The best American is a stupid, silent American

(that is to paraphrase the radio show host, Michael Savage)

Teacher gets suspended for showing kids his tools. Via the Second Amendment Foundation (saf.org).

Properly, that school would have all of its funding suspended until it publicly apologizes to the teacher and agrees to allow tools in the classroom.

Seriously; who doesn’t think there’s been a war going on against individual capability, productivity and self sufficiency in this country? If people are aware, knowledgeable, strong, confident and self-sufficient, who’d need our current nanny style government, after all? That would put 90% of our government right out of business, and we can’t allow that, now can we? “Oh no, Preciousss….nassty kids musst bow to our greatnesss, yesss they mussst. Make them crawl, we will…”

ETA; I wish people would stop using that word (liberal) to describe authoritarians. We CAN take the language back. That would be a great first step. Just use words correctly. It’s easy. Authoritarian. There; I just did it. See? I wasn’t hit by lightning or anything. Don’t be afraid. Go on; try it. It doesn’t hurt a bit.

15 thoughts on “The best American is a stupid, silent American

  1. An Idiocracy style society truly does appear to be the desired goal. Dumb sheep have no idea they’re being fleeced and/or slaughtered. Any rams showing an independent streak needs to be culled.

  2. I like the attempt to reclaim the language.

    I just use the original statist word: Progressive.

    And the adjective attached to that word is usually fascist.

    • The problem I have with that is that it’s an entirely REgressive movement. They seek to return us to a state of feudalism, where we are mere property of the state, and no rights but what the aristocracy allows.

      • PROgressive works though. The sense of the word in this case is “occurring in incremental stages” as in a progressive cartridge loading press or the progression of a disease, but specifically it is refers to incremental steps toward communism, as an alternative to the more usual violent and precipitous revolution. In the political sense, I always spell it with an upper case “P” because it is the label that Progressive Marxists/Fabian socialist/Eugenicists gave themselves in the early 20th century. It’s coherency and history as a movement (of slow, careful “progression” toward communism) is enough to have a title, and Progressive is the title the movement adopted for itself, same as “Democrat” or “Republican”.

        • Fair enough. An eloquent enough explaination that I just might reconsider my terminology. We do all seem to be on the same page in these parts…well, *almost* all of us.

        • I like “statist,” meaning they see state regulation, programs, and coercion as the solution to any and all problems. Cuts to the core of the problem, and there isn’t any way to dress it up “nicely,” such as they can do with “Progressive,” because while your definition is fine, the connotation is that “progress is good.”

          • You are right; “statist” defines the mind-set very well. There are several varieties of statism though, and Progressive statistism is among the most incideous due to its subtlty and its ability to slowly worm its way into a society and culture and establish itself before anyone realizes what’s happened.

            All Progressives are statists, but not all statists are Progressives.

            Maybe I’m splitting hairs too much for most applications. “Statist” is perfectly good for most applications, until you feel the need to make the distinction I suppose.

            As for other people totally missing the true meaning of “Progressive”; let them. They’ll just have to suffer in their ignorance until it’s so obvious they can’t escape it. When Hillary declared herself to be a “Proud, early 20th century Progressive” she really spilled the beans. That’s totally George Bernard Shaw, Musolini, Woodrow Wilson, Eugenics, KKK and gas chamber stuff right there. Anyone who cares at all can look it up and find out what it means. Those who don’t care won’t be convinced either way.

  3. My God, these people would have wet themselves had they frisked my classmates. And to think, at just a few years older than these students, we were let loose on a room full of POWER TOOLS!!!

  4. Progressive doesn’t work for me. The ideology behind the charges is just idiocy. What were they thinking? Since when does a screwdriver and a wrench equal a weapon? Especially when someone is talking to second graders? Sheesh. Next they’ll be outlawing shoelaces…

    • Try looking at it this way; the Progressive movement (or whatever you like to call it) has been telling us for generations that government imposed restrictions on objects is a legitimate and desirable way to reduce crime and increase safety. Once you’ve embraced that concept, where or when are you going to drop it, draw a line in the sand and say, “Enough!”? On what logical or moral basis will you draw that line? You want safety, right? And you already accepted the notion of banning or heavily restricting dangerous objects.

      “Sure” you might say, “carpenter’s tools CAN be use for evil purposes, and many times they HAVE BEEN USED for evil purposes, but look at all the good things that are done with them. And shouldn’t we be focusing on the individual criminals instead of hampering all makers, sellers and users of these tools?”

      You’d be making perfect sense with that argument, AND a moral case (why hinder decent folks trying to do good, when we can readily focus on justice in individual cases of criminal behavior?).

      That exact same thing can be said of guns, knives and swords.

      Once you’ve accepted the idea of crime prevention through legal restrictions on things though, you’re no longer in a position to make the logical/moral argument, and further, there is no logical or moral argument for drawing a line and saying “we will go no farther than ‘X’ with this idea of banning things for the public good”. Any such limits will be arbitrary (we’ve already embraced the concept, so now it’s only a matter of how far and how fast we’ll push it) and thus the “limits” (actually there are no limits) can be pushed this way and that at a whim or as the public will accept it without too much political fallout.

      And THAT right there is the defining characteristic of Progressivism. Get your foot in the door, and slowly, gently, sometimes more forcefully, just keep levering that door open until such point as there’s no resistance left because you’ve worn it down to nothing and everyone has accepted your premises so no one is left un-corrupted.

      This is good example of the old saw; First they went after the guns, and I said nothing because I was not a gun owner…

    • There IS a place where shoelaces are not allowed….

      Prison. An “institution of higherlower learning.”

      What isn’t a weapon? Anything this side of the jawbone of an ass is one, so… pretty much anything they want to get bent about.

  5. “Next they’ll be outlawing shoelaces”
    Wasn’t there a case not too long ago where the BATFE decided a guy’s shoelaces were an NFA item?

    • Yup. As the story goes; a shoestring can be attached to the reciprocating charging handle, which thereby can be used to pull the trigger as the bolt carrier comes forward into battery, thus turning a semi auto into a “machinegun”.

Comments are closed.