Category Archives: Philosophy

Calling it ‘Ignorance’ is being generous

Posted on by

I had thought it was well understood that one of the tactics of the anti rights movement has been to blur the distinction between fully automatic and semi automatic firearms (the former being ultra-restricted and therefore ultra-expensive and prohibitive and the latter being widely available and affordable). Apparently I’ve been very wrong.

Coyness apparently remains one of the most successful ruses for the anti liberty movement, even today when we have so much information at our fingertips that ANYONE who cares enough to jiggle his fingers over a keyboard for a few seconds can learn just about anything that is known by anyone.

That proves that most of us in the pro-liberty camp still fail to understand what we’re up against.

KNOW THY ENEMY!

It has been well-documented that anti-rights activists have spoken about, and organized efforts aimed at, confusing the issue of full verses semi auto, and yet we still would rather have fun pointing out the “stupidity” of people like Don Lemon. Well the joke’s on us, people.

More to the point though; if we were standing on principle, the distinction between full and semi wouldn’t matter. The Progressives have had most of us cowed for generations into accepting the NFA, and “defending” ourselves by accepting THEIR premise that, “Oh, well yeah– NO one wants machineguns ‘on the streets’! No-no-no-no!”

And so it’s an interesting play we’re in. The antis are using our own faults against us, by fooling people into making a distinction (which they’re trying to blur now) that only matters because they’ve been successful in fooling or intimidating us.

It’s the very definition of Progressivism. Get us comfortable with one outrage (in this case the NFA) and use that as a stepping stone to the next outrage (conflating semis with the already successfully demonized autos).

Far from calling Don Lemon an idiot or an ignoramus then, I’d say he’s pretty damned clever. So far he appears to have fooled 100% of the commenters on that Beck article.

Quote of the day—Doug Huffman

Posted on by

We were horrified, and rightly so, at Adolf Hitler’s solution to the problem. But we haven’t got a solution to the problem either.

Doug Huffman
August 16, 2014
[No. No any sort of mythical “Jewish problem.” The problem Doug was talking about was what to do with those people that are “unfit” to support themselves because they are too stupid, crazy, or lazy. In our society we are on track for an Idiocracy type “solution”.

Doug and I talked late into the night on this and other somewhat related topics.

The problem as I see it is that our ethics are appropriate for a tribe but they don’t scale to a population of a million people let along a population of 300+ million. When we see someone, children in particular, hungry or in need of care we help them even if they will never be able (or choose) to support themselves.

In a tribe of a 100 to 200 people everyone know everyone else and the peer pressure significantly reduces the freeloader problem. As soon as there is anonymity freeloaders become an essentially unsolvable problem. And with large numbers of people combined with a society in possession of advanced technology in the essentials of life it now becomes possible to support those that cannot support themselves as well as those who chose not support themselves.

And with that support of those who cannot and choose not to support themselves we end up, literally, breeding more of them. We are scared, perhaps even justifiably horrified, of the risks of the government assuming the power to mandate some people not be allowed to reproduce or to raise their children the way they see fit.

I see horrific outcomes in either of the two “solutions”.

There is at least one other potential solution. It is, as I see it, the least unpleasant of the available alternatives and as you might expect, the least likely path for our society to take.

That potential solution is for our Federal government to stay within it Constitutional bounds. If the individual states or counties or cities wanted to experiment with government welfare or “free healthcare” then those experiments could have run their course over the last 200+ years.

What I expect would have happened is with enough of these type of experiments being run that people would realize there are some people that we just have to let “nature take its course” with. We would have a lot fewer freeloaders. We would have a constant, but small, set of tragic cases of people that could not support themselves and could not convince family and/or friends to support them.

There would be heart wrenching cases and people would organize charities (Shriners, Elks Club, Eagles Club, Salvation Army, etc.). to help those for whom help was appropriate. The decision to help or “let nature take its course” would be done in more of a “tribe environment” for which our ethics were “designed” for.

I don’t see how our society can get from where we are now to the “least bad of the available options” without a lot of pain, suffering, and death. It’s like trying to solve a global optimization problem when the slopes of the sides of current local optimum are steep and high.

Nature is “going to take it’s course” with us. All of us. I’m certain many, perhaps even a large percentage of, people will survive the big “challenges” ahead. But I cannot predict if those challenges will send our descendants to the stone ages  or to a Star Trek universe. But one way or another this ethical problem will “resolve” itself if we don’t resolve it.

Nature is testing it’s own “solutions” right now. Ebola, economic instability, and even the immigration issue are in beta test now. They may not be released soon or even ever if people do the right thing. But if we don’t then full production of something awful is coming soon.—Joe]

If it’s not true it should be

Posted on by

Dan here at UltiMAK told me recently that the word “understand” comes from building, or dwelling construction, long ago. If you were going to add a floor atop an existing structure, you would need to “understand” the structure so as to prevent catastrophic failure (that is to say; support with additional stands underneath). If your building collapsed, you failed to “understand”.

That would make our current usage another of the many euphemisms that we no longer know to be euphemisms (at least I never knew – maybe you all heard it before, or maybe it’s not true). It would also add a layer of perception to the word. If you fail to “understand” you failed to acquire, or to take the time to construct, the requisite foundation and lower level structure to support what you just saw or heard, and so it collapses in on you.

All guns are always loaded

Posted on by

That’s gun safety rule one. Cooper said that it’s not a guide to behavior but rather a statement of condition. (For those unfamiliar, “condition” in this sense refers to the status of the gun, whether it’s loaded, or cocked, whether the safety catch is on, etc.)

That’s the problem with weapon “safety” isn’t it? If you keep a gun for self defense, and you treat all guns as though they’re always loaded, and it turns put that the one you need to defend your life is unloaded, you’re not at all safe. A gun is supposed to be dangerous! but only to your chosen target.

As a matter of personal taste I prefer the NRA rule “Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use”. The guns I keep for defense are “in use” all the time and so they are loaded, whether on my hip or leaning in the corner.

I showed a couple how to load a percussion revolver the other day, by “loading” it with powder and bullets, but since we never applied caps to the cones, it still isn’t “loaded” because I won’t fire without caps. I’ll twirl it if I want to, and you can’t stop me, but I generally won’t twirl a loaded gun even it is single action with the hammer down and nothing you do to the trigger alone can ever make it fire.

We’ve come to a point where we’re making too big a deal out of “safety” and admit it– That’s because of lawyers and politicians (two of the more dangerous kinds of people on Earth if we take them too seriously).

Ultimately, “safety”, to the extent that it exists at all, is between your ears. You’re certainly going to die no matter what though, so cheer up! When people, perfectly well-intended, tell me to “stay safe” as an alternative to “goodbye” or “see you later” it sort of disappoints me. “Have fun” or even “be cool” would be better advice. None of the really fun and memorable, or productive, things I’ve done in life were particularly safe, but they always came off better in a state of coolness.

Here’s another important “safety” rule;
“All lawyers and all politicians are always loaded”

I do like that one. As Cooper said; “It is not a guide of behavior, but rather a statement of condition”, and furthermore it would explain a lot.

At least read the book…

Posted on by

…before you attempt to discredit Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Darwin’s theory is an excellent example of conroversy created out of nothing but gossip, speculation and misinformation.

Oleg Volk reintroduced me to Fred on Everything recently. Fred has some very good and provocative essays. This one however seems to have been written in a vacuum.

I think nearly every question or concern in the essay is addressed carefully and in detail in “On the Origin of Species”.

Also, Darwin was a religious man. I don’t understand the conflict between religion and science. It seems to me that they have the common goal (ostensibly at least) of furthering the cause of general understanding. The only way that conflict makes sense is if those individuals fomenting the conflict are more concerned with power and control than with the process of enlightenment (one cancels the other).

The Progressive’s prayer

Posted on by

Our Government in Washington,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come,
Thy will be done,
on all the U.S., as it is in Washington.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into responsibility,
but deliver us from the constitution.

Psalm of the Progressive

Posted on by

Obama is my shepherd; I shall not want.

Government maketh me to lie down in green pastures: case-workers leadeth me beside the still waters.

Government restoreth my self-esteem: bureaucracy leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for its name’s sake.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no tea-bagger: for government art with me; government’s rod and staff they comfort me.

Government preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: government anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.

Surely welfare checks and subsidies shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in public housing for ever.

(OK, now I feel kinda icky)

Others could do better with the wording, but you get the point.

Extermination Order in Missouri

Posted on by

There was an extermination order against the Mormons in Missouri. It was an executive order by Governor Lilburn Boggs in 1838 and it was technically in effect until 1976.

More on all that here. Something leads me to believe that the story of the Mormon War is relevant to today. Anyway, you might want to read up when you have some time.

Maybe you all knew about it, but I was unaware of that executive order until recent months. Hat tip; Glenn Beck

Something to ponder while we’re working on “shall issue”

Posted on by

I pointed out some years ago that the left, even the most radical, fringe, America-hating communist revolutionary leftist (like some of those in the Whitehouse) understands exactly how a right is supposed to work. We know they fully, completely and thoroughly understand because they’ve spent decades strenuously SHOWING US that they fully understand how a right works, that it means HANDS OFF, NO MATTER WHAT, END OF DISCUSSION, PERIOD!

They therefore can never, ever claim that they just didn’t get it, or hadn’t though enough about it, or didn’t have it presented to them in quite the right ways, or they were too busy, etc.

They’ve even taken their definition of a right beyond mere, total and absolute non-interference no matter what, ever, don’t even THINK about it, and into encouragement and even subsidy of the exercise of a right.

Keep all that in mind during their trials.

If bearing arms is a right, and of course it is, then any permit requirement or any special tax, or any special paperwork, licenses, lists or permission requirement of any kind, ever, is a violation.

To hell with permit reciprocity. The second amendment and incorporation is your legal, reciprocal carry permit, and if ANYONE attempts to hinder or discourage you in that right in any way whatsoever (infringe) they are a scum-sucking criminal, a threat and an enemy, and should be in jail, right now.

This is the Progressive/leftist’s own definition of a right, and I agree with them.

Sure; you can get your permit (I have one) but to fight for the “right” to pay the government for a “permit” to exercise your guaranteed rights is a bit like Jews fighting for the “right” to wear yellow arm bands in 1930s Germany. So I’m a German Jew, proudly wearing my yellow arm band and dutifully showing it any officer of the law who asks, “papers please” and if I don’t happen to have it on me because I forgot or lost my wallet somehow, I get a “beating” for it.

And for THIS sack-of-shit situation we celebrate! Imagine homosexuals celebrating that they can now walk around in MOST public places (but only in their home state and maybe a few others) ONLY SO LONG AS they’re registered with the government as homosexuals and have their homo-card on hand to show police at any moment’s notice for any reason. And as gun owners we celebrate exactly that situation for ourselves.

We’re all damned.

I want to stop arguing over this crap and JUST GET ALONG WITH MY LIFE, UNMOLESTED, but I know that will not happen. You stupid criminal motherfuckers doing the dirty deeds had best be begging for forgiveness from God, because I know it’s not within my power to give it to you and I won’t even try.

Making the enemy’s argument

Posted on by

Now I feel dirty. Last week I was playing devil’s advocate with Joe, making the left’s arguments the best I could, seeing what he’d come up with in response. I think it’s important to have the ability to argue the points of the other side at least as well as those True Believers (useful idiots) that the power brokers rely on to maintain the rank and file. It is my thesis that once you can do a good job making the left’s case, you’ll have a better understanding of the fundamental differences in world views, and can then focus on those differences and bring them to light efficiently.

I wrote this last week, but hesitated to post it. Well here it is anyway;

Joe; Secondary or even tertiary point: Everyone can express an opinion. But until you express it in numbers which actually represent
the benefits and costs you haven’t proved anything beyond that you can string words together and form sentences.

Me; You want to limit the manner in which I may speak. People are not numbers, nor are they statistics. The starving people of the
world, the hopeless and the desperate, do not need statistics to know that they are hungry, and neither numbers nor your fake intellectual arguments for “freedom” will feed them.

Joe; Primary point: Government is force. At the most basic level it is the power to kill people that oppose it. Who granted and where
and when did government get this power to compel the whole of society to work for the “common good” instead of protecting the individual ability to make their own decisions and chart their own course in life?

Me; Yes; government is force, and you are as willing as anyone else to see that force used, so long as it is used to further your
ideals at the expense of other’s ideals.

Who granted, and where did you get the power to decide that people should NOT work for the common good, that they should instead be concerned only with themselves at the expense of everyone else, at the expense of the entire planet, and at the expense of everyone in the future? You are ignoring the grave and destructive consequences of that which you advocate.

Joe; It is immoral to force another to do their bidding for the good of another when their previous actions harmed no one. Your
“greater good” argument is nothing but a weak justification for slavery by another name. Advocates of such a society deserve all the scorn, revulsion, ostracizing, and political as well as physical resistance due any other slaver.

Me: You free-marketers use some form of this argument frequently, but is a false and blatantly hypocritical argument. First; who gave you and your cronies the exclusive power to define for everyone else what is and is not “moral”? It seems you are manipulating that definition to suit your own selfishness and convenience. You often use your “morality” as a weapon against people you wish to suppress, causing them harm.

You are perfectly willing to use force to protect your property and your comfortable way of life, even to the point of owning guns yourself and training to kill people, and yet you complain when government uses force, in a democratic republic which you claim to advocate and which is merely doing the will of the People? Could there BE a higher, more virulent form of hypocrisy? No, Sir; don’t tell me you’re against using force while you simultaneously brag about walking around with a loaded gun. “Disgraceful” doesn’t even begin to describe it.

An don’t speak to me about capitalism having “harmed no one”. The “free market system” (a disgusting term) of greed and opulence for the few is in fact, to put it in your own words, “forcing some to do the bidding of others” as people trapped in poverty are forced to work as wage-slaves for the people with the money and property. Further, when a more powerful corporation puts a smaller one out of business (because they never understand when enough is enough and they always want more more more) they have harmed that smaller business and everyone who depended on it for their sustenance. They’ve been put out onto the streets, and you claim “no harm”? The extent of your denial is fascinating, and very telling. Explain that to the family that’s in bankruptcy court because the parents lost their jobs due to “free market competition” from a Big Box store chain. Capitalism is constantly harming other people, and in many, many ways, and yet you blindly hold it up and cling to it as though it were the greatest thing ever.

Yet I can forgive you– You’ve been conditioned all your life to believe this gunk, and it’s extremely difficult to overcome one’s life-long programming without some kind of shock to initiate the process of waking up from one’s materialist fever. Well I have news for you. I’ll have the courage to say it if no one else will; you had better start waking up because your time is running out– You represent the past whereas We the Citizens of the World represent the future.
===========================================

I think that pretty well represents the mind of the useful idiot. I could go on and on of course, and adding more layers of complexity, more erroneous assertions and accusations, and appeals to envy, anger, victim mentality and other emotion is all part of the game, but that’s a good sample. Those at the top of the political power food chain benefit greatly from this kind of thinking and its proliferation, but they don’t believe any of it for a second. It’s a tool. A big part of the game lies in putting the freedom advocate off his game with endless accusations and insults, never allowing any issue to come to resolution. The crazier the assertions, sometimes, the better– Whatever it takes to hijack someone’s emotions thus throwing them off balance, while taking advantage of any self doubt or insecurity, with the oft used grand finale of putting the capitalist into a pathetic minority, opposed to a glorious and energetic majority. It works extremely well on young people of course, and so they have been a perennial target. We usually fall for it too. Republicans (the ones who may not actually be Progressives) fall for it practically 100% of the time.

Where we often fail is in forgetting that the ideal of freedom appeals to people’s strengths and potential, whereas the leftist tactics appeal to our weaknesses, our emotions of envy, insecurity, fear, anger and so on.

Therefore it’s an entirely different argument with an entirely different set of appeals, with virtually no overlap. What works for the Dark Side cannot, will not, work for human freedom.

Another quote of the day – Thomas Jefferson

Posted on by

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’, because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

“No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.” [Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816]

There have been volumes written about it, but that’s all that needs to said on the subject of liberty. Truth requires few words.

I’ve heard all of the “Yeah but…” arguments, so don’t bother. Those all come from people who see themselves as would-be social engineers (obstructionists).

Quote of the day—Predator

Posted on by

Interestingly, and not surprisingly coming from The Left, he is advocating capital punishment for possessing a philosophy rather than committing an act. Looking at history, that appears to be a constant.

That said philosophy is supported by, and adheres to, centuries of documented, established rights, which in turn is supported by the natural laws of this particular planet, is irrelevant to him; it is the philosophy he considers so dangerous.

This is certainly a real stretch – for the moment, anyway – but at what level does such a threat constitute basis for justifiable defensive action? For now it’s just talk; I suspect as political power waxes and wanes it may not always be.

Predator
December 19, 2013
Referring to This is what they think of you
[To answer the question, it depends upon what your definition of “justifiable defensive action” is.

I consider defensive training, stocking up on ammo, and keeping my home location difficult to find “defensive action” and more than justified by the current enumerable threats to my philosophy, person, and family. If you are talking about using deadly force as the “justifiable defensive action” then the answer is when the threat is eminent and of a nature that it would result in death or permanent injury to an innocent person.

Other than that I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Ordered thought of the day

Posted on by

You know; ordered as opposed to random, just because I feel like being a smart ass.

The most ignorant, uninspired person in the room is the one who’s most interested in running things.

The person who’s doing nothing, seeing the person who’s doing something, will become irritated and try to tell the person who’s doing something that he’s doing it wrong or that he shouldn’t be doing it, and/or that the doer is victimizing the non doer with all his inconsiderate and irresponsible doing. Failure in that strategy requires falling back on plan B; taking credit for the works of the doer that could not be redirected or discouraged.

The non doer views the mastery of this simple strategy as incontrovertible proof of superior intelligence and worth.

This is the basis of all politics, in the same sense that space, time, matter and energy are the bases of life– It is a fundamental law of nature.

We will finally be safe and secure…

Posted on by

…once we have been stripped of the best means of defending ourselves.

That was originally posted on Angelfire as one of the “121 Tenets of Socialism” my brother and I wrote many years ago, and which has since disappeared down the rabbit hole of early internet restructurings and multiple computer replacements. It’s one of the tenets I remember well. They all highlight the blatant logical contradictions we’re expected to embrace in the name of the coming Heaven on Earth that Progressive communism promises in exchange for total surrender to government authority.

Sheep testicles

Posted on by

I came across a “TED Talk”  by the guy that does Dirty Jobs. In the comments, there was a link to a podcast he did giving some background on how it came about. The first in fascinating, funny, and thought provoking. The latter I thought was hysterical. Mike Rowe is sharp, and surprisingly well educated (I don’t mean just “he has a degree,” but seems to be familiar with Classics, Greek and Latin). He’s an excellent speaker. [Edit: Hmmmm… It doesn’t like to embed the frame with the video. Link to TED Talk is here.]

 

Continue reading →

What’s wrong with this statement?

Posted on by

This is from a Second Amendment Foundation e-mail;
“With a track record like Barack Obama has on health care, we don’t want the president getting involved in gun care or firearms safety.”

Anyone?

If your IMMEDIATE reaction wasn’t something along the lines of; “Wait! The president’s track record is irrelevant. The second amendment (and more importantly the ideal of liberty) prohibits politicians getting involved in such things” then you have some reflectin’ to do.

What the statement implies, whether its originators know it or not, is that the “right” president would be more than welcome to tell us how to do things, pushing us around, meddling with our lives using intimidation and coercion as though humans were no better than livestock.

There is no “right person” (or group of people), regardless of their track record, who can properly use coercion, wielding the Ring of Power so to speak.

I donate regularly to the SAF, and they do a lot of good work, but that statement is just sad. Plus it is simply wrong on its face– If you understand the meaning of the word “We”, then yes, certainly; “We” DOES want Obama in charge of our guns.

High Sloth

Posted on by

While riding in the family 4×4 pickup with my daughter today, I spied a bumper sticker; “Moscow High Pride”

“I wonder what that means” I said. “What kind of pride is high pride?”
“It’s Moscow High School pride” she said.
“Ah yes of course. I was thinking that high pride was being preferred over, say medium or low pride. (pause) Isn’t pride one of the seven deadly sins, and so why is it being promoted? We might as well promote some of the others then. How about Moscow High gluttony?”
“Moscow High sloth?”
(Laughter)

Pride is pretty popular among the seven. We’re to appreciate the claim, “Made with pride in the U.S.” or “Proud to be an American” or “The few, the proud, the Marines.” We are expected to be proud of our work and so on. We’re taught pride. Maybe “something you could be very proud of, but aren’t” is a better way of looking at it. Objectivity may allow me to recognize that I’ve done something good, but pride has nothing necessarily to do with accomplishing good things, and it can certainly be a factor in doing bad things.

No More!

Posted on by

I got this circular from some GOP Senate twerp;

“Lyle,

In 8 days, we’ll hit an important fundraising deadline. How much we raise will have a big impact on whether or not our candidates are set up to succeed, so every dollar counts. I’m so committed to helping us reach our goal that I’ll match 3 times your donation.

As the last few weeks have made crystal clear, our country desperately needs new leadership in the Senate. It’s plain to see that Harry Reid just isn’t up to the job. Under his tenure, the Senate has become a dysfunctional disaster — plagued by political games, partisan stalemate, and constant finger pointing. We can break the mold, but we’ll need your help to do it.

With 7 seats up in states Mitt Romney won, combined with the Democrats’ failure to recruit competitive candidates, the political map shows we can win in 2014. Now we’re counting on you to help us make it happen.

Harry Reid and his left-wing special-interest groups are already raising millions to protect their majority. They’re desperately doing everything they can to out raise us. We simply can’t allow that to happen.

Will you please contribute $100, $50, $25, or whatever you can afford today and help us take back the Senate?

Again, donate before the deadline and I’ll personally make sure your donation is triple matched.

Thanks,

Senator Roy Blunt”

To which I replied;

“Roy,

This plea of yours reads like a joke. In fact, the GOP has become a dysfunctional disaster — plagued by political games, ideological hypocrisy, and constant finger pointing. I’ve been saying for years that we must first defeat the GOP before we can defeat the Progressive movement and the Democrats, that the GOP has been a major obstacle standing in our way.

That fact is, right now, more blatantly obvious than ever. I will be working to convince as many people as possible that it is time to defund the GOP, and stop being fooled by the pseudo conservative pap that is being fed to us as a ruse. I’m sick and tired, and I am DONE having my own money used against the principles I hold dear by the very people who have pledged to uphold them!

After the despicable performance of the Republican senate leadership these last weeks, I am insulted by your request for money. You apparently take your voter base for gibbering fools, but to some extent I can understand your confusion being that against our better judgment we have supported you so much in the past. Well, Sir; No More!

Lyle”

I don’t know Roy Blunt from Adam, and I don’t care to know him or any other GOP hack.

If you want to throw money at the problem, don;t send it to the GOP and don;t send it to any candidate– some of that money always goes to the Party even if you gave it to a candidate. Send it to Freedom Works or some other group you know for a fact doesn’t play games. At this stage I think it’s better to send no money rather than risk one dime going to game-players, “the wizards of smart” and Progressives.

Besides; money is far from being that which defines victory. There may even be an inverse relationship. If the GOP dorks want to win, all they really have to do is stand up for the principles we elect them to stand up for. In that case they wouldn’t need any money. We’d be able to see them as people we want representing us, just by their actions. It’s free.

Don’t fall for the crap anymore. We’ve tried it too many times and seen it thrown back in our faces already. The enemy (The Bloods) of my enemy (The Crips) is NOT my friend! Same goes for the Dems and Reps. I think we have yet to learn this lesson properly.

Update, 10/23/13; My reply to Senator Twerp at the NRSC was bounced, so they want your money but they don’t want to be bothered hearing from you. It seems to me I’ve gotten replies through to them in the past. I’ll look for his own e-mail address and get this to him that way.