I mean this not in the sense of Leftard economics, so to say, but regarding Muslims. Here I'm serious. I mean that if we don't address Islam in a rational and humane fashion we will very likely, as I am often tempted to do, toss the bastards to the high seas and let 'em drown in their own filth. Then I come to my senses and feel... well, not guilty, but concerned for the future of our race. No, not a racist statement, dear reader, I mean the Human race.
Some people think we must, as a moral position, live in poverty. It's noble to give up the material world in favour of spiritual things. Money? That's dirty, meant only for philistines and Jews and capitalist greedy pig people, not good for artists, intellectuals, and spiritual seekers. And it's just not good at all, is money, because it promotes greed, the taking of more than ones fair share. If you take more than your fair share, then what about everyone else? They won't have any. We'll all die. Mother Earth will be angry. Global Warming! The end of the world! Better to be poor. Don't have children. They eat too much and ruin the Earth we all share. Toss 'em, the hungry little bastards. It's a lifeboat. Poverty is good, according to the Povertarians. But not all are such. Some think it's the right thing to do to risk life and limb to save those who've fallen overboard. Yeah, it's weird. A lifeboat is so crowded. But, if one chucks the moralisms of so many, then there seems to be lots of room. Funny that. So, this kid is swimming and a giant shark comes up from the depths and bites the kid's leg off....
John Singleton Copley, "Watson and the Shark," oil-on-canvas, (1778)
It depicts the rescue of Brook Watson from a shark attack in Havana, Cuba. The original of three versions by Copley is in the National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C..
The painting is based on a real attack that took place in Havana harbour in 1749. Brook Watson was a 14-year-old orphan, serving as a crew member on a trading ship. While swimming alone in the harbour, he suffered multiple attacks by a single shark. On its first attack, the shark bit off a chunk of flesh from Watson's right leg below the calf; on the second attack, it removed his foot at the ankle. The crew of a small boat, who had been waiting to escort their captain to shore, fought off the shark and rescued Watson. His leg was amputated below the knee, but he went on to live a full life, including a term as Lord Mayor of London. The attack is the earliest shark attack to be fully documented.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Saved a kid for what reason?
They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters; These see the works of the LORD, and his wonders in the deep. For he commandeth, and raiseth the stormy wind, which lifteth up the waves thereof. They mount up to the heaven, they go down again to the depths: their soul is melted because of trouble. They reel to and fro, and stagger like a drunken man, and are at their wits' end. Then they cry unto the LORD in their trouble, and he bringeth them out of their distresses. He maketh the storm a calm, so that the waves thereof are still. Then are they glad because they be quiet; so he bringeth them unto their desired haven.
King James Bible, Psalms, 107:23-30
My guess, ignorant atheist that I am, is that charity arises from faith.
Shark, zawahiri in Arabic. I'm guessing that if you fell off a raft full of Muslims they'd figure you got Allah's reward for infidels. If a Muslim fell off, I'm thinking they'd figure it as Allah's reward for being a Muslim. A raft full of Leftards would likely call a social worker for grief counselling. Normal folks try to save a drowning man attacked by a shark. There are too few normal folks left today, I think so.
If a group of people think in terms only of poverty and limitedness in the world, then they're likelier to let sharks take the weak. Why save anyone whose just going to deplete the resources held by the few, unsustainable consumers all. Better to feed the sharks anyway. It's Mother Gaia. Back to nature.
Here's a lifeboat story that I like a lot, and I hope it resonates with you too, dear reader.
Théodore Géricault, "The Raft of the Medusa" (French: Le Radeau de la Méduse) oil on canvas, (1818–1819)
[D]epicts a moment from the aftermath of the wreck of the French naval frigate Méduse, which ran aground off the coast of today's Mauritania on July 5, 1816. At least 147 people were set adrift on a hurriedly constructed raft; all but 15 died in the 13 days before their rescue, and those who survived endured starvation, dehydration, cannibalism and madness. The event became an international scandal, in part because its cause was widely attributed to the incompetence of the French captain acting under the authority of the recently restored French monarchy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
In June 1816, the French frigate Méduse departed from Rochefort, bound for the Senegalese port of Saint-Louis. ... Viscount Hugues Duroy de Chaumereys had been appointed captain of the frigate despite having scarcely sailed in 20 years....
In an effort to make good time, the Méduse overtook the other ships, but due to its speed it drifted 100 miles (161 km) off course. On July 2, it ran aground on a sandbank off the West African coast, near today's Mauritania. The collision was widely blamed on the incompetence of De Chaumereys, a returned émigré who lacked experience and ability, but had been granted his commission as a result of an act of political preferment. Efforts to free the ship failed, so, on July 5, the frightened passengers and crew started an attempt to travel the 60 miles (97 km) to the African coast in the frigate's six boats. Although the Méduse was carrying 400 people, including 160 crew, there was space for only about 250 in the boats. The remainder of the ship's complement—at least 146 men and one woman—were piled onto a hastily-built raft that partially submerged once it was loaded. Seventeen crew members opted to stay aboard the grounded Méduse. The captain and crew aboard the other boats intended to tow the raft, but after only a few miles the raft was turned loose. For sustenance the crew of the raft had only a bag of ship's biscuit (consumed on the first day), two casks of water (lost overboard during fighting) and a few casks of wine.
According to critic Jonathan Miles, the raft carried the survivors "to the frontiers of human experience. Crazed, parched and starved, they slaughtered mutineers, ate their dead companions and killed the weakest." After 13 days, on July 17, 1816, the raft was rescued by the Argus by chance—no particular search effort was made by the French for the raft. By this time only 15 men were still alive; the others had been killed or thrown overboard by their comrades, died of starvation, or thrown themselves into the sea in despair. The incident became a huge public embarrassment for the French monarchy, only recently restored to power after Napoleon's defeat in 1815.
I'm much like you, dear reader, in that I can't think of one good scenario that would lead me to think of our collective ship of state running aground to the point that the Modern world will ditch the Muslims and leave them to suffer for attacking us with nuclear weapons or chemical or biological weapons or attack us with computer warfare. It's just not likely that we'll ever be so pissed off at the Muslim world that we'll stop sending them food and medicine and technology they need on a daily basis to survive just because they managed to murder millions of our civilians, a 9-11 on a grander scale. Yes, true, they want to kill us, but they're obviously too fucking stupid to pull it off. I think we can continue to count on that. but then there's maybe, like maybe we can't count on that. Maybe we will, deliberately, cut them loose to drift to death. It might be art, but the picture's not so pretty. It would, as they say, embarrass us.
Nor are normal folks likely to allow the marooning on the high seas a large number of our fellows just because they piss us off in a serious way. We have to share this world, and part of that means we need a captain to steer this ship of state like a man who knows where he's going and how to safely get us there. Our captain can't be there just cause he's pretty and has the right friends.If that's all he ha going for him, we are in serious trouble. Part of that is that we'll watch a very nasty picture emerge from our own lack of courage in ridding ourselves of him and his crew. A lot of lives depend on this. Some will no doubt risk themselves to save those going down to the sea in ships, those attacked by monsters from the profoundest darkness. But many will think it good thing because it's all the fault of the others, the greedy, the rich, the philisitines. That its a good thing to rid ourselves of the weak and hungry. That it's all a matter of not having too much, of being moral and poor. Whose going to save the rotten bastard Muslims? Maybe it'll be Christians, if any one. Won't be me.