Archive for September 2008

The Democrat Party’s Yoke

September 20, 2008

[Finished a belated revision of this post]

The truth is always interesting, Mike, and not least of all because it challenges our perception of the world as we see it.

Challenges are good; the human race could never have achieved what we have to this day without challenges and obstacles to overcome. However, some people use challenges to improve themselves and others while other people use challenges to see how many people they can keep under their thumb.

In relation to how poor people keep electing Democrats because Democrats will do good things for the poor, yet the poor that elected the Democrats are consistently doing the worse while the poor in Republican zones are doing better, this may provide us an interesting contrast on power and how it works.

Most people in America were brought up with the notion that power is to be shared: as is proper in a democracy. However, there are other expressions of power, other means of control that people may use. Feudalism is another political system that allows people to focus, channel, and maintain power. In feudalism, there is no way for the poor to decide who their lords are. Lords and aristocrats come from families, wealth, and political power. No lowly peasant can decide the lives and choices of such an upper class for the peasant doesn’t have the right kind of blood or contacts: nor can the poor leave his lord and go to another place, for the poor are locked to their land because of their lack of wealth.

So this is a good thing to remember when conservatives or Republicans, and they do exist if only in their minds, say that by electing Democrats we will be able to make the Republican party come back in a Reagan esque backlash.

These people are indirect products of the Democrat academic re-education camps known as colleges and universities in America. These people often never learned, recognized, or accepted that the Democrat political machine was built around a feudal premise, not a democratic one. Count all the votes is a primary Democrat belief, right? Then why do they have super delegates, who can override the popular votes of voters they are “representing”, voting for Obama, contrary to what the popular vote in the Democrat primary decided? And in the end, they didn’t even count all the delegate voices either; Obama was nominated by acclamation, like most popular dictators were selected in Rome and Greece.

When you elect a Democrat into office, the chances are likely that it is until their death. We got Kennedy, Byrd, and various other Democrats like this in existence. They keep getting re-elected because the people in their states don’t give a damn about term limits or buttering up feudal dynasties.

How many terms would FDR have been re-elected to, had he not died? How many terms would JFK had been re-elected to, had he not died? How many terms would Bill Clinton have been re-elected to, had there been no term limits?

Reagan might have been elected for just as many. Except that Republicans like him do not want power forever. They voluntarily give it up: just like Teddy Roosevelt did. This is because the power and virtue of the Republican party is in the quality of the people in it. Thus it goes up and down depending on who is leading, following, and what not. This is different when your party isn’t based upon the quality of the people in it, but upon some kind of ideological purity. Then, quality doesn’t matter. Whether the quality of a Democrat leader, like Clinton, is high or low, the Democrat party inevitably keeps close to a stable status quo that is more or less unchanged since the beginning of the Democrat party.

The Democrat party has historically been able to recover from the Civil War, WWII, Vietnam, and The Cold War. What do I mean by recover? I mean that they hid the bodies of their criminal actions, almost like Ted Kennedy, and blamed it on their political opponents: successfully, I might add.

A party that can convince the current generation that Lincoln was a Democrat, that Democrats fought for Civil Rights against Republicans, and that Republicans are party of racism, foreign adventurism/war, and corruption, is not a party that you can simply elect into power and then replace as casually as you choose toothpastes. When the Democrats gain power, their intent is to hold it for life. Unless and until you have a solution to counter this fact, don’t count on them giving up power due to shame or you grabbing it from them in 4 years.

I’m pretty sure the British just wanted to hold unto the WWII sense of solidarity, purpose, and patriotism for a little bit longer when they dumped Churchill and elected a Labour majority government. But when you look at Britain today, remember what the people who started their nation on the road of Leftism and social revolutionary justice thought and intended.

Even the people who dislike the Democrat party more than they dislike the Republicans, are still following Democrat propaganda on this score. They still talk about how the Democrats have turned their backs on JFK and FDR. But the fact of the matter was, JFK and FDR were not true to the roots of the Democrat party in several ways. In other areas, like race and sacrificing the Cuban patriots at the Bay of Pigs for convenient political points, they were more true to the Democrat party’s roots than the current crop of leaders are. The Democrat party of today is just going back to their roots pre Civil War.

Back when they were going to use character assassination, rumors, and innuendo, to weaken their opponents.

Back when people like McClellan thought he could run foreign policy and sabotage the war effort just because his sympathies were with the Democrats of the South.

Back when the Democrats thought the North would never sustain an effort to wage war just to prevent balkanization and a division of America into the Kurdish North, Shia South, and Sunni middle. This obviously meant to the Democrats that they could provoke Lincoln and the Union and get away with it. What ended up happening was that they sent good men, loyal to the South, to die in the war the Democrats started and believed would be a short and victorious one. After the war, the Democrat power brokers regained power and essentially went back to the status quo, minus slavery. The KKK and disenfranchising black voters in the South were very useful tools in accomplishing the goal of getting back what they lost in the Civil War. Course, the ordinary people of the South were left to rebuild their ruined lives. Tough luck on them, so sayeth the Democrat party.

Every time a national crisis appears on the horizon, whether it be the Civil War, WWII, Vietnam, or the Cold War, the Democrats act in the same fashion as they have always acted. For they are just staying true to what has worked for them. Their roots.
A curious thing happened during Reagan’s campaign. Southerners finally found the moral character and strength to break away from the serf bonds of the Democrat party. The sin of the Democrats can no longer be born by Southerners. The South has redeemed themselves past beyond all possible expectations. But the Democrats have not. Have the Democrats promised that they would treat the people they once shackled and abused, that things would be better? Have the Democrats proven that their promise has actual merit by demonstrating a true change of heart and methods? Or have they continued to treat people like tools, to be discarded when they are no longer of use?

No, they have not made that promise. Even if they had made that promise, they have not provided us any reason why we should believe them. When you judge people, like Lieberman, based upon his loyalty, not to America, but to some kind of Democrat ideological purity, you are not someone out to redeem your party.

There is a clear and sharp difference between partisanship and recognizing the historical roots and trends of the American Democrat party. Partisanship is about using minor or major differences between Democrats and Republicans in order to make the opponent party look bad. It is like when Kennedy character assassinated Bork on the Senate floor and then afterwards said “it is just politics, nothing personal”. Partisanship is nothing personal. It is just doing what you have to do to make sure your side comes out smelling like roses and the other side ends up coming out missing a leg or arm or two. In that sense, it is just like war. And just like war, even combatants on either side can get sick of it, not to mention the civilians caught inbetween.

When you recognize the historical roots and trends of the American Democrat party, however, you are not using immediate differences to affect a local change in political fortunes for your party.

That is the difference. Historical trends are either true or false. But partisanship can be true and yet still be partisanship. Your political opponent may be everything you say he is, but the fact that you are saying it in an ad is still helping you and your party at their expense.

What the history of the Democrat party and their crimes against humanity demonstrates to us is not that the Republican party is superior or virtuous. What it demonstrates to us is just how people can be convinced to vote for Democrats that continue to keep them in poverty and misery, generation after generation.

It can be done. It has been done. Bill Clinton may be able to slap a silly happy face on the Democrat party, for awhile, but it always devolves to its roots. Kos and MoveOn/CodePink are not “new things”. They are just more organized than their counter-parts in history. Jefferson, for example, had his Kos. His Kos also turned the character assassins on Jefferson, when Jefferson refused to give his Kos a political appointment. Also, the New York Times is just as bad now as it was back then. There has been no change in their fundamental philosophies. What there has been a change in is the fact that the people have gotten a clue or two as to the going ons of the powerful and wealthy.

The solution to stopping the abuse of human beings by the Democrats is not to elect Democrats and hope they will burn enough villages and towns of their economy and lifeblood to make electing Republicans a must do thing. That is neither ethical nor honorable. It ain’t guaranteed to work, either. So what can be guaranteed?

The solution is to help the Sunnis of Al Anbar switch to a different path. A path devoid of unjust poverty and violence against the innocent. Even though the Sunnis helped to create this problem by inviting in AQ to their towns in order to fight against the corrupt and nasty invader, the Republican dominated US Marine Corps, they have suffered the consequences of their own actions. We cannot call ourselves just when we have the power to help them, but don’t, simply because some of us believe that they need to suffer a little bit more before we can more easily move into power there.

Now do you see why Iraq is so hideous to the Left and the Democrat party? Showing that the weak, the poor, and the disenfranchised can, with the help of America and other just people, overthrow their aristocratic rulers, is a dangerous precedent to set: dangerous for Democrat control of minorities.

The tools Americans have learned in Iraq is the solution to ending the eternal chain of organized criminal violence, poverty, resentment, discrimination, and injustice here in America. You may not be able to use snipers, J-Dams, and M1A1 Abrams tanks against Democrats, but the principles of counter-insurgency apply the same whether that insurgency is a Sunni population controlled by AQ terror or an American urban population/minority controlled by Democrat power and lies.

Once the people under the Democrat yoke see that there are better alternatives, the Democrats will be forced to either release their hold or tighten it. And when Democrats tighten their grip, like they tried to do with Sarah Palin, all of us will finally be able to see the Democrats for what they truly are. Just as the Sunnis saw Al Qaeda for what they were in the Awakening.

Grace Kelley in Hayley Westenra’s Amazing Grace

September 16, 2008

Grace Kelley is one of the few women that looks better in black and white than color. That’s a weird statement given modern time’s focus on cosmetics, but it is true, nonetheless.

For one thing, she would have made a great Honor Harrington.

Sarah Palin for Britain and Australia

September 13, 2008

The weird British and Australian writing styles are just too funny. They speak about Sarah Palin and how they wished they had one of her.

A nice insight into UK and Australian policies, if that is your thing.

Courtesy of Neo Neocon.

The Day After

September 11, 2008

I don’t forget that even before 9/11, Bush was hated. I’ve reminded people many times that those who say he ‘squandered’ some illusory national goodwill are overlooking the rancor than followed the 2000 election.

But although I remember things being bad on the fringes, what bothers me is what I’m seeing closer to the center: the tendency for people to put down anyone who disagrees with them. For instance I know a lot of folks who have to listen to people go on and on at work about the administration and how anyone who supports it is a drooling moron or a soulless criminal. Yet these are the same folks who have the nerve to speak of a chill wind of oppression, and fear mongering?

How do they think their behavior comes across to those who work for them? This is mainstream stuff nowadays. That is different. I don’t recall that, pre-9/11.


Look at it from their viewpoint. In order to fight the corruption and taint of people like Bush, you have to get motivated, passionate, and convinced of the justice and righteousness of your cause. You have to have faith, and faith isn’t about reasons so much as it is an existential need.

After all, if you believe, as they believe, that Bush’s power comes from his conviction in God and in exploiting people via Haliburton, terrorism, Iraq war, WMDs, lies, and what not, wouldn’t you also adopt Bush’s methods because you believe they work? Wouldn’t you adopt them, to become as bad if not worse than your enemy, in order to defeat your enemy? So long as your cause is just, does it really matter what you do when it is necessary?

As for the idea that there is corruption in the Democrat party or hypocrisy or some such, some Democrats may agree on this score, Cass. But their view is most probably that you cannot fight corruption by destabilizing the unity and the rule of law of America. You cannot fight the internal corruption of the political system by fragmenting the unity of the Democrat party, who is out to ultimately reform Washington.

There’s plenty of independents that see the Democrats in this light.

The rule of law, meaning the institutional conservation and status quo, is more important than the individual injustices at work in the Democrat party. Such things as GitMO, thus, become more of a danger than Democrat Congressmen or Senators using their power to get money and influence.

As for the belief concerning that America is made stronger through bipartisan support, with the same standards applied to Republicans and Democrats, that runs into a curious little problem as well, Cass, to most Democrats. For most Democrats believe that the way to get the truth, via the tools of speech and debate, is to get at the source and eradicate hate speech and specific speech that are inconveniently corrupt and full of darkness and despair/hate. If a person cannot think about evil things, then they cannot choose to do evil. If a person cannot consider war a good thing in any situation, they would never choose war. This ensures that people make the right decisions via the truth.

How can you have the same standards and achieve justice, when your standards say that certain words are evil and will ultimately lead to human misery, period? And when one party, like the GOP, wants to use those words and those forbidden definitions and you, as a Democrat, do not, where then will bipartisanship come in? When both sides say they believe in the First Amendment, but the Democrats believe that the First Amendment is backed up by politically correct government decisions concerning correct thoughts and meanings in the English language?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 11, 2008 11:42 PM

There was only ever two philosophies by which you could choose to accomplish your goals of a better world.

You could either allow people to exercise the free will given unto them by God, their creator, or you could protect people from their own dark desires and temptations.

The former means that people will ultimately choose to believe that God doesn’t exist, that they don’t even have free will, that following totalitarian systems of thought is a Good Thing tm. The latter means that people will do things your way, but only your way.

Yet, the former is only the option that could ever create a better world. The latter option is nothing but a temporary patch, if at that.

A dictatorship is only as strong as the dictator. Given the fact that brilliance and good rulership traits don’t get passed on genetically, that means it’s a weak link that’s going to get broken, often.

A republic and democracy bases its strength upon the people. The weak link is the individual beliefs and actions of the people. But since there are a bunch of individuals amongst the “people”, negative actions tend to get diluted by positive actions, right actions dilute the effects of negative actions. No one person can destroy the system by doing something “wrong”, thus there is no need to drastically curtail people’s ability to choose simply because they would have the power to destroy the system.

However, many people choose to value control, intimidation, and force over persuasion, convincing, and conversing with individuals. Look at the treatment dished out to Michelle Malkin, Matt Sanchez, Sarah Palin, and many many others. Are their individual free wills and actions valued for their own sake? Are the mistakes and choices they are said to have made, seen in the correct cosmic perspective or are they seen as Doomsday signs of eternal damnation and misery for all of Earth’s children?

How much can you justify when you believe the action and beliefs of a single individual can doom the entire world to terror, death, murder, chaos, and misery? Can you justify hate? Can you justify atrocities? Can you justify passion, lies, and cruelty? Surely, at least, you can justify stripping the free will away from an individual if the potential and actual consequences of their actions can have such a drastic effect.

This is the fundamental difference: the fundamental choice people make when recognizing that good can only come from enforcing people’s freedom of conscience and will first and foremost. To choose anything else, you would have to adopt the philosophy of terror, intimidation, and force. Why? Because when you cannot trust people’s free will, their conscience, and their actions to do the right thing, in aggregate if not in each case, then your only choice becomes ensuring that they make the right decisions, if only to save them from themselves. And what would be the right decision? Why, the one you believe to be correct.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 11, 2008 11:57 PM

Obama will make you all into better people, whether you want it or not. He will make you care, and in doing so, he will make the world better.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 11, 2008 11:59 PM

The belief of people in making a better world is no different than that held by the US Marines, the US Army, the US Special Forces “De Oppresso Liber”, or any other institution and organization focused on the principles of classical liberalism to remake our world into a better place.

The difference is in a mother drowning her children because that is the only way to end the pain and send them to a better place and a mother that seeks to protect her children by teaching them the difference between right and wrong, teaching them to learn from their mistakes in order to make better ones in the future, and to trust in their faith and in them selves when they are hurt by the world.

The former is a mother who protects her children quite satisfactory. The latter is a mother that seeks to protect her children by allowing her children to make it or not based upon the free will of that child, now grown.

The former is certain, the latter is not. For the latter is not perfect, and in being not perfect, it becomes the only choice of a person that seeks to make things better than they once were: for certain and perfect things can never become better than they currently are.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 12, 2008 12:04 AM

Most people in America like to go on about the Crusades and the horror of religious wars. The ironic thing is that they often have no idea what the core issues and conflicts of those eras were about. For they often do not connect the events of the past with their own actions in today’s political world. It would be impossible for a person to abhor religious wars, yet continue to further the exact philosophy which was at the center of all the bigotry, prejudice ,and violence between different religious sects in Christianity’s history, if that person truly realized and was self-aware of the connection. But they are not.

They keep such issues in separate compartments: forever disconnected from the other.

Traumatic events like 9/11 can make connections that people refuse to consciously make. Then again, such events can also make people even more motivated into keeping their little boxes separate.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 12, 2008 12:10 AM


This was a set of narratives I developed in sequence. How they apply to 9/11 and suicidal fanaticism is quite simple. In order to get people to kill and die for something, you have to make them have conviction in it. Yet, what is conviction? Is conviction your decision to buy a black berry over an ipod? No, that is not conviction. Conviction is deciding that it is time to amputate your own leg, because it has gotten infected and the rescuers might not get to you while you are alive if you wait. Conviction is when a man endures crucifixion rather than rejects his faith, his god, or his comrades. Conviction is when people hold the line of battle, at all costs, simply because they believe. Not that they believe they will win and thus live, but simply because they believe that this is something that must be done, that this is the right thing to do.

But conviction can go through two grooves in the metal of a person’s history. It can go through the philosophy of persuasion, mutual benefit, and cooperation or it can go through the philosophy of intimidation, fear, and force. Two guesses what Al Qaeda chose.

The Republican 2008 Convention

September 4, 2008

Reagan was right, the Democrats do want you to trust in their Strongman in making changes happen.

Red State Update Videos

September 3, 2008

This stuff is too dangerous and funny. Dangerous because it is a pain in the throat and the abs.

Find and watch all the others, if you can take it.

My Best Writing

September 1, 2008

My best writing is done one to one, in online conversations. Sitting down with a pre-planned idea, writing about it, and then posting it on my blog, has too many steps for it to feel intuitive. That is why I do my best writing on other people’s blogs, specifically people who I find particularly fascinating.

Concerning Sarah Palin, my thoughts here.

This is the first vibes on Friday when I found out.