Archive for October 2009

Excellent Discussions of Current Cultural Dysfunctions

October 31, 2009

The Price of Religious Fanaticism and Forgiveness of Other People’s Sins

The Strategic Overview of the Left: Individual members and collective agencies

Soviet Defector Outs Internal KGB anti-American strategies

Extremist policies are justified by effective propaganda for the masses

A personal remark from Richard Johnston that I will respond to.

I remember people early on in GWB’s presidency speculating about his being a “dry drunk” and such. It was silly.

No, it isn’t silly. It is either true or not true.

You start calling things silly, and you will begin to think you have the right discernment to filter out what is or is not legitimate. Then you will apply it to some other subject on the belief that you have successfully psychoanalyzed people’s intentions and thoughts. And you’ll be veritably wrong, if you first had not determined the accuracy and veracity of the original.

If people actually believed the things they did about Bush W, I would expect and approve of their taking extreme measures. But they didn’t take extreme measures. They just went along to get along. Approving a ‘surge’ in troops for Iraq when it was politically convenient, and then opposing it when it was politically convenient. If they really thought Bush W was a danger to the country and that opposing him would be the solution, why the rope a dope on the war American men and women were fighting and dying in? That’s the test. They failed the test. I applied the same test to you. Forget the psychobabble. I am not a psychoanalyst. I don’t need to be one to put you to the character test and make a personal judgment of your worth. I’ve already done so and stated my conclusions to the effect on Neo’s blog. The decision came out in your favor, in fact. I’ve done the same with Obama. Others at Neo’s blog have done the same in relation to Obama. They’ve looked at his policies, beliefs, words, and actions and made a decision about him. You continue to give him the benefit of the doubt, but that’s not the problem.

Are you a psychoanalyst, Johnston? If someone isn’t a lawyer/judge, do you expect them to be familiar with law cases concerning ERISA? Would you approve of them taking the bench to judge one of your ERISA cases? I predict your answers will all be in the negative, so tell me if they are not.

I’m not talking about courts of law. Remove that from consideration. I’m speaking of your experience informing your actions. Do you consider yourself experienced enough in psychoanalysis, with a proven test case of either verified correct or incorrect judgments, to tell the rest of us here that we are incorrect to attempt the psychoanalysis of others? I believe you lack the requisite experience for such a judgment, but you may disagree if you wish.

You answered that you did think other liberals were like you. Do you really believe that it is even possible for you to meet 100 million people in your life, accurately judge their characters, motivations, and life experiences, and then come here and tell us that “yes, they are like me”. No, that’s Not what I believe you did or claim you did. You gave them the benefit of the doubt, I believe. But the benefit of doubt does not cover psychoanalytical judgments, positive or negative. You cannot know what other liberals are, except for the ones you have met, loved, hated, or have had more than a passing association with. Your claim that other liberals are like you and your claim that you are fed up with the psychoanalysis of the Left’s narcissistic self-destructive tendencies are, coincidentally, mutually exclusive. But that’s not special, you know. The ‘moderate’ Democrats co-exist perfectly well with the radicals, pro-murderer, pro-Sharia, pro-religious theocracy proponents because you don’t find a problem with the Democrats or the Democrat party. You can recognize specific problems, as I have noted before, but you don’t draw any general overall conclusions about it. But most other Democrats can’t even do what you do, Johnston. They can’t even admit a single wrong doing of the Unions, of the Congressional Democrats, or a single good thing about Republican actions. They would look at Republican efforts on ERISA and say it is a sham because Republicans can only ever be for personal enrichment and diabolical bigotry. But I don’t believe to counter-act such prejudices, that one should be prejudiced in the other way. I don’t believe it is useful to say Republicans are always motivated for evil, just as I don’t believe it is useful or true to say that Republicans are always motivated for good. And if that is the case, it also applies to your judgment concerning other liberals. They are not like you, Johnston. I am not making a claim as to what they are. I am making a claim that you have no basis upon which you can judge, so you cannot claim something you can’t even prove is true. I don’t even see whether you even tried to prove whether it was true. After all, a benefit of the doubt requires no evidence, yes.

If you come to a court of law without evidence, but simply the claim that the court should rule in your favor because you are familiar with ERISA consequences and thus the court should agree with you, do you think the court will do so? I am not speaking of a court of law concerning the ERISA law or insurance companies. Put that from your mind. I am speaking of specific individuals on Neo’s thread that you did not agree with. Those specific individuals presented case studies of personal knowledge and experiences they had, and formed conclusions from those experiences. Others made generalities, but also based upon specific case examples only. Do you think it is legitimate to counter such arguments by utilizing your ‘benefit of the doubt’ for Obama, transferring to these Democrats and fake liberals known by others here, and saying they ‘are like you’? Who told you that this was true. Who told you that they were like you. If you believe nobody told you, then what told you, by what entity or right were you made to believe?

I’ve stated exactly why I believe you were not a fake liberal, someone extracting money from the disadvantaged because you had an advantage in knowledge on law. You had supported your clients and did not refuse allies or help simply because they were not normally ideologically your supporters. That is integrity in that you do your duty by your client, in protecting their interests, without sacrificing their interest when you may personally benefit. I can say this is true because I’ve tested it on you. We do not have a glancing or first time meeting. Our association is a bit more in depth, not because I have read your beliefs but because I have seen your actions. Both in your radio dialogue, speaking to others in the real world absent any attempt to manipulate or deceive me with malice forethought, and in specific test cases I gave you. I gave you the mark about Unions and Republican Congress and insurance companies and tested your reactions to them. And those reactions rang true and consistent with your stated purpose concerning ERISA. You were not interested in propping up unions, but you are interested in more government regulation even at the same time that you recognize that government regulation, in the form of ERISA, was what created the entire loophole and problem in the first place. But that’s fine, we all have our little quibbles and ideological issues concerning actual real world policy. That’s not what is important here. What is important here is character: integrity and honesty. And no, I don’t believe a super majority, 75% of the Democrat party are like you, Johnston, in those aspects.

When I tested Obama, his actions and reactions did not ring true. And that’s what matters. Individuals are what matters. If you have a problem with those in this thread speaking about the Left’s narcissistic fascination in overall… you can easily disprove their claims or challenge the evidence from which they based their claims. If you do not do so, you are either implying they have no evidence, directly contradicted by their claim to personal knowledge of Leftists (meaning you call them liars), or you are implying that you have no need to do so. I think you do have a need.

The original problem with the Left is that they can’t prove that their theories are true. You are not unfamiliar or incapable of justifying your statements. You are a lawyer, after all. But this is the real world, and one thing different in the real world is that law cases won’t be decided upon objective ‘words’ or the perceptions of certain judges or juries, but upon physical incontrovertible proofs. I don’t mean evidence that can be interpreted various ways. I mean proofs, like mathematical proofs. If one thing is wrong, all of it is wrong: the mortar squad goes through the motions to load the mortar, after it is aimed, the round goes down the tube and then Bloomp, it fires and starts going towards the target or the round goes down the tube and EXPLODES, killing most of the mortar crew. You see, both can’t happen at once. Either one exists independent of the other.

To say that Obama is a communist is either true or untrue. To say that Bush is a dry drunk is either true or untrue. In law, you can have people who are guilty and released as ‘not guilty’ because of a ‘technicality’ in the law. But that is the law. The physical reality we all exist in doesn’t deal in ambiguity and deception. It deals in integrity. Consistency, not inconsistency.

Either Leftists are narcissists or they are not. Either certain individuals are narcissists or they are not. Either they are sociopaths or they are not. Either they help with wealth redistribution or they do not. You can define down sociopath to mean something unverifiable. But it exists, like integrity and concepts such as honesty exists. Would they become non-existent if somebody redefined them with more ambiguity? Of course not. How can we say somebody is honest without judging their motives. And how can we legitimately approve of the virtue of honesty, if we can’t at the same time disapprove a person’s narcissistic lies.

Unlike the commenters at Neo who asked you questions, I am not notably interested in your words. I am interested in your actions. Your words on ERISA could have been lies smoothly covered up to benefit yourself personally or not. It’s hard to judge that based upon mind reading. I can see your actions, however, because they exist in the integral reality and fabric of our lives. It is much harder to create untruth or deception there. Not impossible, but still, harder. But one additional thing I would like you to consider, Richard Johnston, is that if I am correct in trusting in your motives, why am I incorrect in distrusting the amorality and unethical motivations of those you would call either your neighbors, comrades, co-workers, or general liberals?


Reviews of Target Focus Training

October 27, 2009


Matt Furey’s newspaper review of TFT

Background on the whole deal with SCARS vs TFT.

There are comments I can make on this score, but most of them are not relevant, heh.

[Edit: I will say one thing however. KFSS, or Kung Fools SS, is a knight of SCARS. But if you google “Target Focus Training Scam”, you will see a bullshido link pop up dated 2006, whereas the link I provided is to a Bullshido thread dated 2003. In the 2006 thread, a person asked about TFT’s program and got many varied responses, but KF dominated the 14 page thread. KF launched many personal attacks and accusations that TFT was a ‘cult’ that would ‘brainwash’ their clients. If you have read the links, you already know the connections between SCARS and TFT in terms of personnel. So when I say that KF is a Knight of SCARS, you can see some obvious conclusions.

KF’s anatomical knowledge and fighting compendium is taken either from SCARS or TFT. If from TFT, he’s just a parasite and a hypocrite living in Democrat dominated Hawaii. If from SCARS, then much of the material, again, was influenced by Tim Larkin back when he taught SCARS. It puts his attack on TFT in a different light, but most people lack the knowledge to make informed decisions so they are fooled by KF’s apparent competence. This guy isn’t humble enough to develop anything on his own. Like the Soviets and the Islamic jihad, he has to steal material from others, and then put them down to make his egotistical and narcissistic self feel better.

Why is this relevant to the topic is injury one may ask? A personal eye witness to the practices of SCARS seminars reported one notable aspect: injury. Not the ability to inflict injury on a criminal or attacker, but injuries inflicted during training. There is no comparable injury list for TFT’s seminars. Why is that, if the material taught is mostly comparable? Because Tim Larkin, once given creative control, started creating his own training methodology.

You see, people like KFSS may or may not know how to fight, if you take the word of the 2003 forum moderates he does know and I can’t say that much of the anatomical details he has given were erroneous, but what they don’t know how to do is to instruct others on how to fight. If they try, there’ll be injuries, avoidable ones, because they either don’t care or they just lack the competency to instruct without taking students out of the curriculum with medical emergencies. So they are aristocrats. They sit high on the hog speaking down to the peasants. THey are armed with knowledge and power, but either can’t or won’t give it to the have nots. As a classical liberal, I hate aristocrats and social wreckers/horders. In case people hadn’t noticed, there’s a lot of that going on in Europe and America right now.

What’s the point of teaching if the students are rendered non-functional by the training? That’s what the training is supposed to avoid, to instruct how to inflict on attackers an injury. Why do those accidents happen? Because they’re going too fast. They’re using stupid things like punching bags for resistance, perhaps. They’re not looking at the target, but just in a general direction [as is true when hitting a bag]. So mistakes happen because they’re not competent yet to know what not to do or what to do. As the bullshido reviewer said, one teaches based upon a technical form that you can get right but still don’t know why it is right, and the other teaches you why things work and then lets you figure out how to create the forms necessary to get the result. Which is better, self-sufficiency or being given a fish per week?

This is a rather good life lesson. Given two people with the ‘right knowledge’, I always prefer the better man cause he always takes care to be more virtuous and more efficient. The weak man may have the same advantages or knowledge, he may be just as smart, but it’s like a Democrat vs a Republican. Generally, if their ideologies are the same and their socio-economic situation also is comparable, the character of the latter trumps the character of the former. This isn’t limited to politics, ideology, or schools of style. It applies even to within groups. Even in the military you’ll have your Blue Falcons like Kerry and Murtha, then the best of the best. None it is restricted to a certain ideology, either. Separating the wheat from the chaff requires pressure, challenges, and character.

Okay, it was more than one thing.]


Westenra: Two Songs

October 13, 2009

The curious thing about NZ and what not is that they sing as their national anthem, their symbol of national unity, as being a combination of the British Queen, who has no power, and some native New Zealander cultural suasion.

I’m not sure what to make of that.

The Left’s SOP: Standard Operating Procedure

October 13, 2009


Now that’s interesting. But for now, we’ll go with a link I made on the previous post, Modern Morality.

Here’s the start of the narrative. Just listen and observe.

I’m sick of people pulling the Chappaquiddick card whenever Kennedy receives praise for his enormous contributions to this country. Not only because great heroes needn’t be flawless, and Kennedy seemed genuinely remorseful for what he did, but because there is something else on Kennedy’s record I consider far more damning.

That’s by a SarahMC, presumably a feminist of the Leftist mold, although of a peculiar kind in that she wishes to pin something on Edward Kennedy. Of course, NOW and what not, love Kennedy, if not for his personal behavior than certainly for the power, prestige, and MONEY he brings to the cause of NOW and other feminist Left wing revolutionary lite organizations. It’s funny how that works. After all, it was conservatives that were supposed to be ideologically in favor of making whores out of women, whether in matrimony through material bribes or more illicit deals for cold hard cash. I suppose the feminists dislike women making such choices for themselves, given that they are whoring out other women to benefit themselves. Which, I suppose, may be seen as morally superior to conservatives… somehow.

But, the key thing to keep in mind is this general position by SarahMC. And now we go on.

In 1991, Ted Kennedy took part in a smear campaign against a woman who accused his nephew, William Kennedy Smith, of rape. The men had been partying together in Palm Beach, Florida, when they met her at a bar. They all retreated to the Kennedy family home, where Smith allegedly raped her. She filed a police report and underwent an exam at a hospital. Meanwhile, the Kennedy clan was uncooperative and even dishonest with investigators. The case went to trial, and the prosecution brought forth three other women who claimed that Smith had assaulted them. However, the judge didn’t allow the prosecution to enter their testimony.

The police, prosecutors, rape counselors and the doctors who examined her all believed the victim’s account of rape. But William’s defense depicted the woman as a neer-do-well, and Ted Kennedy swore to his nephew’s innocence and the alleged victim’s dishonesty. Smith was cleared of all charges. In the years since, other alleged assault victims have emerged, naming Smith as their attacker. Several of his colleagues accused him of sexual harassment in 2004. The man is, by all accounts, a chauvinist sleazebag at the very least and a serial rapist at worst. And he was allowed to go free, in part, because of his uncle Ted’s influence.

This segment would sensibly be something conservatives would agree about. Certainly Kennedy Partisans (as in anti-Kennedy partisans) would find nothing wrong or unfair with this characterization, as it certainly tries somewhat to portray things in a less sinister light than it could have been. But, you may have forgotten, we’re dealing with the Left, fake liberals, pseudo liberals, and repressed liberals all in one. That has a particular effect on what you think you may or may not be able to agree with them on. See this for why.

I consider Ted Kennedy’s defense of his nephew in 1991 much more sinister than what he did at Chappaquiddick in 1969. The latter was motivated by panic, confusion, and possibly alcoholism. The former was intentional, and revealed something uglier about Ted Kennedy’s character. But you almost never hear about it from those who obsess about Chappaquiddick. We’ve got rape culture to thank for that.

Rape culture. That’s the culture supporting Polansky, the Hollywood sexualized culture that makes females into vulnerable meat, for the Islamic ‘cat’. But she isn’t talking about Hollywood or defenders of Kennedy. She’s talking about you, or rather more pertinently us.

I wrote that summary for the benefit of any readers who have never been in the presence of a conservative when the name “Ted Kennedy” came up [Chappaquidick]. So now you know.

You see, it doesn’t matter whether you and she can agree on some particulars like this incident in Kennedy’s life. Because what matters is how she came to that conclusion, and she came to that conclusion based not upon the rule of law, not upon equality of class and gender, of rich and poor, but upon the world view that stipulates and bases its judgments upon ‘rape culture’.

She is completely unable to fathom that conservatives would focus on an untried injustice than an injustice that had already gone through the system and to which the verdict had been cast. The rule of law, she does not respect, except for purely partisan and tactical requirements. Her ideology is more important; her world view is more important. This has some curious effects, on top of the ones I have already mentioned. For one thing, her post expresses her feeling that she is sick, not at Kennedy but at conservatives for mentioning Chappaquidick. In her world view, there is a hierarchy of victims. Charges of rape, though not convictions of rape, deserve more attention and worth. THis is not a classical liberal viewpoint based upon human rights, but upon certain special rights for groups. It’s identity group politics.

She would prefer to believe that conservatives have an ideological reason to focus on Chappaquidick over Edward Kennedy’s nephew. Even though conservatives have time and time again spoken about their prime priority concerning personal responsibility. That a person is responsible for his actions, not the actions of his family, ancestors, race, nation, or whatever. In that world view, Kennedy’s direct actions in Chappaquidick, intentional or not, provides more moral consequence than Kennedy’s indirect support of his nephew’s acts. It’s not the same. But to the Left, it is the same. You associate with evil? You are evil. They’d bomb you, and anyone else you loved in the vicinity and call that as collateral damage in purging a ‘bad thing’ from the human species. But really, who has the real ideological reason to do the things they do when it comes time to prioritizing which issues are the most important to raise in the public conscience? The Left when it comes to not supporting the women of Afghanistan because that was Bush’s war, or the Right when they prefer to attack Kennedy by focusing on the negligent homicide he committed rather than the character witness testimony he gave for somebody’s else trial on rape?

This, of course, can easily turn into a tu quoque justification. THe Left does things, and we do things, and this makes us all even. Except it doesn’t. Here’s the trick. The Turn and Prestige. What is the Prestige?

Every great magic trick consists of three acts. The first act is called “The Pledge”; The magician shows you something ordinary, but of course… it probably isn’t. The second act is called “The Turn”; The magician makes his ordinary some thing do something extraordinary. Now if you’re looking for the secret… you won’t find it, that’s why there’s a third act called, “The Prestige”; this is the part with the twists and turns, where lives hang in the balance, and you see something shocking you’ve never seen before.”

I use this artificial terminology from the movie because it is an apt description of written communication. You know, like the 3 parts to a movie or the scaling to the denoument for written works.

Right-wingers have had the opportunity to latch onto this for a while now. But rape doesn’t bother them that much, which is why they almost always throw all their eggs into the Chappaquiddick basket.


Clarification: Rape committed by straight white males doesn’t bother them that much.-SarahMC

That’s the Turn. I first gave you a topic about people talking about the injustice of the justice system when it comes to prosecuting rich and powerful families like the Kennedies. I showed it as sensible, common sense, and agreeable (the Pledge)… and then I make it reappear in another form, not from my own hand, but from her hand, by her own words, into something not ordinary or sensible. It is not me telling you what I have decided this means concerning rape or conservatives. This is her speaking to you. Believe me, if you wish. Disbelieve me if you wish, but it is not me that is making such claims.

That’s not the prestige, however, so divert your attention to something beyond simple extraordinary sentiments by the Left. Which is this.

This is the prestige.

I really hope nobody interprets this post as an anti-Kennedy one. As I said yesterday, I worked for the man, I am overwhelmed with admiration for his political accomplishments, and I consider his death a huge loss.-SarahMC

This is where life and death hangs in the balance.

These pieces of trash dare to call us supporters of rape, rape culture, and that we do not particularly care, due to ideological reasons, when a straight white man rapes somebody? There’s a reason we don’t have duels in this country any more. Half the population killing the other half wouldn’t really work for modern times, you see.

There’s the Prestige. Did you enjoy the trip? This enemy you cannot defeat. You can only drive it back into the depths of the sea, and teach the next generation to be vigilant when it returns. Of course, the next generation is never vigilant enough.

As a side note, I made a comment there about Roman Polansky in response to SarahMC’s reference about conservatives not caring about rape. This was her response.

SarahMC says:
September 29, 2009 at 3:08 pm

Roman Polanski doesn’t have a Chappaquiddick to trump his rape. But he is a “Hollywood liberal,” which is the only reason right-wingers are up in arms about the case.

So, ideological Leftists believe themselves morally superior because they care about rape while we do not. Thus when we decry rape, it is because of political, partisan, or tactical perceived benefits, and not actually due to real genuine concern. No, real genuine concern, you see, comes from (not) criticizing a Great Lion of a man like Ted Kenned, who supported rape and rapists, because of all the other ‘good works’ he has done. Rape is acceptable, so long as you are high enough in the hierarchy. The only reason ‘right-wingers’ are upset about Roman Polansky is because he is a ‘Hollywood liberal’ (and not a Jew), which is why we neither support Polansky, work for him, or applaud him as a ‘great man of talent and good works’.

THe Left is sickening. And you are reading this being written by a man that finds it perfectly sensible and normal to see executions in video captured live blood and guts. Spiritual and moral corruption, however, is far more nasty than any blood, guts, or brain/fecal matter may ever be. To me, at least. Maybe not to you.

There is another aspect here that I believe is worthy of your attention. Conservatives in attempting to make a life for women and men in Afghanistan, wouldn’t have refused an offer of genuine alliance from Leftists, fake liberals, or whatever. Certainly the military, in the form of Petraeus, did not refuse Ambassador Crocker’s aid, even though the DoD and State had notoriously bad working relationships historically and even recently. But, in order to accomplish the military mission duly authorized by Constitution authorizations, any willingly ally would not be shunned, but rather accepted and the attempt at least made to make people’s lives better through cooperation of UN diplomats, State Department diplomats, and US military officers.

Now take a look at the disgusting and perverted Leftists. Take a good, long, hard look. THe kind of look most people are physically and mentally unable to give to watching real suffering, ala Nick Berg, executions, mass murder, or rapine. When the Left is presented with some political aid on rape, even if they see it as being limited to particular situations, they refuse such offers of alliance. Because it comes from us. They continue to bicker about partisanship and continue to denigrate other people’s cultural values. Instead of seeking allies to help their ‘rape victims’, instead of doing what is good and sensible, they support and praise Ted Kennedy, who helped destroy rape victims, and instead blame us, for blaming rapists like the Kennedies and Polansky. When the Left talks about how we are the ones faking genuine concern, I truly wonder what kind of new recreational drug have they stumbled upon.

The reality of priority is based upon, not words, but actions. What we do determines for us what we consider our highest priority. When we say that our family is our highest priority, but we sacrifice family time for careers that benefit other people, not our families, then what is our highest priority, really? If we say that our highest priority is women’s rights, and we don’t support the war to liberate Afghan women, nor help to defeat their enemies after the war was over, what is our real priority?

The Left can claim they are fighting a ‘rape culture’ all they wish. Every single feminist allied to Leftists create, maintain, and defend the rape culture. THey need it to gain power. And they would rather sacrifice individual women, powerless to defend themselves, to their corrupt oligarchy of Kennedy clan allies and political goons than support us in helping those that are trying, but failing, to defend their human rights.

They are all complicit. They will receive no mercy from me. Nor would I expect them to give me or the victims of corrupt, venal, evil men like their “Great Kennedy Clan” mercy in return. This enemy you cannot defeat. You can only put them to sleep for a single generation. But that’s enough. Against such corruption, such sickness of the soul and mind and heart, it is more than enough. Even one generation will spare untold billions of innocents. And that’s worth a field littered with corpses rivaling the hundreds of millions to me. But perhaps not to you. In the end, I believe. They believe we’re faking it. They believe, as the Southern plantation class did, that the Northerners (us Republicans and extremists) had no real spine for a fight. That they (we), being dishonorable (gun happy), crude (plain speaking hicks), and rude (politically incorrect), didn’t have the true valor (genuine concern) and courage (speaking truth to power) of an honorable (sensitive, well spoken, articulate, and inspirational) man (Black Man). Well, those Democrats had a small lesson in incorrect prejudices there. And so will the Left.