January 29, 2004
Update
The situation is worse than any of us had realized, and is said to involve animals.
Link.
January 28, 2004
Nick Land: Judge For Yourself!
Confused by recent events? Shocked by what you’ve read or heard? Well Sphaleotas is here to help.
On November 23, 2002, a poster calling himself “Nick Land” submitted the following to Coldfury.com, the lobotomy ward-Republican “Voice of the American Street”:
Hiya,
this banned in China meme is getting way out of hand. I live in Shanghai and spend two-thirds of my time hanging around in war-blogs (most of which proudly claim to be banned in China). By the way, love anything that can be taken as an endorsement of flash-frying islamofascists keep up the good work - nick
Posted by: Nick Land on November 23, 2002 02:49 AM (formerly at http://coldfury.com/archives/000675.php, archived here)
The previous month, another “Nick Land” had posted this to The Middle East Forum (“Promoting American Interests” ... “seeks a stable supply and a low price of oil”):
Absolute dishonesty
Submitted by Nick Land, October 14, 2002 at 05:47
Dear Dr. Pipes,
Thank you for your intellectual integrity about the most criticial issue of our time.
The evasions of politicians, slimy deceit of terror's leftist academic fellow-travelers, and outright mendacity of Islamofascist aggression run together into a single monstrous phenomenon. An honest voice these days is a precious thing indeed.
Militant Islam has turned the principles of Holocaust denial into a systematic tactic. Once again, following the Bali atrocity, the very people responsible for - or sympathetic to - the attack have immediately claimed that the victims themselves, or their allies, are the real culprits. The same grotesque lies, of course, accompanied the 9/11 massacre. This consistent, intrinsic and absolute dishonesty of the Jihadis places their war on a level of sickening deceit perhaps unprecedented in human history, and further underlines the complete intellectual bankruptcy of their ideological apologists in the West.
Like you, I worry that a further cataclysmic act of Jihadi barbarism will be required to shake the Free World from its decadent stupor and provoke the uncompromising resolve to fight back.
On the positive side, the Islamofascists are clearly terrified of the truth.
Keep up the good work.
(formerly at http://www.meforum.org/comments/pipes/3075, now archived at http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/3075)
Anyone unfamiliar with Daniel Pipes’ “good work” might care to take a look at this.
You can search out further NeoCon nonsense here. Forrest Gump for President! has its moments, but this arguably best reflects the current output of Britain’s most consequential libidinal materialist.
January 21, 2004
The Creighton-Ward's butler unmasked
As the descendent of a forebear of the family upon which the Tracys of International Rescue were based, I never cease to ask myself, why are Aloysius Parker and Keith Ansell-Pearson never seen together in the same room?
January 17, 2004
On the dying pattern of birds
A controversial new theory is outlined below.
Where do birds go to die?
This question is posed by the late Cork bishop Cornelius Lucey whose death wish it was that his theory on the natural deaths of birds be circulated publicly. However, it is only this week in The Corkman that this theory, and question, are revealed for the first time.
Bishop Lucey’s theory could be summed up as scientifically questioning whether birds really do fly over a rainbow – that is the formulation of a hypothesis on the dying patterns of birds.
Before his death and during his retirement years, Bishop Lucey was so eager to have his theory put before the world of science that he assigned the publication of his hypothesis to a nun as a ‘special commission’.
Sister Una Hayes, based at Regina Ceili Convent, Farranree, Cork wrote of receiving this commission from the bishop in the days before his death. Sister Una, in her old age, regretted not having completed her mission and subsequently assigned it to Monsignor Kevin O’Callaghan of Bandon.
The unpublished theory begins with a question – “Where do birds go to die?” The reasoning behind the scientific speculation is that while the world is populated with flocks of birds, rarely do we see flocks of bodies when they expire.
Bishop Lucey distinguished death from natural causes, and death by predator, or death through a car accident. Death through accidental or deliberate means resulted in the mangled bodies we have all seen. But the Bishop challenged anyone to produce evidence of a bird who had died from natural causes. Who could show the body of a bird which had not been killed either by a cat or car?
Bishop Lucey, who was famous for starting the very successful mission in Peru, among many other initiatives in Cork, was a man who had a passionate interest in bees. Beekeeping was a hobby that absorbed his attention. Bishop Lucey’s theory on the manner in which birds died, came from his in-depth knowledge of the life-patterns of bees.
Recounting her story, in writing, to Monsignor O’Callaghan, Sr Una said that the Bishop explained that when bees died, they rose up, into the “upper air”. And there they literally were destroyed through a natural disintegration process.
The bishop, according to Sr Una, concluded that as birds had an inner sensory device which told them when to migrate, so, like the bees, they had an inner sensory device which told them when it was time to die, or when their life-cycle was complete.
Sr Una quoted Bishop Lucey, who passed on his theory to her: “I believe it is in a bird’s nature to know when they are to die and they rise up like the bees do and disintegrate in the upper air.”
Shortly after receiving her ‘commission’, Sr Una herself fell sick and during her illness she began to realise: “I have been putting quite a few things on the long finger while the sand in life’s hour-glass seems to fall at a faster pace.” The thing Sr Una felt she had most put off was the publication of Bishop Lucey’s theory on birds, which until today was a mission uncompleted.
So like Judy Garland in the Wizard of Oz, we might question if birds really do fly over the rainbow, up into the upper stratosphere, so high that perhaps pressure and altitude does destroy their tiny bodies.
Certainly, despite the fact of there being numerous flocks of feathered friends, people do not see feathered bodies littered on pavements. The question now being posed to the scientific world is if there is any basis to the Bishop Lucey theory and if he may be posthumously responsible for discovering an as yet un-discovered scientific principle. The question is if birds fly over that rainbow to die?
By Anne Ryan
[The Corkman, 2004-01-15.]
January 08, 2004
Sphaleotas Exclusive!
In this, his first guest blog of the year, courageous advocate of cheap oil Dr Nicholas Land tackles the culturally sensitive topic of “silly muslims” and “randy scouse jihadis”. . .
We owe Arabs nothing.
We are told by some of the more hysterical critics of the war on terror that “it is destroying the Arab world”. So? Should we be worried about that? Shouldn’t the destruction of the despotic, barbarous and corrupt Arab states and their replacement by democratic governments be a war aim?
After all, the Arab countries are not exactly shining examples of civilisation, are they? Few of them make much contribution to the welfare of the rest of the world.
Indeed, apart from oil — which was discovered, is produced and is paid for by the West — what do they contribute?
Can you think of anything?
Anything really useful? Anything really valuable? Something we really need, could not do without?
No, nor can I. Indeed, the Arab countries put together export less than Finland.
We’re told that the Arabs loathe us. Really? For liberating the Iraqis?
For subsidising the lifestyles of people in Egypt and Jordan, to name but two, for giving them vast amounts of aid? For providing them with science, medicine, technology and all the other benefits of the West? They should go down on their knees and thank God for the munificence of the United States.
What do they think we feel about them? That we adore them for the way they murdered more than 3,000 civilians on September 11 and then danced in the hot, dusty streets to celebrate the murders?
That we admire them for the cold-blooded killings in Mombasa, Yemen and elsewhere? That we admire them for being suicide bombers, limb-amputators, women repressors? I don’t think the Arab states should start a debate about what is really loathsome.
But why, in any case, should we be concerned that they feel angry and loathe us? The Arab world has not exactly earned our respect, has it?
Iran is a vile, terrorist-supporting regime — part of the axis of evil. So is the Saddam Hussein-supporting Syria. So is Libya. Indeed, most of them chant support for Saddam.
That is to say they support an evil dictator who has gassed hundreds of thousands of their fellow Arabs and tortured and murdered thousands more. How can they do this and expect our respect?
Why do they imagine that only they can feel anger, call people loathsome? It is the equivalent of all the European nations coming out in support of Hitler the moment he was attacked by the US, because he was European, despite the fact that he was attempting to exterminate the Jews — and Arabs.
Moreover, the people who claim we are loathsome are currently threatening our civilian populations with chemical and biological weapons. They are promising to let suicide bombers loose in Western and American cities. They are trying to terrorise us, disrupt our lives.
And then they expect us to be careful of their sensibilities?
We have thousands of asylum seekers from Iran, Iraq, Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries living happily in this country on social security.
This shows what their own people think of the Arab regimes, doesn’t it? There is not one single British asylum seeker in any Arab country.
That says it all about which country deserves the epithet loathsome.
January 04, 2004
An asymptotic progression
http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/index.htm