To them Stalin is a feature, not a bug.
DumbGeezer
September 2013
Comment to Dr. Grover Furr – An Example of Recto-Cranial Inversion
[I believe there is more than sufficient evidence to support this hypothesis.
Do not forget that in every genocide the victims outnumber the perpetrators by at least 100:1 and that you have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms and use them in defense of innocent human life.—Joe]
I’m still wondering about Fast and Furious, and we’re what, a couple dozen scandals removed from that now, each one taking the former one off the main headlines? You couldn’t make this stuff up– It would be taken as way too far beyond believability.
1. In your best, logical assessment, America’s enemies would rather see American citizens;
A) armed.
B) disarmed.
2. In your best, logical assessment, America’s enemies would rather see U.S. Military personnel;
A) armed while on and off duty inside U.S. military installations.
B) disarmed while on and off duty inside U.S. military installations.
3. In your best, purely logical assessment, America’s enemies;
A) approve of the second amendment to the U.S. constitution and would like to see it protected and enforced.
B) disapprove of the second amendment to the U.S. constitution and would like to see it limited, eroded and degraded as much as possible.
4. In your best, purely logical, most detached and rational assessment, America’s enemies would rather see American citizens generally;
A) capable in the use of arms, having arms and ammunition of their own, being self sufficient and largely independent individually, largely fearless and moral, hopeful, principled, and more able to help their friends and neighbors in times of need such that outside help from official authorities is not crucial to survival.
B) ignorant in the use of arms, having no arms or ammunition of their own, being largely dependent on government programs for their sustenance, medicine, energy, education, transportation and protection, largely fearful and demoralized, unprincipled, and less able to help their friends and neighbors in times of need such that outside help from official authorities is crucial to survival.
You will be graded on your answers.
Barb and I frequent have talks about “crazy people”. This morning was one of those times. I don’t remember exactly what she said but something she said gave me a new insight and I told her my new hypothesis.
We get frustrated, grumpy, and angry from dealing with people that aren’t entirely in touch with reality. I’ll bet they feel the same way when their world view doesn’t match reality and they try to deal with us.
Then this afternoon Lyle left the following comment on a blog post:
when you take an irrational position and hold that it is rational, when you look at sane people and consider them insane, when you look at justice and consider it injustice, when you take on the victim mentality and blame the self sufficient, then slowly but surely, reason and sanity themselves become your enemies, and insanity your friend, for reality makes you face your faults and insanity protects you from facing them.
There is more. It’s as if he read my mind and extrapolated.
…both inside and outside of government. This time in Illinois.
I give more money to the SAF than anyone else outside my family.
We’re being asked (told?) to believe that the voters who wanted Progressives in office “couldn’t get to the polls” (Where are they? I don’t know. What IS a poll anyway? Where am I? Who am I? Who are you? What planet is this? Vote for Who? Why? What’s happening and is there any way of stopping it?) while those who wanted freedom didn’t have any trouble at all finding those pesky, shifty, sneaky, evasive polls, even after the Progressives massively out-spend those who prefer freedom.
Well there you have it. When Progressives win it’s grass-roots democracy in action– a beautiful expression of The American Way and what could ever be better or more wonderful than that. When Progressives lose it’s big money corporate-funded voter suppression by mean people who suck and are probably terrorists.
Charity is a vitally important component to any civilized society and as such, government should be kept completely out of it.
The first amendment touched upon the concept that a most highly important societal aspect or institution should be hands-off (no government involvement) but it is not well understood. We tend to focus on the particulars (religion, speech, the press, redress and assembly) but ignore the principle behind it.
Religious tolerance: If your religion requires you to kill me to get to heaven, I don’t have to tolerate that.
From the Seattle Police Department:
Around 1 pm Thursday, two teens were sitting on the steps of Franklin High School when a woman climbed out of a blue Audi parked on the street, approached the teens, and asked to use one of the teens’ cell phones.
One of the teens reluctantly handed her iPhone over to the woman, who walked off with the victim’s phone, climbed into the Audi and sped away.
The victim immediately went inside the school and called 911.
Patrol officers spotted the Audi near Rainier Avenue and S. Othello Street, pulled the car over and contacted the two 18-year-old women inside.
One of the women in the car then pulled the victim’s iPhone out of her purse, handed it back to officers., and said [s]he had taken it because her phone had died and she needed a new one.
Officers booked both women into the King County Jail, where they’re undoubtedly enjoying the jail’s excellent cell coverage.
Interesting response. Did the thief actually believe she was entitled to replace her phone in this manner? I think a case can be made that people have been getting “free” stuff from via government theft for so long that some believe they are improving the system by removing the middle-man.
PETA is now promoting the idea that eating chicken will result in a small penis and other problems.
Well sure– If the idea that animals are essentially equal to humans doesn’t stop us from eating animals, then we might as well take the penis angle, because apparently people care more about penises (and sex) than practically anything else. It’s bound to get a few more, uh, members.
This is part of a long term trend. Leftists used to attack people they don’t like by calling us “fags” or “queers” but since they now have to pretend that they’re promoting the rights of homosexuals, they have to turn to other methods of distraction. Hence Markley’s law, and the recent PETA story is part of the same trend of using sex as a cultural/political lever.
A common phrase used back in the 1960s and early ’70s (the Vietnam war period) was “Girls say yes to guys who say no”. It’s an appeal to young, horny men, telling them straight up that they’ll get laid more if they at least pretend to help support the Progressives and the communists.
It’s a common theme among communists, to get the vulnerable young people on board, and sex is a powerful lure. Charles Manson used young women as bait to sucker young males into the group, and Sun Myung Moon, Jim Jones, the Heavens Gate Cult and others in a long line of socialist predators (but I repeat myself) followed very similar tactics. Islamists, we are told, will be treated to a harem of dozens of virgins if they die in the great and glorious jihad (and Allah will be super happy about your killing people too, but seriously; virgins!). They could just as well promote a new scientific study which finds that reading American freedom blogs will result in sexual dysfunction, and so the 72 virgins in heaven might go unsatisfied, and we wouldn’t want THAT to happen would we? If they haven’t done it already, they will.
Nothing changes. PETA has just put a slightly different twist on it, but their new spin has a lot of precedent. It is a good one though, as the left has also been trying to make us fear our food, our water, our air, and our neighbors, and this gimmick hits on at least two fronts.
And so I say to PETA; Good one, guys! Right on! You’re in good company. Keep up the good work. You’re completely insane, sure, but you’re giving it the old college try, you’re learning from your predecessors, and that deserves some respect.
Parenthetically; if animals raised for slaughter are as good and have rights the same as people, then people are no better and have no more rights than animals raised for slaughter, which is the whole point of organizations like PETA even if most of their members are clueless kids just trying to get laid. Remember it.
It’s not that many who support gun control want to live in a world without criminals having guns, they want to live in a world without people like you and me.
Sebastian
August 29, 2013
It’s Never Been About Crime
[There is a lot of evidence to support this thesis. Others have come to the same conclusion a well. Cam Edwards, here, is one. Alan Gottlieb once also told the Microsoft Gun Club (now “The Gun Club at Microsoft”) Chuck Schumer didn’t hate guns so much as he hated our culture.
Think about that. This isn’t really about guns. This is about destroying the individualist culture. The concept of the individual and individual rights is one of the fundamental differences between western culture and all others. And these people want to destroy it.—Joe]
This bill represents a major investment in the protection of our children and our communities, and reflects the long-term societal costs of gun and ammunition purchases in our country.
William Pascrell
U.S Representative, Democrat, New Jersey
August 26, 2013
Dem bill would trigger huge new taxes on guns, ammo
[He’s got it totally backward. If you really want to interfere with the free market in an attempt to improve society in regards to firearms there should be subsidies for guns, ammo, accessories, and training. There should be outreach programs for those most at risk from criminal violence and social workers should help them get the proper equipment and training to both help them get out of potentially violent environments and defend themselves and other innocent life as necessary.
But since Pascrell and other are so ignorant and bigoted they can’t or won’t comprehend the data that shows guns do more good than harm. Let alone that the right to keep and bear arms is a specific enumerated right that can no more be taxed than speech, religion, and freemen (the 13th Amendment). Hence they will just continue the way of the KKK into the dustbin of history.—Joe]
Where laws and politics are concerned, no battle for freedom is ever won in perpetuity. But gun owners have certainly pushed freedom’s adversaries back across the Rhine, and apparently no one knows it better than Josh Horwitz.
NRA-ILA
August 23, 2013
What a Difference a Year Makes
[Horwitz is the director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence which was formally known as the National Coalition to Ban Handguns. You might think that the name change was to soften their image of gun banners but actually it was because they wanted to broaden their scope to include “assault weapons”.
And now Horwitz has dreams of, maybe, someday, getting “universal background checks” as the law of the land.
Give it up Josh. Gun ownership is a specific enumerated right and your desire for infringing that right is no more valid than denying the rights guaranteed under the 13th Amendment if someone fails a background check.—Joe]
Waging war against whites is at the core of the Afrikan warrior’s spirit. It’s the flame that drives our willingness to fight in the face of certain defeat and/or death.
….
Afrikan Nationalists must become diligent about making acceptable Black behavior match our Black complexions. We must become militant, hostile, violent, and deadly to those individuals and groups in our community who don’t comply to Black decency and Race First standards. We cannot continue to be Black people with white behavior. – Black Afrikans Only!
Ayo Kimathi
June 8, 2010
Black Ethnic Cleansing: An Idea Whose Time Has Come
[H/T to Lyle in the comments here.
Those who see a revolution on the horizon about freedom/liberty/guns/etc. must also be aware that in almost any revolution there are competing factions. These factions will take advantage of the chaos and fight for domination over the others. In the quote above you can perhaps see more clearly the dichotomy. On one hand he is advocating blacks go to war against whites but he also advocates ethnic cleansing of blacks by blacks. Similar things happen in most civil wars.
In our country in addition to a battle against an oppressive government there would be battles against the communists/socialists/progressives who believe the government should have more power. And the people like the guy quoted above would take advantage of the chaos and fight their own battles. There would not be just two sides, there would be dozens. Civil wars are very messy and there are seldom clear winners.
I believe there are better ways to attempt regaining our freedom.—Joe]
Once we’ve gotten that pesky self-preservation instinct under control, getting everyone to head toward utopia will be as easy as loading a cattle car.
mikee
August 22, 2013
Comment to Evil
[This is in regard to the CSGV making it explicitly as well as implicitly clear they are philosophically opposed to self-defense. It shouldn’t come as that big of a surprise to anyone. As irrational as they (or anyone) are within some restrained context their world view will make sense. I’ve seen this sort of thing in many individuals.
I’m reminded of a joke my psychology professor in college told:
Some guy is in the cafeteria holding an empty water glass to each ear. Another guy comes up to him and the conversation goes like this:
Guy2: Why are you holding the water glasses to your ears?
Guy1: It keeps the wild elephants away.
Guy2: But there aren’t any wild elephants in North America.
Guy 1: See! It works!
It is going to be very difficult to convince, in the abstract, the guy with the water glasses that he is wrong about their effects. Within his set of constraints his world view is entirely consistent. Rock solid logic.
The anti-gun person is going to be drawn to the same sort of constrained world view where their logic works. It might go something like this:
Guns are bad.
Guns are used for self-defense.
Self-defense involving lethal force must therefore be bad.
The lethal force qualifier may or may not be required.
It turns out that the concept of using lethal force for self defense is not a universally believed to be moral. I’ve talked to people that strongly believed in “proportional response” even when the aggressor was using lethal force such as a club or a knife. A gun would not be “proportional”. Somehow they believe, and sometimes explicitly state (as my cousin, who has been raped three times that I know of, once told me), that it would be worse to be killed with a gun than clubbed or stabbed to death. In their world view if there were no guns in the hands of private citizens then even the weak/disabled/elderly would not need guns because they would (almost) never have to confront someone with a gun. Hence victims would (almost) never be justified in using a firearm for self defense because proportional force would (almost) always be something less than a gun.
But, you might claim, eliminating self-defense is a long way from loading up the cattle cars. There isn’t anyone that wants to do that these days.
I would like to remind you of Barack Obama’s “neighbor and family friend” Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground who told FBI informant Larry Grathwohl:
I asked, “Well what is going to happen to those people we can’t reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?” And the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated.
And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.
And when I say “eliminate,” I mean “kill.”
Twenty-five million people.
I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people and they were dead serious.
You could now claim that that was a FBI informant that can’t be trusted.
Perhaps. But it is consistent with what happened in the USSR. They sent 10’s of millions to reeducation camps. And they sent millions to their graves in their pursuit of utopia.
How could they rationalize that? How could they believe that was a path to utopia?
Easy. My communist brother-in-law, a business professor in Chicago, indirectly explained it to me:
The good of the majority always outweighs the good of the individual.
My protestation about individual rights being violated were dismissed without concern:
You have to look at the big picture. The good of the majority is more important that the individual.
He views me as narrow minded. He claims that I “can’t see the big picture”. My examples of tens of millions of innocent people murdered by their own governments in the last century were dismissed with:
We just need to have the right people in charge.
It’s all so simple, logical, and blindingly obvious to these people. This is why they think there is something wrong with us. This is why they want “reeducation camps”. They really believe that despite the grinding poverty and mass graves of all the communist utopia that it is always the fault of a few greedy/selfish/ignorant/stupid individuals that their utopia fails to materialize. Reeducate those that are willing and elimination of the rest and then mankind will finally achieve equality, peace, and social justice. How can it be a high price to pay to dismiss the so called rights of an individual when the achievement of a peaceful forever is so close? What about the rights of the billions of others and the billions more to be born in the future? Don’t they have a right to live in utopia?
The cattle cars will be filling up soon. It’s for the greater good.
My belief is that the greater good will be achieved by small pieces of precisely placed rifling engraved copper jacketed lead in the heads of the so called leaders and intellectuals who give the orders to load the buses and trains*. They think I’m just a narrow minded bigot who can’t see the big picture. But they mistake the narrow focus for narrow mindedness and underestimate the clarity of the picture at a distance with my Leupold scope.—Joe]
* One could make the case there is a compelling reason why liberals are so opposed to individual transportation.
Ancient tribal cultures were held together by the common cause of survival. The desire for control of the tribe had to be backed up by strength, sharp senses and good judgment, or the tribe would either fail or select a new leader by any means necessary, and quickly.
In our industrial society, with property rights, specialization and mass production of everything imaginable, what is the jealous megalomaniac to do so as to get people to submit? Strength, sharp senses and good judgment are better utilized in the markets or to improve one’s own property, and so those attributes don’t go looking for political power. The megalomaniac doesn’t have the fear of starvation or wild predators, he doesn’t have that common, obvious, consolidated will to follow along just to eat or to keep the rival tribe at bay, so he has to invent fears and uncertainties, and inculcate them into the society. He needs you believing that you need him. He needs to be needed, therefore he cannot abide the strong and the capable. He cannot abide a well-functioning, prosperous society. He needs you on your knees.
So the next time you find yourself wondering how someone could say something so toweringly “stupid”, do such “stupid” and obviously counterproductive things or be so “irrational” and contradictory as the average politician, wonder no more. There is a clear, deadly method to all the madness. Be sure– the wannabe rulers and plunderers (same thing) need you to be uncertain, fearful, upset, angry, off-balance, distracted, pointing fingers at “the other guys”, confused, and on the whole, weak. Otherwise you’d never give the son of a bitch the time of day. As it is, you hang on his every word, most especially when he’s being a total jackass. See how that works?
Don’t fall for it, Grasshopper. When Megalomaniac (any politician or policy wonk) gets you into a heated argument over policy details, stupid plans, silly assertions, statistics, global economic theories and so on, he’s got you right where he wants you. Whether you go along or rebel, you have been played.
“Oh; you don’t like this particular megalomaniac? No problem– There are hundreds from which to choose. Why, come right over here, My Friend– I just got this one in on trade, just this morning as a matter of fact, and she’s a real gem…”
Why isn’t the forcing of Obama Care upon the people a First Amendment issue? Isn’t freedom of association a protected right anymore? If some group of people, say an insurance company, wants to contract with an individual, a group of individuals, or another company then why are those individuals and groups not free to associate with each other as they please?
Ry told me about this then I got an email from the Firearm Blog Editor about it as well:
(b) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Agriculture shall develop a list of potential regulatory and legislative proposals to improve the safe and secure storage, handling, and sale of ammonium nitrate and identify ways in which ammonium nitrate safety and security can be enhanced under existing authorities.
AN is the main ingredient in both Boomerite and Tannerite. It seems unlikely that any regulation that does not make mining and construction use of AN, where most explosive grade AN is used, impractical will cause problems for Boomershoot. But it might for Tannerite. For example, if in order to purchase, possess, or store AN you were required to have a permit then it would make the use of Tannerite a big hassle for the individual.
But, as I can almost hear the regulators say, “And your point is?”
I fear that someday the point will have to be made with a 168 grain Sierra Match King.
We need a more authoritative world. We’ve become a sort of cheeky, egalitarian world where everyone can have their say. It’s all very well, but there are certain circumstances – a war is a typical example – where you can’t do that. You’ve got to have a few people with authority who you trust who are running it.
…
But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.
James Lovelock
March 2010
James Lovelock: ‘Fudging data is a sin against science’
[A pretty good case can be made that one of the main motivators for the whole global cooling/warming/change fraud is to give more power to governments. That this guy, a global warming fire and brimstone prophet, embraces the government acquisition of power should come as no surprise.
And just who do you think will have the authority? You can be pretty certain he thinks he will have a lot of it. But historically, from China and the USSR, people like him were the first to get a bullet to the back of the head or sent to the gulag.—Joe]
Tea party favorite, Marco Rubio has become a tragic figure. Now we must do what the Progressives want, or Obama will do worse by executive order. It’s one or the other, Marco says. No way out. No hope.
It happens to the best of us. We were all warned about this in the 1970s. Remember it. You may be all full of piss and vinegar now, in the comfort of home, with the deli just a hop and a skip away, but you WILL be afraid.
Then again, there is something we all need to ponder daily. We get frustrated at this or that Republican for his “having no courage” or for being “stupid”, etc., BUT in order to “fold” due to your cowardice or your stupidity, you must actually have had principles in the first place rather than acting like you had them so you could win an election.
The point is; there may be cowards and there may be idiots, but just as often there are schmucks who just play us for votes because they like playing the game. It helps them feel better than you.
If three percent of Americans were actually behind the American Revolution, I’d say there are far less than that number of principled members of Congress today. That comes to maybe five people.
In other words; there is no political solution, so you’d best be looking elsewhere. Politics is a distraction for the most part.