Archive for the ‘Politics’ category

Police Protection: What is it good for

April 16, 2014

The police’s role is to clean up the bodies and attend to the crime scene, not to protect citizens or Americans.

Also in other news, I suspect Google didn’t tell the NSA about it because the NSA is the one responsible for the bug in the first place. A nice backdoor access.

Welcome to the War against Humanity

April 15, 2014

The Left’s war on humanity continues while people take their summer vacations.

Since the Left is already in a war against drugs, women, children, Republicans, ranchers in Nevada, it’s too long of a list.

BLM, Nevada, and Reid did get one kill

April 14, 2014

Some guy in a bicycle tried to ride into or near a checkpoint. Guess what happened to him.

Y’all got on this boat for different reasons, but y’all come to the same place. So now I’m asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. Sure as I know anything, I know this – they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They’ll swing back to the belief that they can make people… better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin’. I aim to misbehave.

– Captain Mal Reynolds (Nathan Fillion) Serenity

The Leftist alliance for human utopia will not stop. They will not give up. Sometime later, they and their special ops rape and kill squads will find a target, where there are no cameras or recorders or cellphones, and we’ll have a few “disappearances”.

Post Totalitarianism for America

April 14, 2014

{4}The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!” Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment’s thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

{5}I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life “in harmony with society,” as they say.

{6}Obviously the greengrocer . . . does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: “I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.” This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer’s superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan’s real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer’s existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?

{7}Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan “I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;’ he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, “What’s wrong with the workers of the world uniting?” Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology.

{8}Ideology is a specious way of relating to the world. It offers human beings the illusion of an identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier for them to part with them. As the repository of something suprapersonal and objective, it enables people to deceive their conscience and conceal their true position and their inglorious modus vivendi, both from the world and from themselves. It is a very pragmatic but, at the same time, an apparently dignified way of legitimizing what is above, below, and on either side. It is directed toward people and toward God. It is a veil behind which human beings can hide their own fallen existence, their trivialization, and their adaptation to the status quo. It is an excuse that everyone can use, from the greengrocer, who conceals his fear of losing his job behind an alleged interest in the unification of the workers of the world, to the highest functionary, whose interest in staying in power can be cloaked in phrases about service to the working class. The primary excusatory function of ideology, therefore, is to provide people, both as victims and pillars of the post-totalitarian system, with the illusion that the system is in harmony with the human order and the order of the universe. . . .

{9}The post-totalitarian system touches people at every step, but it does so with its ideological gloves on. This is why life in the system is so thoroughly permeated with hypocrisy and lies: government by bureaucracy is called popular government; the working class is enslaved in the name of the working class; the complete degradation of the individual is presented as his ultimate liberation;

Prophecies from the Past

April 13, 2014

Some people probably thought we were over reacting. I wrote this, for example:

I estimate that even the most well informed political analysts don’t know more than 10% of what the Left’s been doing. The true nature of evil is yet hidden still. Rationality and intelligence isn’t enough to pierce it, only emotions and instinct are strong enough in truth to bypass the barrier of illusion. First listen to your heart and your nerves connected to your spine, before listening to the tv propaganda, the facebook propaganda, or the government propaganda with your logicked brain.

People didn’t know about Fast and Furious. Many didn’t even know the friendly park rangers were camping out cattle ranchers in Nevada with snipers. People didn’t know about Yeeland. People didn’t know about Reid’s corruption deals. People didn’t know about Hussein’s vacation expenses. Well, the list tends to go on for some time.

Those that thought the IRS was connected to Hussein were on the right track. Assume the worst, let them plan out the “hope” for the best and prove otherwise.

Rape Protection

April 13, 2014

So that’s a year old argument brought back to the current time stamp because the issue is still going on.

Leftist Power Speedometer

April 13, 2014

In 2008, less than 10% max power output. In 2014, less than 20% max power output. It’s getting higher!

Try not to underestimate the Power of the Left. People will get surprised if they do and not in a good way.

Reid over in Nevada wants that land Bundy’s cows are roaming over, so Reid’s going to utilize a sliver of the power to put Bundy in the proper place for serfs and slaves.

Counter Leftist activism and Tea Party it up

April 12, 2014

Here’s some entertainment from the Fers at ABC, those who think they are above us.

By entertainment of course I mean WACO style.

“We ask that all parties in the area remain peaceful and law-abiding as the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service work to end the operation in an orderly manner,” he said.

Yes you saw correctly. The NPS, the friendly park rangers. Remember those guys? Remember those people obeying Hussein O’s orders to remove American patriots from parks and monuments? Remember that?

Much better user video of those Leftist freaks in action.

The Left doesn’t like love or homosexuals or marriages

April 11, 2014

Comment thread data dump incoming:

Edward says:
APRIL 5, 2014 AT 7:50 PM
This is getting pretty scary. I’m old enough to remember when the gay rights movement seemed to consist of no more than a plea for tolerance. It now seems they only wished to be tolerated in order to grow strong enough to become intolerant themselves. The tolerated will no longer tolerate tolerance! Tolerance is intolerable to the tolerated. Anyway. Can someone out there help me to wrap my mind around the whole idea of how not allowing people of the same sex to marry is discrimination? No one is stopping any one of them from getting married right? They just don’t like the rules. Suppose the issue was driving. If we refused to allow Asian Americans to drive, that would certainly be discrimination. But what if a group of people got together and said, “We are Speeders! And like Sammy Hagar, we can’t drive fifty-five! We were born this way.” One might reply to such a person, “You are welcome to drive if you want to, but you must follow the rules. You must obey the speed limit.” To which the speeders might reply, “We only want to drive fast! We can’t stand to drive slow. It is odious to us. Why do you hate us. You are discriminating against us.”

I’m sure there is a better analogy out there, but this is the best I could come up with. Is anyone out there having an intelligent conversation about what marriage is for? Why our forefathers set it up as they did? It seems to me it isn’t really a right at all. By that I mean, it was meant to benefit society as a whole, not just the couple who marry. Perhaps it has changed so much since the founding of this country that nobody really knows what the purpose of it is anymore. I wonder how many of us would want to marry if the laws regulating marriage were the same as they were in 1800. Now it’s just something that people who have sex get to do? Its just a tax credit for sexy people? What about people who don’t have sex, or don’t have any prospects of finding someone who wants to have sex with them? What if two sisters are both widowed and still have children from their previous relationships? Perhaps they might want to stick together because they love each other and enjoy being together. Do they get to get married too? If not why not? Because they’re not having sex? What a mess.

Douglas Ernst says:
APRIL 6, 2014 AT 12:34 AM
In a recent post I talked about language, and how the left likes to muddle it until no one knows what the heck is going on. “Taxes” becomes “revenue generation” or some such ridiculousness, for example. The same thing applies to marriage. When you start trying to really talk about what marriage means and how that applies to the culture at large, they balk. They turn it into the “bigots” versus the people who just want “equal rights.” Well yes, I hate to inform my leftist friends, but I’m for equal rights too — but we can’t really talk about equal rights until we both define marriage.

The liberal litmus test for marriage seems to be “Do the people who want to get married love each other? If yes, then the union they want to form should be called a marriage.”

My personal opinion is more along the lines of Carl. In terms of a legally binding contract that can be recognized by the state, I’m not opposed to people entering into such agreements. If I essentially say I am in favor of civil unions while opposing a redefinition of marriage into something that neuters it as a credible force for shaping civil society in ways closer to its highest ideals…how does that make me against “love”?

The government chose to get into the marriage business, but it has zero claim to change its more religious definition willy-nilly.

I tolerate all sorts of behaviors that I do not agree with. I treat everyone I interact with on a daily basis with respect and kindness until the give me a reason not to. And even then, I try my best to be patient and understanding. It seems as though on this issue I am asked to not only be tolerant of a particular behavior, but to be an advocate for it as well. I’m supposed to celebrate it. And if I don’t, I’m somehow a bad person.

We are going down a very scary road when a man can be forced from his job because his public policy preferences are not in line with the politically correct pervading “wisdom” of the day.

Andrew says:
APRIL 6, 2014 AT 1:24 PM
Talking of taxes, in the UK our tax authority calls taxpayers “customers”

Surely Customers should be able to take their custom wherever they want?

Carl says:
APRIL 6, 2014 AT 4:31 PM
It’s a very scary road indeed. I don’t it’s right that someone should be forced from their job and ostracized from society forever because their viewpoints on this or any other issue are different from PC group-think. They like to complain about “bullies…” well, the only people I see being actual bullies are the gay rights lobby.

They like to change words to suit their own agendas and even then, when you press them for a definition, they don’t have one. If you don’t agree in lockstep with them on this or many other issues, you’re labelled a “bigot” and try to destroy you.


Well first off, in reply to Edward, this incidence and all of those connected to it isn’t more than 20% of the Left’s true total power. It may be more than 10%, I’ll grant that at this time (I didn’t in 2008, since the LEft hadn’t yet mobilized to that extent), but wait until people see the 20%. They will be surprised then.

To address the main question, the Left doesn’t want equal rights or homosexuals to have their problems solved. If the problems are solved, how is the Regime going to get power by making the homos obey? If homosexuals don’t feel discriminated and have all they need on their own, why would they sacrifice free will to obey the Leftist Totalitarian Regime and become human slaves? In return for what, they would get nothing for it, not even the promise of something.

So if civil unions became something real, the homosexual activists would lose their control over their homosexual slaves. So they can’t let civil unions exist. So they demand what is beyond the pale, something they know the orthodox and traditional society can’t accept, as a way to use the backlash to coral homos into the right plantation pen.

So it’s not about making things better for homosexuals, it’s not about defining marriage, it’s not about equal rights. For the Leftist alliance, it’s always about Evil and about Power.

The Left’s true nature

April 8, 2014

Most of the Left’s ops aren’t isolated incidents. They are coordinated, if only loosely.

So what is my objection?

My objection is to falseness, insincerity, propaganda, bad drama, bad art, and treason against the muses. My objection is to using art for propaganda purposes. My objection is to Politically Correct piety. My objection is to the Thought Police.

My objection is to the spirit of totalitarianism.

For about ten years now, I have been writing and posting essays and articles on my electronic journal, and in all that time, I have been subjected to the Leftist mob tactics of mass hatred once and once only. It was the time I mocked the Sci-Fi Channel for kowtowing to Political Correctness. My motive for objecting was perfectly clear to everyone: I would like to write without censorship, formal or informal, based on political considerations. Formal censorship is state enforced; informal is enforced by organized mob-tactics, minority pressure groups, yelling, screaming, boycotts, hysteria and general bullying.

Because I would like to write without informal censorship interfering with my livelihood, I objected to Sci-Fi channel, or anyone in my field, surrendering to the minority pressure groups screaming and yelling and mob-tactics and bullying. So I mocked the Sci-Fi channel for encouraging the bullies by bowing the knee to them.

And in return the mob tried to bully me, of all people. As if I give a tinker’s damn for the opinions of these yowling halfwits. (There was exactly one person of the seven hundred or so who wrote in to me who seemed sincerely offended, and to him I apologized. To remaining six hundred and ninety-nine or so, I offered defiance in public, and in private prayed for their fool souls, hoping despite all appearances they were not damned fools.)

This taught me a lesson, but not the one the mob organizers wanted to teach. It taught me what they were afraid of. Not of me: no one can be afraid of a fat and balding nearsighted science fiction writer with a dull swordcane.

Nor were they offended by calling sodomy a sexual perversion, which I have done frequently before and since, never eliciting a single angry comment in reply, or attracting the slightest notice.

Since my legions of drug-maddened terror troops are all stranded on Salusa Secondus, the third planet of Gamma Piscium, 138 lightyears away, surely the mobsters of Political Correctness are not afraid of any physical force I can bring to bear. Neither am I in a position to deny any man any economic opportunities, nor am I influential enough to provoke public opinion or create any controversy. I doubt I could even do as much myself against them as they have done to me, such as hack a Wikipedia page or send around an open letter and expect it to be published and reprinted.

To explain what they are afraid of, I am afraid I have to explain something of the pathology of Leftism.

It feels satisfying to see the rest or others of the 3% telling it as it actually is, without the limitations of intellectual retardedness or unwillingness to face the true nature of the Left.

Also per chance I liked the books of that author, but I never read his politics or blog posts. My instinct for the sane must be getting refined over time.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.