Q:Hello brother in islam .. I will give u an advice that will help u to be in jannah♥ After every prayer say ayat el kursi in sorat el baqra ♥ our prophet mohhamad said that ♥ Sorry my english Is not that good :(
As salaamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatu. Jazak’Allah kheir wa rahma. ^_^
The cyborg is resolutely committed to partiality, irony, intimacy, and perversity. It is oppositional, utopian, and completely without innocence. No longer structured by the polarity of public and private, the cyborg defines a technological polls based partly on a revolution of social relations in the oikos, the household. Nature and culture are reworked; the one can no longer be the resource for appropriation or incorporation by the other. The relationships for forming wholes from parts, including those of polarity and hierarchical domination, are at issue in the cyborg world. Unlike the hopes of Frankenstein’s monster, the cyborg does not expect its father to save it through a restoration of the garden; that is, through the fabrication of a heterosexual mate, through its completion in a finished whole, a city and cosmos. The cyborg does not dream of community on the model of the organic family, this time without the oedipal project. The cyborg would not recognize the Garden of Eden; it is not made of mud and cannot dream of returning to dust. Perhaps that is why I want to see if cyborgs can subvert the apocalypse of returning to nuclear dust in the manic compulsion to name the Enemy. Cyborgs are not reverent; they do not re-member the cosmos. They are wary of holism, but needy for connection- they seem to have a natural feel for united front politics, but without the vanguard party. The main trouble with cyborgs, of course, is that they are the illegitimate offspring of militarism and patriarchal capitalism, not to mention state socialism. But illegitimate offspring are often exceedingly unfaithful to their origins. Their fathers, after all, are inessential.
The only Greer I’m about is Bonnie Greer.
The thing about Whiteness, about patriarchy, about heteronormativity, and other ideological apparatuses, is that they’re ubiquitously transparent.
Being everywhere, being universal, provides the façade of ex-sistence, of being nowhere whilst simultaneously permeating every pore; even the microcosm that denies the existence of these structures is a function and reproduction of it.
The lack of public Other by which to compare self-proliferates ideology through a masquerade of phantasmagoria. Representation is important, but not signification within the order of ideology.
You can’t see the wood for the trees, nor the trees for the wood, and yet you love in a forest.
I’ve been Muslim an entire year today!
How cool is that?
Ten Reasons to Reject Socialism
1. Socialism and communism are the same ideology
Communism is but an extreme form of socialism. From the ideological standpoint, there is no substantial difference between the two. In fact, the communist Soviet Union called itself the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922-1991) and communist China, Cuba and Vietnam define themselves as socialist nations.
2. Socialism violates personal freedom
Socialism seeks to eliminate “injustice” by transferring rights and responsibilities from individuals and families to the State. In the process, socialism actually creates injustice. It destroys true liberty: the freedom to decide all matters that lie within our own competence and to follow the course shown by our reason, within the laws of morality, including the dictates of justice and charity.
3. Socialism violates human nature
Socialism is anti-natural. It destroys personal initiative–a fruit of our intellect and free will–and replaces it with State control. It tends to totalitarianism, with its government and police repression, wherever it is implemented.
4. Socialism violates private property
Socialism calls for “redistributing the wealth” by taking from the “rich” to give to the poor. It imposes taxes that punish those who have been able to take greater advantage of their productive talents, capacity to work or thrift. It uses taxation to promote economic and social egalitarianism, a goal that will be fully achieved, according to The Communist Manifesto, with the “abolition of private property.”
5. Socialism opposes traditional marriage
Socialism sees no moral reason for people to restrict sex to marriage, that is, to an indissoluble union between a man and a woman. Furthermore, socialism undermines private property, which Friedrich Engels, founder of modern socialism and communism along with Karl Marx, saw as the foundation of traditional marriage.
6. Socialism opposes parental rights in education
Socialism has the State, and not parents, control the education of children. Almost from birth, children are to be handed over to public institutions, where they will be taught what the State wants, regardless of parental views. Evolution must be taught. School prayer must be forbidden.
7. Socialism promotes radical equality
A supposed absolute equality among men is the fundamental assumption of socialism. Therefore, it sees any inequality as unjust in itself. Private employers are quickly portrayed as “exploiters” whose profits really belong to their employees. As a consequence, they rule out the system of wage earning.
8. Socialism promotes atheism
Belief in God, who unlike us is infinite, omnipotent and omniscient, clashes head-on with the principle of absolute equality. Socialism therefore rejects the spiritual, claiming that only matter exists. God, the soul, and the next life are illusions according to socialism.
9. Socialism promotes relativism
For socialism there are no absolute truths or revealed morals that establish standards of conduct that apply to everyone, everywhere, and always. Everything evolves, including right and wrong, good and evil. There is no place for the Ten Commandments, neither in the private mind nor in the public square.
10. Socialism mocks religion
According to Karl Marx, religion is “the opium of the people.” Lenin, founder of the Soviet Union, agreed: “Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man.”
The American Society for Defense of Tradition, Family and Property
For anyone who’s even inclined to take any of this seriously:
1. No, they’re not. Communism is a Stateless, moneyless society devoid of the commodity form. Socialism is a transitional phase in the Marxist scheme of things, and seeks merely to handle capital in a productive way, but it’s not necessarily kid-communism.
2. The rights and responsibilities of individuals and families are intrinsically tied to the State under the capitalist mode of production. The various industrial complexes (prison, military, peace, healthcare, and so on) that preside over the monopolisation of capital, especially finance capital, necessarily relies on the State to create an environment for monopolisation. If you look to the Treasury in the US, you can see how the banking giants flit between positions like a game of musical chairs. Capital expansion in the past has always been tied to the State; take imperial projects, for instance, they’re always instigated and maintained by the State army for the benefit of cartels and conglomerates.
On ‘liberty,’ there is very little liberty for the vast majority of people under the capitalist mode of production. My fundamental liberty is to sell my labour and time, which is extortionately extracted from me via the scientific management of the workplace. I have no market freedom except as a consumer, which is highly alienating, considering what I’m consuming is the objective commodities I created as an individual labourer.
Parliamentary democracy/Republicanism gives a entirely false sense of freedom: the freedom to choose between two parties, or at best three, all of whom operate on similar politico-economic grounds. Hardly liberty.
3. Capitalism stifles personal initiative, intellect, creation, free-will. I have to indebt myself to the tune of 40 grand to get a degree-level education, and God knows how much more after that. The fundamental premise of capitalism is ‘You have to have money to make money’, and, given that the vast majority of people don’t have investment capital sloshing about in their wallets, most people are stifled creatively in the market — this is if you even agree with market formulations in the first place.
PS: There’s no such thing as human nature. Essentialism is philosophically weak, history, social anthropology and cultural anthropology, as well as contemporary sociology and psychology tell you that. ‘HumHuman nature’ exists merely as an environment reaction, and thus changes in space-time.
4. Property is theft. Let’s be clear, the abolition of private property is not the same as abolition of personal property — so chill, you still get to keep your iPhone 5.
Private property is the congealed capital that is put into circulation to reap money via valorisation. Money makes money in capitalist society via private property, which masks that the true exchange in commodity-functioning is between people. Public property is more honest, less alienating, and utilitarian production, as well as eradicating the antagonisms of fetishism.
5. There’s never been such a thing — what an absurdly ideal respective invention. Are you a Victorian, my old chap?
6. The State already controls education. The educational system is highly implicated in the production and reproduction of capitalist society, including the workers, the fodder, the petite bourgeoisie, and the upper echelons. In order to destabilise this structural institution, the education system must be shaken up.
7. “Socialism promotes radical equality”, unironically said as a negative thing — as if gendered, racialised inequality is fair and natural.
8. No. Marxism is materialist, but there’s nothing stopping individuals from having a religious belief and being a socialist/communist. Voila, look at me.
9. Post-modernism is so last century — get with the times, you Lockean empiricists.
10. You went with “the opium of the people…”. I think that really says enough ready, without needing to be commented on.
Q:Can i say i think your bloody funny and sarcastic too lol
That makes two of us then!
Q:I was going to ask if your url was a reference to Camus, but then I saw the later portion of the quote and knew. You have great taste!
All about that Absurd life.
Q:I read anthem a couple of years ago, and I do not recall any objectifying within the book. I believe it was a very intelligent way of portraying the possible future that will result as a result of most of the world's conformity to society. It was very similar to Fahrenheit 451, (I strongly recommend reading it if you have not already done so) I have not read any of rand's other books so I cannot speak about rand's works as a whole but in my opinion Anthem was very philosophical and introspective
Rand’s philosophy is called Objectivism.
Rand is philosophically weak. I’m not talking about the informal meaning of the word, that it induces thinking, or is ‘deep’; I mean genuinely philosophically, as in epistemologically and ontologically unfounded.