Category Archives: Freedom

Check Your Premises

Posted on by

I thought we knew what we were fighting for, and against.  I thought we were in favor of the right to keep and bear arms.  I thought we understood what a right means and how it works in the world.  Instead, it seems we have Chief Runs-with-a-Premise in charge of setting our narrative (and the fact that it seems we even have a narrative, meaning repetitions of the same fool nonsense over and over, is fairly disturbing in itself).


I thought we had dispelled the left’s highly imaginative premise that says a criminal can’t get a gun (and therefore can’t hurt anyone) unless our “lax” gun laws “allow” criminals to get guns, but it turns out that most of us are embracing that very premise with regard to Fast and Furious, and embracing it with relish.


Posit; You see a video of some jihadists sawing the head off of a captured American.  Is your first reaction; “Well Goddamit, I want to know who made that saw!!!  We must also find out who sold that saw and see to it that they are punished.  Enough is enough!  Enough of these lax saw laws!  The National Saw Association is just as guilty of murder as anyone!”  Really?


No, Young Grasshopper; check your premises.  Please.  It’s not about where the saw came from is it?  Yet that’s the very case you’re making against Obama, Holder and the gang.  You are ceding one of the primary, false premises to the Enemy.  Stop it!


The Mexican drug gangs get their guns any damn where they want to, and they sure don’t need anyone in the U.S. for that.  They will kill one way or another, and they will get their guns one way or another (and our drug Prohibition law will ensure that this never stops– Oh yes, our drug laws, gun laws and gang are inseparable, though you thought this three way, authoritarian-feeding racket was all about “helping people”, reducing crime, or some such blather).


Grasshopper; are you listening?  Snap out of it, Man!


The point is; Our President along with his carefully hand-picked attorney general, the BATFE and the FBI, collaborating with Mexican gangsters, initiated a fraud against the American people.  They initiated and perpetrated a fraud so as to garner support for more infringements on Americans’ right to keep and bear arms.


If you want to point out the deaths from infringements on Americans’ gun rights, point to the multitudes who’ve been victimized in gun free zones, or anywhere or any time someone who would have had a gun for defense was prohibited by law from having a gun for defense, and died or was seriously injured or otherwise victimized as a result.  THAT is your body count.


We need look no farther than here;
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/242fin.htm
Read those words very, very carefully.  I now doubt that many of you have been paying a lot of real, serious attention.  I believe that you’ve been caught up in the game, or with your blogs and radio show businesses, or something else I don’t know about.


Read.  The.  Words.


Forget about what you feel, or the business aspect, or the silly political game or whatever it is you’re playing, or what you want to see and hear verses what you actually see and hear.  I’ve been seeing a trend among our ranks– a lot of assuming, inferring and…I don’t know what to call it except failing to understand the basics and failing to see and hear what’s being written and said, and I don’t like it.  I don’t want to be everyone’s friend, or accepted in this or that group or whatever, so I can say it– you’re missing the point and it’s sad.


And you Republicans; Why is it so damned difficult to see a crime, CALL IT a crime, and prosecute it as a crime?  Seriously.  Wasn’t that supposed to be your job?  I mean, isn’t the fact that we have downright criminals in high places in our government pretty much an overriding concern?  Get busy, you slackers!  Or do you have too much to hide, yourselves?  Or are you just cowards?  I think we’ve had just about enough of cowards in government, haven’t we?


ETA: It seems the DOJ took down the link, so here are the words, right in your lap;


DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
Summary:
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.


For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.


The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.


TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Quote of the day—Appellate Judge D. Michael Swiney

Posted on by

There is no economic sliding scale for the right to engage in constitutionally protected activities. The richest and poorest among us, as well as those individuals in-between, all have the same rights under the constitution. We hold that, as the ordinance could apply to virtually any pair or group of people engaged in a common activity, the ordinance is overly broad.

Appellate Judge D. Michael Swiney
Tennessee Court of Appeal
Street preacher wins battle against Maryville permit ordinance
June 19, 2012
[This was in regards to $50 permit being required by the city of Maryville Tennessee in order to exercise your First Amendment rights in public.

Via Say Uncle who asks, “So, we should get rid of the fees associated with getting a permit to carry a firearm?”—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jeff Knox

Posted on by

To date, no gun-control scheme of any sort has ever been proven to deliver even minor reductions in crime, accidents or suicides in any nation. Even if restrictions were to reduce some aspect of crime, they could not be justified because they undermine both the individual right to self-defense and the collective right to political self-determination.

Jeff Knox
June 14, 2012
Chinese plot to strip Americans of firearms–Jeff Knox explains how communist ideals converge in both Asia and U.S.
[And yet those that would ban guns keep trying. One could claim they are ignorant or have evil intent. But I think both are somewhat rare. As near as I can tell the vast majority of anti-gun people are mentally defective.—Joe]

Unauthorized Eating! Oh My!

Posted on by

I went to an FFA meeting a while back.  It was a pot luck banquet.  We all ate food that was prepared by semi annoymous, untrained, untested, unlicensed cooks in multiple households without inspection, using unlicensed, uninspected, unauthorized cooking equipment.  It was served in the open on low tables with no sneeze guards, and in some cases there were no tongs for serving things like hotdogs and hamburger patties.  We were drinking lemonade from an unknown source, dispensed from a communal, uninspected cooler that was being serviced by multiple, untrained, unlicensed kids.  There were no ingredients listed and there was no nutritional information posted.  No one knew for sure whether there were organic or green or union-made or imported or genetically altered foods, whether the various types of not exactly specified meat were “free range” or not and no one gave a flying crap.  It was good food.  Shockingly, no one died, or even got sick from it.  No one wet their pants even.


Better yet, a good time was had by all– There were no parasite/bureaucrats or parasite/government thugs getting in our way, no one was accusing us, no one was groping us and no one was threatening us.  This is how we eat on a regular basis and we will keep it that way.


So yeah; if you don’t like what we’re doing in this neck of the woods, just keep your worthless, less than worthless, pathetic, parasitic, self-serving, batshit insane, power-mad selves out of our way.  I know that it is virtually impossible to reason with you.  To beg people who don’t believe in freedom, asking them for our freedom, is a fool’s erand, and so I have to say that when push comes to shove, there are plenty of people who can shove back as hard as you can shove and who aren’t intimidated.  Just go and bang your head against a wall next time you feel the urge to fuck with someone.  It’s much safer.

Quote of the day—Raffy Mulivor

Posted on by

Americans are peace-loving people, but if you start up with us, we’re going to kick your butt.

Raffy Mulivor (12 years old)
June 16, 2012
This was when he was asked to explain the meaning of the arrows and olive branch in the eagle’s claws on symbols in the Great Seal of the United States.
[Via email from his father Phil Mulivor, author of Proclaiming Liberty: What Patriots and Heroes Really Said About the Right to Keep and Bear Arms–Joe]

A step in the right direction

Posted on by

Via Politico I found out Rand Paul has introduced legislation which from a principled viewpoint I find pathetic. Only if I put my Wookie suit in a hidden vault and delete thousands of blog posts could I praise his first piece of proposed legislation. It is “a ‘Bill of Rights’ for air travelers” (S. 3302). “Guaranteeing a traveler’s right to request a pat-down using only the back of the hand” is to be considered a “right’? Really?


We don’t need a new law like this, we just need to enforce those already on the books. I’m of the opinion the 4th Amendment is the guaranteed right. All who voted for or have been involved in the implementation of TSA should be prosecuted under 18 USC 241 and/or 18 USC 242. Impose fines for every violation and you would see second thought given to a lot of other government infringements of our rights as well as A Security Theater going down in flames.


The other Bill, S. 3303, “ends the TSA screening program and requires screening of passengers at airports to be conducted by private screeners only”. While elimination of the TSA would earn my praise the requirement that private business violate our 4th Amendment rights nearly nullifies the benefit.


But, as I said, that is from a principled viewpoint. Principles are a serious obstacle in politics. If you want to get anything done you had best leave your principles at the door and just keep a short cheat sheet up your coat sleeve when you enter the legislative arena. If either of these bills could be passed it would be a step in the right direction. Incrementalism is sometimes all that is politically feasible and that we have legislators looking for a path in the proper direction is something to be pleased with.

Quote of the day—Jesse Ventura

Posted on by

People in this country need to understand when you go to any airport in the United States, you are not protected by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. They can do anything they want to you and there is no where you can go to seek redress.

Jesse Ventura
June 13, 2012
Jesse Ventura No Longer Flies, Thanks To Transportation Security Administration
[Well… strictly speaking there are some options. They just aren’t legal.

What really needs to be done is to abolish the Security Theater known as TSA.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Timothy A Campbell

Posted on by

Just make gun ownership punishable by death and we won’t need any more prisons or court systems. We will all be free.

Timothy A Campbell
June 12, 2012
On Twitter via a Linoge retweet.
[Not even a court system to judge those accused of gun ownership?

Why are anti-gun people so violent?

Campbell uses that word “free”. I don’t think it means what he thinks it means.—Joe]

Jobs Jobs Jobs (and Governor Butch Otter)

Posted on by

Just in case you’re confused on the subject (and I know that millions of people are); the purpose of a business is not to “provide jobs”.  Not ever.  Don’t even think about it.  Stop talking about it.


The Republican Governor of the State of South Idaho is one of those who are deeply confused.  He instated his “Hire One” program to nudge us into hiring people.  We’re supposed to go to some government web site and see if we “qualify”.  (Ooh!  Do I “Qualify?  Maybe I’m “special”)  Maybe that’s the “jobs program” right there— more state workers to manage the web sites and the “jobs” program implementation, whether or not anyone applies.  To hell with that, Governor Otter.  My business is not a stupid Butch Otter, State Government “jobs” program.


If we really need more help, we (without holding your hand and without being threatened) will hire someone.  That is, unless taxes, requirements, energy prices inflated due to restrictions, red tape and more restrictions get in the way, and unless you stick your nose where it doesn’t belong and use the coercive power of government to favor some businesses or industries at the expense of others– then we’d be expected to come crawling to you for some of that favoritism that only communists and mobsters have the power to dole out to their supporters.  I’ll die first.  I want nothing to do with you.  I have work to do.  You and your fellow communists at all levels are in the way.  Just get the hell out of the way.  Understand?  No; I’m sure you don’t.  You have “interests” to pander to.  You’re a coward at best, and we have no use for cowards.


You’d rather have a government “jobs program” so you can take credit for that which I accomplish in spite of your interference and confiscation.  Have you ever considered a “liberty program” instead of a “jobs program”?  No; I’m sure you haven’t.  Too novel.  It takes too much imagination for some people.  Communist scum don’t think that way, see.  They think instead of how they can meddle, how they can take credit for other people’s work, and live as parasites off of other people’s honest work.


The purpose of business, Little Grasshopper, is to create goods and services, sell them at competitive prices, and thereby make a profit.  See– jobs don’t even figure into it, except that in order to provide our goods and services at competitive prices, we NEED to hire as few people as possible to get it done right.  Otherwise our expenses are too high and we fail.  Get it?  No; I’m sure you don’t.  If you got it, you wouldn’t be talking about “Jobs” AT ALL.  Jobs are what happen naturally when you leave people alone, you ignorant, pathetic, self-serving heap of RINO shit.  Only communists talk about “jobs” in the context of government action.


The rest of us talk about liberty, because we want you off our backs so we can produce, sell, buy, exercise ownership of what we make, and live in peace.  Get it?  No; I’m sure you don’t.  Your actions and your language betray you, Fool.  You don’t belong here— not in the Republican Party and not in America.


We’ll make it real simple;  People either a) work, because they’re free, or they b) don’t work because they’re not free (government’s paying them not to work or the government’s in the way).  “Government jobs program” is therefore something of a contradiction in terms, and the mere fact that we have a Department of Labor is an affront to America.

Quote of the day—Mark Alger

Posted on by

The Left’s ideas are un-falsifiable. Their ignorance is invincible. This is why the notion is rapidly catching on that there is no compromising with them. They must be defeated and kept away from the levers of power. Whole swathes of society, which were abandoned to their depredations — education, journalism, the arts — must be reclaimed from them or given up altogether. Some may be converted through repeated teaching and their own experience, but — sadly — not many. It will not be a quick process. There will be many setbacks. But it must be done or the whole of civilization will be taken down by their idiocy.

Mark Alger
June 8, 2012
Comment to Seriously scary stuff.
[I really need to finish reading The Handbook of 5GW. As Ry told me, “This is where we need to be.”

Warfare, at the most fundamental level, does not mean destruction of life or property although that is a means to the ultimate goal of warfare. Warfare is about getting people to change their behavior. Sometimes that is about getting people to give up their natural resources or it might be about getting people to change their religious beliefs. Even if the purpose of the war was to extinguish an entire race or society the goal, ultimately, was about changing behavior (stop them from breathing).

Seen through this light we liberate ourselves because we release we are at war and that it is acceptable for us to go to war. The traditional tools of war including slings, arrows, chemicals, and bullets do not necessarily have to be used directly. The mere presence of our training and firearms will probably be sufficient prevent the war we are in from “going hot”,  We have other weapons at our disposal which must be deployed. We must get those in power and those that demand power over us to stop their behavior. We have votes, the courts, propaganda, education, and probably a thousand other things at our disposal. But we must win this war. Our country, no, all human society, is being laid to waste by those that believe they know better than the individual how the individual should spend the fruits of their labor. And this behavior must be stopped.—Joe]

Seriously scary stuff

Posted on by

While Bloomberg’s retarded proposal to limit the size of soft drink containers is getting a lot of attention I don’t think most people really understand how serious the problem is. I’ve had conversations with a few people who were admitted Marxist and many others who merely claimed they were Liberals or Progressives. One of the things they all had in common was their extremely simple view of the world while simultaneously proclaimed they were smarter than others and that gave them the authority to force others to live as they demanded. Any mention of individual freedom was immediately shot down because “People don’t do what is best for themselves or society.”


One of the admitted Marxists proclaimed, “I’m a firm believer in the good of society over the good of the individual.” In his world view the individual just doesn’t matter. Government must do what is best for the good of society and if the individual sometimes doesn’t get what they want or gets hurt that is just too bad. Pointing out I could find nothing different in that justification versus that used by those who murdered innocent civilians in 10s of millions in the last century yielded comments to the effect of “They made some horrible mistakes. We just need the right people in charge.” Of course he believed he was one of the right people.


Just as Bloomberg apparently cannot think one step ahead to how easily his proposed restriction on “high capacity” soft drink containers would be defeated these people cannot envision what follows next from their every proposed attempt at restricting individual liberty and the free market. In one of the recent books of Thomas Sowell that I listened to he related the story of when he was a economics student and was enamored with some idea that would “force people to do the right thing”. He proudly presented it to his instructor who asked, “And then what happens?” Sowell initially was perplexed. Why of course, the desired outcome would happen. There was a law or regulation that required people to do the right thing. The instructor pushed him to think it through from an economics point of view. And Sewell thought it through and gave the answer that only slightly diminished his enthusiasm for the idea. The instructor again pushed, “And then what happens?” Again Sowell answered and his enthusiasm damped just a bit more. As the instructor pushed him again and again Sowell walked through the rippling effects of the simple one law and it was not long before he realized that not only was the effect of the law far less simple than what he thought but it would not result in his desired outcome. Everyone touched by the “one simple law” would pay a price with no one, except perhaps the bureaucrats and the politicians, receiving a net benefit.


The typical gun controller cannot conceive of why registration of firearms would not make society safer. Unintended consequences escape their grasp all the while they proclaim themselves to be morally and intellectually superior to us. It’s all just “common sense” to them. They vehemently insist there are, literally, easy answers to some difficult problems that involve the constitution, criminology, psychology, and practicality of implementation. I sometimes believe those that insist that if someone had not had a concealed carry permit they wouldn’t have committed multiple murders must be suffering from some kind of insanity. If one is willing to break the law against murder why would they obey the law against carrying a concealed firearm or even ownership of a firearm? Why is it so incredibly difficult for them to think even one step ahead?


I struggle with how to get what I think are extremely simple concepts across to these people. Even everyday things Liberals/Progressives claim to be experts on they are profoundly ignorant and/or stupid on. One Liberal I know went on about how because something was “natural” it was “so much better for you”. I asked what the definition of “natural” was. Was this opposed to “super-natural”? This is about the only thing that even comes close in my mind. She said, “No. Natural is something that is not man-made.” “So”, I queried, “Does that mean the lemonade you are drinking is not natural? At the bare minimum a man or woman had to squeeze the juice from the lemon and mix it with water.” The response was, “If you ask that then you are just stupid.”


This liberal can’t even present a defendable definition of a word that she uses in probably 25% of her conversations with me and she calls me stupid? How do you get through to someone like that?


Sowell’s instructor had an advantage we don’t. He or she had a very bright student with a grasp of economic theory and the student was in a subordinate position. Liberals/Progressives will not tolerate being in a subordinate position. They believe they are superior to non-liberals and any challenge to that world view is met with an attack. And if the verbal attack isn’t sufficient to “win” their argument they are more than willing, as Bloomberg is demonstrating, to use force to get our compliance.


People with the intellectually power and problem domain knowledge of a 2nd grader are demanding they be put in charge of essentially everything with guns to back up their decisions. This is some seriously scary stuff.

Quote of the day—Bob Budz

Posted on by

Big Brother is now here – and look, he is retarded!

Bob Budz
Via Jeff Cooper’s Commentaries, Vol. 2, No.1 January 1, 1994
[Although it was said over 18 years ago I have to think it is more true today than it was then. At that time Mayor Bloomberg had not yet taken it upon himself to try and restrict the size of soda cups. Perhaps he is too stupid to realize that if he wants more than ‘X’ number of ounces he can hold a cup in each hand each holding ‘X -1’ ounces but very few others are so handicapped.—Joe]

Our Vice Moron at it Again

Posted on by

Imagine, in just a few years, solar shingles on your brand new custom house (all you high school graduates) that cost no more than regular shingles, that will power everything in your house, heating, AC the whole deal.  Imagine crops that don’t need soil (OK, maybe hydroponics) and no water (oops) and no fertilizer.  Magic crops.  “Literally just around the corner.”


And of course none of that can happen if the eeevil Republicans are in power.  Only more of ‘bama’s stash money can make the magic happen.  The private markets?  Meh.  All that’s done is fail continuously for 200+ years, apparently.  What’s been happening in the last few years– that’s the ticket, Baby.


Now if kids actually learned science, physics, biology or basic economics, they’d laugh that gibbering idiot off the podium.  This is where our Soviet-style education system comes in.  Of course now anyone can look up maximum and average available energy per unit area at their latitude at various times of the year, and the efficiency of the best PV panels, take into account the problem of tracking, or in the case of your magic roof shingles the lack of tracking, and so on.  And naturally, to get the most out of your magic solar roof shingles you’ll have to cut down the trees that shade your house, increasing the AC load.  Or maybe not, being as they’re magic and all.


He had a teleprompter, so I have to assume that he didn’t make that up as he went along.  There had to have been some planning behind it.


The Moron in Chief, to make himself look better by comparison, had pick the stupidest fool he could find I guess, and then put him out there to show the contrast, such as it is.

E = I – R

Posted on by

I heard that formula from Dennis Prager.  It’s the formula for determining happiness, or more specifically, unhappiness.  It stands for; Unhappiness equals the difference between Image and Reality.  To put it the other way around; the greater the correlation between your image (or expectations) of reality and reality itself, the more the happiness.  He’s been studying happiness for some time, and has determined that situation seems to have little to do with a person’s stated happiness, i.e. some people in horrible situations will self describe as fairly happy, while others in what we would think are beautiful situations may self describe as unhappy.


You could substitute image with expectations, or maybe a few other things, but the concept remains the same.  I think he’s on to something.  It’s right along the lines of a saying, which if I’m not mistaken comes from way back in Asia; “Few desires; happy life”.  They’re not identical, but similar.


That brings up the subject of drive (a form of desire, see) which can lead a person to do wonderful things, or horrible things, depending on one’s constitution.  Drive and image are very different.  You may be driven, or inspired, to do something, but if you have a realistic view of reality you have a better chance of accomplishing it and a better ability to deal with it if you don’t accomplish it.  Maybe “few desires; happy life” is an invitation to resignation (get the hope beaten out of you and you’re happy) but it need not be interpreted so.  I prefer U = I – R.


I’ve been on a bit of a departure from Joe’s blog subtitle, but all of this stuff applies very much to politics.  I might bring it around thusly; The angry left is angry (unhappy and blaming others for it) because of a rather serious disconnect from reality.  The next question is; why are the left’s images of reality so far off?  Where do these off-kilter images originate, what put them there and what are the main vectors of propagation?


A slightly simpler formula might be; U = C (unhappiness equals the level of your confusion).  Same thing.  The other would be; H = Ur (your level of happiness equals the degree to which you understand reality).


Hmm; so I guess reason is the path to happiness.  So then I guess we can fight over who has reason and who only thinks they do, and we can kill each other over the question of who is the happiest.

Democracy Dies a Lot

Posted on by

There was a lot more to this vid.  It went on and on, but here’s the gist of it;



“Democracy is dead” every time the communists/parasites lose an election.  This has been going on for years.  Using their reasoning, which says for example that the people can’t be trusted with education and so the government must do it, the people can’t be trusted with guns and so the government must own them all, et., etc., they’ll eventually decide that the people can’t be trusted to vote and so the government must decide everything instead.  Then democracy will be alive again.  See how that works?


The sad thing is that I might have been (no; was) that pathetic fool when I was about that age (having just been freed from the public education gulag and still listening to Pacifica News on Public Radio).  So in a way I do feel for the lad.  Lucky for me there was no internet when I was that age.  It wrenches my gut to think about that– what if there had been?

What is a Man…

Posted on by

…that is not motivated by fear, anger or lust?


This is a companion to yesterday’s quote of the day.


It’s a tough question.  It might upset some people.  It has to asked though, somewhere along the journey.

This could be good

Posted on by

I like what I see here:

The Communist Manifesto

Posted on by

Over the weekend I read The Communist Manifesto for the first time. I expected some sort of almost magical power to draw me into embracing the evil. I was surprised, disappointed, and finally I had a sinking feeling of emptiness as I thought about it more.

The book was like a synopsis of a poorly written alternate history novel. Assumptions critical to the reasoning which followed were unsupported and, at least to my present day perspective, either blatantly wrong or highly suspect. Even conceding the authors their assumptions without contest the conclusions reached with such confidence were as unstable as any house of cards.

And this is the book that convinced millions of people to murder hundreds of millions of others? Is this all that it takes to remove the thin veneer off of civilized behavior and enable the most evil empires human history has ever known? Self-described intellectuals accept this book as a valid political philosophy? These “intellectuals” regard themselves as my betters? Wow!

The typical two year old child or even the family dog wouldn’t accept the conclusions unless they were forced into compliance. It’s no wonder the authors state, “The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can only be attained by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.”

But in talking to Ry about the book I got a new perspective. He said that he first read it when he was about 12 years old and it was like the scales had been removed from his eyes and he saw everything clearly for the first time. Furthermore he said it is no wonder Communists killed off older people with any education or even if they wore glasses. It’s no wonder they attack capitalist societies through the school system. We were and are in a war most people don’t even realize exists (see also The Handbook of 5GW). Ry went on to claim that the book was aimed at the young and “the people with guns, the muscle” who would do the “heavy lifting” of “forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.” These would be people without the intellectual rigor to challenge the assumptions, reasoning, or conclusions.

Okay… I can buy into that hypothesis for now.

The obvious question then becomes why do the people who claim to be the intellectuals of our society so much more likely to advocate for Communism?

I know a professor who admits he is a Marxist. He once insisted our family should not be allowed to own the home we do because we “don’t need such a big house.” The “government should let someone with a bigger family use that house.” This professor told me the previous dozens or hundreds failed attempts at implementing a Communist utopia failed because, “The right people weren’t in charge. We just need to have the right people.” I explained that concentrated power of that sort attracts the “wrong” people who would always succeed in the acquisition and control of that power. He insisted that “we just need to get the right people in power.” I then sent him a copy of The Road to Serfdom. I don’t know if he even read it but I do know his attitude has not changed. He believes he is an intellectual superior in our society. He is a professor. He knows what is best for our society. Of course you know he voted for Obama. But I could have given you 20 chances and you would not have guessed that he is a professor in a school of business.

So one answer to the obvious question is we are at war and most people don’t even know it.

Another possible answer is something Sarah once asked me, “Have you ever noticed that liberals are not very bright?” I was a bit shocked. Someone else noticed? I am a bit sensitive about challenging the intellectual capacity of others because I know there are many things that I don’t know and seem to be beyond my capacity to understand (such as the mass appeal of The Communist Manifesto). But here was someone else, without an engineer’s mind, who noticed it too. As I pondered the book and Ry’s observations I realized that was another plausible answer to the obvious question.

The Communist Manifesto tells its readers that supporters of Communism are the intelligent people. They deserve, are destined to, and the good of all human kind depends on them, being in charge. That they “understand” the benefits of Communism to the bafflement of others is probably proof to them that they are the intellectual superiors of those that think Communism is, at best, prone to abuse.

In other words the second plausible answer to the obvious question is that those that advocate Communism are not very bright people who want to believe they are the brightest of all people. And that The Communist Manifesto tells them they are the brightest enables them to then claim themselves as intellectuals.

Regardless of the plausible answers I have no choice but to view Communism as a cancer which has metastasized beyond the point which surgery or chemotherapy can do little more than delay the death of the host. And it can all be traced back to one little book. I’ve written thousands of blog posts on freedom related topics and thousands of others far smarter than me have written hundreds of times more than me with hundreds of examples of Communism evil and failure. Yet we are losing to a couple of guys who have been dead for 120 years who wrote something that was little more than a synopsis of a poorly written alternate history novel.

Man, that sure does suck.

It’s a Matter of Context

Posted on by

I point out, to those who are befuddled by the Chinese criticizing America’s human rights record, that we are talking about one communist government criticizing another.


See?  It makes perfect sense.


“Human rights” you see, means the right to be controlled by an all-knowing and all-powerful government.


Better now?