Archive for September 2009

Modern Morality

September 29, 2009

[Editor’s Note: I have pictures of Hannah Giles and her bikinis, along with nude photos of partying with the Kennedies. I’ll give them to the Democrat party to hurt the Republicans if I get a few things. Like the heads of several Kennedy clan members, Reid, Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd. That is all]

Just some updates on various news stories and blog posts I’ve been reading about current affairs.

I’m usually late on these matters, posting after they hit the internet. But hey, the New York Times is the same way!


Why is he important? Read and find out.

Ted Kennedy. WHy is he an important subject now? Well… let us just say that the history starts repeating itself once you line up an ideology called the Democrat party.

Then there is this. Don’t let the enemy tell you how to fight.

The Tim Larkin verison of that is here.


Obama and ACORN: Two Sitting in the Tree

September 28, 2009

This October 2008 video before the election of Obama gives a good lesson

We were warned. The American voters weren’t paying attention. How could they, after generations of public education brainwashing.

Here’s another thing. ACORN helped to create the banking crisis. Then they cashed on their manufactured crisis, which conveniently also benefited Obama. And when Obama got to power, ACORN, by extension, also benefited.

McCain on the other hand was… clueless as usual when it comes to the real internal workings of the Democrat party. How he thought he was going to reform any corruption when he didn’t even know what the hell was going on, I have no idea. Part of the buddy system in the Senate, I suppose. The alliance between Republican power brokers and Democrat power brokers, favors traded and all that.

This one is simply hilarious


September 22, 2009

Let us turn to a young, possibly a more progressive state. Consider
the case of “California, the Golden” as it is named by Emma Duke, in
her study of child-labor in the Imperial Valley, “as fertile as the
Valley of the Nile.”[3] Here, cotton is king, and rich ranchers,
absentee landlords and others exploit it. Less than ten years ago
ranchers would bring in hordes of laboring families, but refuse to
assume any responsibility in housing them, merely permitting them to
sleep on the grounds of the ranch. Conditions have been somewhat
improved, but, sometimes, we read, “a one roomed straw house with an
area of fifteen by twenty feet will serve as a home for an entire
family, which not only cooks but sleeps in the same room.” Here, as
in Michigan among the beets, children are “thick as bees.” All kinds
of children pick, Miss Duke reports, “even those as young as three
years! Five-year-old children pick steadily all day…. Many white
American children are among them–pure American stock, who have
gradually moved from the Carolinas, Tennessee, and other southern
states to Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, and on into the Imperial
Valley.” Some of these children, it seems, wanted to attend school,
but their fathers did not want to work; so the children were forced to
become bread-winners. One man whose children were working with him in
the fields said, “Please, lady, don’t send them to school; let them
pick a while longer. I ain’t got my new auto paid for yet.” The
native white American mother of children working in the fields proudly
remarked: “No; they ain’t never been to school, nor me nor their
poppy, nor their granddads and grandmoms. We’ve always been
pickers!”–and she spat her tobacco over the field in expert fashion.

One of the child laborers revealed the economic advantage–to the
parents–in numerous progeny: “Us kids most always drag from forty to
fifty pounds of cotton before we take it to be weighed. Three of us
pick. I’m twelve years old and my bag is twelve feet long. I can
drag nearly a hundred pounds. My sister is ten years old, and her bag
is eight feet long. My little brother is seven and his bag is five
feet long.”

Evidence abounds in the publications of the National Child Labor
Committee of this type of fecund parenthood.[4] It is not merely a
question of the large family versus the small family. Even
comparatively small families among migratory workers of this sort have
been large families. The high infant mortality rate has carried off
the weaker children. Those who survive are merely those who have been
strong enough to survive the most unfavorable living conditions. No;
it is a situation not unique, nor even unusual in human history, of
greed and stupidity and cupidity encouraging the procreative instinct
toward the manufacture of slaves. We hear these days of the
selfishness and the degradation of healthy and well-educated women who
refuse motherhood; but we hear little of the more sinister selfishness
of men and women who bring babies into the world to become child-
slaves of the kind described in these reports of child labor.

when we are confronted with the evils of the latter, in the form of
widespread illiteracy and defect, we should seek causes more deeply
rooted than the enslavement of children. The cost to society is
incalculable, as the National Child Labor Committee points out. “It
is not only through the lowered power, the stunting and the moral
degeneration of its individual members, but in actual expense, through
the necessary provision for the human junk, created by premature
employment, in poor-houses, hospitals, police and courts, jails and by
charitable organizations.”

To-day we are paying for the folly of the over-production–and its
consequences in permanent injury to plastic childhood–of yesterday.
To-morrow, we shall be forced to pay for our ruthless disregard of our
surplus children of to-day. the child-laborer of one or two decades
ago has become the shifting laborer of to-day, stunted, underfed,
illiterate, unskilled, unorganized and unorganizable.

Margaret Sanger’s Pivot of Civilization

From my brief analysis of her thoughts on this topic, I have formed a tentative conclusion concerning her primary chains of logic with respective to the topic of eugenics and population control, specifically sterilization or birth control.

Overpopulation was seen as the chief reason that economic, social, and intellectual abilities were being stunted. This was based upon the premise that families will ‘breed’ more children in reaction to economical incentives. Thus once you eliminate the feasibility of child labor, you eliminate the incentives for large families, in part. So by restricting population size, and when you restrict child labor, you restrict the size of families and promote less ‘excess’. Thus more energy can be allocated to fewer children, thus creating an ‘elite’ class of people that will self-perpetuate themselves and their abilities.

Education was directly tied in with this, as one of the evils of child labor as perceived by Sanger, was that it prevented children from being educated, given that their parents would rather put them to work. Sanger believed that these uneducated members would forever be condemned to simply breeding more ‘excess’ population that would be just like them, while at the same time putting a drain on the resources of greater society that could have gone to better use.

On the environmentalist front, overpopulation was simply seen as a direct manifestation of too much demand and not enough supply. With more people on this planet, the greater the drain on the resources of this planet, thus a more equitable distribution of wealth, education, and success could be had if you simply eliminated the over-population of this planet.

Both lines of thought have continued today, in the form of Global Climate Change and abortion. Perhaps soon to be government covered health care, in the latter. That’s not a tentative conclusion on my part.

Some of their stated conclusions were wrong, as Europe’s de-population and Islam’s population demonstrates. But that didn’t stop them. They may have failed, but their experiments did the job anyways and directly affected the lives of many, permanently. They didn’t need to succeed at their work, the eugenicists, to destroy the lives of others. And they didn’t need to be right in their ideology for their work to continue in today’s time. As the advisers of Obama might say, eugenics can pay off for greater society purely in the economic sense.

Planned Parenthood was started with the objectives of reducing births amongst uneducated families or those who did not contribute much to society. They have performed quite well at this task for the last few decades. The more than 10 million black babies that have been aborted will attest to that, regardless of what I personally may think.

Fighting Fire with Fire

September 22, 2009

The Poor

Acorn and the Poor

These videos are interesting because once you analyze it, you begin to see how the Democrat party obtains and maintains power. ACORN is just one part, one finger of an entire arm of operations.

But, in the end, you can fight fire with fire. Don’t like liberal activism and special interests? Fight fire with fire. Don’t like Alinsky and insurgencies in America? Fight fire with fire, by organizing and utilizing your own insurgency, your own application of Alinsky rules for radicals, radical conservatives that is. Hannah Giles can give you an update on how that’s been working out.

Montage of Hooters

September 16, 2009

Aside from the fan service, some of the video clips were honestly hilarious.

There is also the montage of visual illusions, which is a very stimulating exercise in self-discipline.

The Economical and Political System of Isolated Tribes

September 15, 2009

Are pirates socialists or capitalists? Lately, it’s become hard to tell the categories apar

Parasitism can only be called capitalism in certain situations of monopoly or artificially created demand or drop in supply.

Otherwise, it’s redistribution of wealth. The distribution policy may be in dispute, thus democratic solutions come into play as to what human nature would perceive as fair or unfair distribution. The identity matrix of one group against another, however, invests pirates with their own kind of tribe and culture and identity. The existence of an enemy solidifies internal unity to some extents, which justifies attacks and acts of war. This is the opposite of what a Greater Union is designed to create. It’s not designed to create a people or tribe or alliance of tribes intend on conquering foreigners because they feel particularly incensed or enraged. America would have become an expansionist empire under such a philosophy and doctrine, rather than a non-expansionist entity that actually contracts and is mostly stable.

There’s only so much wealth to go around. When there is a sudden over-abundance of wealth, somebody is working to create it or making it known. Yet this creates instabilities, bubbles, in which a few elite make off with the largest amount of goods. There is a power imbalance along with the wealth imbalance. Workers can be rendered into wage slaves. Corporations start to take more risks to not get locked out of a new market. Investment in security and stability goes down in relation to the investment in risk and greater profits. Thus this creates an incentive for asymmetrical raids on such large caches of wealth, until the security system establishes an equilibrium.

In a sense, the same is with liberty. Give a nation liberty and it won’t work, because their security apparatuses are anemic. Liberty then turns into anarchy. Opportunity and business prosperity then turns into incentives for theft, hostage taking, and extortion. Liberty and security must go hand in hand, for the one without the other is anarchy and the vice a versa is tyranny or at least a benevolent dictatorship.

Because it is usually an authority or a oligarchy that can decide how much security will be improved, while the costs of not having security are primarily born by the people at the bottom, with the least wealth and power, you have an instability in the system. The ones with the most motivation to put a stop to chaos, are the ones least able to do so given the imbalances present. Yet the imbalances cannot be righted or corrected without stability being brought to the situation. This renders the resolution of this system a mite problematic.

If it was only up to a single leader, it would have only been luck that would have decided whether Iraq could be pacified, the luck of the draw on whether you got a genius for a leader or not. By punting the decision making ability down the line to those most invested in the situation, it essentially made it certain that the problem would be solved eventually. A single leader is as good or as bad his own personal qualities. He may have what it takes to make the right decisions straight on down, or he may not. It’s a gamble. A more distributed network is less of a gamble, as you have more chances of getting the right info, the right decisions, the right people at the right place at the right time. Still, there have been incidents where a mostly all powerful leader could set things into motion that wouldn’t have been done without their vision or charisma.

There have been autocrats or dictators that have solved these issues from a platform of top down management, with solutions ranging from impermanent to more permanent. Alexander was one, MacArthur another. Even though they had able assistants and lieutenants, both leaders brought something definitive to the table that couldn’t be replaced. The top down system of Alexander’s Empire failed as his lieutenants warred between themselves rather than taking into consideration the problems of the people they ruled. MacArthur broke some of the guilds and family rule which had stymied Japanese economy, allowing greater competition on this front. He valued the needs of the people, especially when it came to their Emperor. He was recognized by the Japanese as Japan’s new shogun, but never planned to stay for long. A monarchy that was designed to decay into something more stable.

Anarchy is not stable, but neither is autocracy. The most efficient way to solve problems and resolve people’s differences is to get actors as close to the incident as one can. As Machiavelli once noted, it’s unwise for any Prince to try to rule a conquered city/province from far away.

Maybe Bush had skipped that lesson when democracy was unveiled as the solution to regional violence. I think he confused the product with the solution. Constitutional republics are already stable platforms. Thus of course they would create and engender peace. But democracy or its forms are not the best way to turn anarchy into stability. That requires both autocratic rule combined with investment in bottom level initiative.


I suppose to the Somalians, they have all these rich foreigners who travel in their area and who won’t or can’t defend their rich ships or persons, it is like an overwhelming temptation. Why shouldn’t they take what others can’t defend? They have no guarantee of security if they refused to do so.

It’s like the NIgerian email scams. There are rich ignorant folks that have an unequal share of the wealth, and cunning/raids can make up for this inequity. Using the Left’s doctrine of wealth redistribution and white privilege/guilt, America should be happy that Nigerians are scamming gullible folks. Piracy and jihad are, also, just another means to the same righteous end. The West can no longer judge Islamic men, because the West still looks down upon indigenous cultures and does not truly respect women’s rights. It is still the white man dictating to the Arab what they are or are not allowed to do.

In the end, however, even if wealth was redistributed in as close an equitable scale as perceivable, so long as power is hoarded and vaporized so that it rises to the top and sucked away from the bottom, wealth redistribution is meaningless. It is a temporary reprieve, a spring break, so to speak. Money is transfered, but people’s lives are not made better because that money isn’t stable income. It isn’t part of a stable system of politics or power sharing.

If the only reason a tribe shares power is because they hate enemies and fear them, what happens when those enemies disappear? That can’t be allowed to happen, else their own system of governance would break down into petty squables. Which is why so many people who have power try to hoard it and use it to create external enemies. Something the Democrat party accused Bush of doing after 9/11, although this was a matter of internal Democrat fears only. They feared losing their hold on blacks and other minorities, which were starting to see their self-interests align with Republicans, not Demos.

Post 9-11 Memories

September 12, 2009

Bookworm did a good series of post on this. Here’s the excerpt of my own comment there.

I remember my thoughts after 9/11. Notably the uncertainty and the fear, as well as apprehension at facing a foe that was more ruthless, determined, and full of vitality than anything American Hollywood TV culture had ever portrayed.

It could have been easy to fall into a sense of dependency on the big government to safeguard Americans from such a threat. At least, it would have been had I not heard the story of Flight 93.

Whenever Bush was talking about terror, or pundits spoke about the obscure and ridiculous Color Coded Threats, I would always remember one thing both never mentioned. What kept America safe was not guns, not technology, not our mighty warplanes nor our decrepit national politicians. It was ordinary Americans that took on a duty that ultimately ended their lives.

Whenever hysteria threatened to bubble up from the public conscience, I would wonder if they had already forgotten about F 93. People don’t just suddenly get a desire to fight. They need examples, leaders, role models, and heroes to inspire them to action. And I had found mine, in the face of the greatest enemy I had ever conceived.

My education concerning military issues and history had only just begun.

I realized, at that time, that many people just aren’t capable of even wanting to fight to defend themselves. They want somebody else to take care of them. Of course, this didn’t cause me any problems, since I, after all, was also relying upon the US military for protection. But there was a difference. I knew that the solution, on the gut level, to the defense of the homeland would be people taking up the fight themselves, and not waiting for the government to come and save them. If the terrorists penetrate the US military’s barrier, which they eventually would, our only first line defense will be the people of America, their blood and honor.

So when the Left started to talk about aiding AQ by sabotaging America’s war efforts, it clicked with all the previous examples of the Left and its minions attempting to disarm Americans. A pattern formed. The Democrats not just another political party to me, but increasingly an internal enemy of the United States.