Dobson to be Honored

I once had a revealing conversation with an A-list news reporter, when I was trying to convince him to cover the scientific distortions of Focus on the Family's James Dobson. He declined to do so because he felt that Dobson lies so frequently that it wasn't news.

This lack of accountability has allowed Dobson, and others of his ilk, to portray themselves as spokespersons for morality, even though they are regularly engaged in glaring examples of moral turpitude. Occasionally, they are even honored for their sinister "success" and showered with undeserved adulation.
more at Wayne Besen - Daily Commentary

Truth Wins Out (TWO) launched a new website today, DumpDobson.com, that calls on the Museum of Broadcast Communications to reverse its decision to honor Focus on the Family’s James Dobson in its Radio Hall of Fame. Unless the museum withdraws its pledge to induct Dobson, TWO will join Equality Illinois and the Gay Liberation Network to protest the awards ceremony, Saturday, Nov. 8, (5:30 PM – 7:30 PM), at the Renaissance Chicago Hotel .

To fight back against this offensive decision, DumpDobson.com is asking fair-minded people to take four actions.

E-Mail Radio Hall of Fame CEO Bruce Dumont, brucedumont@museum.tv, and urge him to withdraw Dobson’s honor.

Sign our letter to the Radio Hall of Fame urging them to reverse their foolhardy decision to celebrate Dobson’s shameful and ignoble career.

If you live in the Chicago area, please sign up to participate in our protest.
Donate to Truth Wins Out or Donate to the Gay Liberation Network to help us fight back. http://www.truthwinsout.org/pressreleases/two-launches-dump-dobson/

GLAAD Joins Coalition To Dump Dobson From Radio Hall of Fame

Coalition Press Conference

Young Man to Radio Hall of Fame: Dobson Divided My Family

more http://www.dumpdobson.com/

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:

© 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®
mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

Naturalism Denies Free Will; Assumes "Locality" of Abstractions,cont.

2008-10-24T09:59:00.003-04:00

Liberalism and "Spatial Locality" of Abstractions, cont.

go back to Liberalism and "Spatial Locality" of Abstractions

But my answer in the string was much shorter. Here it is in its entirety:

"QUOTE
'You don't *experience* any of those things as a conscious awareness of neurons firing in a specific location in your brain. The *thought* is conceptually distinct from the neurons just as the mind is conceptually distinct from the brain." by Dragon Lady

"The distinction Dragon Lady makes is the difference between Objectivism and scientific naturalism. The website Center for Naturalism states, 'More and more, biology and neuroscience show that the brain and body do everything that the soul was supposed to do. [ ] Your thoughts, experiences, feelings, decisions, and behavior are all things your brain and body does. [ ] Naturalism says we are completely physical, material creatures, a complex, highly organized collection of atoms, molecules, cells, neurons, muscles, bone, etc., produced by evolution.'

"The owner of the Center for Naturalism is Tom Clark, who is opposed to Ayn Rand and had debated her with myself via email, and with Tibor Machan and others on the web. [See "Round Four"]

"To further the statements made by Clark in my second paragraph above, in 'Round Five' he begins a sentence by saying, 'In a world in which all behavior is understood to be fully caused...' This is the kind of language that scientific naturalists use to indicate that behavior is caused by environment, biology and brain physiology, 'memes,' and anything but free will, which they they dismiss, not suprisingly, as a myth.

"Clark's 'advisors' who are named on his website are Susan Blackmore, Paul Bloom, Paul Broks, Daniel Dennett, Sheldon Drobny, Owen Flanagan, Ursula Goodenough, Joseph Hilb, Nicholas Humphrey, Brian Leiter, Thomas Metzinger, Tamler Sommers, and John Symons. Then he has another longer list of 'allies' and another list of 'contributors.' They are all of the same school in one way or another--they are anti-Objectivists, anti-capitalists, anti-free-will philosophers.

"Many of them have good contributions to make here and there, but overall they are subjectivists. But the overall similarity between them is that they maintain we are not 'self-made' creatures, that we are 'fully caused,' and they invent the most metaphysically horrid things like 'memes' to describe why we act the way we act.

"In other words, they 'spatially position' who and what we are in the firing of neruons and the resultant "reactions" we call emotions. Clark's sister website Naturalism.Org has all the technical ideas explained in great detail. Check it out. You won't like what you read." END QUOTE

Clark and his cohorts turn it all into biology and neurology. However, to be fair, Clark sometimes writes in the phrases of apologetics:

"Some might conclude from this [from scientific naturalism] that naturalism reduces human beings to mere mechanisms, mere automatons, but this doesn’t follow. What follows is that the physical universe has produced, in us, marvelously complex and adaptive organisms, with the capacity for self-reflection, wonder, suffering, and joy. Far from mechanizing humanity, naturalism re-enchants the physical world by showing how consciousness and choice don’t involve supernatural processes."

I don't believe him for a minute, and I don't think you should either. That is because his scientism also leads him to say things like this:

"Naturalism holds that everything we are and do is connected to the rest of the world and derived from conditions that precede us and surround us. [ ] Our bodies and minds are shaped in their entirety by conditions that precede us and surround us. [ ] Seeing that we are fully caused creatures - not self-caused - we can no longer take or assign ultimate credit or blame for what we do. [ ] ...the homeless person in front of us, the convict, or the addict, [have] been given their genetic and environmental lot in life. [ ] Instead of supposing people can simply will themselves to be otherwise... [ ] We don’t have free will...in our choices or decisions. [ ] People don't create themselves, so responsibility for their character and behavior isn't ultimately theirs, but is distributed over the many factors that created them." [italics added]

Need I go on? Clark speak from both sides of his mouth and hopes you, his readers, don't see all the contradictions, and the determinism (his word), and the subjectivity involved in everything he believes.

I would not be surprised to find some of Clark's "advisors" and "allies" and "contributors" on the list of Barak Obama's advisors. Some may even wind up in the White House or in other government agencies--seriously. His advisors are well respected authors and they say that same social slogans Obama says. Obama is well-read, erudite, a Constitutional scholar, lawer, and professor who, we all know by now, leans well to the left.

Clark's advisors are left-leaning in their own liberal/academic spheres. Obama has been quoted as saying many of the same things about jurisprudence that Clark's website says, things like: "This leads to an ethics of compassion and understanding, both toward ourselves and others. We see that there but for circumstances go I." [and] "Naturalism focuses our attention on what works, increasing self-efficacy and encouraging science-based, progressive social policies in areas such as criminal justice, social inequality, behavioral health, and the environment."

Be afraid, very afraid, because many policy wonks who think in these same terms are already in positions of power, and you can see, if you look far enough into the future, where this nation is headed, because we are already half way there.

© 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®
mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

Leiter's and Slate's Bankruptcy

2008-10-23T09:16:00.002-04:00

Leiter Finds Free Market Ideas "Amusing"

Back Ayn Rand's Philosophy not "A Propos" to Leiter's Naturalism

Brian Leiter of Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog could not be expected to be a fan of Ayn Rand, because of his contribution to the determinism of scientific naturalism. So it is not surprising that he "finds amusing" http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2008/10/the-end-of-libe.html an article in "Slate" http://www.slate.com/id/2202489/ that describes libertarianism as "ideology [that] makes no sense," and says, "Utopians of the right, libertarians are just as convinced that their ideas have yet to be tried, and that they would work beautifully if we could only just have a do-over of human history."

The problem lies not only with the "Slate" article, but with Leiter's agreement with it that "The worst thing you can say about libertarians is that they are intellectually immature, frozen in the worldview many of them absorbed from reading Ayn Rand novels in high school."*

It was Rand who wrote: "The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve “the common good.” It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice."
“What Is Capitalism?”; "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal"; http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/capitalism.html

And in defining "justice" as "the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake the character of men as you cannot fake the character of nature," Rand would be the first to point out that no justice was accomplished by the shameless, wasteful and reckless extravagance shown by so called "capitalists" who are backed by government funds and act like the immoral, dog-eat-dog money grubbers in "Atlas Shrugged," rather than like "Hank Reardon" or "Francisco D'Anconia," or even like philosophy professor "Hugh Akston" serving hamburgers in a diner.

Anyone who cannot see the difference between the "good businessmen" in AS, and the "bad businessmen" in Fannie, Freddie, and in the giant banks and investments firms has no business claiming Rand's "heroic view of capitalism makes it difficult for [her fans] to accept that markets can be irrational, misunderstand risk, and misallocate resources or that financial systems without vigorous government oversight and the capacity for pragmatic intervention constitute a recipe for disaster. [Her fans] are bankrupt, and this time, there will be no bailout."

Rand's fans, like myself, may have our head in the clouds hoping for the day when the world recognizes it defines the world irrationally; but at least we have our feet planted firmly on the ground, ready to run for "Galt's Gulch."

Will Leiter and the others like him see their own bankruptcy, then?

*A version of this article also appears in this week's issue of Newsweek.

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

Atheism is Godless and Naturalistic

2008-10-23T07:45:00.006-04:00

Naturalism is Epistemically Godless, continued

The Thought System

About that table there is no belief “system.” No one has to go through the process of deciding on the merits of whether tables exist before making either statement of whether he/she believes a table exists in a particular room.

But about God that process of systematizing one's beliefs is inherent in the subject. It requires many more processes of logic—and acceptance or denial of religious faith—before one has a belief “system” about God. So the distinction about “believing no god exists,” versus “not believing a god exists” is more than a slip of the English language.

It would not be acceptable if a woman said she believes tables don't exist. We would question how she could come to such a belief.

It should not be presumed that when a person says he “believes there is no god,” that he means he is atheist. A belief that there is no god, taken literally, would really define the agnostic.

But for the atheist who by definition cannot have a belief about a deity, that slip of the tongue is only that: a slip of the tongue. If he has thought about this oddity in the English language, he will argue against you when you point out his “belief.”

Otherwise, he will agree, not having seen the error in the semantics.

If a theist says, "You say don't believe God exists, then you probably believe there is the possiblity He does exist, don't you?"

That is what the syntax would lead a theist to think, and technically he would not be wrong to think it; but semantically he knows the atheist means to say "there is no god."

Yet how many people (besides myself) are willing to state unequivocally that there is no god or gods? It may be this unwillingness to make such a definitive statement that puts most atheists closer to thinking like agnostics than like someone who is sure.

The Epistemic Semantics

There is a large distinction to be made in this semantic difference. You can choose to believe that something exists. On the other hand, you may have a total lack of belief in that same thing without making the attempt not to state "the thing does not exist."

But god exists as a concept, if not as a reified (empirical) yet supernatural being, for all persons in all cultures and in all languages. Therefore, the contrary of "god", i.e., the epistemic opposite to a theologically conclusive deity, is metaphysical naturalism. In that epistemic system there can be for the atheist nothing but a denial of the existence of anything of a supernatural origin.

A formalized epistemology is not a belief system, yet it may contain some beliefs where it finds no empirical or intellecual resistance to an idea such as a god, or where it actually allows for beliefs of faith to replace reason (where "faith" is taken to mean the negation of "reason."

In the book "Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy," Edward Craig writes: "The Medieval Church wrested the keys away from the pagan philosophers; making the fatal mistake of trying to reconcile faith and and reason, it ended up subordinating Scripture to reason. Now the keys are being claimed by science..."

"Naturalism holds that the universe requires no supernatural cause and government..." The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism's "Strong" Definition of Naturalism

Semantics vs. Perception and Conception

Such negation of reason is negation of existence when "existence" is defined as the content of a human consciousness. Certainly there is more to existence than what is known; but what is "known" is that many things in existence are not known and that a metaphysical valuation must be placed on what is possible within the unknown.

In a consistent epistemic system, nothing unknown could defy or deny the content of consciousness. Existence and one's consciousness are irreducible primaries. Outside of the axioms that "things exist" and that you are "conscious" of them.

Those "things that exist" are perceived, and one may conceptualize god, but one may not "perceive" god when the distinction is made between perception being empirically induced, and conceputalization being intellectually induced.

In the absence of a "revealed revelation" as a direct perception which most people will never have in their lives, they are left with the conceptualization of the existence of god.

And that is not a matter of semantics. It is a matter of consciousness of percepts vs. consciousness of concepts. The only means of perceiving god is to have a revealed revelation, and as Thomas Paine wrote, such a revelation is revelation only to the person who had it; no one else is committed to accepting it.

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

Laissez-faire and Individual Sovereignty cont.

2008-10-22T08:22:00.004-04:00

Laissez-faire and Individual Sovereignty cont.

BACK to part One

Locke's ideal consists of a state built upon the natural sovereignty common to a people who can replace or overthrow its chosen form of government if it ceases to function toward the primary end of serving that natural sovereignty.

Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, and other political thinkers wrote little, if anything, on the sovereignty of the individual. It took the political thinkers of Colonial America to conceptualize that no citizen can give up certain rights, such as the right to be judge, jury and executioner, if he/she is not endowed at birth with all such rights one grants to the government. In other words the government, which has no sovereignty of its own except in relationship to other nations, cannot act in your name if its actions are not those which you yourself could do had you not given the state the right to act in your name.

Neither the States nor the nation is sovereign over you. This is why civil disobedience is often defensible.

You can't assign to the "common sovereignty" what you don't own as an individual.

What the critics also do not seem to realize, or choose to ignore, is that your individual sovereignty is guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment. It did not have to be in the form of an amendment. It could have been incorporated into the body of the Constitution, and perhaps it would have been a more secure safeguard of our sovereignty if it was in the body of the Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment states that the powers that don't belong to the federal government and are not prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States, "or to the people." But this is not a granting of rights which at its writing the government saw no need to retain. It is the written recognition of an existing fact: the rights which the people have not granted to the government are rights they retain.

The Founding Fathers always defined "the people" to be all individuals considered as a conceptual collective entity, but not as a thing in-itself that exists extant of the collective individuals that comprise it. In a situation where only two or three people may exist, such as on an island, it is foolish to talk of them as "the people." But in a nation of millions it is foolish to forget that those who disagree with a political decision remain a conceptual part of "the people"; and since they have rights which are sovereign (unalienable), democracy must never be allowed to deny individual, unalienable sovereignty.

"While ignoring the principles of individual liberty," said Rep. Ron Paul, in the House of Representatives in 2003, this nation was led into creating some serious errors Constitutional issues, in effect denying some liberties that had been reserved to individuals.

"The ideas of [pure] democracy, not the principles of [republican] liberty, were responsible for passage of the 16th Amendment. It imposed the income tax on the American people and helped to usher in the modern age of the welfare/warfare state," Paul said.

Laissez-faire is the economic state of man if no government bothered to tell him how to conduct his economic affairs. The First Amendment right to freedom of religion is the intellectual state of man where no government may tell him how to conduct his religious affairs.

Capitalism requires "a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church," wrote Ayn Rand.
“The Objectivist Ethics”; The Virtue of Selfishness

Such a separation of state and economics would achieve the natural state of man to conduct his affairs without government holding sovereignty over the individual. Granting sovereignty to the government in this realm of economics was not something contemplated by the authors of the Constitution, but neither was the return of communism to the shores of America anything they comtemplated.

The Founders could not have forgotten this communist endeavor, because Governor Bradford wrote one of the most politically elegant arguments against it, after giving it two years to work.

"The funding for the Pilgrims to go to the New World was provided under a contract with London merchants who wanted an economic profit from the venture. Under that contract whatever they produced was to be put into a common warehouse, with each one getting one equal share. All the land, buildings and end product were communally owned. Half of the Pilgrims died during the first winter, including Branford's wife." http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=18

Bradford wrote: "[Ending corn collectivism] had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression." [italics added]http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/11/a_thanksgiving_.html

Capitalism without restraints is laissez-faire. Capitalism with restraints that deny the sovereignty of the owner of capital to apply his ownership rights is a "mixed economy." Laissez-faire is one of the conditions of the standards of "qua Man." ["search" this blog]

But laissez-faire does not deny that rational planning is necessary.

"During his years of teaching, Peter J. Boettke frequently used [Atlas Shrugged] as a teaching tool, comparing the economic ideas it taught with those in John Steinbeck's "Grapes of Wrath".
[Boettke wrote:] "Rand makes the very important point that the critique of socialism was never against rational planning per se. Rather the question was who was to do the planning and the scope and the scale of the planning proposed." Blame It On Ayn Rand

Individual sovereignty is the state of every man in nature, before he agrees to relinquish some of it "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to [themselves and their] Posterity."

It is the state of man as he would rule himself, not as he would deny others what is natural. It is the state of economic man not bound by direct and populist democracy. It is capital ruled by the natural laws of capital.

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com
http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

Pirates Seize Dirty Bomb

2008-10-21T09:47:00.003-04:00

Hijacked Iranian Ship Was A Dirty Bomb Meant For Israel On Yom Kippur

On August 21st, 2008, the MV Iran Deyant, 44,458 dead weight bulk carrier was heading towards the Suez Canal. As it was passing the Horn of Africa, about 80 miles southeast of al-Makalla in Yemen, the ship was surrounded by speedboats filled with members of a gang of Somalian pirates who grab suitable commercial ships and hold them and their cargos and crews for ransom. The captain was defenseless against the 40 pirates armed with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades blocking his passage. He had little choice other than to turn his ship over to them. What the pirates were not banking on, however, was that this was no ordinary ship.

The MV Iran Deyanat is owned and operated by the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL) - a state-owned company run by the Iranian military that was sanctioned by the U.S. Department of the Treasury on September 10, shortly after the ship’s hijacking.

According to the U.S. Government, the company regularly falsifies shipping documents in order to hide the identity of end users, uses generic terms to describe shipments to avoid the attention of shipping authorities, and employs the use of cover entities to circumvent United Nations sanctions to facilitate weapons proliferation for the Iranian Ministry of Defense. The MV Iran Deyanat departed Nanjing, China, July 28, and, according to its manifest, planned to sail to Rotterdam, where it would offload 42,500 tons of iron ore and “industrial products” purchased by an unidentified “ German client”. The ship has a crew of 29 men, including a Pakistani captain, an Iranian engineer, 13 other Iranians, 3 Indians, 2 Filipinos, and 10 Eastern Europeans, stated to be Albanians.

The MV Iran Deyanat was brought to Eyl, a sleepy fishing village in northeastern Somalia, and was secured by a larger gang of pirates - 50 onboard and 50 onshore. The Somali pirates attempted to inspect the ship’s seven cargo containers but the containers were locked. The crew claimed that they did not have the “access codes” and could not open them. Pirates have stated they were unable to open the hold without causing extensive damage to the ship, and threatened to blow it up. The Iranian ship’s captain and the engineer were contacted by cell phone and demanded to disclose the actual nature of the mysterious “powdered cargo” but the captain and his officers were very evasive. Initially they said that the cargo contained “crude oil” but then claimed it contained “minerals.” Following this initial rebuff, the pirates broke open one of the containers and discovered it to be filled with packets of what they said was “a powdery fine sandy soil” …. Within a period of three days, those pirates who had boarded the ship and opened the cargo container with its gritty sand-like contents, all developed strange health complications, to include serious skin burns and loss of hair. And within two weeks, sixteen of the pirates subsequently died, either on the ship or on shore.

News about the illness and the toxic cargo quickly reached Garowe, seat of the government for the autonomous region of Puntland. Angered over the wave of piracy and suspicious about the Iranian ship, authorities dispatched a delegation led by Minister of Minerals and Oil Hassan Allore Osman to investigate the situation on September 4. and they witnessed some of the deaths due to exposure to ‘something on that ship.’

The Somali pirates initially set the ship’s ransom at $2 million and the Iranian government provided $200,000 to a local broker “to facilitate the exchange.” The $2 million dollar ransom agreement, which was supposedly secured on September 6th, never took place for reasons unknown. After September 10th, sanctions on IRISL were applied specifically because the company was said to engaged in illicit operations on behalf of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Serious negotiations were broken off completely. Iranian authorities subsequently denied that it agreed to the price nor had paid any money to the pirates. Nevertheless, after sanctions were applied to IRISL on September 10, Osman says, the Iranians told the pirates that the deal was off. “They told the pirates that they could not come because of the presence of the U.S. Navy.” The region is patrolled by the multinational Combined Taskforce 150, which includes ships from the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet. Subsequently, it was disclosed that the U.S. government had offered to pay $7 million to the pirates to “receive entry permission and search the vessel.” Officials in the Pentagon and the Department of State have consistently refused to comment on the situation.

The exact nature of the cargo remains officially a mystery but officials in Puntland and Baidoa are convinced the ship was carrying weapons to Eritrea for Islamist insurgents. “We cannot inspect the cargo yet,” Osman said, “but we are sure that it is weapons.”

The US Navy (and the French and the Russians) have been hove to off the coast of Eyl, going anywhere once released, it will be seized once it gets to sea. The specific clauses that have been approved in both the UN and in Congress would allow the US Navy to seize the ship under the suspicion clause. The claims that there are weapons onboard, and the possibility there might be chemical weapons, has insured there is at the very minimum, an inspection of the ship by outside authority will be mandated. At this writing, the MV Iran Deyanat is at anchor, watched closely by American, French and Russian naval units.

Although American intelligence and government sources are maintaining a strictly observed silence, the same does not apply to the Russians and so it is that we learn the real story of the MV Iran Deyanat. She was an enormous floating dirty bomb, intended to detonate after exiting the Suez Canal at the eastern end of the Mediterranean and in proximity to the coastal cities of Israel. The entire cargo of radioactive sand, obtained by Iran from China (the latter buys desperately needed oil from the former) and sealed in containers which, when the charges on the ship are set off after the crew took to the boats, will be blasted high into the air where prevailing winds will push the highly dangerous and radioactive cloud ashore.

Given the large number of deaths from the questing Somali pirates, it should be obvious that when the contents of the ship’s locked cargo containers finally descended onto the land, the death toll would be enormous. This ship was nothing more nor less than the long-anticipated Iranian attack on Israel. Not the expected rocket attacks (which could be intercepted by the Israelis) but an even more deadly and unexpected attack by sea. It is very interesting to note that the Israeli government has in the past few weeks, been loudly demanding that the United States establish a naval blockade of Iran.

The reason for this blockade would be to prevent any more Iranian ships with deadly cargos from attacking either Israel or other targets from the sea.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Congress for Truth

P.O. Box 6884

Virginia Beach, VA 23456

http://mc590.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=member@americancongressfortruth.org

http://www.americancongressfortruth.org/
Every day, American Congress for Truth (ACT) a 501c3 non-profit organization is on the front lines fighting for you in meeting with politicians, decision makers, speaking on college campuses and planning events to educate and inform the public about the threat of Islamofascism.

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra

Tags

Glossary of the Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism

On the Death of Yaoi Shonen-ai

Yahoo Boots Yaoi Shonen-ai from Answers

Yaoi Shonen-ai Gets the Boot at Yahoo Answers

Metaphysical Naturalism

Alcoholics Anonymous and Atheism

majicJack rips off consumers; leaves behind spyware

AIG and Sharia Compliance

The Coalition to Stop Shariah in the United States

Jihadist's Blog from Inside Gitmo

Muslim lawyer Brands Christmas 'Evil'

Sharia-compliant Insurance Invades U.S.

Sharia in England

Scientific Naturalism: Deterministic

Man qua Man: References

Power Reserved to the People--Description

Muslims Have Special Privileges in American Society

Ontology of the Soul Part 2, Cont.

Bigot Dobson Honored by Broadcast Museum

Naturalism Denies Free Will; Assumes "Locality" of Abstractions,cont.

Leiter's and Slate's Bankruptcy

Atheism is Godless and Naturalistic

Laissez-faire and Individual Sovereignty cont.

Pirates Seize Dirty Bomb