Archive for July 2009

All These Czars of Ours

July 12, 2009

czar
/zɑr, tsɑr/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [zahr, tsahr] Show IPA
Use czar in a Sentence
–noun
1. an emperor or king.
2. (often initial capital letter) the former emperor of Russia.
3. an autocratic ruler or leader.
4. any person exercising great authority or power in a particular field: a czar of industry.
Also, tsar, tzar.

Origin:
1545–55; < Russ tsar’, ORuss tsĭsarĭ emperor, king (akin to OCS tsěsarĭ) < Goth kaisar emperor (< Gk or L); Gk kaîsar < L Caesar caesar

It’s not enough for Obama.

He can’t just be President. He can’t just be the Emperor or Russian dictator.

He has to be the EMPEROR of Emperors. The King of Kings. The Shah an Shah.

The megalomaniac of megalomaniacs.

Ain’t it great? Obama is creating a whole new class of aristocrats for us to bow our heads to. We’ll all be bowing like the Obama to the Saudi King soon enough.

Which could be a good thing. Cause the first thing I’ll do when I see an Obamacan bow to their God Emperor is put my foot on their head and smash their teeth into the concrete of truth.

Working for an Idealistic Goal

July 12, 2009

People will only work hard for something they believe in. For almost all of humanity, this tends to be something positive.

Even for the “death loving” jihadis it is paradise of one sort or another. That’s positive. They ain’t killing themselves or us for the privilege of suffering eternal damnation and torture (my creative brand of torture even), you know.

People kill, fight, and die for what they perceive to be good things. Something worth it. Something positive enough, worthwhile enough, for the cost.

And this belief is reinforced when others believe the same things.

You really can’t recruit jihadis when they are surrounded by people like me. In their birthdays, their weddings, their communities, their neighborhoods. What are they going to do when we start objecting to their terrorist ways? Yeah, they could kill me, burn my house, and behead my loved ones. But the first thing I’d do would be to pop out their right eye orb, get me some of that cornea. And assuming that’s the least I get done in the fight, there will still be dozens of people like me that are still surrounding the jihadis. Terrorist kills me, fine, but how many eyes is he gonna have? By the time we’re done, he’d be lucky to be a paraplegic that’s awaiting sex change operations.

No, you need like minded people to fuel a movement. People will get help in their beliefs if they get encouragement, support, etc. Being in a constant drive to survive is, contrary to popular opinion, not something terrorists want. They want conformity.

Google Patricia Hearst and analyze the torture techniques used on her in the 2 months the Leftist true believers kept her. Did they introduce “diverse points of view” to break her down? No…

It’s always consistent philosophy, repeatable ideological points, and endless propaganda that shapes people’s beliefs and behavior. This can be good or bad, as we have already seen. Stay in a Jim Jones cult for too long and I can’t guarantee what you will be doing.

Stay in the US military for too long and you may start becoming truly bizarre, to civilians at least.

One of the weak points of any religion or ideology is when the person starts questioning their faith, that is when they have doubts and when they can be converted or turned against their former beliefs.

But I believe in military necessity, not just in philosophical points of view. And military necessity requires one to see things from the enemy’s point of view in order to better annihilate the enemy’s point of view.

Most fanatics are single point of view holders. They can only hold a single point of view at a time. They are either unwilling (through denial, self-deception, and doublethink) to consider other people’s views as being valid in their eyes or they are incapable of such.

To be able to analyze your own side’s philosophy as well as objectively and subjectively (to see it from the enemy’s point of view) the other side’s philosophy, requires the opposite of fanaticism. It doesn’t require fervor. It requires flexibility. Fanatics, by definition, cannot be flexible. That might violate their faith, so to speak. And a fanatic that believes in maximum flexibility is a bit of an oxymoron.

True believers are just that, they believe, they truly believe. Now this may be because they are fanatics, true, or it may be because they converted to this belief because they saw the horrors and evil of their former beliefs. Either way, whatever motivates the true believer, it is strong.

The fervor of a zealot, the fire and damnation of a fanatical prophet (like Mohammed), is also strong. But its strength is less like steel (flexible and bendable to a point) and more like cast iron (brittle).

The problem with being flexible is that it also opens the way to temptation, to corruption. If you are able to see things so clearly from both the enemy’s point of view as well as your own, this necessarily means that you empathize with the enemy. This can be dangerous at times, whether because the enemy doesn’t care or your own side cares all too much about where your sympathies lie. This is not necessarily a good thing, meaning to empathize. I’m not a Leftist or a Democrat useful idiot repeating their propaganda about diversity and social harmony (after the race and class wars get rid of the undesirables, that is). Serial killers empathize with their victims. That’s why they enjoy killing humans, and don’t just pick on animals. Cause they know exactly what the fear is like for a human. Sure, they start on animals, but they get dissatisfied soon. They want more. They want more emotions. They get a positive feedback from their victim’s reactions, body language, speech, etc.

Thus the problem with being too flexible isn’t that you empathize with the enemy. It is that you may start thinking that it is better to be on their side, rather than your own side.

That is always the danger of a sentient weapon, that it may suddenly decide it will turn on you. So why do we continue to seek individual initiative in our armed forces? Why don’t we advocate, like the Left, that the best killer/soldier is a myrmidon with no conscience, no free will, and only able to follow orders to the letter? Because a sentient weapon is more powerful than a non-sentient weapon. It’s why computers don’t control the launches for our ICBMs. Their loyalty can be re-programmed more easily and secretly than human leverages can be applied and their decision making ability is still poorer than a human’s.

Of course, the real problem for kings and emperors with a weapon that can think for itself was always this. You would have to actually convince such a person that your cause was just. That your side was right, at least enough to deserve the services of the weapon. Because the weapon gets to decide whether it’ll fight or not.

And thus that’s why armies of volunteer citizens from a republic often were able to rout the slave dog soldiers of an Empire like Persia. The ability to fight, the morale component, is naturally superior for those that sought of their free will the battle rather than those that were coerced into the fight, those that fight only from fear of what they will lose.

And that’s (one reason) why the Left hates the military. The idea that the US Marines, to use one example, could make their own decisions means that when it is time to pull a Chavez or Zeppy, that the military may not obey like the mindless dogs and myrmidons that the Left paints them as.

The best military strategists are those that have fought for both sides, because they know the strengths of both and the weaknesses of both. Not because he ‘read it in a book’. Not because he was told the Truth by Paul Krugman and the “smart power” of Obama. No, because he risked his life on his decisions, his analysis of the enemy and of his allies. The fact that he still survives, is proof of a couple of things.

This doesn’t apply to everyone that changes sides. The soldier that changed sides because one army paid better than the other one, is a changer. But his change is meaningless in war.

A defector like Yuri Bezmenov, who was a KGB operator that escaped and defected to the US, is another example. He saw first hand the horrors and actual plans of the KGB in India. He decided what was what. And some may never have wanted to leave their nation, whether it was Russia or another country. But totalitarian nations like Russia eventually make it so that these people with sympathies for justice MUST defect. Because the Soviet Union could not tolerate their existence and would eventually seek to extinguish it.

Link

Listen to him again and ask yourself why your political ‘leaders’ never said a word about him or those like him when they attacked the Democrats. Listen to what he predicts for America, and ask yourself why the media and the history books and the ‘intellectuals’ never mention any such thing.

America was warned decades ago. Continuously. People went to sleep on their golden pillows, instead.

The people who kept talking about how Bush wouldn’t name our “true enemy”, which is extreme Islam, need to look at the ground on their feet and realize how many decades they have ignored the domestic enemies of the United States Constitution.

The mighty US military couldn’t beat Al Qaeda without the help of Arabs and Sunnis. What makes anyone think that we can beat the Left without the help of former socialists? I’ll tell you who. Sarah Palin has done us all the favor of exposing certain individuals in the Republican party that would rather maintain their hold on power by helping the Left’s ascendancy, than to expose the true nature of the Democrat party.

Popular culture right now makes fun of the “Red Scare” as fear mongering. Heck, I thought it was a little bit hysterical at times. But that’s cause I read history from an approved US history textbook.

America will have nobody but themselves to blame come the end. Cause the Soviet Union ain’t around anymore. But their weapons are still around. Their mines, their poisons, their boobytraps.

The reason why people tend to see Republicans and Democrats as the same thing is not because there isn’t a real difference. It is cause there has been infiltration. And the solution to infiltration is the purge. This is not about political purity. This is about strategic variables. And war don’t care what you like or don’t like. Your chain of command riddled with enemy spies and saboteurs is not going to win any damn war. But people complain about “Republican purity” any ways, as if it was a bad thing. As if this was about politics and political diversity vs homogeneous agreement. The Democrat party is not about politics. It is about power. There is a difference there.

Speaking of empathizing with the enemy, check out this very good example of the phenomenon.

Link

(more…)

Sarah Palin’s Speech

July 4, 2009

We were purchased as a territory because a member of President Abe Lincoln’s cabinet, William Seward, providentially saw in this great land, vast riches, beauty, strategic placement on the globe, and opportunity. He boldly looked “North to the Future”. But he endured such ridicule and mocking for his vision for Alaska, remember the adversaries scoffed, calling this “Seward’s Folly”. Seward withstood such disdain as he chose the uncomfortable, unconventional, but right path to secure Alaska, so Alaska could help secure the United States.

I find it peculiar she would use this example in such a fashion. After all, Seward absolutely mimics Sarah Palin herself. This is the first time, but not the last time, you will hear the “uncomfortable and unconventional” being mentioned.

And you know me by now, I promised even four years ago to show my independence… no more conventional “politics as usual”.

Certainly her resignation is unconventional. But how so?

And we made common sense conservative choices to eliminate personal luxuries like the jet, the chef, the junkets… the entourage.

How many of the power mad obsessed narcissists in this world would have been able to do as she did? How many? You? You think you could have refused to be corrupted by privilege, power, and the taxpayer’s wealth? Like physical courage, nobody knows until they get there. And Sarah got there, and I witnessed her refusal to be corrupted. And the Demoncrats will fault me for my loyalty. As if anyone truly loyal to the United States Constitution, a government by the people for the people, would be an enemy or even lukewarm supporter of a leader like Sarah Palin. What is the point of the US Constitution except to promote people like her so that everyone is uplifted to such standards? A government by the people, for the people, cannot be sustained by idiots, cowards, or lambs. A republic, if you can keep it, isn’t sustained by soy milk and vegetarian diets. It is nurtured by the blood of patriots and tyrants.

I’ve seen leaders and I’ve seen followers. I’ve led and I’ve followed. I’ve been put into situations where obviously nobody wanted to lead, which left me, the inadequate person, to be the best one at the job. And it is tiresome. It is annoying. It is leading and micromanaging a bunch of children who have to be told what to do, when to do it, and what not to put in their mouths. You, the leader, take ultimate responsibility because you have the ultimate power over these children. People are stupid, as I have said before, because they are so easily manipulated. Not because they lack the inability to solve the problems in front of them, they are not slow. They are just lazy. They follow the course of least resistance. They take the easy path. They take the convenient path. And they are corrupted by it. A little bit at a time. Good work ethics turns into laziness, into procrastination, into self-delusion and self-deception. “Oh, I’ll do it sometime later”. And when sometime later comes on, then people say, “Oh, I still got some more time”. And if this is easy to do because it is a bad habit, how much more easy does the power mad and the greedy sociopaths in Congress have in being corrupted by wealth and power? You think they haven’t been taking the path of least resistance and shaving a little bit off the top every day of the week, every month of the year, for every year that they have been in power? Of course they have. And even if they were elected not to do so, even if they wanted to resist, they were taken down one way or another. Chased out of politics, destroyed personally, like Jack Ryan against Obama, or corrupted by the system in “playing along to get along”. How long can you work with the likes of Ted Kennedy or Chicago politicians, while being prevented from simply eliminating them outright, before you start thinking a compromise with the corrupt would be a good idea? But are deals with the Devil really good ideas? Will they give you what you sought or will it taint forever the purpose to which you originally sought. I already know the answer to that. Democracy doesn’t work when you have to compromise between the lamb’s right to exist and the tiger’s right to a meal. Bush tried with No Child Left Behind. McCain tried with Feingold. Epic fails. And not very constitutional either.

And the Lt. Governor and I said “no” to our pay raises.

That alone qualifies her over 99% of our elite ruling aristos. Including the greedy American people talking about greedy Wall Street Crooks. They only want to put those people in jail because certain Americans want their money for themselves.

So much success in this first term – and with this success I am proud to take credit… for hiring the right people! Our goal was to achieve a gasline project, more fair oil and gas valuation, and ethics reform in four years. We did it in two. It’s because of the people… good public servants surrounding the Governor’s office, with servants’ hearts and astounding work ethic… they are Alaska’s success!

More and more I am reminded of Honor Harrington who also had a strong team. Her successes were often not due so much to her own individual talents, but the pooled talents of her loyal (loyal, not backstabbing like McCain’s people) circle. If you wonder why else I mention her, ask a question. If you have read the series, I am sure some other things may have come to mind already.

We are doing well! I wish you’d hear more from the media of your state’s progress and how we tackle Outside interests – daily – special interests that would stymie our state. Even those debt-ridden stimulus dollars that would force the heavy hand of federal government into our communities with an “all-knowing attitude” – I have taken the slings and arrows with that unpopular move to veto because I know being right is better than being popular. Some of those dollars would harm Alaska and harm America – I resisted those dollars because of the obscene national debt we’re forcing our children to pay, because of today’s Big Government spending; it’s immoral and doesn’t even make economic sense!

This ties in with the uncomfortable and unconventional theme she mentioned before. As an analyst I find this particularly interesting. Because, of course, we do know that Obama is forcing the states to take money that they don’t necessarily want nor need. I suppose this is a foreign idea to a mobster like Obama. Sort of like when stores won’t pay the mob’s protection racket, except in this case the racket is Obama redistributing other people’s money in such a way that it becomes normal. In such a way that it corrupts others into taking it, using it, being an accessory to the theft. To what level did this affect her decision? Was she successful in resisting the dollars? Did she veto it but was overridden due to the unpopularity of her stance? Does she know the damage that will do, and thus wants to get inside the enemy’s OODA loop so that the Governorship of Alaska will finally be able to put actual time and effort into preparing the state for this catastrophe? Questions, but I have no data sources or informants to supply the answers. That will take time.

Some say things changed for me on August 29th last year – the day John McCain tapped me to be his running-mate – I say others changed.

And I say that the Demoncrats just showed their true colors. After all, after I had discarded the popular conception that Democrats were opposing the war because of personal conscience issues and personal policy differences, I had to settle on another interpretation of Democrat attacks on the Iraqi people, the US military, and their commander in chief, George W Bush. What was that interpretation, you may wonder? It was that the Democrats are more ruthless than the Republicans. That the Democrats, when they attacked Republicans for allowing security to fall down, was being extraordinarily ruthless to their domestic enemies and to the Iraqi people. Some of this was part of history. FDR and certainly Truman’s decision to drop two A-bombs. This interpretation also uses the fact that Democrats were responsible for America entering two, not just one, World Wars. They are not exactly warmongers, but they do not lack ruthlessness when they believe they have something they can gain. This was, of course, extraordinarily counter-intuitive. For the most popular conception of the day, in 2004-6, was that Democrats were milquetoast people (Doves) that didn’t want to get their hands dirty in Iraq. While certainly that is true, it didn’t tell the whole story. The Demoncrats didn’t help out in Iraq, not because they were cowards, but because they saw the insurgents and the terrorists as allies of the Demoncrat attempt to overthrow American exceptionalism. Not because they lacked ruthlessness. Do you think the operatives of Obama and the Demoncrat party who could plan out such an attack on Bush and Sarah Palin would bat any eye at hanging Saddam Hussein or his Republican Guard gestapo? Of course, not. They didn’t help America win the war, they didn’t support it, because of the same reason why Obama supported the mullahs and Chavez and the dictator wannabes (while bowing to the already dictators, the Saudis). Obama the megalomaniac doesn’t lack ruthlessness. He just lacks an interest in helping liberty and human rights succeed against his pals, Chavez, the Saudis, and the Iranian Revolutionary Council.

Political operatives descended on Alaska last August, digging for dirt. The ethics law I championed became their weapon of choice. Over the past nine months I’ve been accused of all sorts of frivolous ethics violations – such as holding a fish in a photograph, wearing a jacket with a logo on it, and answering reporters’ questions.

Why do terrorists and mass murderers use our laws, respect for human life, and obedience of the rules of war against us? Because it works. Why does the Demoncrats use the politics of personal destruction? Cause it works. Why do I favor execution and violence as an effective solution to Gordian Knot type problems? Cause it works. And until people stop allowing it to work, until they defeat such users or methods, they don’t have a stool to stand on when they start spouting off about “how torture doesn’t work” or how “the politics of personal destruction are bad”. Of course it became their weapons of choice. For the ruthless and those without a conscience, they have no reason not to use your own beliefs against you. That’s what being ruthless means people. And I’m not against being ruthless. I’m just against the Left using it to destroy America in order to enrich themselves.

And what about the people who offer up these silly accusations? It doesn’t cost them a dime so they’re not going to stop draining public resources – spending other peoples’ money in their game.

She hates corruption. She could not resist it without that emotion, a direct consequence of her philosophical beliefs. But could she stop it if she was in office? If she believed that she couldn’t stop those attacks, what would she do?

And one chooses how to react to circumstances. You can choose to engage in things that tear down, or build up. I choose to work very hard on a path for fruitfulness and productivity. I choose not to tear down and waste precious time; but to build up this state and our country, and her industrious, generous, patriotic, free people!

Since the attacks won’t stop, it seems she is going to do something else, something pro-active. Something that makes the enemies react to her, rather than the other way around. That is strategically valid, although the details remain yet to be seen.

And there is such a need to build up and fight for our state and our country. I choose to fight for it! And I’ll work hard for others who still believe in free enterprise and smaller government; strong national security for our country and support for our troops; energy independence; and for those who will protect freedom and equality and life… I’ll work for and campaign for those proud to be American, and those who are inspired by our ideals and won’t deride them.

Still more hints. No details, of course.

And so as I thought about this announcement that I wouldn’t run for re-election and what it means for Alaska, I thought about how much fun some governors have as lame ducks… travel around the state, to the Lower 48 (maybe), overseas on international trade – as so many politicians do. And then I thought – that’s what’s wrong – many just accept that lame duck status, hit the road, draw the paycheck, and “milk it”. I’m not putting Alaska through that – I promised efficiencies and effectiveness! That’s not how I am wired. I am not wired to operate under the same old “politics as usual.” I promised that four years ago – and I meant it.

It’s not what is best for Alaska.

I am determined to take the right path for Alaska even though it is unconventional and not so comfortable.

Unconventional and uncomfortable. Is she ducking out of the Governorship because the campaigning she needs to do before the 2010 elections will make her look like a “conventional politician” if she has the governorship? If she had to make a decision to not seek a second term, do you think she had time to give to Obama? Two years? What do you think Obama would have done in two years? How much has he done in Six Months? Perhaps you think he is going to slow down, eh?

The “hell yeah” sealed it – and someday I’ll talk about the details of that…

Those details should be interesting.

I do not want to disappoint anyone with my decision; all I can ask is that you trust me with this decision – but it’s no more “politics as usual”.

I do not care what God you believe in, Sarah. So long as you believe. It matters not to me whether your God exists or not. So long as you believe. It will be enough for me.

Yes, I was disappointed. Disappointed that a strong leader could be taken down by the attacks of my enemies. Just as I was disappointed at the fall of Rhodesia to UN and Carter based attacks. Just as I was disappointed at the Fall of Saigon. At the Bay of Pigs.

I was never disappointed with Sarah Palin’s decision. I am loyal to her because she is loyal to the US Constitution. The country I still love. The country I am willingly to kill for. To die for. Sarah says that she isn’t retreating. If that is true, I will support her. If it comes to be that it isn’t true, I will understand. For I too have often wanted to abdicate the responsibility of leadership. But if she believes, if she truly believes, she will have the strength to go on. And so will we.

To whatever god or entity of power you believe in, pray that Obama’s erosion of American justice and strength can be stopped.

Background reading. ()


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.