To All Republicans

Print Friendly

The Chimp pursed his pouty lips and announced that he’d “decided” – and you Republicans (you conservatives) didn’t object. Many of you actually cheered. So, please – don’t complain when Obama “decides.” As I expect him to in the weeks and months ahead. When Congress declines to “act” to “protect our children” from evil pieces of metal, composite and wood – Obama will do exactly as his predecessor did. He will “decide” that “we cannot wait” for Congress to act.decider 1

And so he will.

An executive order – the Americanized form of a Fuhrerbefehl – will simply decree that henceforth certain types of firearms shall be unlawful for anyone not a costumed goon to possess. Perhaps all types of firearms. And with the stroke of his pen, that will be that. No sieg heiling, perhaps – but the thing’s the same: An absolute autocrat asserting his personal will.

That is what the presidency of the United at Gunpoint States has become – a sort of occasionally revolving autocracy – led by a person we might properly call The Decider. So, kudos to the Chimp. He let slip the truth, just that once.

The Decider himself changes every so often – but the power of the decidership remains. And today, it has become all-but-omnipotent. Limited, not by societal expectations (quite the opposite) much less by any document or set of codified restrictions; certainly not by that “god-damned piece of paper,” as the first openly avowed Decider put it – but only by the extent of the brazenness of whomever happens to be The Decider at any given moment.

The tendency has festered since the very beginning days of the republic (e.g., Washington’s stomping of the Whiskey Tax Rebels; Adams’ Alien & Sedition acts) and been festering like a canker that will not scab over since at least since the time of Andrew Jackson. The tendency was made explicit policy under the decidership of Abe Lincoln – but for awhile thereafter, it quiesced somewhat. Then came Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ – and most recently, The Chimp – who asserted his decidership so audaciously it literally shocked the country into a state of helpless stupefaction. One half (that’s you Republicans) marveled – and approved. Because the self-described Decider decided in ways that comported with their own sensibilities. The other (that’s you Democrats) got upset, but only because it wasn’t their Decider doing the deciding – and because his decisions weren’t ones you approved of.

Now that it’s your Decider deciding, you cheer, too – or (like your Republican doppelgangers) you remain quiescent.decider 2

You certainly don’t object.

Not to the idea of the thing.

The implicit (and ever-more explicit) notion of the Revolving Decider as the Hegelian embodiment of the “world spirit” – morally entitled to “act” – unilaterally, insolently – by dint of his will. Which (in Hegelian philosophy) is merely the concentrated will of the “world spirit.”  Another way of saying democracy – channeled through a single man. The man who wields power. And it is the fact of wielding power that defines the man as the bearer of the weltgeist.

He becomes The Decider.

And thus, the law.

Lincoln – Napoleon. Mussolini – FDR.

The Chimp – Obama.

All of a piece.

It wasn’t supposed to be this way, of course. The presidency, as written into the Constitution, was intended to be a merely administrative office. At least, ostensibly. The real power – the power to pass legislation – was the particular fief of Congress. And Congress – itself restricted to a few narrow things – was intended to be accountable to the people, both directly (in the case of representatives) and indirectly (in the case of Senators, who were originally elected by state lawmakers who were themselves elected by the people). The president possessed little in the way of  formal authority to do anything except take care that the laws – passed by Congress – were faithfully executed. He could not write laws himself. Much less just “decide” that we’ll all do this – or that .

Or else.Barack Obama

It was by no means a perfect system. It often ran at odds with natural law – which is the only law that counts, ethically speaking. But it was – for a time – mostly effective at hamstringing Decidership.

Today, all-too-many people expect – demand – the opposite. They want an activist president – one who appoints czars (telling word, that) and who promises to give them change they can believe in.  They believe in almost religious notions about the power of The Decider to – deus ex machina – “create jobs” and “fix the economy.” He merely has to decide – and it will be so.  Thus have people become routinized to the idea of a decidership – and so that’s what we’ve got now. And it’s why we’re going to get “control” of  evil pieces of metal, composite and wood. Because the new Decider has decided.

And that’s just how it’s going to be.

Throw it in the Woods?

Share Button

eric

Author of "Automotive Atrocities" and "Road Hogs" (MBI). Currently living amongst the Edentulites in rural SW Virginia. 

  315 comments for “To All Republicans

  1. z
    December 31, 2012 at 1:17 pm

    I do think Congress will “fail to act” but if Obama “decides” on certain restrictions I think violence could erupt. The colonists put up with a lot until the redcoats went for the guns. It will depend on the nature of the EO. Bush 1 banned foreign semi-autos and nothing happened.

    • BrentP
      December 31, 2012 at 8:47 pm

      If the ‘do-something’ becomes a typical corporatist regulation designed to favor some companies over some other companies nothing will likely happen. Some people will grumble, but that will be it. Nobody is going to risk dying over firearm cosmetics or brand X versus brand Z.

    • Jay Wocky
      January 2, 2013 at 12:05 am

      We have had de facto gun registration ever since instant background checks became the law. Anyone who thinks these records are ever destroyed–as the law requires–is deluded.

      I don’t expect much significant in the way of outright bans at this point. Nor do I anticipate precipitous confiscation by EO. I consider actual registration of all newly-purchased firearms the most likely fallout from Newtown: to include show sales, at first (i.e. closure of the “gun show loophole); then, in short order, all private sales. Definite and very heavy fines will be the stick, along with possible incarceration.

      Thus will the slippery slope to eventual bans and confiscation be made steeper and even more slippery. All in the context of rhetoric that establishes these measures as “reasonable.”

  2. mikehell
    December 31, 2012 at 1:22 pm

    I’d like to think that a decree outlawing certain firearms would be the proverbial last straw, but having observed that many devout and vociferous gun-owners find no offense whatsoever in being forced to expose their genitals for the TSA, I am not so optimistic about the hope of social revolt.

    • mikehell
      December 31, 2012 at 2:26 pm

      Moreover, I don’t know why a decree would be necessary. When was the last time a president did not get what he wanted through boring old legislation?

  3. skunkbear
    December 31, 2012 at 1:27 pm

    Sadly Eric, you are spot on.

    I know I sound like a one trick pony but there really is no other way out except secession. The machine you have astutely described is unrepairable. It cannot be tweaked or tuned up by just getting the “right person(s)” in the office(s). Any attempts of repair are futile.

    Yes, throw it in the woods.

    • December 31, 2012 at 7:02 pm

      Thanks, Skunk –

      Per Heinlein, I think it’s critical to force Republicans especially to come to terms with the essential sameness of their politics vis-a-vis the “liberals” they harp about. Both are authoritarians. The only alternative choice is non-authoritarianism. Not “right wing” or “conservative” or “moderate” authoritarianism.

      • skunkbear
        December 31, 2012 at 8:10 pm

        Eric, although I am an avid reader I do not think I have ever read any science fiction but you have me interested in this Robert Heinlein. Which of his books do you recommend this novice start with?

        • December 31, 2012 at 8:25 pm

          Starship Troopers is excellent!

          • mithrandir
            December 31, 2012 at 8:54 pm

            Starship Trooper is excellent. I guess I should read the book. ;)

            On a more serious note, here is a list of his works.

          • skunkbear
            January 1, 2013 at 12:32 pm

            Thanks Eric, I will put it in my Kindle today.

          • Don Cooper
            January 2, 2013 at 6:53 pm

            The movie was the first time I ever saw Denise Richards! The movie was kind of hokie though.

          • Hot Rod
            January 3, 2013 at 3:18 am

            Starship Troopers was a great spoof. I’d say the U.S. government took great notes when deciding how to script the 911. Sadly I could see a lot of the full metal jacket types when it first came out could not get that it was actually spoof against politics and war. I saw many of them cheering on the humans in the war scenes. It went totally over their heads that the entire thing was a sick joke of the indoctrination that was consuming them and others.

            Two things that still stick were the kids “doing their part” by smashing bugs while the clapping and hysterical mom watches on. This crap really does happen in times of war actually.
            Starship troopers quote:

            “A citizen accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic, of which he is a member, defending it, if need be, with his life. The civilian does not.’,”

            Sounds like something Obama or Bush would say?

            The movie was pretty funny and actually typifies stone hard dummies in the fight for death. Its pretty savvy using the insects as the enemy, and protraying them as savage and stupid which is how war propaganda works actually. Overall the cheesy special effect work great in the movie because it is a spoof about cheesy war propaganda.

            Best Regards,
            HR

          • IndividualAudienceMember
            January 3, 2013 at 3:58 am

            Nice film review, Hot Rod.

            Full Metal Jacket types, I saw that too.

            They disappoint me the most (alongside the High-Pro-Glo jocks) they should be able to shake the conditioning, as it’s so contrary to much of what they say they believe in, but they don’t, they wind up like the guys I knew; gasping for breath on the way to the out-of-the-way fishing hole asking, “How much further?”

            There is no End on the road to a Total State.

          • January 3, 2013 at 5:28 am

            Dear Hot Rod,

            I assume you’re talking about the film adaptation directed by Paul Verhoeven, more than you are about Heinlein’s novel?

            I agree that the film was enjoyable. Each time it plays on cable, and I catch it in the middle, I watch it til the end.

            That said, it deviated considerably from the book. It was adapted by Edward Neumeier, screenwriter for “Robocop,” and whose anti-capitalist politics resemble Michael Moore’s.

            Neumeier, and probably Verhoeven as well, did not really share Heinlein’s attitudes. Heinlein was playing it straight. They on the other hand, were half honoring, half mocking the source material.

            They saw him as “fascistic.” He wasn’t of course. He as merely hardcore. But given their left liberal perception, they felt justified in “sending him up.”

            Sort of the way some screenwriters for the James Bond films treated Ian Fleming’s novels.

            Having their cake and eating it too, as it were.

            Don’t get me wrong. The film still worked. But to some extent it worked at Heinlein’s expense.

            That has always made me slightly uncomfortable.

          • January 3, 2013 at 9:41 am

            Morning, Bevin!

            The film is essentially a cartoon that bears almost no relation to the book. I, too, enjoyed the movie – but like you, did not enjoy the way it simplified (or simply ignored) the much deeper themes laid out in the book. Another example of this is the film adaptation of “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” by the superb Phillip Dick. Most people, of course, only know of this work as the film, Blade Runner. As with Starship Troopers, the film is very good but also very different from the book. Several major plot elements and themes are left out entirely – such as Mercerism (religious theme), the virtual extinction of animals, and of course the character of the “special” who helps the runaway “andys.” Dick was among the most brilliant writers of our time, in my opinion.

          • IndividualAudienceMember
            January 3, 2013 at 7:26 am

            That was interesting, Bevin.

            Especially this part:
            “They saw him as “fascistic.””

            The review seems compete.

          • January 3, 2013 at 7:43 am

            Dear IAM,

            Thanks.

            By all means, see the movie if you haven’t already.

            It’s still entertaining in spite of what I mentioned.

            But when you read the book, you’ll see the differences.

          • January 3, 2013 at 10:30 am

            Dear Eric,

            Right you are.

            Too often the producers or studio heads can’t believe audiences have enough intelligence to appreciate sophisticated story telling. So they dumb it down.

            But it really doesn’t make a lot of sense with film adaptations of best-selling novels.

            After all, if readers of Heinlein and Dick’s novels “got it” in novel form, why wouldn’t they “get it” on the silver screen?

            I was glad to see that did not happen with LOTR. It had to be condensed of course due to length. But it was not noticeably dumbed down.

            Sometimes I wonder whether the producers or studio heads aren’t projecting their own Philistinism onto others.

            Maybe they dumbed it down to their own intellectual level!

          • joeallen
            January 4, 2013 at 12:57 am

            The Worlds of Robert A. Heinlein is another great book. I bought it in 1973 for $0.86 and reread it recently. How prophetic it has been!!

          • Douglas
            January 4, 2013 at 2:07 am

            It was, and Rico (Casper Van Diem) got to snuggle up to Denise Richards and bone Dina Meyer. Lucky bastard.
            Seriously, going the way of the Terran Federation have some merits, but it’d entail a complete overhaul that has to come from the grassroots of the American body politic in order to take hold. Virtually a pipe dream. The idea, as I took it from Heinlen’s book which I read as a kid in the early 70’s and was reprised as my then-girlfriend termed “Star-Strip” troopers (if coed showering in a military barracks is the social norm of the future, I wanna live forever..), is that “Service” and only Service merits citizenship. The high school instructor, portrayed by Michael Ironside, who ends up being the bad-ass platoon commander, lectures his students about what brought their political system about. That is, there was realization that expressions of “do-goodism” expressed in the nanny state were doomed to failure. He also lectured that political power is always and ultimately based on force, so it was judicious to reserve that force (e.g., the vote and the firepower to back it up) with those that were willing to give at least two years (and more in a “stop-loss” situation) and risk their lives and/or bodies in potentially hazardous service. Indeed,the recruits are fairly warned not only by the constant disclaimers but also upon seeing the injured intake processor, who, upon learning of Rico’s enlistment in the Mobile Infantry, tells him (and then we see that he’s mutilated akin to what happened to Anakin Skywalker (loses both legs at the knees and one arm). It’s understood that the harsh term of military service inbues in the recruits a sense of hierarchy of command, self-discipline, willingness to put the needs of the state or at least the group ahead of ones self as the situation warrants, and, most important, restraint and wisdom in the use of force. It’s that harsh winnowing process that used to confer the status of “Citizen” in the Terran Federation. Note that not all (like Rico’s parents) elect it, and they still have the ability to well make their way in the Galaxy, enjoying the protection and rule of law their political system provides. But those that decide have EARNED it. Maybe that’s what is needed. After all, imagine how things would change if people had to “serve” first…never mind in practicality HOW that service would be rendered! For certain the “Free Shit Army” would dissipate overnight, as those that risked their very lives and bodies would be ill-inclined to hand out the goodies to lazy good-fer-nothings that no longer had the ability to appeal to Obama for a free cell phone! The idea is appealing, the devil is in the details…

          • January 4, 2013 at 10:51 am

            Hi Doug,

            I absolutely agree with the basic point Heinlein was trying to make as regards citizenship; i.e., if we must have government, then at least restrict the franchise to those who pay the freight. Allowing anyone to vote when anyone may use the power of the state to vote himself a material benefit to be provided gratis, at gunpoint, by a helpless victim, is a good definition of insanity.

            And his practical idea about military service – that those who vote to go to war also get to fight in that war – is a damn sight better than the way it works now, with no restraint (and much to encourage) pimping for war by old men who have nothing to lose and much to gain by the slaughter and mayhem visited upon others by others.

          • Hot Rod
            January 4, 2013 at 3:46 am

            Yah you’re right “my stupid” comparing the movie to the book. Those two rarely agree and I don’t read books of science fiction so I totally missed the best part ….Doy

            So Eric great article once again. And once again if I may digress to ask you a pointed question. Do you believe Aaron Russo was telling the truth about David Rockefeller knowing about 911 prior hand and laughing about our soliders chasing terrorist in caves that wouldn’t exist? There are some very concerning things about this story/info Russo said as freedom lovers are the target of their hate to be destroyed by financial ostrasizing.

            And somewhat connected in my own frame of mind at this juntion. Anyone here ever had a USPS domestic parcel get rejected and then lost by Homeland Security? That was the legitimate excuse given by USPS for why the tracking on my business item (electronics) just disappeared into thin air. Which is still missing several weeks after shipping it to a customer. Now I’m going to just say this could be the Homeland Security Police State Xmas dragnet expanding their power’s over all things including all people’s mail and doing what all government police do which is harass the citizen doing legit business. Or is it possible something else? That I’m a law abiding freedom loving citizen gives me no consolation as the government is dangerous to the honest man, but I don’t lose sleep over it either. Just curious if anyone else or family members has experienced such a wierd thing as of recent? Something is definitely fishy but I just can’t put my finger on it as being personal or just plain clumsy government goofs or proof of yet more expansion by the homeland security. Could it be that I’m on a watch list? I certainly have donated monies to Ron Paul, Assange, Manning and others so it wouldn’t be unlikely. At this point I don’t discount this rogue government on anything. Heads up to the rest of you and any opinion or info would be appreciated.

          • January 4, 2013 at 10:36 am

            Morning, HR –

            “Do you believe Aaron Russo was telling the truth about David Rockefeller knowing about 911 prior hand and laughing about our soldiers chasing terrorist in caves that wouldn’t exist?”

            Yes.

            Russo was an early warning system. He was talking about (and warning about) the things most of us weren’t even aware of until fairly recently way back in the ’90s. If evil exists – and I believe that it does – it manifests in the persons of people such as David Rockefeller. But, don’t go by Russo alone. Or by me. Read up on Rockefeller; read his own statements.

            Probably the toughest thing to get one’s head around – if one’s head is not psychopathic – is that there are people out there fully capable of knowingly, deliberately ordering the violent deaths of innocent people to further a political agenda. To enhance their power and control. It is not primarily about money – that’s a naive mistake made by psychologically normal people. Because money is at least an understandable motive. Rather, it is about (as Orwell put it) a boot stomping on a human face – forever.

          • January 4, 2013 at 12:05 pm

            Dear Hot Rod,

            Could it be that I’m on a watch list? I certainly have donated monies to Ron Paul, Assange, Manning and others so it wouldn’t be unlikely.

            I operate on the assumption that everyone who has ever commented here at Eric’s site, with the exception of paid shills like “Gil,” is on some sort of gunvermin shit list.

            Probably anyone who has ever used such terms as “USSA,” “Amerika,” “false flag operation” in his or her emails is already on some sort of gunvermin shit list.

            You’re already seated on the roller coaster. It’s too late to get off. So you might as well relax and enjoy the ride.

            Hey, your name is Hot Rod, right?

          • January 4, 2013 at 10:20 pm

            Dear meth,

            Thanks!

            But to be honest, I’m no Latin scholar. I took French in high school and college, not Latin.

            The “qua” I got mostly from Rand.

            But I know what you mean. This is a terrific forum. No doubt about it, one that would not have been possible a couple of decades ago. Chalk another one up to the Internet.

            Gee, I guess we owe Algore a debt of gratitude after all. After all, as our Dear Leader put it “You didn’t build that!”

            (I’m kidding of course.)

          • Hot Rod
            January 6, 2013 at 2:20 am

            Eric said:


            To enhance their power and control. It is not primarily about money – that’s a naive mistake made by psychologically normal people. Because money is at least an understandable motive. Rather, it is about (as Orwell put it) a boot stomping on a human face – forever.”

            I lean toward Russo’s warning as well. Part of me wants to believe that the organism is just a mass retarded mob and special interest jockeying for attention. The other part of me believes that something much more sinister is behind the scenes and planned. I’m also a believer of evil with no futher definition need be given.

            Probably what interests me most about the Russo-Rockefeller relationship is why they were drawn to Russo (who was adamant about freedom in our republic). Given Russo’s belief why did David Rockefeller wanted to include him in the membership of their egoist subversion? Maybe it was as simple as he didn’t want Russo to spread his message? And it kind of strikes me in my own life that most people are both elitist and legends in their own minds, but when I have pressed these people why they did the misdeeds in their past, if they face up to them they always say the were just insecure.

            Public school in fact taught three basic premises that were all false. The first is that the state is God and always right, history always proves might was right to them, The second was that your worth was determined solely by your instructors and your peers. And third that theirs is a hierachy of elitism inescapable due to second notion, if you are not on top then you are on the bottom and you will stay there despite your own inclinations simply because they will make it so (might makes right again).

            The last premise was why kids were quite vicious because they all knew what happened to students that were humble and of humility, To the bottom of the ladder baby as you will stay the Untouchable class forever until eternity according to them the important ones.

            When one takes the American family unit or maybe just American values in general you will find that every american believes he is superior. Some people call this our “Exceptionalism” quality.

            I’m thinking that Rockefeller family is not immune to this kind of indoctrination probably child abused into it more than the Scientologist cults are in their own dogma. Probably its been abusively passed down that they are the elite and its expected for them to deal the blows just like a teacher expects in public school of her students (aka be aholes). I’ve read much of the Rockefeller’s views and they sincerely believe in forced Darwinism, which suprisingly is also the belief of our public school system. But the belief of Darwinism (not selective breeding for a genetical trait which is a fact) is a fallacy as the method of real adaption. I’ve discussed this before and won’t repeat the argument again how DNA is mutable by thinking and what I think is the storage mechanism of the brain. When one understands that the largest sickness in American’s as a people and maybe the world in general is they all think they are the special ones (elite) and thus everyone else their slave or nonexistant. I’ve never understood this behavior not even in my own family. Which leads me to why David Rockefeller was so interested in Russo in my opinion. I believe it was because as a raised elitist he could really not understand why Russo really believed in other people’s freedoms, but felt and yearned to explain the missing void inside his own heart. Seems to me that David questioned his own indoctrination, and rightfully should have.

            But the real reason that Gattica type world shouldn’t and can’t be created is because it ultimately destroys the intelligent, creators, and innovators that make society richer. How the likes of David would want 100% of a small pie instead of a small percentage of a large one I don’t get. People can’t and won’t be motivated in a lie and suppression. If there is a real competition between Rockefeller’s union Anglo interest and say the rising star of China, would it really behoove them to cede the title of super power to China simply because they want total control here? Freedom creates real wealth and prosperity, without it creates destruction. Why let China become the next superpower while they give their people more freedom and own the bigger world pie. Would it behoove our so called elite rulers for us to smother the flames here? I’m not sure but if I can think the ego has no rationality then anything makes sense even the evil that spews out for no benefit to the beneficiary. So maybe its no better than the mass irrational mob. Maybe this is why empires die is because the emperors lose reality of what made them great as well as the common dunce on the street placing his own existence above others. Or maybe it really is only a massive stupid evil mob of “egoist” americans that press the handcuffs on themselves as they get sadistic pleasure of knocking down their fellow man.

            Russo’s disclosure really opens up the psychologic profile of those poised up the top. Sure be a bad thing for all them after they die. I’d rather not give my soul to own a diminishing nation much less than a world. A nation more goulish and impoverished like a hell they so desire to be part.

          • January 6, 2013 at 11:44 am

            Morning, HR!

            Ok:

            “Given Russo’s belief why did David Rockefeller wanted to include him in the membership of their egoist subversion?”

            I think I can shed a little light on this, from my own experience working in DC as an editorial writer and columnist at The Washington Times. Though I was never a “big wheel,” I did get to attend parties and other events where some very big wheels indeed were in attendance. It’s like a club. I was on the periphery of this club – and probably could have become a member had I “played my cards right.” That is, write – and say – the correct things. Sidle up to the “right” people. I had those opportunities, but did not exploit them. Not because I’m some kind of saint; I just wasn’t into it (or them). I’m not a good actor, either – and have a tough time playing pretend. My animal instinct was simply to flee. Which, I did!

            Now I’m a rusticating ruin, out on my micro-farm. Torn up cammo pants and paint-stained shirts. Gravel driveway – with chickens all over the place. An old mower I use for target practice in the field.

            But I wouldn’t have it any other way!

          • Hot Rod
            January 7, 2013 at 6:09 pm

            “Sidle up to the “right” people. I had those opportunities, but did not exploit them. Not because I’m some kind of saint; I just wasn’t into it (or them). I’m not a good actor, either – and have a tough time playing pretend. My animal instinct was simply to flee. Which, I did!”

            I was the guy who sidled up for 20 years and took it up the ass. But made fabulous money almost as much as the CEO in my last expeditions. You know what you get for that? A hollowed out, used spirit, and dimished figure of what you can really be. Adversity of following your own logic and dreams is what I think God intended. When we suppress them and live another man’s dream for us, we become diminutive self. To take courage and jump ship as you did for a noble calling is going to reap much greater rewards even if you aren’t a saint (smile).

            “Now I’m a rusticating ruin, out on my micro-farm. Torn up cammo pants and paint-stained shirts. Gravel driveway – with chickens all over the place. An old mower I use for target practice in the field. ”

            And as my kind grandad always made it clear its not how much you make but how much you keep. He was a farmer and was what you’d call land rich and money poor most of his youth. He died a millionare several decades ago when that actually meant something. A land steward and thus owner is one that roll’s up his sleeves and takes and builds the earth to something much greater. Land development becomes the legacy of the owner and thus his by his blood and sweat but also his treasure to endure.

            Eric I thank you for taking that jump. You are making a big difference in leading this world to a much better ending. Your rewards will be reaped but as you know its not harvest season yet. Your message is going BIG!!, so is this website.

            As for me when I took the leap myself and decided to start my own business. My first product offering was a simple $20.00 fix. I sold a couple a week and boy was I thinking I took the revolver to my own head. I had a little talk to talk with the master and the clearest message I ever got in my life was just to keep plowing. It’s been several years and then the explosion of critical mass hit and finally harvest season, now I project my future will supercede those before I took jump.

            This is where the future of this movement, this is where your website is going, and for that where all those who dare to venture where no others go. Being a pioneeer, developer, risk taker, and not always being a saint is what I think makes a man balanced and Godly in terms of his desire for us to be “fruitfull” and enable others to do the same. What better way to enrich the world than embrace truth, help others embrace truth, grow rich and help others do the same. Its is our destiny and our fate and it is our calling.

            Best Regards,
            HR

        • December 31, 2012 at 11:46 pm

          Dear skunkbear,

          His most explicitly libertarian book is “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.”

          It’s the book from which the libertarian battle cry “TANSTAAFL!” came from.

          I read it back in high school I believe.

          • skunkbear
            January 1, 2013 at 12:33 pm

            I will add that book to my Kindle as well. Thanks for the suggestion, Bevin.

          • January 1, 2013 at 3:19 pm

            Dear skunkbear,

            Sure thing.

            Heinlein ranks right up there with Rand as a libertarian novelist.

            Rand may have been a more profound philosopher. But Heinlein was a far, far better fiction writer.

            I read Rand’s Atlas Shrugged as if it was a treatise on political philosophy. In that respect it was brilliant.

            As fiction however, as pure entertainment, I thought it was embarrassingly clunky. Also, I always thought John Galt was the worst kind of “Mary Sue.”

            This was not true of Heinlein. He, along with Arthur Clarke, Isaac Asimov, and Ray Bradbury, were master story tellers who entertained the reader from cover to cover.

          • skunkbear
            January 1, 2013 at 3:58 pm

            Bevin, I do hope Heinlein is a better writer than Ayn Rand. Your term “clunky” is spot on for Rand’s writing. I had to force myself through The Fountainhead. I know I will create howls with this confession but I only read the Cliff notes for Atlas Shrugged. I just could not hurt my eyeballs again. But I do highly recommend her Anthem. It is much shorter and expresses her basic philosophy just as well.

          • January 1, 2013 at 6:10 pm

            Rand was a horrible writer – overwrought, tedious, ponderous. Her plots were good, though. And as Bevin mentioned, it’s worth slogging through her baroque prose to get at the philosophical/ethical issues that form the true body of her work.

            Heinlein, on the other hand, was a fantastic writer. As Bevin said – you’ll see!

          • January 1, 2013 at 4:21 pm

            Dear skunkbear,

            Not to worry. He is.

            As I see it, Rand’s novels sold only because of her ideology. For me at least, I endured her heavy-handed fiction writing style only so I could access her philosophical concepts.

            Frankly I would have been just as happy if she had turned Atlas into a compilation of political essays.

            Not so Heinlein. Heinlein’s novels sold because they were page turners. His libertarian ideology was frosting on the cake. An added bonus.

            You’ll see.

          • skunkbear
            January 1, 2013 at 6:35 pm

            I am going to try to start reading one of them tonight. But the syfy channel is running a Twilight Zone marathon and I keep telling myself I will watch just one more episode. That was since eight this morning…

          • January 2, 2013 at 1:20 am

            Dear skunkbear,

            “I know I will create howls with this confession but I only read the Cliff notes for Atlas Shrugged.”

            Not from me.

            As Eric notes, Rand was a terrible novelist. What Rand was good at, no, cancel that, what Rand was absolutely great at, was non-fiction prose.

            Nobody could lay out a philosophical truth more clearly than she could.

            After years of reading conservative Republicans yield ground to liberal Democrats on welfare statism, reading Rand’s demolition jobs on coerced redistribution was a revelation.

            The only time Rand fell down on the job was on minarchism vs. anarchism. She failed to connect the dots linking the consent of the governed and the non-aggression axiom.

            She clung to “limited government.” She failed to see that so-called limited government was incompatible with the consent of the governed and the non-aggression axiom.

          • BrentP
            January 2, 2013 at 6:16 am

            I watch significant parts of the twilight zone marathon every year.

            The Twilight Zone was made under the careful eyes of censors. It is more meaningful television than anything on today. Perhaps we were better off under the overt censorship. Maybe it encouraged such quality in some counter-intuitive way. Today there is no overt censorship that we know of, any sort of thing can go on TV now, and the result is that it’s all crap with a few bright spots on ‘reality’ TV*.

            *”Dirty Jobs” and “Pawn Stars” for their lessons in practical economics.

          • skunkbear
            January 2, 2013 at 4:20 pm

            BrentP, yes there does seem to be a quality missing in tv shows today.

            I think it is mostly in the dialogue. The sophistication of the conversations from shows like The Twilight Zone help make the thought provoking concepts more intriguing.

            I watch very little tv but I am absolutely addicted to The Walking Dead. For those who have not seen it, it is not about the zombies.

          • Tor Munkov
            January 3, 2013 at 8:28 am

            Bevin,
            Something Ayn, myself, and others have experienced is the blatant co-opting of artistic works to serve the ends of those in power.
            As soon as radio, film, the internet, is invented, the forces of mass conscription converge to harness the artist creators to serve nationalistic or moralistic ends.

            Ayn witnessed the shackling and enslaving of storytelling and movie-making within her lifetime, and dedicated her writing to find a way to restore the type of free artistic expression she had previously enjoyed as a young adult in the Eastern Europe…

            The Goal of my Writing”
            (from “The Romantic Manifesto”, Ayn Rand)

            The motive and purpose of my writing is the projection of an ideal man, not the philosophical enlightenment of my readers, it is not the beneficial influence which my novels may have on people, it is not the fact that my novels may help a reader’s intellectual development. Those are merely consequences and effects, not first causes or prime movers.

            A portrayal of man as an end in himself-not as a means to any further end, that is the greatest value I could ever offer.

            I approach literature as a child does: I write-and read-for the sake of the story. The complexity lies in the task of translating that attitude into adult terms.
            The specific concretes, the forms of one’s values, change with one’s growth and development. The abstraction “values” does not. An adult’s values involve the entire sphere of human activity, including philosophy-most particularly philosophy. But the basic principle-the function and meaning of values in man’s life and in literature-remains the same.
            My basic test for any story is: Would I want to meet these characters and observe these events in real life? Is this story an experience worth living through for its own sake? Is the pleasure of contemplating these characters an end in itself?

          • Shazaam
            January 3, 2013 at 5:09 pm

            The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is my favorite Heinlein title.

            A bit dated in computer concepts, as no one imagined universal internet connectivity. The concepts of personal responsibility and never relying on a parasitic organization (government) resonate.

            Time for a re-read.

          • January 4, 2013 at 2:54 am

            Dear Tor,

            I do indeed like inhabiting the world Rand created in her novels.

            I only wish she had been more adept as a fiction writer, and better able to create that world.

            As it is, I like the world she created in spite of her deficient fiction writing skills, not because of them.

            Anyway, I am still glad she wrote them. Despite their defects qua novels, they are still immensely valuable.

            After all, I can improve them in my own head. Sort of the way some critically minded fans of the Star Wars franchise have edited the later Star Wars episodes in defiance of George Lucas’ wishes.

            I am certainly not prepared to dismiss her as irrelevant. She remains a key figure in the modern era fight for liberty.

          • methylamine
            January 4, 2013 at 4:01 pm

            @Bevin–

            Dude, you used “qua” in a sentence. I doff my cap, sir, and laud your reviving of Latin!

            :)

            What a fantastic forum this is. It gives me hope; thanks to you all.

            Indeed; we’ve won the intellectual battle…we just have to wait through the adoption phase.

          • Douglas
            January 4, 2013 at 5:43 pm

            Bevin – if the Internet had existed in Colonial times, certainly the Brits would’ve jailed or even hanged Sam Adams for posting invectives disrespectful and treasonous to his “Sovereign”, George III.
            But take heart in that at some point, the Government and its Stooges can’t stomp out every dissenting opinion. And the inevitable truth is that they always overreach and ruin their public credibility. Look at how readily the USSR, its own military weakness exposed for ten years of misery in Afghanistan and its client state, Iraq, being utterly humbled by a numerically-inferior American-led force, melted away in 1991. First the Baltic States declared their independence, and then there was call for free elections in the rest of the USSR. It was after the failed coup by Stalinist hard-liners in August of ’91 (where Boris Yeltsin stood on a tank with a bullhorn and rallied the public to mass and dared the troops to fire upon them) that the Communist regime realized that it was over. Rather than go down in a blaze of glory, they went away, quietly.

          • ozymandias
            January 4, 2013 at 6:42 pm

            @methylamine

            “we just have to wait through the adoption phase.”

            In the land of roe v wade (& whatever its called elsewhere), “abortion procedure” is more than a slight possibility….

          • January 4, 2013 at 10:46 pm

            Dear Douglas,

            I hear you.

            America has indeed become the former USSR. Comparisons with the USSR, or Nazi Germany, are indeed valid. The pejorative terms “Amerika” and “USSR” are not unwarranted.

            Who knew it would come to this for our beloved America?

            Well, strictly speaking, most of us on this forum did. We knew it had to come to this, long ago, through a priori logic.

            But the irony was that even though we “knew” it, we didn’t quite “believe” it. At least, not in our guts. Not until the degeneration accelerated to an unmistakable rate following 9/11.

            Even though we ourselves had been issuing dire warnings throughout the 80s and 90s, we still felt “It can’t really be happening here, can it? Not in the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave? Tell me is isn’t so.”

            But now it’s 2013. And one would have to be willingfully blind, deaf, and dumb, like the three monkeys who see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil to not know it.

            But as you said, there is hope. Just as the USSR had to collapse, so must the USSA.

            We are now engaged in a great war of ideas, testing whether this nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure and experience a new birth of freedom.

        • Imaginer
          January 3, 2013 at 4:19 pm

          Try ‘The Moon is a Harsh Mistress’. Another fine Heinlein book. It’s about the moon colonist’s revolt against their earthbound masters.

          • ozymandias
            January 4, 2013 at 1:00 am

            “The only time Rand fell down on the job was on minarchism vs. anarchism.”

            And the writer that probably finishes that job, logical conclusion, best is Murray Rothbard.

          • January 4, 2013 at 11:30 am

            Dear ozymandias,

            I agree.

            Rothbard was to Rand what Jung was to Freud, an apostate.

            Rothbard was a little too good. He outshone Rand in key areas. That’s a no no.

            In any movement in which the master is invested in exalted status, any disciple who is too good, who surpasses the master in key respects, becomes an apostate.

            The good thing is that such schisms are essential. Otherwise orthodoxy prevails, creativity withers, and a once progressive movement of ideas, degenerates into a reactionary cult of personality.

          • ozymandias
            January 4, 2013 at 6:28 pm

            Was Rothbard ever actually part of the cult?

            One way to think about the different elevations, even if only hypothetically, is to wonder if apt pupil Greenspan (goldbug who “metamorphosed” (maestro’d?) into a fiat fly…) could pull off stroking Rothbard the way he did Rand? I’d bet not.

        • Bob Robertson
          January 3, 2013 at 6:20 pm

          As much as I agree that Heinlein deserves noble status, if you want overt treatment of individual rights (as opposed to implicit treatment such as Heinlein does), try L. Neil Smith, especially his “The Probability Broach”:

          http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn

          • January 4, 2013 at 2:19 am

            Dear Bob,

            Agree. Praise for one does not imply denigration of the other.

            Another great libertarian SF author is Eric Frank Russell.

            In the classic science fiction story …And Then There Were None, Eric Frank Russell shortened “Mind Your Own Business” to “MYOB” or “Myob!”, which was used as a form of civil disobedience on the planet of the libertarian Gands. Russell’s short story, …And Then There Were None, was subsequently incorporated into his 1962 novel The Great Explosion. It is possible that Russell is the inventor of this initialism, which is now used widely throughout the United States.

            The Great Explosion was about libertarians fleeing from the NWO to other planets.

        • Alex
          January 5, 2013 at 5:30 am

          Starship Troupers is a great book, but a lousy movie. Also read “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.” It is a GREAT libertarian read. From another author, try “Voyage from Yesteryear” by James P. Hogan/

      • January 1, 2013 at 1:33 am

        Dear Eric,

        “I think it’s critical to force Republicans especially to come to terms with the essential sameness of their politics vis-a-vis the “liberals” they harp about. Both are authoritarians.”

        Amen to that.

        Libertarians have cut conservative Republican warfare statists far too much slack in the past.

        I myself made common cause with them during the Cold War, when the issue was Communism vs. Capitalism.

        But as Chalmers Johnson, Jude Wanniski, and Joe Sobran noted upon the end of the Cold War, the underlying difference between conservative Republican warfare statists and anti-war libertarians came to the surface.

        The conservative Republican warfare statists experienced “enemy deficit” and cast about for Emmanuel Goldsteins to attack.

        The anti-war libertarians on the other hand, wanted Bush Senior to deliver on his peace dividend.

        We all know what happened after that.

        Conservative Republican warfare statists are not “allies” of libertarians. They are accomplices of liberal Democrat welfare statists.

        • liberranter
          January 1, 2013 at 5:46 am

          From my own experience, I don’t believe that it’s possible to inject reason or even simple common sense into the average “‘conservative’ Republican.” In fact, I can’t even envision one of them reading this from Eric (or having it read to them) without them completely tuning out and shutting down mentally. They simply cannot face up to or admit to the inherent and very blatant contradictions between what they profess to believe in (“freedom,” free markets, etc.) and what they actually believe in and avidly support (war, state-corporatism, bigotry, and violence).

          My own deluded, Faux News-steeped relatives and I go round and round and round over this on an almost weekly basis. When you point out to them that the current Sock Puppet-in-Chief is doing the exact same things as its predecessor, and with just as little legal or moral justification, they simply tune out, shut down, and set off with the usual juvenile ad hominem responses. Absolutely hopeless.

          As I’ve said before, these creatures are reaping the society they’ve been sowing for nearly three decades (if not longer)and fully deserve to eat the bitter fruits of it. It’s just a criminal shame that those of us that make up The Remnant have to suffer through it as well.

          • January 1, 2013 at 6:17 am

            Dear liberranter,

            You won’t get an argument from me. Any effort I make would be half-hearted — at best.

            I’ve not had much success attempting to convert conservatives to libertarianism. I’ve encountered the same syndrome that you have.

            When I say libertarians need to stop cutting conservatives so much slack, I don’t mean I hold out much hope of bringing them around.

            I’m merely saying that we need to make it clear that we will no longer let them get away with their own brand of authoritarianism on the right, merely because they pay pro form lip service to a “free markets.”

            I’m merely saying that we need to make it clear that we will not treat them with kid gloves because they are nominally “one our side.” They are not.

            As you correctly noted, they in fact practice corporatism, not capitalism.

        • January 1, 2013 at 10:20 am

          Morning, Bevin!

          “Conservative Republican warfare statists are not “allies” of libertarians. They are accomplices of liberal Democrat welfare statists.”

          They’re worse.

          They are dangerous enemies – more so than Democrat welfare statists.

          Because with their superficial paeans to “liberty,” they corrupt, co-opt or drown out actual defenders of liberty. The Ron Paul episode, for example.

          The worst – the most unforgivable thing – about conservative Republican warfare statists is the way they turn off so many (especially the young and uninformed) to real liberty, by their corporatism, rent-seeking and war-mongering, which is taken to represent “liberty” and “capitalism”… Mittens Romney, for instance. The idea that this creature represented “less government” is so transparently silly a Down Syndrome child could see through it. He was another corporate hog-trougher – and why would anyone vote for that? Left-liberal minded people view such a creature as Mittens – rightly – as the vicious hog-trougher that he is. Unfortunately, they make the mistake of not seeing that the Democrat alternative is precisely the same thing in a different wrapper. But they “go that way” (Democrat-liberal) because it seems the decent thing (in their minds) to do. And frankly, I have much more sympathy for that position than I do for “conservatives” who support creatures such as Mittens and The Chimp. et al.

          So long as people continue to accept the idea that conservative Republican warfare statists represent an alternative to Democrat welfare statists the march toward serfdom will continue to pick up pace.

          • January 1, 2013 at 10:46 am

            Dear Eric,

            They’re worse.

            Because with their superficial paeans to “liberty,” they corrupt, co-opt or drown out actual defenders of liberty. The Ron Paul episode, for example.

            Amen to that!

            Most Conservative Republicans say they are “God fearing Christians” who believe in heaven and hell.

            Well, for what the GOP PTB did to Ron Paul, I only wish their imaginary hell was real, so they could burn in it.

            Somewhere along the way, post-Robert Taft, Republicans became RINOS. All of them. Not just the Romneys.

            They not only failed to contribute to the defense of natural rights, individual liberty, and free markets, they gave them a bad name.

            When I first came back to Taiwan, I attended a Republicans Abroad meeting. It was the first time I ever had any up front and personal dealings with card carrying Republicans.

            Let me tell you, it was an eye-opener.

          • January 1, 2013 at 11:02 am

            “Let me tell you, it was an eye-opener.”

            I had the same experience when I attended a few Tea Party meetings circa 2008. It caused me to realize the pervasiveness of the authoritarian corruption. The Tea Partiers I encountered did not really mind “big government” – merely what they look upon as left-liberal “big government.” So long as “big government” is doing what they want it to do, they are as committed to authoritarianism in principle as any “liberal.”

            Of course, they don’t see it this way – precisely because they cannot think.

            I mean no insult. I merely state a fact.

            These “conservatives” seem unable to grasp that authoritarianism is not made moral when focused here as opposed to there. If, for example, it is wrong to force someone to hand over money to “help” people on welfare, then it is just as wrong to force someone to hand over money to “help” build government schools for “the children” (read – someone else’s children).

            But it doesn’t register. In fact, when I mentioned exactly the thing above, I was greeted with howls of anger – culminating in “you can always move.”

            Typical Republican.

          • January 1, 2013 at 3:07 pm

            Dear Eric,

            Conservative authoritarians in the GOP prattle on about how religious-based morality is essential. Otherwise, they insist, weak-willed mortals will have nothing to prevent them from running amok and engaging in all manner of immoral conduct. Talk about your textbook case of psychological projection!

            “Christianity fuels everything I write. Being a Christian means that I am called upon to do battle against lies, injustice, cruelty, hypocrisy.”
            — Anne Coulter

            Yeah, right.

            As you aptly noted, they are among the most egregious violators of the Golden Rule:

            “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”
            — King James Bible, Cambridge Edition

            Or as Thomas Paine, author of The Age of Reason, put it far more eloquently:

            “He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”
            — Thomas Paine, Dissertation on First Principles of Government

            Do the conservatives authoritarians in the GOP get this? Do they get that what “The Troops” do to the “ragheads” and “camel jockeys” over there, Officer 82nd Airborne is going to wind up doing to us over here?

            Clearly they don’t.

          • January 1, 2013 at 6:13 pm

            “So long as people continue to accept the idea that conservative Republican warfare statists represent an alternative to Democrat welfare statists the march toward serfdom will continue to pick up pace.”

            You are not going nearly far enough, I’m afraid.

            As long as people continue to accept the fiction that anyone, any “party,” any government of any kind actually can “represent them” or protect them – instead of being self owners, self governors, and completely responsible for themselves – they will continue to reap all of the rewards of slavehood, for as many generations as it takes for them to recognize self ownership as the only LIBERTY there is.

          • January 2, 2013 at 12:47 am

            Dear mamaliberty,

            I really like what you wrote at your blog:

            But, in the end, I live and therefore I am. I don’t need any other person’s permission to live or defend myself. I don’t need anyone’s vetting of my intentions or sanity, nor approval for the self defense tool I choose or how I carry it.

            I don’t NEED to explain myself. I don’t NEED any reasons at all.

            This is exactly the right attitude, the one that champions of the right to self-defense must adopt.

            This is the difference between people and sheeple.

          • BrentP
            January 2, 2013 at 5:37 am

            When republicans are in power at least the anti-war left is active. With democrats in there is no mainstream voice opposing anything about the welfare-warfare state.

        • Tre Deuce
          January 1, 2013 at 10:39 am

          At the end of the cold war, a Russian of note, stated to a representative of the US government, to effect, ‘That we have done you no favors as we have taken away your enemy’.

          It didn’t take long for the power elite to find another boogeyman(or three) to scare the sheep with.

          Far too many of us, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, conservatives, liberals, etc, are simply creations of the manipulative ruling elite… just drones/zombies… the walking brain dead.

          Smoke and mirrors, popular history is a lie.

          And so it goes……..

          • January 1, 2013 at 10:45 am

            I was just getting out of college when the Soviet Union collapsed. Jesus Jones was on the radio… right here, right now, there is no other place I want to be.

            I really thought it was the beginning of a new era – and it was. Just not the era I was expecting.

  4. Eric_G
    December 31, 2012 at 1:46 pm

    BTW, anyone one else see that King Barry gave the royal court a pay raise?

    http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/12/obama-issues-executive-order-granting.html

    I really think we’re being set up and the next executive order will be to extend and pretend the fiscal cliff crap. Google “fiscal cliff” and you get 1,380,000,000 results. To put that in perspective, “Sandy Hook” only yields 314,000,000 results. Watch for a press conference sometime this afternoon. It won’t be King Barry delivering the news, since he’s a Constitutional scholar, but look for something.

    When that happens, Alexander Hamilton can finally claim total victory over Jefferson.

    • Douglas
      January 4, 2013 at 2:22 am

      Well, I don’t necessarily mind the 0.5% pay increase, but it’s going to be wiped out and then some by the considerable increase in health premiums. From what I’ve heard, it’s happening in the private sector too (where, as Ray Stanz informed his fellow Ghostbusters, “they expect results!”), and it’s all thanks to ObamaCare costs on medical insurers and HMOs, and also due to mandates for free contraceptives so Sandra Fluke and her ilk can screw until their raw and bleeding. Obama’s rhetoric about taxing ONLY the rich was a disingenuous fraud…but don’t think that the Republicans cared either about the “rich” or the middle class (they don’t give a shit about the “poor” because the poor won’t vote for them or contribute to their campaigns, but, hell, so do Democrats). What to do? Work on the side in my business anyway, higher taxes be damned, and retire on my own terms. If I get anything in retirement, great, but if Uncle goes bust and pays less or nothing than promised…well…I’m in good company, except that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. aint’ gonna pick up Civil Service! But rather than gripe, I’ll chalk it up to having bet on the wrong horse, and make adjustments accordingly. As Jimmy Carter once said, in a rare expression of wisdom, “Life isn’t fair”.

  5. Brad Smith
    December 31, 2012 at 3:25 pm

    My crystal ball ain’t so crystal clear. I have no idea how this latest attempt will happen. One step at a time like usual would be most likely, but who knows? There has been a lot of talk about the UK and Australia regarding their bans and they are being hyped as a success.

    I do know this based on empirical evidence. Over the years I have observed that time after time the media is used to condition the people into accepting new legislation, war, crackdowns etc. The media will also be amazingly quiet regarding things that don’t fit into their agenda. Therefore, if the media continues to spout on and on about what “we” need to do to save the poor children, then you know something is coming soon. If they shut up about it, then the issue is going away until the public can be conditioned to accept it.

    It seems to work like this.

    1) Event takes place. (9/11, BP spill, Shooting, etc)

    2) Media hype ensues with 24/7 coverage.

    3) Polls are taken all over the place. (fingers in the air, seeing which way the wind is blowing.

    4) Action or no action is decided upon. (war or no war, Patriot acts, regulations, etc.)

    Take any major event that get massive press coverage and you will see this exact same scenario play out over and over.

    • dom
      December 31, 2012 at 3:59 pm

      Excellent forecasting method!

    • Tinsley Grey Sammons
      December 31, 2012 at 8:18 pm

      Great critical thinking.

      tgsam

    • MoT
      January 1, 2013 at 4:17 am

      Of course they play the same “games” over and over again because it works! Why reinvent the playbook when the old plays have yet to fail.

    • liberranter
      January 1, 2013 at 5:51 am

      Over the years I have observed that time after time the media is used to condition the people into accepting new legislation, war, crackdowns etc. The media will also be amazingly quiet regarding things that don’t fit into their agenda.

      Speaking of “‘conservative’ Republicans,” what is both nauseating and hilarious is that for all of their bashing of the “liberal” media, they are just as quick as their “liberal” counterparts to dive in head first and drink deeply of the state-enabling sewage that these media spew forth. Have you EVER known a “‘conservative’ Republican” to publicly express doubt or ridicule about ANYTHING that a Faux News Vomiting Head projectiles forth?

      • MoT
        January 1, 2013 at 6:38 am

        Oh, yeah. I have friends and friends who’s own relatives have Faux Mews permanently welded to their remotes. It’s disgusting.

        • liberranter
          January 1, 2013 at 8:30 am

          I’m convinced that “‘news’ addiction” is a condition even more widespread and just as tough to break as Internet, gambling, tobacco, drug, food, porn, and alcohol addiction.

          My own mother is one of those creatures who literally keeps her TV fixed on the Faux News channel, 24/7. If the tube is on, it’s on the Faux News channel. The woman literally NEVER watches anything else. When I visited her at Thanksgiving, I actually had to gently coax/cajole/talk her into watching something on the Food/Cooking, NatGeo, or Classic Movie channels – anything but the Faux propaganda stream. I realized, with considerable sadness, just how far gone she was. And this is a woman who, like most “‘conservative’ Republicans” spares no effort or vitriol in railing against other people’s viewing choices.

          Like I said, there really is just no reaching these people. It’s triply painful when you’re related to them.

          • January 1, 2013 at 10:03 am

            Lib,

            My own mother is exactly the same also. 24/7 Faux News. Worshipful of Hannity. Rages at Chris Matthews and “the liberals.”

            She despises Obama (good) but still reveres the Chimp – and would not hear any criticism of Romney (or McCain before him). In fact, I’m convinced that had Obama been the GOP nominee she’d have supported him just as ardently. I’ve tried and tried to reach her by pointing out such things as that the policies of Obama are indistinguishable from those of The Chimp. It doesn’t register. It’s not that she’s unintelligent. It’s simply that her conceptual faculty has been crippled. It’s extremely depressing, because I know she’s far from being an aberration. That, in fact, a majority of the population is probably exactly like this, evenly divided (roughly) between “good Republicans” and “good Democrats.”

      • January 1, 2013 at 10:10 am

        “Have you EVER known a “‘conservative’ Republican” to publicly express doubt or ridicule about ANYTHING that a Faux News Vomiting Head projectiles forth?”

        Express the slightest doubt about the veracity of any aspect of the Official Narrative of 9/11 to a Republican – and watch him go off like a Roman candle.

        • liberranter
          January 1, 2013 at 10:03 pm

          Yep. I’ve actually been on the receiving end of physical violence from a bunch of Republicans for simply expressing doubt over the official 9/11 explanation. Good thing I didn’t touch on the subject of Our Holy Troops!

        • MoT
          January 2, 2013 at 4:27 am

          Absolutely. I’ve pointed out all the inconsistencies to some individuals and they look at me with their “deer in the headlights” expression and call me a “conspiracy theorist”. I reply… “Where in the hell is the ‘conspiracy’ when I’ve shown you all the facts?” To whit I get no reply. Stupid is as stupid does and stupid shall stupid remain.

          • Eightsouthman
            January 3, 2013 at 7:19 am

            MoT, I call it the “Forrest factor”.

      • Brad Smith
        January 1, 2013 at 6:17 pm

        Nope it never fails, I have seen them fall for it over and over.

    • Tre Deuce
      January 3, 2013 at 8:25 am

      The next ‘big’ event will move the issue off the noise cycle.

      Those with an agenda, will do their best it simmering, but that, should, eventually degrade. Politicians could throw them a token law with not much impact, but seriously, take away our guns? Just how do you manage that?

      Besides that, I can build a firearm in less then a day, and a full-auto in a week. You can get plans on the internet.

      In Pakistan, in the 70’s, I saw guys sitting on their haunches in the dirt, building AK-47 copies with crude Indian and Chinese files. The Bosnian’s built effective rockets and RPG’s in the crawl spaces of apartment buildings.

      So, sign up at your local community college and learn basic machining, or make use of online instruction, and, or a gunsmithing class, then visit Harbor Freight and pick-up a few tools for under a $1,000. Start with a fun, simple project like a Sharps rifle.

      http://www.practicalmachinist.com/
      http://www.practicalmachinist.com/vb/gunsmithing/
      http://www.replicaplans.com/AK47.html
      http://www.replicaplans.com/

      http://www.google.com/search?q=formula+500&hl=en&client=firefox-a&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=np&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=_zPlUMeLD8azigKnvIGYDQ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAA&biw=1390&bih=709#hl=en&client=firefox-a&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=np&q=rifle+plans&revid=1408375222&sa=X&ei=WjvlUM71DaOiiQK17oH4BQ&ved=0CJcBENUCKAI&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.cGE&fp=31229be95c8561f6&bpcl=40096503&biw=1390&bih=709

    • Glen2gs
      January 5, 2013 at 6:10 am

      This is what We refer to as “The Hegelian dialectic: Problem(Crisis) Reaction, Solution”. The NWO tool of choice.

      How does the ruling elite get what they want? Simple. They create a crisis, everybody gets scared and then they present the “solution”. In the case of the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Some NUTCASE kills innocent children using an “Assault Weapon”=Crisis Solution:Ban all guns.

      • January 5, 2013 at 9:04 am

        Dear Glen,

        Sheeple. You herd them the same way you herd sheep.

        • Tor Munkov
          January 5, 2013 at 2:37 pm

          The Hegelian dialectical formula is one of reasoning from conclusion to evidence wherein:

          A (thesis) versus B (anti-thesis) equals C (synthesis).

          For example: If (A) my idea of freedom conflicts with (B) your idea of freedom then (C) neither of us can be free until everyone agrees to be a slave.

          Here’s an example from a children’s textbook using Hegel’s Dialectic.

          Here are 10 Ways You Turn Into Your Opposite
          Every Day Before You Leave Your House!

          Of course, not everybody has the same routine, or even has a house to live in!, but you get the idea…

          TIME TO GET UP!
          1. You go from asleep to awake

          2. You go from in bed to out of bed

          3. You go from unwashed to washed
          3A. You go from out of the shower to in the shower
          3B. The water goes from off to on to off
          3C. You go from unsoapy to soapy and then to rinsed
          3D. You go from wet to dry

          4. Your bladder goes from full to empty

          5. Your bowels go from full to empty

          6. Your teeth go from unbrushed to brushed

          7. Your hair goes from messy to combed

          8. You go from undressed to dressed
          8A. Your clothes go from off to on
          8B. Your shoes go from untied to tied
          8C. Your zippers go from unzipped to zipped
          8D. Your shirt goes from unbuttoned to buttoned

          9. You go from hungry to fed
          9A. The refrigerator goes from closed to opened to closed
          9B. Your food goes from uncooked to cooked
          9C. Eggs go from soft to hard
          9D. Oatmeal goes from runny to ready
          9E. Your food goes from uneaten to eaten (
          9F. Your food goes from out of your mouth to in your mouth
          9G. Your food goes from unchewed to chewed
          9H. Your food goes from unswallowed to swallowed
          9I. Your stomach goes from empty to full
          9J. Your milk goes from unpoured to poured/undrunk to drunk
          9K. Vitamins go from untaken to taken

          10. Your coat goes from off to on; your door goes from closed to opened; and you go from in the house to out of the house!

          [Dialectical Textbook Conclusion]
          So our bodies and the world around us are always changing into opposites. Remember that we, like everything else, have many opposing sides-at first one side is in control, but eventually the other side becomes stronger and-all at once-we go from asleep to awake, undressed to dressed, . . .

          You see, kids, Hegel’s dialectic can manipulate you into frenzied circular patterns of guided thought and action.

          The synthetic Hegelian solutions to the manufactured conflicts around the world can only be executed once the mobs take one of the prescribed sides that will advance the dialectic constructor’s agenda.

          The dialectic constructor’s agenda is moving along at breakneck speed. The only way to completely stop the privacy invasions, expanding domestic police powers, land grabs, insane wars against inanimate objects, covert actions, and outright assaults on individual liberty, is to step outside the dialectic. This releases you from the limitations of controlled and guided thought.

          Some Hegellian Aphorisms To Ponder

          Once the state has been founded, there can no longer be any heroes. They come on the scene only in uncivilized conditions.

          Mark this well, you proud men of action! you are, after all, nothing but unconscious instruments of the men of thought.

          We do not need to be shoemakers to know if our shoes fit, and just as little have we any need to be professionals to acquire knowledge of matters of universal interest.

          The learner always begins by finding fault, but the scholar sees the positive merit in everything.

          Amid the pressure of great events, a general principle gives no help.

          Governments have never learned anything from history, or acted on principles deducted from it.

          To him who looks upon the world rationally, the world in its turn presents a rational aspect. The relation is mutual.

  6. JdL
    December 31, 2012 at 9:11 pm

    Excellent column and comments. What bugs me most about the Presidency is that Obama (for example) made all kinds of promises. He promised an open and transparent administration. He said that whistle-blowers should be praised, not prosecuted. And on and on. He has not only broken almost every one of those promises, he has turned a complete 180 and become the person he claimed to have loathed. Yet we can do nothing!

    When you buy a toaster, if it doesn’t work as advertised, you can get your money back. But when the nation elects a president, there is ZERO recourse to hypocrisy, deception, and out-and-out lies.

    What use is democracy if a nation elects platform A and gets platform B, the exact opposite?

    • Lew Rothbard
      December 31, 2012 at 9:45 pm

      This is exactly what I tried to explain to some friends who not only voted for Obama, but thought he was a major improvement over Bush (at worst) and some sort of Messiah (at best).

      I told them, “Hear me now and remember me later: Obama will be no different from . . . no better than . . . in fact, far worse than . . . Bush. If you don’t believe me now, come and talk to me in four years.”

      Funny, I haven’t heard a peep out of these people.

      • JdL
        December 31, 2012 at 10:47 pm

        Good prognosticating! I consider myself pretty cynical, but have to admit I thought Obama might keep SOME of his promises. Now he says he can kill anyone, of any nationality, anywhere in the world, and if anybody asks why, “Trust me, he deserved it.” I hope I’ll live to see him tried for murder, but probably won’t…

      • December 31, 2012 at 11:52 pm

        Dear Lew,

        I made the same prediction with some of my Demopublican and Republicrat acquaintances.

        I said “Change you can believe in? Ha!”

        Actually I said a lot more than that. But long story short and all.

        The sad part about it, is that even though they evade that specific betrayal, they still remain trapped within the conceptual box of “democracy” and “free and fair elections.”

        They still believe totally in the system.

      • liberranter
        January 1, 2013 at 5:54 am

        Funny, I haven’t heard a peep out of these people.

        Nope, and you won’t either. However, you can safely bet –hell, you know– that these people are still regurgitating the party line, still worshipfully praising the sepia-skinned messiah like they’re expected to, and still consider him to be unquestionably an improvement over the Chimptard. They’re washed, rinsed, and purged little brainlets won’t let them do anything else.

    • Alan A
      January 1, 2013 at 12:07 am

      I “blew” my first chance to vote by voting Gary Johnson. Another person I know voted Hannah Montana.

      Serious voting may actually RUIN persons because of the thinking it requires in them to practice. I disliked the illusion of choice anyway, and saw it fit to mock it. Some college students depend on student loans to be in school, and, since they depend on them, any president willing to lower their interest rates is attractive. Any president they believe can somehow fix the economy attracts them as well.

      The thinking that the government can intervene more to make their lives easier is actually going to make their lives harder. Poor planning occurs due to such belief in an institution that can fails to perform as expected. More power is given to government and the mindset allows more power to be exercised over him, and he may depend on the government if he’s not successful at work.

      Not voting can be a good way to exercise disbelief in the system. Same goes for laughing at the TSA, cops, and government; for learning Libertarian and Austrian theories, and other education and deeds for the health of mind and body; be a better person without depending on the state to serve as an example, and then attempt to convince others. Other people can have a shot to prevent becoming a sucker of the government.

    • Eightsouthman
      January 3, 2013 at 7:26 am

      JdL, It would seem as if you give BO a bye when you say “almost every one of those promises”. So there was one he didn’t break?

    • Ed
      January 3, 2013 at 11:44 am

      “Obama (for example) made all kinds of promises. He promised an open and transparent administration. He said that whistle-blowers should be praised, not prosecuted. And on and on. ”

      Yep, that bugs me too. It’s just like W did. He immediately became Clinton, but without girlfriends, while his worshippers raved over what a “refreshing change” he was.

    • Jeff Anderson
      January 5, 2013 at 3:55 pm

      The notion of democracy is just a ploy used by oligarchs to dupe people into supporting the ruling elite to their own detriment.

  7. babydriver
    December 31, 2012 at 11:29 pm

    I never trusted the guy from the start. The whole system sucks.

    I knew there was something grossly wrong with what I was shown and what I was told from about the fourth grade.

    Anyone here remember the Weekly Reader? A UN rag pushed to elementary school kids in the early 60s? The new world order was being foisted on school kids way back when…

    I turned 60 today. It has only gone downhill.

    • dom
      January 1, 2013 at 12:43 am

      Happy Birthday!

    • liberranter
      January 1, 2013 at 5:58 am

      Anyone here remember the Weekly Reader?

      Now THERE’S a bad memory exumed. Yeah, I remember getting those things from first grade through fourth. Even at those young and impressionable ages, it came across to me as being pure, condescending drivel.

      Oh, and dittos on the birthday greetings. What a unique date to celebrate!

    • January 1, 2013 at 11:14 am

      Within 20 years, even the vestiges of an open society will have become intellectual daguerreotypes. Remnants of a vanished age.

      • skunkbear
        January 1, 2013 at 1:56 pm

        20 years?! I did not realize you are such an optimist Eric. I give it 5 years tops.

        Something wicked this way comes… quickly!

    • Eightsouthman
      January 3, 2013 at 7:46 am

      Happy birthday BD. Weekly Reader was one of those things I always had trouble believing. Hard to believe they endured for so long but then again, it was socialism funded by Uncle and foised off as UN, seems like that never gets old for “someone”, who the hell ever it might be. I noticed “Hil” got out of hospital….wonder if it “took a village”. Amazing how at one time it only took an educated parent or two.

  8. John Carter from Virginia
    January 1, 2013 at 12:32 am

    surprising the effeminate parasite Gil hasn’t been here to wag its little finger at you eric….

    you need to stop disobeying your leeeedrrrrrrz.

    • January 1, 2013 at 10:43 am

      Hi John,

      Gil is either a troll – or a paid troll.

      There are people on the government’s payroll who spend their days attempting to sidetrack/disrupt liberty-minded discussion forums with annoying/repetitive (or inciting) posts. I’ve given Gill the benefit of the doubt. I’ve explained to him that I have no problem with posts that disagree with things I (or others) have written, provided such posts are not merely collections of non sequiturs, personal attacks or incitements to violence. I won’t have that here. I also will not tolerate his (or any other troll’s) refusal to acknowledge points made, facts presented – while instead endlessly repeating the same tedious talking points over and over and over… the sole aim of which appears to be to exhaust and frustrate the legitimate posters.

      Gil’s been thrown in the woods.

      • methylamine
        January 1, 2013 at 7:53 pm

        Guarantee you his IP address tracks back to a gunverment office somewhere.

        • MoT
          January 1, 2013 at 8:07 pm

          No necessarily so. Though I bet they cash checks that do.

      • Ed
        January 3, 2013 at 11:50 am

        “Gil’s been thrown in the woods.”

        He came across as a paid troll to me. That’s why I gave him very short, profane, insulting responses.

        • January 3, 2013 at 11:57 am

          Dear Ed,

          Your tax dollars at work.

          That’s the most galling thing of all. Eric Holder is plotting to take away our guns, and doing it on our dime.

          Money is not the root of all evil. Taxation is the root of all evil.

          • Ed
            January 3, 2013 at 12:37 pm

            The love of money is actually the root of all evil. Taxation is just a means for money lovers to get their hands on more of it.

            I agree about Holder. What saves us is that he’s a dimwit, just like his boss. The face of evil is vapid. Evil people may have some low animal cunning but they’re not really intelligent.

  9. IndividualAudienceMember
    January 1, 2013 at 5:18 am

    EPA wrote: “the United at Gunpoint States”

    Perfectly put.

    I’m reminded of the many examples of slave uprisings in the Caribbean during the slave-trading, rum-running days of the early americas.

    Some revolts worked.

    Some revolts didn’t.

    None lasted.

    Empire.

    Hopefully the internet will change the odds.

    At the same time, I cannot help but think humanity is being herded by the power elite, and this is what the power elite desire… for whatever ends,… revolt ending in chaos, ending in their solution?

    Is this a ‘lite’/heavy? version of being played for a sucker?:

    “Conservative Republican warfare statists are not “allies” of libertarians. They are accomplices of liberal Democrat welfare statists.”… – and vise-versa.

    Oh, and this was the story of the century (ies):

    JL wrote: “What bugs me most about the Presidency is that Obama (for example) made all kinds of promises. He promised an open and transparent administration. He said that whistle-blowers should be praised, not prosecuted. And on and on. He has not only broken almost every one of those promises, he has turned a complete 180 and become the person he claimed to have loathed. Yet we can do nothing!”

    That’s the way it’s Always been and Always will be as long as People remain ignorant,… I had about the same thought in 1984, then it multiplied, four year after four year.,,

    But there is something People can do: Opt – the Fuck – Out.

    … Or, remain trapped within their particular “conceptual box” while enjoying their weekly reader – wHAt brain-robbing reading that was@!. E-Gads, we’re surrounded by a nation of Clad-vampires with a Weekly Reader level of reading! ???

    Time to prove your metal, american’t’s

    Sink or swim.

    … But then again, I think that’s already been decided, americans – not Freedomistas as represented here – have already rolled over, and over and over.

    Maybe it’s us who should give up the myth of what america once was supposed to mean? We live in anti-america. It might as well be Fucking Mars for how things work.

    Live life free as you can, sure.

    But stop thinking of america as the thing you once thought it was, it Never was and Never will be.

    Maybe something better someday, but for now,… Whoa, Rome lives.

    – IndividualAudienceMember

    • January 3, 2013 at 10:57 am

      So you don’t count the Haitian revolt as early, then? And the longish period that the slaves held out after seizing at least one of the Danish Virgin Islands doesn’t qualify as lasting?

  10. IndividualAudienceMember
    January 1, 2013 at 6:16 am

    Remember when Rush Limbaugh talked about smaller government in the late 1980’s? wHAt a Lie.

    He sounded good though.

    Remember when George Bush talked about Not wanting to be a part of foreign nation building in the 1990’s? wHAt a Lie.

    He sounded good though.

    Remember the yellow ribbons tied around the oak trees in the 1990’s all along main street america symbolizing the quick return of the soldiers? wHAt a Lie.

    It sounded good though.

    Remember what america was supposed to represent? wHAt a Lie. ???

    It sounded good though, as they taught it in the coed-prison complex called public schools, anyway.

    Whatever sticks, is their motto.

    Seriously, my fellow americans cause me to be embarrassed to call myself an american sometimes, certain present company and the like excepted of course.

    To be an american, does it mean one has to be a liar?
    Is That what it means to be an american these days?

    And freedom is slavery?

    Screww all that, call me a freedomista, a Rothbardian, an anarcho-capitalist, but Please don’t call me an imperialist Empire driven american’t focused on state religion, merchanitilism and thinking more People on the planet is a bad thing. Those weak-minded limted thoughts sicken me,… trolls abound.

    • MoT
      January 1, 2013 at 6:36 am

      I’ve had to correct so many people who blather on and define all Americans as somehow being “lumpen” that it gets wearying to say the least. I’m not one of the faceless THEM anymore than the intelligent folk on this blog. Trying to keep ones head up and swim upstream in a river of ideological shit is tough.

      • Eightsouthman
        January 3, 2013 at 8:15 am

        Wide, Wide River….the Fugs

        • MoT
          January 4, 2013 at 4:58 pm

          Lord! I never heard of these guys but that song sounds like an old gospel tune and the message is obvious. How ironic. Their CIA Man is way ahead of its time, but mind the pun, “dead on”. Yet another puzzle piece rescued from the memory hole.

          • Eightsouthman
            January 12, 2013 at 11:50 pm

            MoT, You will love the “Paws of Mr. Claus” by Arlo Guthrie, a story of FBI harassment. It dates to ’68 but is fresh as a daisy, could have been written yesterday except for airline policy. We have the old Warner Bros. album from back when it was only available when you belonged to a record club, a very limited release. If you can find the entire album, get it, you won’t regret it. (didn’t intend to make a rhyme)

    • January 1, 2013 at 6:41 am

      Dear IAM,

      I second that.

      Rush Limbaugh is no champion of liberty.

      The problem is not that he is a “shock jock” who “sensationalizes issues.”

      Alex Jones is also a shock jock, who sensationalizes issues. But Jones is a hardcore libertarian.

      Limbaugh by contrast, is a conservative authoritarian who only blasts “The Government” when a liberal authoritarian is in office.

      • Mithrandir
        January 1, 2013 at 6:56 am

        Rush Limbaugh is just a mattress salesman. He will pitch what ever he is paid to pitch.

        He is also dishonest and will manipulate the facts to a malleable public when it suits his purpose.

        • IndividualAudienceMember
          January 1, 2013 at 7:15 am

          Sure, Mithrandir. I agree. But at that time he sounded good.

          Minus the war-against-some-drugs he made a bit of sense,… pre-internet.

          There wasn’t anything else much available in flyover country back then.

          I guess my problem is I expect too much of People.

          I’ve since lowered my standards.

          Those who excel, really stand out.

          • Mithrandir
            January 1, 2013 at 8:59 am

            He did sound good at the time. I was more naive back then.

        • January 1, 2013 at 10:05 am

          Dishonest – and, an asshole. It radiates from him in all directions.

          “ladies and gennelmen….”

          • liberranter
            January 1, 2013 at 10:06 pm

            Dishonest – and, an asshole.

            Just like his Reichpublican audience.

        • MoT
          January 1, 2013 at 7:32 pm

          I’d consider that a slur against mattress salesmen.

          • Eightsouthman
            January 3, 2013 at 8:24 am

            M, I had friends who sold mattresses…and they ate up everything the slimeball said. Lush Rimball, railed against drug users and he are one of the most addicted kinds. I always look askance at those who protest too much. It seems like when you put those people in your sights and keep them there over the long haul, you’ll eventually be rewarded by seeing their duplicity meet the light of day….or the light of a sensationalistic press.

          • Ed
            January 3, 2013 at 12:01 pm

            Yeah, me too. He’s more like a mattress than a salesman.

      • Tinsley Grey Sammons
        January 1, 2013 at 7:22 pm

        LIMBAUGH’S DISEASE

        http://www.szasz.com/liberty.html

        Szasz nailed that unprincipled hypocrite many years ago.

        tgsam

        • MoT
          January 1, 2013 at 7:38 pm

          He did indeed. What the world needs are millions of Szasz’s with his sense.

          • liberranter
            January 1, 2013 at 10:10 pm

            The fact that Dr. Szasz was, AFAWK, unique tells us all we need to know about the “justice” of the universe in which we live. There are hundreds, probably thousands of despicable, hypocritical, unprincipled blatherers like Lardbaugh all over the place, but no one else in Dr. Szasz’s mold (again, AFAWK) to carry on his essential work.

      • Tinsley Grey Sammons
        January 1, 2013 at 7:26 pm

        Limbaugh should be beaten to the brink of death every time he even mentions the Constitution.

        tgsam

        • January 1, 2013 at 7:46 pm

          I’ll see that and raise you –

          He should be rendered down to 280 gallons of wheel bearing grease and sold at Wal-Mart for $4 a tin.

          • methylamine
            January 1, 2013 at 8:00 pm

            As good as that is, I’d want him rendered into soap.

            Then sold exclusively to the prisons where Diane Feinstein, GWB, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Boehner, and the whole Neocon crew are kept.

        • liberranter
          January 1, 2013 at 10:12 pm

          Every Neoconpublican who mentions that document –other than to be honest and admit that they despise it and want to see it burned– should have their tongues ripped out and be strangled with them.

    • January 1, 2013 at 10:08 am

      A few weeks back, shortly after the election, I stumbled upon Ruuuuussssssshhhh Limbaugh and listened to him for a little while. He was fulminating about Romney’s loss and said something along the lines of, “freedom doesn’t sell.”

      I almost ran my truck into a tree.

      • Tre Deuce
        January 1, 2013 at 10:13 am

        COL! Keep it out of the ditch…err trees Eric.

        Thanks for my first life of the new year.

        COL! ‘Chuckling out loud’

        • Tre Deuce
          January 1, 2013 at 10:15 am

          Correction ‘First Laugh’

      • MoT
        January 1, 2013 at 7:36 pm

        Limbaugh, and his verbal vomit, isn’t worth losing a truck or hurting a tree over.

      • Tinsley Grey Sammons
        January 1, 2013 at 7:48 pm

        Freedom

        You do whatever is necessary to get and keep it, even to the point of using deadly force if all else fails.

        Statists are vermin.

        tgsam

      • liberranter
        January 1, 2013 at 10:14 pm

        A few weeks back, shortly after the election, I stumbled upon Ruuuuussssssshhhh Limbaugh and listened to him for a little while.

        Good god, what on earth made you torture yourself so? I can’t think of ANY legitimate reason to give that assclown more than a microsecond of my listening attention. I’d listen to an hour’s worth of fingernails on a chalkboard first!

        • skunkbear
          January 1, 2013 at 11:05 pm

          “I can’t think of ANY legitimate reason to give that assclown more than a microsecond of my listening attention.”

          Yes, liberranter, it can be painful but I do listen to Rush and Beck every now and then for the sole purpose of knowing thy enemy. I draw the line at Hannity though – that twit has never had an original thought his whole life.

          I also listen to/watch the libtards too; Maddow, Shultz etc. Also in very small doses. No sane man can endure such tortured “logic” for very long.

          But my favorite is Joe Madison, the so called black eagle. This gubment worshiping loon is hysterical. He will contradict himself in mid sentence. If you have xm radio do yourself a favor and listen to him some morning. You will be amazed at the “reasoning” being thrown out over the airwaves by this sophomoric fool.

      • BrentP
        January 2, 2013 at 5:29 am

        Once upon a time I could listen to Limbaugh regularly. The second time I did that was in the early 2000s. As shrub’s first term went on he became unlistenable. That’s when I found ‘crazy’ Alex Jones.

        • methylamine
          January 2, 2013 at 5:39 am

          I’ve been listening to Alex for three years. His research is excellent and his spidey-sense is usually spot-on.

          He uses shock techniques to wake the sleeping. Once you’re used to it, you can tune out the shock part and read his subtext–and it’s accurate. He’s for real.

          • BrentP
            January 2, 2013 at 6:42 am

            I’ve learned how to filter Jones. His websites are great ‘link’ and ‘memory hole’ archives.

    • Tinsley Grey Sammons
      January 1, 2013 at 7:41 pm

      The song about the Yellow Ribbon on the Oak Tree was inspired by a feelsgood article that had appeared in Reader’s Digest. The account described in the Digest might very well have been true.

      Tinsley Grey Sammons (1936 –)

    • Ed
      January 3, 2013 at 11:58 am

      “call me a freedomista”

      I’m usually called a conspiracy theorist or an anarchist, and that suits me just fine. They can call me whatever they like. Fuck’em and feed ‘em fish heads.

      Democrats and republicans can kiss my ass, especially republicans.

  11. Tre Deuce
    January 1, 2013 at 10:21 am

    Regarding; taking away our guns.

    As I stated in ‘Some Perspective’, I have no fear of the government taking away our guns. It is all just noise, as neither ruling political party has any interest in stirring the pot, regarding gun ownership.

    • January 1, 2013 at 10:28 am

      Deuce,

      I sincerely hope you’re right – and I’m utterly marinated in paranoia. However, my Spider Sense is tingling. I firmly believe something’s afoot this time. Too many synergies are converging. The America you and I knew is rapidly changing into (cue Dark Overlord voice from Howard The Duck) ….. something else.

      It will not take much to throw the entire works into chaos. And what comes after the chaos is what really worries me.

      • Tre Deuce
        January 1, 2013 at 10:59 am

        Hi! Eric,

        Yes, ‘Spider sense’. But it involves, as you well know, more then the attempt to control guns.

        In a few days, I will have completed my 66th trip around old Sol, and if I have learned one thing, it is that humans move at glacial pace with much noise and confusion, except when they don’t. And when they don’t, it isn’t very pretty.

        Will the government move on our guns, and the right wing fascists and progressive anarchists? Do they dare? Even the ruling elite have some personal and collective, well found fears that give them pause when considering that can of worms.

        And if they are as clueless about gun toting liberals as most are _we laugh about it while we count our ammo_ they would know that it doesn’t look good for them. So far, I think, they think, that they only have to deal with the fringe anti-government types.

        No, moving to take away our guns would involve a lot of political and philosophical types… and that doesn’t bode well for the government finding any majority support on the issue.

        • skunkbear
          January 1, 2013 at 1:24 pm

          Tre Deuce, you may be right in a sense.

          Whenever there is a horrific crime, TPTB move quickly to blame guns. This serves a dual purpose.

          First, it works to their advantage to try to eventually disarm the people. Whether they can actually pull it off in one swoop or just in increments it lets them move the barriers to disarmament a little lower each time.

          Secondly, getting the media to relentlessly blame guns works to divert the people’s thoughts away from the fact that government cannot protect them. Which begets the question as to why have a government that does not and cannot protect us. This question must always be suppressed.

          But I agree with Eric – my spider sense is also tingling. Very much so. More than ever actually.

          I have always thought that TPTB did not have to grab the guns so much as keep them from being used until technologies (which they control) develop to the point where firearms are anachronistic. Bide their time and let the people have their ARs while the government develops weapons which would make a rifle look like a slingshot compared to whatever this new technology may be.

          This new technology can be anything from actual Buck Roger type laser guns to electric charged non projectiles. Who knows. I am thinking that micro drone swarms would be a big game changer.

          • IndividualAudienceMember
            January 1, 2013 at 4:45 pm

            micro drone swarms, that is scary. The rest of what skunkbear wrote seems about right too.

            Especially from an historical viewpoint.

          • dom
            January 1, 2013 at 4:48 pm

            Micro Drone:

          • Tre Deuce
            January 2, 2013 at 2:35 am

            Techniques/technologies for negating the use of guns in a counter offensive.

            Sensing technology and the use of surveillance and armed drones and helicopters, are the biggest deterrent for hiding from and mounting an effective counter to a rogue government. The drones could be equipped with high intensity sound weapons that would disable with out a shot fired.

            You really can’t hide in the rural areas anymore, so any effective counter to the government will be an urban one.

            As many learned in Vietnam, a helicopter can be over you in a few seconds with little warning if it uses the topography.

            Bury some of your guns and ammo…today
            http://www.polygunbag.com/

        • Tinsley Grey Sammons
          January 1, 2013 at 7:02 pm

          Never let a good distraction go to waste. Gun ownership is a near perpetual distraction.

          “I’ll get you a fair trial and a fine hanging.” –Rooster Cogburn

          That’s how I feel about a substantial number of America’s present office holders and the minor buttlicks who do their bidding.

          tgsam

        • Ed
          January 3, 2013 at 12:31 pm

          ” that doesn’t bode well for the government finding any majority support on the issue.”

          Politicians don’t care about majority support for what they want to do. Support is established, after the fact, in the media, where claims of majority support for whatever outrage has been foisted upon us are made over and over until they simply stop mentioning it.

      • methylamine
        January 1, 2013 at 8:12 pm

        My spidey-sense began tingling right after the Aurora shooting, and right now the hair on the back of my neck is standing up so straight I can’t lie on my pillow.

        They are coming for the guns this time for REAL.

        And they don’t care if it starts a war with the police; they WANT it. Ordo ab chao–the Illuminists’ and NWO motto.

        Disarmament is the canary in the coal mine. It is always the harbinger of a coming massive democide–death by government.

        Using conservative statistics, governments have murdered 250 million people in the last century–not including war. Bill Ayers and other Weathermen planned, on tape in front of the FBI informant, to put 50 million Americans in re-education camps and kill 25 million.

        Look at Diane Feinstein–that bitch is a cold-eyed predator who’s wormed her way deeply into the fedgov’s corpse.

        They’re going to do it by hook or by crook, because they WANT the war.

        My fear is they’re going to start with registration, and all the fucking idiots who support the NRA will make “just one more compromise”.

        That will give them time, and cover, to come after those of us who WILL NOT register our weapons. They’ll SWAT team us first.

        THEN they’ll come after the softer targets–the idiots who registered. First, assault weapons. Then all semi-autos. Then all semi-auto pistols. Then everything.

        And they’ll do it in degrees, going after the strong hold-outs first to terrorize the weaker hands into giving up.

        We need to learn effective resistance techniques NOW–how to hide them. Finding out which cities are being swept, and temporarily living with relatives.

        And other no-so-subtle tricks.

        They are going to force this war on us. I’m preparing myself mentally.

  12. Tor Munkov
    January 1, 2013 at 11:07 am

    Both Republicans(except Ron Paul) & Democrats are like Old Yeller. They might have been good companions at one time to some; they might still elicit affection for many. But they been bit by the wolf and got the rabies now; they all need to be dealt with ASAP.(see 1:14:00 timestamp of vid for allegorical instructions).

    We don’t need to replace Old Yeller with a new companion, but if so choose, we might want to consider a new libertarian breed of puppy like “Young Yeller” to take Old Yeller’s place.

    O1d Ye11er – 1957 – Fu11 Movie

    • Tinsley Grey Sammons
      January 1, 2013 at 6:41 pm

      I do not believe that it will ever be possible to elect our way out of the unlawful mess. And shamefully, Americans will not get off their sorry asses and do what simply must be done. Buy them books, then send them to school where they build a fire with the books so that they can cook and eat their teacher.

      When I watch humans at election time I visualize chimpanzees with their ugly teeth* bared while they whoop, scream and throw feces at one another.

      tgsam

      *They’re even uglier than the worst pictures in the British Book of Smiles.

      • Tor Munkov
        January 6, 2013 at 2:56 pm

        There was one kid in class who from 1st to 3rd grade wouldn’t submit to the nuns. He literally ran wildly from desktop to desktop like a chimp while the old penguins chased him with thick rulers and long rigid pointers and with shrill shouts from austere shriveled faces.
        The right thing to do would have been for the whole lot of us to join in the chimpfest and overwhelm them.
        By 4th grade, he had been corporally pacified and sat in his place with a bright shiny face like the rest of us.
        Perhaps I’m in error, but it seems obtaining freedom sometimes involves the bluff of a pyrrhic battle. A bluff that if called, means the bitter possibility of pyrrhic victories and defeats.
        – – – – –
        The two armies separated; and Pyrrhus said to one who was congratulating him on his victory, “If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined.”
        -Plutarch

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_War
        (280–275 BC)

        Pile up gold, heap up silver, build covered walks, fill your house with slaves and the town with debtors, unless you lay to rest the passions of the soul, and put a curb on your insatiable desires, and rid yourself of fear and anxiety, you are but pouring out wine for a man in a fever, and laying out a sumptuous banquet for people who suffer from dysentery, and can neither retain food nor get any benefit from it, but are made even worse by it.

        Such, also, is the effect of reason on the mind. You will be contented, if you have learned what is good and honorable. You will live in ease and be a king in poverty, and enjoy a quiet and private life as much as the public life of a general or statesman.

        By the aid of philosophy you will live not unpleasantly, for you will learn to extract pleasure from all places and things: 1)wealth will make you happy, because it will enable you to benefit many; and 2)poverty, as you will not then have many anxieties; and 3)glory, for it will make you honoured; and 4)obscurity, for you will then be safe from envy.

        Happiness comes from within, not from without. The true seat of happiness is the mind.

        Plutarch’s Morals
        http://www.gutenberg.org/files/23639/23639-h/23639-h.htm#Page_95a

  13. the smirking chimp
    January 1, 2013 at 3:25 pm

    I remember talking to a buddy about shrubya back in 05-06 and saying he doesn’t concern me it is who will come after him to exploit the imperial executive and look what has happened.

  14. Tinsley Grey Sammons
    January 1, 2013 at 6:17 pm

    AYN RAND

    A copy of THE AYN RAND LEXICON can provide anyone with the best of Ayn Rand’s thinking. I consider it a very important part of my handy references.

    For me long novels are usually a tedious bore. Years ago I suffered through some merely so that I could honestly claim to have read them. What is more tedious than reading WAR AND PEACE. Offhand, the only two books that were not boring are Clavell’s SHOGUN and Heinrich’s CROSS OF IRON.

    I tried to read, and failed to finish, GONE WITH THE WIND. Reading ATLAS SHRUGGED and, THE FOUNTAINHEAD were each like watching the last two minutes of a close football game over and over when each team seems to have an unlimited number of timeouts.

    tgsam

    • Ed
      January 3, 2013 at 12:49 pm

      “the best of Ayn Rand’s thinking.”

      ahaha…. That wouldn’t even amount to a short sentence. Rand simply stole the ideas of others to use in her tedious and unreadable novels.

      Rand acolytes, the “objectivists”, are the most tedious assholes you’ll ever encounter. Watch for them posting in an online forum. They’ll be the ones who write a pedantic, preaching response longer than the original article that heads the thread.

      • Tinsley Grey Sammons
        January 3, 2013 at 2:24 pm

        AYN RAND’S CONCLUSIONS

        Have you ever examined a copy of THE AYN RAND LEXICON? If so, I’d be interested in something she wrote that you take issue with. For an opener try her comments on the Constitution.

        For reasons that I fail to comprehend, Rand’s detractors rarely use quotation marks. Why? If the lady was as full of shit as her detractors claim then mining her Work for bullshit ought to be very easy.

        Tinsley Grey Sammons (1936 –)

        • January 3, 2013 at 2:35 pm

          Rand, like anyone, wasn’t perfect. But her good points outweigh her bad points as I see it – especially that she helped to popularize ideas that had been all-but-consigned to the dustbin of history. Sure, she re-stated ideas that had been previously stated by others (in particular, Lysander Spooner). So? She re-stated them powerfully – and reached a much larger audience.

          Her biggest failure, as I see it, was her failure to integrate the NAP into her core ethics. She tolerated state violence when it accorded with her own valuations of what was “desirable” – for example, national defense. She didn’t see – or did and chose not to acknowledge – that making any exception to the NAP is to cede any moral-ethical basis for objecting to future exceptions.

          I also found her insistence on conforming to a “rational” (as defined be her) selection of music, literature, even one’s spouse – absurd. And, dangerous – as the collectivist cult that grew up around her and her philosophy demonstrated.

          Still, I doubt the freedom movement would be where it is today had Rand never existed.

          We owe her a debt – and our respect.

          • Tinsley Grey Sammons
            January 3, 2013 at 4:07 pm

            Eric, you are probably one of the few who has actually applied Critical Thinking to Rand’s expressed thought. I suspect that the multitudes who express THEIR opinion of HER are ill prepared to discuss her thought. They are ill-prepared because they have never actually studied her thought.

            “We could relieve ourselves of most of the bewilderment which so unsettles, and distracts us by subjecting each situation to the simple test of right and wrong. Right and wrong as moral principles do not change. They are applicable and reliable determinants whether the situations with which we deal are simple or complicated. There is always a right and wrong to every question which requires a solution.”
            — Ezra Taft Benson, The Proper Role of Government

            I doubt if many of those who insinuate that they have actually read Rand’s Works
            actually have. I suggest that they acquire a copy of THE AYN RAND LEXICON and take Mr. Benson’s advice.

            Tinsley Grey Sammons (1936 –)

          • Don Cooper
            January 3, 2013 at 6:14 pm

            I always hesitate to associate myself with a “group” or even a philosophy. We need not quote Ayn Rand or Ron Paul or debate the merits of either except for the sake of doing so if you enjoy that.

            All that is required is an understanding of the difference between right(s) and wrong(s). That’s the underlying principle and if that principle is applied to all actions then you arrive at a just, moral and a sustainable, productive economy.

            If a society is incapable of understanding what private property ownership and hence rights are, then the problem is the morality and the intellect of that society. No amount of govt force will change that. In fact, in that case, the govt will also be immoral and ignorant to the rights of others.

            I give you the USSA.

        • Tor Munkov
          January 3, 2013 at 3:23 pm

          [to-all-republicans]
          Dear Mr. Peters,

          I fully concur that your stinging rebuke of the weltgeist of these autistic overlord savants is spot on. As does Mr. Lawrence, I too take great pleasure in reading your derisive eviscerations of these pretentious Revolutionary Monists. I look forward as well with great anticipation to each and every salvo and philosophical dressing down of these planetary pretenders- well done.

          [Ayn Rand & Objectivists]
          Dear Tinsley,
          Objectivists are of the type of agora hangarounds one once encountered in Ancient Greece, Egypt, China, Babylon, and many other great intellectual societies…

          [Ayn Rand Lexicon]
          The Lexicon, maintained by Harry Binswanger, is one of the webs great resources, one need not read her 20 course word marathons…
          http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/conservatives_vs_liberals.html

          [Praise For Atlas Shrugged]
          January 23, 1958
          Mrs. Ayn Rand
          36 East 36 Street New York, N.Y.
          Dear Mrs. Rand:
          I AM NOT A professional critic and I feel no call to judge the merits of a novel. So I do not want to detain you with the information that I enjoyed very much reading Atlas Shrugged and that I am full of admiration for your masterful construction of the plot. But “Atlas Shrugged” is not merely a novel. It is also—or may I say: first of all—a cogent analysis of the evils that plague our society, a substantiated rejection of the ideology of our self-styled “intellectuals” and a pitiless unmasking of the insincerity of the policies
          adopted by governments and political parties. It is a devastating exposure of the “moral cannibals,” the “gigolos of science” and of
          the “academic prattle” of the makers of the “anti-industrial revolution.”…
          -Ludwig Mises

          October 3, 1957
          Mrs. Ayn Rand O’Connor
          36 East 36th St. New York 16, N.Y.
          Dear Ayn:
          FIRST, I WOULD LIKE to begin by saying “and I mean it”; there is no exaggeration or hyperbole in this letter. Anything less than complete
          honesty would be unworthy of Atlas Shrugged.
          I just finished your novel today. I will start by saying that all of us in the “Circle Bastiat” are convinced, and were convinced very
          early in the reading, that Atlas Shrugged is the greatest novel ever written…
          -Murray Rothbard

          Full Copy of Mises/Rothbard Letters to Ayn Rand
          http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_4/21_4_3.pdf

          • Tinsley Grey Sammons
            January 3, 2013 at 9:07 pm

            If anyone can take issue with what AR said about the Constitution, I’d like to read it.

            Her treatment of the Commerce Clause (Claws)gutted the very foundation of the unconstitutional Drug War without even mentioning it.

            For those who find reading long novels tedious, I strongly recommend THE AYN RAND LEXICON.

            As I’ve grown older I find it all but impossible to wade through a thousand pages.

            tgsam

          • January 4, 2013 at 12:20 am

            Dear Tor, Tinsley,

            I agree. The Ayn Rand Lexicon is a valuable resource.

            Ayn Rand’s non-fiction prose writing was brilliant. Rand may have been a crappy novelist, but she was an outstanding essayist/polemicist.

            Rand’s prose was brilliant because it (usually) had the force of irrefutable logic behind it, and also because she laid out her arguments so very methodically. If a, then b. If b, then c.

            I say “usually” because unfortunately she was blind about several key issues.

            She was wrong on minarchism. Minarchism is logically incompatible with individual sovereignty and “consent.”

            She was wrong on patents and copyrights. Enforcement of “Intellectual Property Rights” so-called, requires clear aggression against peaceful individuals peacefully making use of their own property.

            She was wrong on aesthetics. Long story short, she basically decreed that whatever she liked in art, music, or literature, was “rational,” and that whatever she didn’t like, betrayed the consciousness of a “whim-worshipping mystic.”

            But as serious as these blind spots of hers were, they are no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.

      • January 3, 2013 at 3:20 pm

        Dear Ed,

        I concur with Tinsley and Eric.

        Rand had some serious character defects. Her character defects led to some serious philosophical errors, which in turn led to some serious political repercussions. To wit, the robotic “Randroid” warmongers infesting the Ayn Rand Institute.

        But… on the other hand, what Eric says about her contribution to the refinement, reorganization, and popularization of libertarian ideas is dead on. The libertarian movement would not be as far along as it is without her.

        So the minuses must be weighed against the pluses. My take? Her legacy is secure.

  15. Bill in NC
    January 1, 2013 at 9:50 pm

    I should point out that no executive order can create new law.

    In the real world, any such attempt would be immediately enjoined by federal courts.

    And would cost the Democrats dearly in the mid-term elections (as in 1994 with the first AWB).

    • liberranter
      January 1, 2013 at 10:20 pm

      That’s all true, Bill, but it assumes that we actually live in a nation of law and order. Clearly this is not the case. The Sock Puppet-in-Chief has become a de facto absolute monarch (well, not him, technically, but the powers he fronts for). The courts are mere rubber stamps for whatever the SPIC and his handlers decide.

      As for mid-term elections, we can look upon such events during the past 20 years as evidence that they do NOTHING to stanch the movement of tyranny.

      • Bill in NC
        January 1, 2013 at 10:42 pm

        Short of declaring martial law to shut down federal courts, any such executive order wouldn’t last a week.

        If the President did this you’d have Democrats lining up to get rid of him.

        Everyone else in the U.S. would simply ignore any such decree (no U.S. attorney would risk their career trying to enforce such an order)

        • January 1, 2013 at 10:55 pm

          If that’s so, Bill… wonder why Obummer wasted so much time writing all those other “executive orders.”

          • IndividualAudienceMember
            January 2, 2013 at 12:03 am

            Bill in NC: “Everyone else in the U.S. would simply ignore any such decree (no U.S. attorney would risk their career trying to enforce such an order)”

            Obviously you’ve not been reading any of William L. Anderson descriptions of prosecutors and how they act.

            http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson-arch.html

            “no U.S. attorney would risk their career trying to…” And yet they will try to jail 60 plus year old nuns, and Nothing happens:

            Prosecution as Persecution: The Carol Asher Case

            http://www.freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2012/12/prosecution-as-persecution-carol-asher.html

          • Bill in NC
            January 2, 2013 at 1:34 am

            Look, I love a good conspiracy as much as anyone, but we’re nowhere near “rule by decree.”

            Plus, exactly how would the president enforce such an order?

            He can’t use the military or National Guard (short of declaring martial law), and in most states there are only a handful of federal law enforcement officials available.

            Remember, state/local LEOs don’t enforce federal law, and can’t be dragooned into doing so (we have a SCOTUS decision on that already)

          • January 2, 2013 at 11:49 am

            Hi Bill,

            In fact, we are. That the asserted authority hasn’t been exercised broadly doesn’t change the fact that it has been asserted – and thus, the principle accepted.

            This is exactly the point I was trying to get across. Principles matter. Precedent becomes practice.

            Dictatorship isn’t imposed overnight. It creeps up on you gradually.

            And the creeping is well under way.

          • Tinsley Grey Sammons
            January 2, 2013 at 2:25 am

            That prosecutor is a criminal and should be dealt with accordingly. The Nuremberg Precedent is applicable for dealing with crimes against humanity.

          • IndividualAudienceMember
            January 2, 2013 at 3:27 am

            Like a good conspiracy all you want, the Facts are what matter here.

            Bill in NC: “Remember, state/local LEOs don’t enforce federal law”

            Yes, they do.

            Case in point:

            Stealing Camp Zoe: The Federal “Forfeiture” Gang Strikes

            http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2010/11/stealing-camp-zoe-federal-forfeiture.html

        • Ed
          January 3, 2013 at 12:59 pm

          “Remember, state/local LEOs don’t enforce federal law, and can’t be dragooned into doing so ”

          Not so, Bill. See the case of Brandon Raub, in Chesterfield, Va. The news media kept claiming that he was arrested by federal agents, but the photos show him being arrested by Chesterfield County cops.

          He was arrested by county cops and held in a county lockup, until he was ordered released by a federal judge.

          Many local jurisdictions have willing officials who will order arrests for federal prosecutors. Virginia seems to be full of such officials.

          • liberranter
            January 4, 2013 at 12:14 am

            Many local jurisdictions have willing officials who will order arrests for federal prosecutors. Virginia seems to be full of such officials.

            Every state, county, and city is full of such stooges. Why? Because, very simply, to them, federal authority = power. Power is not only the only thing that most of these low-level bureau-rats understand and respect, it’s what they crave for themselves. This is why local and state-level politicians NEVER do anything to fight back against federal encroachment on the states’ prerogatives. After all, their state and local offices are mere stepping stones toward the federal office that is is their ultimate goal. They couldn’t care less about you, the “Mere Mundane” (thank you, Will Grigg!) at the bottom. You’re just a convenient enabler of their power – and a mere subject to be trampled upon on their way to the top.

          • Bill in NC
            January 5, 2013 at 3:07 pm

            He was picked up for a psych hold, not arrested.

            If you or I started posting on social media accounts about grabbing an axe to go chop off some heads (paraphrased), we’d find ourselves on a psych hold as well.

          • Jeff Anderson
            January 6, 2013 at 12:13 am

            Perhaps Bill could enlighten us on the exact difference between being abducted by cops for Psych hold and being abducted by cops and placed under arrest. As I recall, the purported comments were not even posted by Raub, but were posted by another gamer. They were involved in playing an online game. Statist true believers support this kind of abuse by cops, FLEAs and locals.

          • skunkbear
            January 6, 2013 at 1:41 pm

            Jeff Anderson said:

            “Perhaps Bill could enlighten us on the exact difference between being abducted by cops for Psych hold and being abducted by cops and placed under arrest.”

            Bill can’t/won’t but I will:

            Being arrested sets into motion procedures that can be measured and countered during the processes all of which are based on the rule of innocent until PROVEN guilty (I know, in theory anyways).

            The process of a psych hold is based on the rule of guilty of being irrational until a quack decides you are innocent of “wrong thoughts”.

            A psych hold is a most fearsome thing because its whole premise is based on quackery. If ever there was a false science it is psychology. It is at best only a study of theories. At worst it is someone who claims to know how everyone else thinks and the authority to judge which of those inner thoughts are acceptable or not.

            So with a psych hold a person can be locked away based only on the claim of a self-proclaimed expert until that “expert” deems the person’s thoughts have become “rational” again. This can be and often is indefinite. What procedures are in place to overturn an ego maniac’s (psychologist) claim that another person is “irrational”? How do you disprove a negative?

            Remember, the old Soviet Union’s gulags were full of “mentally unstable” people as deemed by the state’s “mental health experts”. After all, only a crazy person would not accept the tenets of communism.

            And Bill, you had better believe the state is gearing up for the argument that only a paranoid and delusional person would want to own a gun. And they will have no trouble finding the “experts” to help push that agenda with psych holds.

          • ozymandias
            January 6, 2013 at 5:14 pm

            “If ever there was a false science it is psychology.

            Is it, perhaps, or could it be, a true art, then?

            Maybe you mean something like “color of psychology” (like color of law).

            Psychology, like economics, another social science, is real. So is subversion of reality by infestations of machinating authoritarians.

            There are lots of soft social scientists pretending to be physicists…because they want to bring hard-edged blades to fistfights. At least, they want to believe they have sharp knives; & especially they want “mundanes” to believe it. So, see, even the “psychologists” & numerologists (economists), to be understood, require some psychological magnification.

            Didn’t someone post about freud’s nephew, bernays?

          • skunkbear
            January 6, 2013 at 5:56 pm

            ozymandias:

            “Maybe you mean something like “color of psychology” (like color of law).”

            I mean that although psychology claims to be a science most of its claims cannot be proven using the scientific method (same with most of economics).

            The reason being is that everyone is different and no human can know what makes another human tick. Therefore it is dangerous for us to believe in those who claim they do indeed know what evil lurks in the hearts of man. Or allowing these soothsayers to define what is or is not evil.

            (Funny how this also applies to economics too. But that is for another discussion.)

            In short, psychology is bull shit.

            If I understand correctly that your point is that it does not matter if psychology is real or not, it just matters that the masses believe it is, then, yes I would agree with that. And that is our problem – the dolts will follow whatever their “superiors” tell them whether what they are told to believe in is BS or not.

          • ozymandias
            January 6, 2013 at 6:18 pm

            Not what I meant. Psychology is real – not b.s. And if that baby is tossed along with the bathwater, there is no possibility of understanding any of the topics discussed here (or anywhere else).

            The reason, the only reason, psych, & econ, fall short of the standard you would impose – scientific method – is that fewer of the variables are known, & therefore controllable, than in other experiments. So reproducibility (of outcomes) becomes more probabilistic rather than precise. “Hard” medicine suffers the exact same deficiency, btw.

            What the masses believe in is “authority” – in all its various guises. For a clean conjunction, look at Milgram’s obedience to authority experiments.

          • skunkbear
            January 6, 2013 at 8:24 pm

            ozy:

            “Psychology is real – not b.s. And if that baby is tossed along with the bathwater, there is no possibility of understanding any of the topics discussed here (or anywhere else).”

            Not accepting the validity of psychology hardly makes one incapable of understanding controversial discussions. (?!)

            “The reason, the only reason, psych, & econ, fall short of the standard you would impose – scientific method – is that fewer of the variables are known…”

            You are helping make my point: without all the variables being known it is impossible to provide an accurate answer. And since humans are incapable of knowing, let alone understanding, what those other variables might even possibly be, how can anyone claim they do have such knowledge?

            Yes, the masses do believe in “authority”. Again, that is the problem: they believe in authority, an authority that is based on falsehoods of infallibility. Or, as I say, BS.

          • ozymandias
            January 6, 2013 at 9:40 pm

            “You are helping make my point”

            I hate it when that happens…lol.

            I think it is safe to say that “controversial”, particularly in this social sciences realm, is inversely proportional to psyche/emotional underpinnings – & especially estrangement from those underpinnings, as in inability, or refusal, to recognize them. Denial isn’t a river, & doubling it, DD, isn’t a cup size. ☻

            “All our science, measured against reality, is primitive & child-like – & yet, it is the most precious thing we have.” ~ Einstein

            Science & ‘the method’ is a tool. It closes the truth-gap asymptotically. Its a good thing science does not require knowledge of all variables because, at this stage anyway, it can’t have such knowledge. Omniscience will have to wait a while longer.

            “Humans may crave absolute certainty; they may aspire to it; they may pretend, as partisans of certain religions do, to have attained it. But the history of science – by far the most successful claim to knowledge accessible to humans – teaches that the most we can hope for is successive improvement in our understanding, learning from our mistakes, an asymptotic approach to the universe, but with the proviso that absolute certainty will always elude us.” ~ Carl Sagan

            If belief in authority were based merely on falsehoods, correction would be a simple matter. Falsehoods are not what energize & maintain religious zeal…psychology & emotions are that fuel…from the uber sociopaths (who are typically master psychologists themselves) “at the top”, to all their successive unter layers of followers.

            “The world wants to be deceived, so let it be deceived.” ~ Petronius, 1st century a.d.
            To answer why this is requires development of understanding of psychology & emotions.

            I also disagree that the variables can never be known. Accumulation, synthesis, of variables is not speedy, or at the least a lot less speedy, however, in domains that are cartelized by…self-dealing (competition quashing), state/gov wielding, authoritarians.

          • January 7, 2013 at 12:42 am

            Dear skunkbear,

            The Leviathan State’s invoking of psychiatry or psychology to kidnap people and lock them in cages is total bullshit.

            You are absolutely right on that issue. We are totally on the same page.

            But that is a separate matter from whether psychology or psychiatry is a valid science.

            Affirming the validity of psychology or psychiatry as a science, does not mean one approves of the gunvermin using it as a pretext to kidnap and imprison people.

            The gunvermin use all sorts of pretexts as cover for their misdeeds, including forensic ballistics. To wit, the Kennedy assassination.

            Just because the gunvermin misuse a science toward their nefarious ends, does not mean we must write off that entire field as pseudo-science.

          • January 7, 2013 at 1:03 am

            Dear ozymandias,

            Psychology is real – not b.s. And if that baby is tossed along with the bathwater, there is no possibility of understanding any of the topics discussed here (or anywhere else).

            I agree with the above.

            I also agree with the following:

            “There is no valid reason to reject consciousness or to struggle to reduce it to matter; not if such reduction means the attempt to define it out of existence. Even if, someday, consciousness were to be explained scientifically as a product of physical conditions, this would not alter any observed fact. It would not alter the fact that, given those conditions, the attributes and functions of consciousness are what they are. Nor would it alter the fact that in many respects these attributes and functions are unique; they are different from anything observed in unconscious entities. Nor would it alter the fact that one can discover the conditions of consciousness, as of anything else one seeks to know, only through the exercise of consciousness.

            “The materialist equation of physics with science is equally groundless. Science is systematic knowledge gained by the use of reason based on observation. In using reason, however, one must study each specific subject matter by the methods and techniques suited to its nature. One cannot study history by the methods of chemistry, biology by the methods of economics, or psychology by the methods of physics.

            — Leonard Peikoff

          • ozymandias
            January 7, 2013 at 2:53 am

            “gunvermin misuse”

            enter authoritarian “color of _________”

            you got your “legal” pry bar / truncheon, & your “psychiatric” one, &, & &……

  16. Brad Smith
    January 2, 2013 at 6:02 pm

    I would like to make one more point regarding the media. I also worry when a non-story dominates the airwaves for too long. Right now it’s the “fiscal cliff”. Why does this worry me? Well once again I have observed a simple pattern. Generally when this happens something else is going on or brewing that they are not reporting. Kind of like the magician using misdirection. The fiscal cliff is a non issue. Anyone who has followed the bogus debt ceiling knows that it was hogwash from day one.

    So what are the up to behind the scenes while they keep the public distracted with the fiscal cliff? Could it be gun laws? Could it be war in Syria or Iran? Could it be a real financial collapse coming soon? Who knows, but I am getting the feeling that something is brewing.

    • methylamine
      January 2, 2013 at 6:25 pm

      Indeed, Brad.

      “By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes.”

      I suspect it’s the gun laws they’re covering for with the bullshit fiscal cliff.

      Although, the fiscal cliff promotion has its own benefits–for them. It’s the lead-up to nosebleed tax rates, to stealing our 401’s, IRA’s, and pensions, and locking us down in Agenda 21 cities living in 300 square foot man-cages. To save the budget, of course.

      People are so stupid they can’t even do the basic arithmetic; the “debt” (not really our debt, a creation of the criminal Fed) is unpayable. And if you include unfunded liabilities, it’s beyond unpayable; it’s twice more than the whole world’ GDP.

      • Brad Smith
        January 2, 2013 at 7:18 pm

        Exactly, there can be no paying it off. There is only ignoring it or default.

      • liberranter
        January 2, 2013 at 7:28 pm

        People are so stupid they can’t even do the basic arithmetic; the “debt” (not really our debt, a creation of the criminal Fed) is unpayable. And if you include unfunded liabilities, it’s beyond unpayable; it’s twice more than the whole world’ GDP.

        Yep, and even these brainless Clovers realize the truth in this. The real problem, as with so many other similar issues involving the Omnipotent State and its crimes, is that the Clovers cannot allow themselves to acknowledge the reality of the situation. To do so would burst the illusion bubble that “everything is under control,” that “the State is Our Protector.” IOW, it would force Clovers to confront reality and to admit that everything they’ve ever believed about the world they live in is a lie. That’s just simply unbearable for the average Clover to even contemplate let alone accept.

        • IndividualAudienceMember
          January 2, 2013 at 8:14 pm

          Two descriptions of the progressive/clover mindset worth reading, republicans seem similar i.e. they support a multitude of top-down ‘sensible’ self-defense restrictions and such, here’s a choice bit:

          “… Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.

          So, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect.” …

          Understanding the Progressive Mind:

          “… In their view, only regulators trained and employed in federal agencies have the clarity and foresight to understand what will work and what will not; anyone employed in private enterprise has no capability of foresight whatsoever.” …

          http://lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson353.html

          The above all seems at odds with the following observation:

          liberranter : “The real problem, as with so many other similar issues involving the Omnipotent State and its crimes, is that the Clovers cannot allow themselves to acknowledge the reality of the situation. To do so would burst the illusion bubble that “everything is under control,” that “the State is Our Protector.” IOW, it would force Clovers to confront reality and to admit that everything they’ve ever believed about the world they live in is a lie. That’s just simply unbearable for the average Clover to even contemplate let alone accept.”

          Perhaps that describes some of them, but I’m thinking it’s a small minority. The majority are like the republicans who all too often embrace the first quote above (maybe replace a barrel with prison and fines for the less bloodthirsty among them?) like the two wings on a bird of prey they fly as one.

      • MoT
        January 2, 2013 at 8:02 pm

        Exactly. The “debt” is not of our creation but those who’ve crafted it out of imaginary whole-cloth. To enslave people not responsible for birthing it is a criminal act in and of itself. Time for default and a reset.

        • BrentP
          January 2, 2013 at 8:36 pm

          The US Federal government is an institution, some say a corporate entity. This corporate entity is responsible for the debt. We, the people, are supposedly mere customers of it’s so-called services. I once shopped at Circuit City, but when they went under nobody went after the customers.

          The so called social contract is one where we are customers of services regardless if we want them or not. Like trying to have a business where the mafia controls the garbage collection.

          So, let the institution of government go bankrupt. The government isn’t ‘we’ any more than the local sports team is ‘we’. It’s just a company, an institution, a corporation and thus the debt is in the corporation’s name and it dies with it.

          • Don Cooper
            January 2, 2013 at 9:23 pm

            Even worse it’s not a corporation at all. It’s just a criminal gang. A corporation has a budget, and must provide something to the market that people value and voluntarily purchase. Govt does none of these things. It has no budget, no limit to its credit card. It produces no wealth, just the opposite, it cosumes wealth.

          • Tor Munkov
            January 3, 2013 at 6:04 am

            The Federal Government is nothing but a collection of smaller gangs and racketeers, none of whom in anyway resemble even the most corrupt corporation. Not even at the smallest, most local level – the city.

            Non-profit competition doesn’t work the same way as for-profit competition. If a business owner figures out how to produce the same good at a lower cost, he pockets all of the savings.

            If the CEO of a publicly-held corporation figures out how to produce the same good at a lower cost, he pockets a lot of the savings.

            But if the mayor of a city figures out how to deliver the same government services for lower taxes, he pockets none of the savings. That’s how non-profits “work.”

            If a mayor should actually try to replace over-educated, overpriced high school teachers; and a city was like a business, he would see his locality swell with residents and investment due to his increased efficiency.

            In the real world, however, a mayor who tried to do this would be called a monster and thrown out of office.

            If you’re a populist, you’re delighted by this outcome. If you’re a libertarian or an economist, you are horrified. No matter how you evaluate the outcome, one thing is clear: local governments are not analogous to competitive firms. Not even close.

            With non-profit incentives, neither the number of local governments nor the ease of exit lead to anything resembling competitive results. The “competitors” simply have little incentive to do a good job, so they all tend to perform poorly.

            To use an educational analogy: Think about the difference between competition on a graded exam versus competition on an ungraded exam. In both cases, there are many competitors. But if the exam doesn’t count, the competitors don’t try very hard, so the average outcome is poor.

            Some have claimed that the desire for re-election provides the necessary incentive and “competition”. Unlike a business, however, the local government delivers the goods regardless of the level of efficiency of the political machinery.

            If anything, the desire for re-election often gives local politicians perverse incentives to pursue redistributive and wasteful policies, and punishes attempts at efficiency and good value for taxes collected.

            http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/12/where_tiebout_g.html

          • BrentP
            January 3, 2013 at 6:20 am

            Tor, what I am pointing out is the debt belongs to them, not to us. It’s not about the details of what government really is, but that it is something that is not the people.

            ‘we’ are not the government. ‘we’ don’t owe anyone anything.

          • January 3, 2013 at 9:33 am

            Amen, Brent.

            It’s important to morally absolve oneself of any responsibility for things one is not responsible for. The government is nothing more than a writ-large bully who imposes “obligations” under duress. No one forced to do anything at gunpoint is morally obligated to adhere to the terms of such an “agreement.”

          • MoT
            January 3, 2013 at 7:41 am

            Which is why I see no reason for those of us who did not “contract” for debts to be held responsible to “pay” them back. I didn’t ask for it therefore it’s not my responsibility to repay. Those who did, and fraudulently used other people to be held as usurious slaves to their schemes, are the true debtors. Just because I write up a contract out of thin air, like the constitution, doesn’t mean I can enslave my neighbor and their progeny to pay for my fevered Fabian fantasies.

          • January 6, 2013 at 1:15 am

            Dear Brent,

            “The so called social contract is one where we are customers of services regardless if we want them or not. Like trying to have a business where the mafia controls the garbage collection.”

            I’m sure you know the old joke about the Mafia, but it bears repeating in this context.

            Q: What’s the difference between the government and the Mafia?

            A: The government is the one with the flag.

          • January 6, 2013 at 11:47 am

            The Mafia is also more honest.

            Just give us the money – or else.

            No soporofic paeans to “safety” and “the public good.”

            Just give us the fucking money.

          • January 6, 2013 at 12:31 pm

            Dear Eric,

            Hey! You know your Sopranos!

            Tony Soprano: “Where’s my fucking money?”

        • skunkbear
          January 2, 2013 at 11:51 pm

          The monetary system as run by the federal reserve is indeed the Matrix.

          If the people ever figured out how the system “works” it would collapse overnite. Yet not one in 200,000 can accurately describe where money comes from, how it is issued, and how it is manipulated. The best way to describe it to the clovers is it is just one big rigged peanut shell game.

          It is all just a racket. We should do what Iceland did and tell the banksters to go pound sand – we are not paying them anything.

          • BrentP
            January 3, 2013 at 1:29 am

            The Matrix has replaced The Wizard of Oz… but the scam continues and most people don’t want to hear about it.

          • Eightsouthman
            January 3, 2013 at 9:11 am

            Crap, wish there was a way for me to reply directly to what Tor just said. I merely want to tell you what he says is correct more than you can imagine. I had the state come after me and screw it up so bad they deferred to the Feds. A whole lawfirm of fed. lawyers told me “Because the fed has nothing more to do and you are worth money they will never stop until you’re in prison”. Take the state rap if it’ll keep the feds off you….and that’s what the feds offered. Just a threat, with every dime every person in this country pays to them behind their might. If you think it can’t happen just like that, I’ll look for my federal docket number, oops, I didn’t have one, the state made a much better deal…one I could only turn down for certain federal time. Stick in your craw? A decade later and I’m still chocking.

          • January 3, 2013 at 9:18 am

            The scene in Godfather comes to mind…. “Luca Brasi told him either his signature or his brains would be on the paper.”

            The government works exactly the same way.

    • Tre Deuce
      January 3, 2013 at 7:04 am

      Your right Brad,

      News & Politics
      Naked Capitalism / By Matt Stoller

      8 Huge Corporate Handouts in the Fiscal Cliff Bill
      Here are the corporate subsidies in the fiscal cliff bill that you may not know about.
      January 1, 2013 |

      Throughout the months of November and December, a steady stream of corporate CEOs flowed in and out of the White House to discuss the impending fiscal cliff. Many of them, such as Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, would then publicly come out and talk about how modest increases of tax rates on the wealthy were reasonable in order to deal with the deficit problem. What wasn’t mentioned is what these leaders wanted, which is what’s known as “tax extenders”, or roughly $205B of tax breaks for corporations. With such a banal name, and boring and difficult to read line items in the bill, few political operatives have bothered to pay attention to this part of the bill. But it is critical to understanding what is going on.

      The negotiations over the fiscal cliff involve more than the Democrats, Republicans, the middle class and the wealthy. The corporate sector is here in force as well. One of the core shifts in the Reagan era was the convergence of wealthy individuals who wanted to pay less in taxes – many from the growing South – with corporations that wanted tax breaks. Previously, these groups fought over the pie, because the idea of endless deficits did not make sense. Once Reagan figured out how to finance yawning deficits, the GOP was able to wield the corporate sector and the new sun state wealthy into one force, epitomized today by Grover Norquist. What Obama is (sort of) trying to do is split this coalition, and the extenders are the carrot he’s dangling in front of the corporate sector to do it.

      Most tax credits drop straight to the bottom line – it’s why companies like Enron considered its tax compliance section a “profit center”. A few hundred billion dollars of tax expenditures is a major carrot to offer. Surely, a modest hike in income taxes for people who make more than $400k in income and stupid enough not to take that money in capital gain would be worth trading off for the few hundred billion dollars in corporate pork. This is what the fiscal cliff is about – who gets the money. And by leaving out the corporate sector, nearly anyone who talks about this debate is leaving out a key negotiating partner.

      So without further ado, here are eight corporate subsidies in the fiscal cliff bill that you haven’t heard of.

      1) Help out NASCAR – Sec 312 extends the “seven year recovery period for motorsports entertainment complex property”, which is to say it allows anyone who builds a racetrack and associated facilities to get tax breaks on it. This one was projected to cost $43 million over two years.

      2) A hundred million or so for Railroads – Sec. 306 provides tax credits to certain railroads for maintaining their tracks. It’s unclear why private businesses should be compensated for their costs of doing business. This is worth roughly $165 million a year.

      3) Disney’s Gotta Eat – Sec. 317 is “Extension of special expensing rules for certain film and television productions”. It’s a relatively straightforward subsidy to Hollywood studios, and according to the Joint Tax Committee, was projected to cost $150m for 2010 and 2011.

      4) Help a brother mining company out – Sec. 307 and Sec. 316 offer tax incentives for miners to buy safety equipment and train their employees on mine safety. Taxpayers shouldn’t have to bribe mining companies to not kill their workers.

      5) Subsidies for Goldman Sachs Headquarters – Sec. 328 extends “tax exempt financing for York Liberty Zone,” which was a program to provide post-9/11 recovery funds. Rather than going to small businesses affected, however, this was, according to Bloomberg, “little more than a subsidy for fancy Manhattan apartments and office towers for Goldman Sachs and Bank of America Corp.” Michael Bloomberg himself actually thought the program was excessive, so that’s saying something. According to David Cay Johnston’s The Fine Print, Goldman got $1.6 billion in tax free financing for its new massive headquarters through Liberty Bonds.

      6) $9B Off-shore financing loophole for banks – Sec. 322 is an “Extension of the Active Financing Exception to Subpart F.” Very few tax loopholes have a trade association, but this one does. This strangely worded provision basically allows American corporations such as banks and manufactures to engage in certain lending practices and not pay taxes on income earned from it. According to this Washington Post piece, supporters of the bill include GE, Caterpillar, and JP Morgan. Steve Elmendorf, super-lobbyist, has been paid $80,000 in 2012 alone to lobby on the “Active Financing Working Group.”

      7) Tax credits for foreign subsidiaries – Sec. 323 is an extension of the “Look-through treatment of payments between related CFCs under foreign personal holding company income rules.” This gibberish sounding provision cost $1.5 billion from 2010 and 2011, and the US Chamber loves it. It’s a provision that allows US multinationals to not pay taxes on income earned by companies they own abroad.

      8) Bonus Depreciation, R&D Tax Credit – These are well-known corporate boondoggles. The research tax credit was projected to cost $8B for 2010 and 2011, and the depreciation provisions were projected to cost about $110B for those two years, with some of that made up in later years.

      Conveniently, the Joint Committee on Taxation in 2010 did an analysis of what many of these extenders cost. You can find that report here…> http://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=3715

      • Eightsouthman
        January 3, 2013 at 9:46 am

        Tre, do you have a link to the Stoller article? I want to shove this up some statists Republicans butts who pose as libertarians until I point out things like the “pure profit” tax credits for energy companies and the like. I keep asking them why XOM and all the rest want to own part of a “losing” wind energy sector but they can’t even come to terms with it, just blow me off and tell me to not be so envious of their investments and “you can’t prove that” which I have although they won’t read it or admit it. You only don’t research what you don’t want to confront. What assholes.

  17. Tor Munkov
    January 3, 2013 at 7:11 am

    BrentP, I 100% agree the debt belongs to them, not to us. They being the populists that can’t conceptualize anything but mob rule, and the mobsters that give them what they want, “give it to them good and hard.”

    I also agree it’s irrelevant the details of what one’s government really is[sic-as you say, it's NOT OURS].

    [illustration]
    Say me and my family find a subsistence level primitive island of 20 people somewhere, and bring fuel, generators, refrigerators, microwaves, laptops, and “Give” the people an easy existence as the most benevolent government ever.

    Still the capital and the resources the islands new rulers bring is something that is not the people.

    Like you say, ‘the islanders’ are not the government. ‘the islanders’ don’t owe my family anything. If bill collectors come after my family for payment of the fuel and appliances, they would indeed have no claim to anything belonging to the islanders.

    [conclusion]
    Any bum on the street can beg for money and say it’s my duty to provide for him. But once I see that same bum beating and killing other people, it is not fraternity or charity to give to such a bum. It is sanctioning and supporting oppression and violence.

    • MoT
      January 3, 2013 at 7:44 am

      And “Panhandling Sam” is the most violent bum on the planet.

      • Tor Munkov
        January 3, 2013 at 8:04 am

        Yes, he sure is! Is it the limos, the suits, the mansions, the praetorians, the fawning minions, the makeup & hair-styling, why is the con of a ruling class of panhandlers and bumfighters so effective?
        http://www.queerty.com/wp/docs/2009/01/hobo.jpg
        http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/278/3/b/homeless_uncle_sam_by_nrxia-d2za13o.jpg

        • Don Cooper
          January 3, 2013 at 2:43 pm

          What gets me when bureaucrats talk is that they talk as if there is no debate as to the role of govt or even to its existence. They talk about taxation as if spending is also a given: any current spending must continue and we’ll decide on future spending as we see fit so you need to fund it.

          It’s perverted. It’s as if the equation has only one side, yet it’s still an equation?

          • Tor Munkov
            January 4, 2013 at 4:25 pm

            It buggers the imagination, really.

            They argue from conclusion to evidence, instead of from evidence to conclusion.

            [correct]
            In the UK, you are forced to pay £145.50 per television you own, if you fail to do so, we will forcibly take even more money, we will cage you, we may even kill you. We claim to spend this money on the BBC, but there is no way of verifying this claim.

            [incorrect argument]
            British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is a British public service broadcasting corporation. Its important mission is to provide impartial public service broadcasting in the United Kingdom. It is the largest broadcaster in the world by number of employees, with about 23,000 staff.

            Television License
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom

            . . . . . .
            House of Commons – funny moments
            http://www.youtu.be/4bhpXhxP-WU

          • MoT
            January 4, 2013 at 4:35 pm

            Tor, I don’t mind having my imagination “beggared” but I can do without it being “buggered”.

          • January 4, 2013 at 10:56 pm

            Dear Tor, MoT,

            Tor, I don’t mind having my imagination “beggared” but I can do without it being “buggered”.

            ROTFLMAO!

  18. January 3, 2013 at 12:40 pm

    The implicit (and ever-more explicit) notion of the Revolving Decider as the Hegelian embodiment of the “world spirit” – morally entitled to “act” – unilaterally, insolently – by dint of his will. Which (in Hegelian philosophy) is merely the concentrated will of the “world spirit.” Another way of saying democracy – channeled through a single man. The man who wields power. And it is the fact of wielding power that defines the man as the bearer of the weltgeist.

    You have summarised what is called Revolutionary Monism in the philosophy business, though it doesn’t have to be in relation to a world spirit but it can be to do with a single nation. Strange… google doesn’t show much about it.

    • Tor Munkov
      January 3, 2013 at 6:42 pm

      Lenin-“it is impossible to become a real communist without studying – really studying – all that Plekhanov has written on philosophy, as this is the best of the whole international literature of Marxism.”

      Trotsky-“The great Plekhanov, the true one, belongs entirely and wholly to us. It is our duty to restore to the young generations his spiritual figure in all its stature.”

      http://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/

      G. Plekhanov – The Alpha Revolutionary Monist –
      “A great man is great not because his personal qualities give individual features to great historical events, but because he possesses qualities which make him most capable of serving the great social needs of his time, needs which arose as a result of general and particular causes.

      Great men are beginners. A great man is a beginner precisely because he sees further than others and desires things more strongly than others. He solves the scientific problems brought up by the preceding process of intellectual development of society; he points to the new social needs created by the preceding development of social relationships; he takes the initiative in satisfying these needs. He is a hero. But he is a hero not in the sense that he can stop or change the natural course of things, but in the sense that his activities are the conscious and free expression of this inevitable and unconscious course.

      Herein lies all his significance; herein lies his whole power. But this significance is colossal, and the power is terrible.

      Bismarck said that we cannot make history and must wait while it is being made. But who makes history? It is made by the social man, who is its sole “factor.” The social man creates his own, social, relationships. No great man can foist on society relations which no longer conform to the state of these forces, or which do not yet conform to them.

      In this sense, he cannot make history, and in this sense he would advance the hands of his clock in vain; he would not hasten the passage of time, nor turn it back. Even at the height of his power Bismarck could not cause Germany to revert to natural economy.

      Social relationships have their inherent logic; as long as people live in given mutual relationships they will feel, think and act in a given way, and no other. Attempts on the part of public men to combat this logic also would be fruitless; the natural course of things (this logic of social relationships) would reduce all his effort to nought.

      If I know in what direction social relations are changing owing to given changes in the social-economic process of production, I also know in what direction social mentality is changing; consequently, I am able to influence it. Influencing social mentality means influencing historical events. Hence, in a certain sense, I can make history, and there is no need for me to wait while “it is being made.”

      • January 4, 2013 at 11:06 pm

        Dear Tor,

        Social relationships have their inherent logic; as long as people live in given mutual relationships they will feel, think and act in a given way, and no other. Attempts on the part of public men to combat this logic also would be fruitless; the natural course of things (this logic of social relationships) would reduce all his effort to nought.

        Couldn’t agree more.

        Politics is not fundamental. It is derivative. Politics is not cause. It is effect.

        At the root of any political system is social psychology. How mature, how evolved, how conscious are the individuals who make up a particular society.

        Unless and until a critical mass of individuals within that society attain a certain level of maturity, evolution, and consciousness, that society cannot be truly free.

        The good news?

        Once a critical mass of individuals within that society attain a certain level of maturity, evolution, and consciousness, that society cannot be kept enslaved.

        We witnessed that in the early 90s with the Warsaw Pact nations. That was a transition from Communism to “something other than Communism.” Exactly what remains in question.

        What Amerika/USSA needs now, is a transition from minarchism/maxarchism to anarchism.

        • Tor Munkov
          January 6, 2013 at 1:12 am

          Quite Right Bevin!

          Here is a list of 23 increasingly individualistic societies on the upswing of maturity, evolution, consciousness, prosperity; & populations who will not be easily re-enslaved nor easily swayed to invade other populations through force.

          Millions of people by nation who were liberated from the Eastern Bloc of the Soviet Union
          Albania 3
          Bulgaria 9
          Czechoslovakia 16
          Hungary 11
          East Germany 17
          Poland 37
          Romania 23
          Yugoslavia 23
          Ukraine 52
          Uzbekistan 20
          Kazakhstan 17
          Belarus 10
          Azerbaijan 7
          Georgia 5
          Tajikistan 5
          Moldavia 4
          Kyrgyzstan 4
          Lithuania 4
          Turkmenistan 4
          Armenia 3
          Latvia 3
          Estonia 2
          Total Former Eastern Bloc 279 million

          China, now with a 7 trillion dollar economy.
          China where the average life span of a Chinese male born in 1960 was 35.1 years.
          China where the average life span of a Chinese male born in 2011 was 72.7 years.

          To be sure the total war mentality is a threat. Along with new socialism, fascism, mercantilism, & globalism. But some old threats have died off, and some new allies have been born.

          The anarchy we seek can take root and flourish, there have been many new encouraging developments.

          • Don Cooper
            January 7, 2013 at 1:12 pm

            I lived in Romania for 4.5 years from 1997-2001 and I can tell you that, although the govt has passed all the usual bullshit laws as in the west, nobody pays any attention to them and they are rarely enforced. Romania is an agricultural society with millions living in the country. There are only 2 or 3 main cities and the rest of the country is towns and villages.

            Wonderful place for an anarchist to live. And Romanians are passive people, they are not warlike. They are generous and very family oritented.

            It has beaches on the Black Sea, skiing in the Carpathian Mountains and the women are BEAUTIFUL! ;)

  19. jharry3
    January 3, 2013 at 6:06 pm

    I have heard more than one ex-military person say that the best form of government is a “benevolent dictatorship” to which I always reply “what if that benevolent dictator is not benevolent towards the causes you support, what if it’s a left wing benevolent dictator”?

    They never thought of that.

    On that fiction discussion from above – If you get a chance buy the “Firefly” DVD set of the TV series + the movie that brings it all together “Serenity”. Its all about a future, set in outer space” where an all-knowing, all wise, benevolent oligarchy is trying to create “a better world”. Josh Weldon created it and the liberterian theme is more than overtones. Our heros live that life and are pursued by the devil oligarchy because of it. It does have a little “green politics” mixed around the edges.

    • Bob Robertson
      January 3, 2013 at 6:14 pm

      Jharry, a benevolent dictatorship IS the most efficient form of government. It’s just never benevolent for long, or to everyone.

      The only actual answer is not to have rulers at all.

    • MoT
      January 3, 2013 at 6:17 pm

      I’m a “benevolent dictator” within the confines of my own home and those that live there. My house my rules. But for someone to imagine that such a beast exists and to submit to that sort of scenario is ridiculous. I’ve heard the same thing put forward that should there be a military coup and that after a certain amount of time things would get straightened out. Ya think? Hell no. The very rat bastards who’ve aided and abetted empire would be at the helm and that gives me no comfort whatsoever. Once you let that cat out of the bag you’re in for a well deserved mauling.

      Firefly was cancelled while far more idiotic and worthless “programming” rolled forward. I guess it wasn’t enough like Star Trek and its Federation which is nothing more than an intergalactic United Nations. Too anarchistic for the suits.

      • Don Cooper
        January 3, 2013 at 6:41 pm

        That’s what happened in Romania. After the Communist party was thrown out of power, many new parties appeared with the same old, usual suspects. Even the Communist party still remained they just weren’t in power but the same people – execpt for Nicolae and Elena of course – were in power. They just didn’t have as much power at first but now they do. It’s as corrupt as ever but not as oppressive.

        • MoT
          January 4, 2013 at 4:38 pm

          Yes, indeed. Meet the “new” boss same as the old boss.

  20. Cogitator
    January 3, 2013 at 6:16 pm

    The right to arms and self-defense

    The Second Amendment was written to acknowledge the existing right of the people to be armed. Since the Constitution is a document regarding the powers and disabilities of the government, it was written with the thought that the people needed to be armed to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. But it is just a part of the total self-defense equation.

    The right to self-defense extends beyond protecting ourselves against government. Both man and beast have the natural right to defend themselves. We have the right to defend ourselves from the government, animals, and other humans. All creatures have that right, and those that wish to survive will exercise it. None can be faulted for exercising self-defense to survive.

    Let me clarify something now. A right is not granted by anyone or anything. A right is yours because you exist. Call it a god given right, a natural right, or whatever you will, but it is yours by virtue of your existence. Things granted by others are not rights, but rather licenses or privileges. No one has to do anything for you to exercise a legitimate right except leave you alone. You have the right to a weapon, if you buy it or make it. No one is obligated to buy or make one for you.

    There are some silly fools who would like to disarm us all. Of course most of them just want to disarm the citizens while keeping armed police and military. A few would go further and wish they had the power to remove all weapons from everyone. Of course this is a fantasy, but suppose it were possible? It would still be wrong and would leave many unprotected.

    We are not all equal when it comes to fighting ability. Some are larger, more powerful, and possess greater fighting skills. Younger adults generally have the advantage over the elderly, and men usually have an advantage over women. How can it be fair to the weak to leave them at the mercy of those who are stronger, or an unarmed person vulnerable to an armed one? The answer is simple — it is not.

    All creatures have the right to self-defense, and anyone who would seek to deny that is denying a fundamental right all living things have. They are entitled to the most efficient tools available for defense. Firearms are generally the most effective weapons for self-defense. No one has the right to deny peaceful honest people the ability to defend themselves and their families.

    Talk of confiscating firearms from the general public is wrong, and only people who are foolish, evil, or evil and foolish would support it. Such people are enemies of the public and should be dealt with accordingly.

    • graham
      January 3, 2013 at 7:31 pm

      “Talk of confiscating firearms from the general public is wrong, and only people who are foolish, evil, or evil and foolish would support it.”

      This identifies our problem. We, the collective masses, are too dumbed-down, stupid, apathetic, distracted, or selfish. We do indeed “get the gov’t we deserve”. The wheat and the chaff grow together. The remnant will forever have to live with and among the fools. Never in history has this not been the case.

      Face reality. You could cloister every anarchistic soul and within one generation all would not just be lost, it would be willingly surrendered away for a mess of pottage. Look no further than Rand Paul. He grew up with stellar influences but he has rejected them all in favor of “moderation”.

      “Freedom, oh freedom, well that’s just some people talkin’.” – Don Hendley “Desperado”

  21. roger
    January 3, 2013 at 7:48 pm

    The Germans during the Third Reich worshiped their Fuhrerprinzip. Americans love such a leader and will continue on the road perdition willingly.

    • roger zuehlke
      January 3, 2013 at 7:53 pm

      During the Third Reich the Germans worshiped their Fuhrerprinzip.
      Americans willing do the same thing today. The road to perdition
      will eventually follow; sadly.

    • liberranter
      January 4, 2013 at 12:24 am

      I read a quote from someone a couple of years back (can’t remember who or where right at that moment) stating that “only Cubans and North Koreans enjoy being ‘led’ more than Americans do.”

      I’d like to say “truer words have never been spoken,” but I really think that the desire to be led, fed, clothed, diapered, burped, and cocooned is a universal one. I would argue that Western Europeans, much of Asia, and Oceanians possess this trait in a stronger degree than Americans do.

  22. anarchyst
    January 3, 2013 at 10:07 pm

    Let’s take the liberal (defective) argument and apply it to the First Amendment to the Constitution. By liberal (defective) reasoning, only output from Ben Franklin type printing presses would be covered by the First Amendment. Radio, television and the internet would not be afforded constitutional protections. Even a person using a bullhorn (electronically amplified speech) would not be covered by the First Amendment.
    The Second Amendment was put in place as a bulwark against government tryanny. It is an “insurance policy” that we hope never has to be used. Look at all countries that have disarmed their citizens. From Mao Zedong to Stalin, Pol Pot and others, mass genocide has taken place. Even in civilized “bastions” such as the UK, Australia and New Zealand, assaults by criminals are WAY UP. Home invasions are common as criminals don’t obey gun control laws. The term “well regulated” as used in the Second Amendment had NOTHING to do with “regulation by law” and EVERYTHING to do with being a good marksman. The 18th-century meaning of the word “regulated” was much different than today’s accepted definition. In addition, each “militia member” was expected to provide HIS OWN WEAPON which was EQUAL TO what the regular military possessed. As to weapons, these so-called “assault weapons” are relatively “low powered” weapons which are ILLEGAL to use for deer hunting in most states. I would suggest that you read the Constitution of the United States and take its meaning to heart.

    • January 3, 2013 at 11:49 pm

      Dear anarchyst,

      Good argument re: First Amendment. I’ve used that argument myself in the past with “liberals.”

      Not that it did any good.

      I’m loathe to call them liberals. They don’t deserve the honorific. After all, they coopted it from our intellectual forebears, the Lockean Classical Liberals.

      If we weren’t victims of Orwellian Newspeak, we libertarians would still be referring to ourselves as “liberals.”

      Interestingly enough, “liberals” don’t even champion the First Amendment. Not really. To wit, they have no qualms about banning “hate speech.”

    • liberranter
      January 4, 2013 at 12:28 am

      I would suggest that you read the Constitution of the United States and take its meaning to heart.

      Most Americans (or “Amoricons,” as I prefer to call them) will do no such thing. No, the Constitution and it’s first ten amendments were written, ostensibly, for a people determined to be free. Most Amoricons today are content to be the controlled, enslaved sheeple that they are.

      I’ve pointed out on more than one occasion that those of the founding generation who fought the American Revolution and went to their deaths thinking that they were fighting for the “freedom” of future generations died in vain.

      • MoT
        January 4, 2013 at 4:47 pm

        Actually, when you look back and take careful stock, I believe the America of today should beg forgiveness of England because what it has become today is an abomination to it’s “stated” declaration of yore. All those “grievances” are pure hilarity compared to the rampant slavish diktats uttered forth from DC in the here and now. My only question is when will the “shooting” begin?

        • Tor Munkov
          January 4, 2013 at 5:08 pm

          Good ol’ Founders, lookee what they Founded.

          Lookee us, we gots us our own fancy uniforms.

          Our skull crackin thugs is local boys.

          We invents and performs brand new pointless rituals of our own to perform while pointing guns at each other.

          Hitler Sings the Jefferson’s Theme
          http://www.youtu.be/J3YRWhg4YaA

          Well we’re movin on up, To the east side.
          To a deluxe apartment in the sky.
          Movin on up, To the east side.
          We finally got a piece of the pie.

          Fish don’t fry in the kitchen;
          Beans don’t burn on the grill.
          Took a whole lotta tryin’
          Just to get up that hill.
          Now we’re up in the big leagues
          Gettin’ our turn at bat.
          As long as we live, it’s you and me baby
          There ain’t nothin wrong with that.

          • January 4, 2013 at 11:25 pm

            Dear Tor,

            Thomas Jefferson, owner of slaves, has morphed into George Jefferson, descendant of slaves.

            As libertarians have been observing with regards “Lincoln,” he did not free the black Americans from slavery, he made white Americans slaves alongside black Americans.

            We finally got a piece of the pie, but we finally got our necks in the same leash as well.

            Well said Tor. Well said indeed.

        • January 4, 2013 at 11:42 pm

          Dear MoT,

          It is indeed ironic.

          A while back I scanned the Declaration of Independence again, just to refresh my memory.

          The history of the then King of Great Britain was indeed a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

          But what about the history of SPQA, Senātus Populusque Americanus?

          Is it not a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States?

          Are not the repeated injuries and usurpations visited upon the people by its Caligulas and Neros vastly more egregious than those the King of Great Britain visited upon the people?

          • ozymandias
            January 4, 2013 at 11:55 pm

            S-U-P-P-L-A-N-T
            find out what it means to me
            take care, TCB…

            followed by, of course,

            chain, chain, chain
            (chain, chain, chain)
            Chain of fools…..

          • MoT
            January 5, 2013 at 7:01 am

            There is no denying that the King was heavy handed but in comparison to what we have today he’s small potatoes. 1% tax versus the ever increasing levees and taxes ever since “freedom” was declared. Freedom? What are we talking about? Free to be taxed locally far more than what that dude across the ocean charged that’s for damn sure.

          • January 5, 2013 at 10:56 am

            George III never:

            Decreed how fast a man could ride his horse.
            Who a man could hire – or set his rate of payment.
            Demanded to know every last detail of each person’s finances.
            Forced people to purchase the “services” of privately owned businesses.
            Imposed taxes on personal property; and on ordinary people’s homes.
            Told you what you may – and may not – eat and drink.

            We suffer under a tyranny that is quite literally Stalinist relative to the mild annoyance that was the British Crown.

          • January 5, 2013 at 9:25 am

            Dear MoT,

            Yup. It’s been pointed out many times by many people, but bears repeating, since it is still going on.

            Isn’t it ironic that we celebrate Independence Day on July 4 to recognize our rejection of oppressive British regulation, mercantilism and taxation, and yet the typical American now works until the beginning of July to pay for Big Government? We celebrate our declaration of independence from the British government when we are just barely free from the burden of our current government.

            How can we celebrate a declaration of independence from Britain and at the same time be complacent about a current tax burden from our own government that is far more oppressive as that of the British government in the 1700s?

            Citizens More Taxed Now Than Under King George
            by Mark J. Perry
            Detroit News, June 28, 1997

  23. Tre Deuce
    January 4, 2013 at 9:11 am

    ‘The Untold Story: How America Became a Dangerous Empire’

    Nothing new here for those who study history without prejudice, but a good review none the less.

    Catch it on Showtime, Youtube, or buy the book

    http://www.alternet.org/untold-story-how-america-became-dangerous-empire?akid=9892.118238.Db_0uq&rd=1&src=newsletter771009&t=5&paging=off

    • Tor Munkov
      January 5, 2013 at 12:40 am

      Funny, when I see one of the authors is Oliver Stone the matrix cortex implant lights up the LED: “communist sympathizer“. But the lite brite then burns out because WTD(what the duck) is a sympathiser, my ayn randroid pseudo tumor demands to know?

      Edward Bernays(Freud’s Nephew) and the Art of Public Manipulation

      PFOTD(possible fact of the day) 98% of email spam is created and sent by CIA operatives.

  24. Tor Munkov
    January 4, 2013 at 4:47 pm

    MoT,
    “buggers the imagination” in quotes has 20,600 google hits
    “beggars the imagination” in quotes has 18,200 google hits
    weird, huh?

    • MoT
      January 4, 2013 at 5:02 pm

      I’m ‘lernin’ sumptin nu all da timez.

      It like saying “cut the mustard” when it should be “muster” and so on and so forth.

      Eeeveeel spirits of grammar police be ye cast out!

      • Tor Munkov
        January 4, 2013 at 5:23 pm

        A gal at work says: “Nip it in the butt” instead of “Nip it in the bud.”

        “Cut The Muster” : 715K google hits
        “Cut The Mustard” : 851K google hits
        both of these lose to
        “Cut It” : 37 Million google hits

        I’m not sure if my reply will “cut it”/”cut the muster”/”cut the mustard” but here I go.

        Hero Grammar Cop – “Cut the Muster”:

        The etymology seems plausible at first. Those who prefer “Muster” often trace it to the American Civil War.

        There is an analogous expression “to pass muster,” which probably first suggested this alternative; but although the origins of “cut the mustard” are somewhat obscure, the latter is definitely the form used in all sorts of writing throughout the twentieth century.

        Common sense would suggest that a person cutting a muster is not someone being selected as fit, but someone eliminating the unfit.

        This expression meaning “to achieve the required standard” is first recorded in an O. Henry story of 1902: “So I looked around and found a proposition [a woman] that exactly cut the mustard.”

        It may come from a cowboy expression, “the proper mustard”, meaning “the genuine thing”, and a resulting use of “mustard” to denote the best of anything. O. Henry in Cabbages and Kings (1894) called mustard “the main attraction”: “I’m not headlined in the bills, but I’m the mustard in the salad dressing, just the same.”

        Figurative use of “mustard” as a positive superlative dates from 1659 in the phrase “keen as mustard”, and use of “cut” to denote rank (as in “a cut above” ) dates from the 18th century.

        Other theories are that it is a corruption of the military phrase “to pass muster” (“muster”, from Latin _monstrare_=”to show”, means “to assemble (troops), as for inspection” ); that it refers to the practice of adding vinegar to ground-up mustard seed to “cut” the bitter taste; that it literally means “cut mustard” as an example of a difficult task, mustard being a relatively tough crop that grows close to the ground; and that it literally means “cut mustard” as an example of an easy task (via the negative expression “can’t even cut the mustard” ), mustard being easier to cut at the table than butter.

        The more-or-less synonymous expression “cut it” (as in “” sorry” doesn’t cut it” ) seems to be more recent and may derive from “cut the mustard”.

  25. Tre Deuce
    January 5, 2013 at 12:14 am

    General Post…>

    President Obama Reauthorizes Warrantless Wiretapping Law: Even though the government has acknowledged that the secretive program has exceeded its legal limits, violating Americans’ Fourth Amendment constitutional rights, the Obama administration aggressively pushed for its full renewal.
    President Obama Reauthorizes Warrantless Wiretapping Law:

    Obama’s Renditions: Short on Evidence, Long on Secrecy: As the US struggles to charge European detainees with “supporting al-Shabaab” based on little to no evidence, the press got a hold of the fact that the individuals were renditioned, a controversial policy that Obama was supposed to have ended.
    Obama’s Renditions: Short on Evidence, Long on Secrecy:

    Court Rejects Lawsuits Demanding Obama Disclose More Info on Drone Program: A federal judge on Wednesday rejected The New York Times’ bid to force the US government to disclose more information about its drone war, a targeted killing program that kills suspects without charge or trial, even American citizens.
    Court Rejects Lawsuits Demanding Obama Disclose More Info on Drone Program:

    Obama Signs 2013 NDAA, Blocking Closure of Gitmo: President Barack Obama on Wednesday signed into law the $633 billion defense authorization bill despite provisions that block any attempt to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center and try detainees on US soil.
    Obama Signs 2013 NDAA, Blocking Closure of Gitmo:

    And so it goes…….

  26. Tor Munkov
    January 6, 2013 at 10:05 pm
    • ozymandias
      January 6, 2013 at 10:16 pm

      yet oz is this world, & munchkins are everywhere. the yankees above the mason-munchkin line drafted this chart, didn’t they? lol….

      • Tor Munkov
        January 7, 2013 at 5:15 pm

        Damn Yankees! I’m a’feared I’ve been flim-flammed! I’m from Upper Great Lakes – “The Heartland.” They call it the Heartland ’cause the “The Brain” ain’t there!
        It’s hard to stay a deontological(NAP) libertarian when being a consequentialist(Pakled) libertarianism “is thing that makes me free. Me want free.”
        – – – –
        Oh, I’m a good old rebel
        Now thats just what I am
        And for this yankee nation
        I do no give a damn.

        I’m glad I fit against ‘er
        I only wish we’d won
        I ain’t asked any pardon
        For anything I’ve done.

        I hates the Yankee nation
        And everything they do
        I hates the declaration
        Of independence too.

        http://www.youtu.be/Mz_GLcumolw

        I hates the glorious union
        ‘Tis dripping with our blood
        I hates the striped banner
        And fit it all I could.

        I rode with Robert E. Lee
        For three years there about
        Got wounded in four places
        And I starved at Pint Lookout.

        I coutch the roomatism
        Campin’ in the snow
        But I killed a chance of Yankees
        And I’d like to kill some mo’.

        Three hundred thousand Yankees
        Is stiff in southern dust
        We got three hundred thousand
        Before they conquered us.

        They died of southern fever
        And southern steel and shot
        I wish they was three million
        Instead of what we got.

        I can’t take up my musket
        And fight ‘em down no mo’
        But I ain’t a-goin’ to love ‘em
        Now that is serten sho.

        And I don’t want no pardon
        For what I was and am
        I won’t be reconstructed
        And I do not give a damn.

        Oh, I’m a good old rebel
        Now that’s just what I am
        And for this Yankee nation
        I do no give a damn.

        I’m glad I fought against ‘er
        I only wish we’d won
        I ain’t asked any pardon
        For anything I’ve done.

        I ain’t asked any pardon
        For anything I’ve done…

  27. Tor Munkov
    January 6, 2013 at 10:34 pm

    Psychology is a branch of metaphysics. Metaphysics could be more important than everything in both Kansas & The Land of Oz. Otherwise, why has it been made into an “unword”?
    Both Aristotle & Plato dealt with metaphysics/psychology. Babylonian & Egyptian fragments are superior even to the Greek, but so little has survived its hard to quantify it as a unique discipline.

    A social science is a “package deal.”

    [Ayn Rand Lexicon]
    http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/package-dealing,_fallacy_of.html

    “Package-dealing” is the fallacy of failing to discriminate crucial differences. It consists of treating together, as parts of a single conceptual whole or “package,” elements which differ essentially in nature, truth-status, importance or value.
    “The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,”
    Philosophy: Who Needs It, 24

    [Package-dealing employs] the shabby old gimmick of equating opposites by substituting nonessentials for their essential characteristics, obliterating differences.

    A disastrous intellectual package-deal, put over on us by the theoreticians of statism, is the equation of economic power with political power. You have heard it expressed in such bromides as: “A hungry man is not free,” or “It makes no difference to a worker whether he takes orders from a businessman or from a bureaucrat.” Most people accept these equivocations—and yet they know that the poorest laborer in America is freer and more secure than the richest commissar in Soviet Russia. What is the basic, the essential, the crucial principle that differentiates freedom from slavery? It is the principle of voluntary action versus physical coercion or compulsion.

    The difference between political power and any other kind of social “power,” between a government and any private organization, is the fact that a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force.

    A typical package-deal, used by professors of philosophy, runs as follows: to prove the assertion that there is no such thing as “necessity” in the universe, a professor declares that just as this country did not have to have fifty states, there could have been forty-eight or fifty-two—so the solar system did not have to have nine planets, there could have been seven or eleven. It is not sufficient, he declares, to prove that something is, one must also prove that it had to be—and since nothing had to be, nothing is certain and anything goes.

    Disclosure: I am an objectivist/surrealist.

    • ozymandias
      January 6, 2013 at 11:19 pm

      The elephant that the wise men of hindustan compartmentalized – & thereby lost – was a package deal, too. As i like to say, there are no actual compartments.

      That compartmentalization is deployed as an aid to sorting & understanding…but then allowed to become a rigid end in itself that people define themselves by & confine themselves to…is a problem. (Of what nature? it’s down below the munchkin line….)

      Non-synthesizing specialists are essentially bureaucrats. Or Lilliputians.

      Objectivist/surrealist…Ayn Rand & Salvador Dali got drunk one night, & 9 months later…? That can’t be anything like a solipsist…can it? Or maybe a sybilist? (jokes). what is an o/s?

      • Tor Munkov
        January 7, 2013 at 12:03 am

        I would say each erroneous conception of what the 6 men described is an “elephant in dropped context.” They have neglected to do enough due diligence, and thus are mistakenly calling a part, a whole, making an error of fact. They’re being blind is no reason not to fully investigate the breadth of the creature.

        An objectivist is also a metaphysicist. A cousin or brother of a psychologist, but with much less official sanction and institutional buttressing.
        – – –
        [elephant]
        The Six Wise Men of Hindustan

        There were six men of Hindustan,
        to learning much inclined,
        Who went to see an elephant,
        though all of them were blind,
        That each by observation
        might satisfy his mind.

        The first approached the elephant,
        and happening to fall
        Against his broad and sturdy side,
        at once began to bawl,
        “This mystery of an elephant
        is very like a wall.”

        The second, feeling of the tusk,
        cried, “Ho, what have we here,
        So very round and smooth and sharp?
        To me ’tis mighty clear,
        This wonder of an elephant
        is very like a spear.”

        The third approached the elephant,
        and happening to take
        The squirming trunk within his hands,
        thus boldly up and spake,
        “I see,” quoth he,
        “the elephant is very like a snake.”

        The fourth reached out an eager hand,
        and felt above the knee,
        “What this most wondrous beast
        is like is very plain” said he,
        “‘Tis clear enough the elephant
        is very like a tree.”

        The fifth who chanced to touch the ear
        said, “E’en the blindest man
        Can tell what this resembles most;
        deny the fact who can;
        This marvel of an elephant
        is very like a fan.”

        The sixth no sooner had begun
        about the beast to grope,
        Than seizing on the swinging tail
        that fell within his scope;
        “I see,” said he, “the elephant
        is very like a rope.”

        So six blind men of Hindustan
        disputed loud and long,
        Each in his own opinion
        exceeding stiff and strong;
        Though each was partly in the right,
        they all were in the wrong!
        – – –
        A successful objectivist or psychologist could synthesize from the six men that there exists a single entity in objective reality, an elephant.

        Perception gives one an integrated awareness of an entity, distinct from the background of everything else in the universe, in some form. An entity is its attributes, so in being aware of the entity one is necessarily aware of (some of) its attributes.

        [oak tree]
        For example, when in the day I see the brown trunk and green leaves of the oak tree in my back yard, and see it apart from the background of sky and neighboring houses, I am aware of something in reality. When at night, I see the black trunk and black leaves of the tree against the gray moonlit sky, I am aware of the same thing in a different form. In both cases, what I perceive is determined by the nature of my sensory apparatus (my eyes and visual cortex, in this case) and the nature of the tree itself, given the environmental factors. Changes in the environment can alter just how I am aware of the tree, but they do not render me unaware, nor do they make the tree anything other than what it is.

        There is a mistake people commonly make when discussing the validity of sense-perception. They assume that awareness, to count as awareness, must be infinite, exhaustive, and unmediated. They would say that because I cannot directly see the fine molecular structure of the tree (I only see its macro effects), I am somehow not really aware of the tree. Or because I must use a causal, physical means of perception, my perception is corrupt. But then, what would count as awareness? And what are these critics doing talking about the world that they only know through such “limited,” “corrupt” means? This “God’s eye view” standard is a silly standard. We know what awareness is. Kick a table leg if you are in doubt, or drive your car off the highway at high speed. This carping is pathetic since we are aware of so much through our senses. And on the basis of that, we have built a huge edifice of scientific knowledge of nature.

        • ozymandias
          January 7, 2013 at 1:34 am

          Fine by me, but…

          Motes around compartments or specialties is “dropped context” on purpose. What motivates this? For that matter, what’s motivation?

          The very best psychologists I’ve seen don’t have official credentials. Sales & marketing types (tho not necessarily moving products & services – cult leaders, for example)…who can type their prospects at 100wpm, or buttons per minute….

          How about integrated perception – more or less – gives one an integrated awareness – more or less – of an entity?

          Is that oak in a different form, or just a different light? Does that oak respect Helen Keller’s disabilities, or is it indifferently what it is regardless? When it falls, is there sound, absent a listener? etc.

          “The roots of the chestnut tree were sunk in the ground just under my bench. I couldn’t remember it was a root anymore. The words had vanished & with them the significance of things, their methods of use, & the feeble points of reference which men have traced on their surface. I was sitting, stooping forward, head bowed, alone in front of this black, knotty mass, entirely beastly, which frightened me. Then I had this vision.

          It left me breathless. Never, until these past few days, had I understood the meaning of “existence”. I was like the others, like the ones walking along the seashore, all dressed in their spring finery. I said, like them, “the ocean IS green; that white speck up there IS a seagull,” but I didn’t feel that it existed or that the seagull was an “existing seagull.”

          … And then all of a sudden, there it was, clear as day: existence had suddenly unveiled itself. It had lost the harmless look of an abstract category: it was the very paste of things, the root was kneaded into existence. Or rather the root, the park gate, the bench, the sparse grass, all that had vanished: the diversity of things, their individuality, were only an appearance, a veneer. This veneer had melted, leaving soft, monstrous masses, all in disorder, naked – in a frightful, obscene nakedness….This root, on the other hand, existed in such a way that I could not explain it. Knotty, inert, nameless, it fascinated me, filled my eyes, brought me back unceasingly to its own existence. In vain to repeat: “This is a root” – it didn’t work anymore.

          ~ Sartre, “Nausea”

          “Gods eye view”, the quantum, & all other scales, simultaneously, yes – silly. But, Sartre’s passage speaks also to responsibility.

          Kant – Rand just loved him, lol, Heidegger, Sarte…there are relevant implications, from this corner of the fray, regarding freedom – which is something that scares most folks right into those cozy little compartments.

          • Tor Munkov
            January 7, 2013 at 3:14 am

            Great writing, the nausea is palpable.

            Brilliance is whatever shines a light, and your thinking & writing passes that test, one need not compartmentalize light sources to create or use them.

            Psychology fails the definition of science because 1)its results are not reproducible by others. 2)its results are not falsifiable.

            Once you allow pseudoscience to = science, you open the door to “climate science”[sic] & “scientific” polls which tell us that 70% of Americans want gun control, so passing legislation is just good science.

            But even if it is “bull shit” one should never discount the role and importance of the meta-sciences and of the speculative bull shit arts.

            Sartre, Freud, Bernays, one could spend a productive lifetime investigating and expounding upon their works.

            Praxeology, Mises, Carl Menger, much of what I have studied is “social science”, I don’t have a replacement word handy, perhaps soon a more rigorous “science language” will be constructed I too will be less limited in what I can prove of my reasonings and investigations.

            Ayn Rand, fluent in Russian, Yiddish, French, has made all kinds of unreachable knowledge accessible low hanging fruit for many who read her. But she too can be called “B.S” since none of here work is falsifiable or reproducible.

            She was a polymath and a harsh Moon Mistress in the best possible sense of the Heinlein’s term.

        • Tor Munkov
          January 7, 2013 at 4:49 pm

          Whoa! “common mistake”; “silly standard”; & “carping & pathetic” belonged to a different iteration of this essay, sorry about that ozymandias!

          Ayn Rand Books – Randal Munroe – XKCD
          http://xkcd.com/1049/

          Text when you mouse over the cartoon: “I had a hard time with Ayn Rand because I found myself enthusiastically agreeing with the first 90% of every sentence, but getting lost at ‘therefore, be a huge asshole to everyone.’

  28. Tor Munkov
    January 7, 2013 at 7:05 am

    Can today’s Republicans understand what Ronald Reagan meant when he said: “These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers” regarding the Taliban in 1985.

    http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y44/messiercat/fascists/reagantalibankf6.jpg

    The Taliban are plantation owners and financiers of first resort for the farmers of Afghanistan & parts of Pakistan. In addition to their agricultural businesses, they have a religious & moral agenda they impose top down wherever they have sufficient influence.

    This is exactly who our founding father were. Have Republicans really gone completely blind to principles and conceptual thinking?

    • Mike in Spotsy
      January 12, 2013 at 4:58 am

      “Have Republicans really gone completely blind to principles and conceptual thinking?” Yes…completely, now that a certain Texas congressman has retired.

      • Tor Munkov
        January 12, 2013 at 11:07 am

        The Republicans are like a hand without a thumb now. They have a piece of Ron Paul’s heart and soul among them, Randal Howard Paul, but it is unclear how much opposition & apposition he will offer them as he grows and matures.

        Will the Son merely parrot talking points of how to more efficiently manage the federal government, or will he too tilt at the windmills as digitus primus and continue to ask the fundamental questions like his Father such as what is the proper role of government in the first place? Why do we allow the government to meddle in our personal lives at all?

        “The ultimate solution is not in the hands of the government. The solution falls on each and every individual, with guidance from family, friends and community.” – Ronald Ernest Paul.

        • January 12, 2013 at 11:34 am

          When it comes to the GOP, the old saying comes to mind: You can’t polish a turd.

          It is pointless, as I see it, to work with the GOP. Because the GOP is working against liberty. It is as or even more statist than the other half-face of the authoritarian Janus (the Democrat Party).

          They both must be thrown in the woods. A movement (not a party) with its core ethics based on the NAP must wash them both away. Once a person acknowledges the NAP as the basis for all human interaction, the problem has already solved itself.

  29. Tor Munkov
    January 7, 2013 at 7:34 am

    Psychology, economics, are best called Metasciences.

    Meta is a term used to define something that is characteristically self-referential.

    The electromagnetic cores of stars, planets, moons; the oceans, deserts, grasses, woods, storms, tectonics… they’re all getting it on and alive in some fashion outside of my understanding. They are all metasexuals. The rush of masses of people to war, to work, to play, to immigrate is influenced by metaphysical events outside my perception.

    Solaris – Cosmonauts on a planet that can recreate people of your past by reading your brainwaves.
    http://www.youtu.be/ASesbJrKelQ

    Planet Solaris – Stanislaw Lem
    http://www.youtu.be/voc5Ofbglto

    The word metasexual is based upon the premise that the physical body, the physical world, and the physical act of sex are illusions. The word refers to the hidden fields of sexuality that are above and beyond the physicality of sexual nature and activity. The coming together and co-mingling of two energetic magnetic bodies for the purpose of metasexual activity will inherently be perceived in the physical world only as a physical act or random spontaneous movements, increased breathing, random vocalization and intonation. The milky way and its environs are inherently living & sexual metaconscious metabeings.

    • MoT
      January 8, 2013 at 6:26 pm

      I’ll gladly indulge in meta or non-meta sexual “mingling” if you will. So long as the “bodies” fulfill my illusions.

      • Tor Munkov
        January 8, 2013 at 8:07 pm

        It’s seems logical we are composed of waste, menses, splooge, urines, dead cells and so on of higher beings, some living, some dead. We likewise are filled with universes of smaller beings who do little else but engage in sexual reproduction.

        Every day when we excrete two pounds of feces: 76% water 8% dead bacteria 8% indigestible fibers. 8% fats-inorganic salts-mucus-our dead cells. We create new environments for microbes to fuck in.

        Meanwhile, turd-world scientists discover that they and their fellow nymphomaniacal bacteria also live to metabolize substances of larger beings into smelly sulfur & nitrogen compounds besides merely reproducing themselves.

        Their brown worlds are made of decomposing red blood cells; the green worlds made of leafy portions of green vegetables; the yellow, white, red, and black nebulae worlds made of hemorrhaging problems within their imperceivable overbeings.

        Thus, It all started with;; still continues with;; a big sexual bang;; BANG
        http://www.youtu.be/xaTJNNOmsw

        Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,
        Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait… The Earth began to cool, The autotrophs began to drool, Neanderthals developed tools, We built a wall (we built the pyramids),
        Math, science, history, unraveling the mysteries,
        That all started with the big bang!

        “Since the dawn of man” is really not that long, As every galaxy was formed in less time than it takes to sing this song. A fraction of a second and the elements were made. The bipeds stood up straight,
        The dinosaurs all met their fate, They tried to leap but they were late And they all died (they froze their asses off) The oceans and Pangea See ya wouldn’t wanna be ya Set in motion by the same big bang!

        It all started with the big BANG!

        It’s expanding ever outward but one day It will pause and start to go the other way, Collapsing ever inward, we won’t be here, it won’t be heard Our best and brightest figure that it’ll make an even bigger bang!

        Australopithecus would really have been sick of us
        Debating how we’re here, they’re catching deer (we’re catching viruses) Religion or astronomy (Descartes or Deuteronomy) It all started with the big bang!

        Music and mythology, Einstein and astrology It all started with the big bang! It all started with the big BANG!

  30. Tre Deuce
    January 8, 2013 at 10:02 pm

    General Post; Lasers…….

    Is military air superiority soon to be a thing of the past?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20944726

    And hiding just got a lot harder.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7989957.stm

  31. Nathanael
    January 10, 2013 at 6:59 pm

    FDR shouldn’t be included on this list; he got his powers because people elected his party to 2/3 of both houses of Congress along with him, a supermajority intended by the Founders to allow for almost anything. If you’ve got the support of 2/3 of the population, you’re not really being a unilateral decider. For his actions, he got increased Congressional majorities, meaning that people really did approve.

    He didn’t arrogate powers to himself, the way the *Deciders* did.

    In fact, he (and his Congressional majority) repealed Prohibition.

    • ozymandias
      January 10, 2013 at 7:28 pm

      fdr was an exceptional bastard among bastards…including the “founders” (net basis – i leave a small portal for the possibility a few good men were among them, balanced, however, by the logic that such men can also probably be found in the mafia…). You obviously do not know what you should about the pearl harbor exclamation point, let alone the long preceding sentence.

      Alcohol prohibition was rendered moot by jury nullification and…so what? the prohibitionists – as good a word to sum the gov model as any – merely went about “prohibiting” any number of other things.

      Not that unanimity is golden, lynch mobs, for instance, but 2/3 = 1 is incorrect. “The people” is always an idiotic rationalization.

    • Tor Munkov
      January 12, 2013 at 11:37 pm

      United States Population 124,840,471 – July 1, 1932

      1932 Popular Vote Roosevelt – 22,809,638 – 18.3% of population

      1932 Popular Vote Hoover – 15,758,901 – 12.6% of population

      http://www.npg.org/facts/us_historical_pops.htm
      http://georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/FDRelect.htm

  32. gray man
    January 12, 2013 at 7:13 am

    Hi Eric, gray man here. Remember me. We had this conversation, sort of. So what are YOU going to do about it? I told you I’d be at your side. So what are you going to do about it?
    gray man

    • IndividualAudienceMember
      January 12, 2013 at 10:20 am

      Interesting comment, gray man. Reminds me of another Person on another site who would always say People should, “Engage” goberment, whatever that means. ?

      I asked the guy, “So, where’s your examples of how you’ve ‘engaged’ goberment and you’ve had success?”

      I asked a number of times and only got cuss words for answers.

      Opting Out seems to be the best option,… so far.

      BTW, I like your nic,… Spy vs. Spy?

      … Or just grey beard?

      As if it matters: I think I’m doing badly at both. I think it’s due to my tendency to put the pedal to the metal while saying, to Hell with the rules. ?

    • January 12, 2013 at 10:47 am

      Hi Gray,

      What I’m doing – for now – is using my time and ability to write about these things in order to help spread the word. In order to try to help spread the outrage. That is a necessary first step. It’s also all that can be done at the moment. If enough people can be outraged, then there will be a body of potential resisters – when and if the moment comes for that.

      I am also doing (and have done) what I can to prepare myself on a personal level – and this is something all of us can do right now.

      • Eightsouthman
        January 12, 2013 at 1:22 pm

        eric, There’s a situation, never before seen by any man that’s manifesting itself right under our noses yet it’s rarely spoken of and when it is, the people who speak of it are charged under these new laws such as the NDAA as if they were enemies of the state. What agency is in control of the new data collection center in Utah? Where did it get authorization? Where does the money come from? I have experienced this thing first hand. I know how easily they can destroy anyone’s life without doing any more than harassing them and using these horrible laws against them. Here’s a link to a very troubling article, one I’m sure you have read.

        http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/moghul1.1.1.html

        • Tor Munkov
          January 12, 2013 at 2:33 pm

          At a certain level, it seems unintelligible to an individual. Learn what you can, learn to accept what you can’t, invent your own explanation like you did as a kid when you must.

          http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/how-to-deal-with-media-brainwashing/

          Die poltergeist deutsch geist?
          Ode An Die Freude :
          Freude schöner Götterfunken, Tochter aus Elysium,
          wir betreten feuertrunken himmlische dein Heiligtum, Deine Zauber binden wieder was die Mode streng geteilt, alle Manschen werden Brüder wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt. Deine Zauber binden wieder was die Mode streng geteilt, alle Manschen werden Brüder wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.

          When I read Richard Matheson stories, they often bring me closer to the truth of matters, at least for a while.

          1960 Peterbilt 281 of TPTB vs. mere mundane Dennis Weaver in his red 1970(71?) Plymouth Valiant 318 V8 Signet.

          Due1 1971 Fu11 Movie
          http://www.youtu.be/pnHjfGaN3kw

          Internet Movie Cars Database
          http colon // www dot imcdb dot org

          • ozymandias
            January 13, 2013 at 12:46 am

            Mere mundane Dennis’ director has come out much in favor of Peterbilt….self-defense against a would-be murderer in ’71, defense of Lincoln “leadership” in ’12…..

          • ozymandias
            January 13, 2013 at 2:08 am

            Just coincidence, but cued up for this evening’s viewing is “The Duellists”. Ridley Scott’s ’77 directorial debut. Carradine vs Keitel in a Napoleonic period piece. Weird. Fun.

          • IndividualAudienceMember
            January 13, 2013 at 5:24 am

            “THIS CARD MUST BE KEPT IN THE INSURED VEHICLE AND PRESENTED UPON DEMAND.” – Something typed on the back of my insurance card, something I didn’t notice until recently. Funny tone, that.

      • methylamine
        January 12, 2013 at 5:31 pm

        I’d like to recommend a stunningly good YouTube channel to everyone, along the lines of what Eric says re: educating, agitating, and preparing…

        StormCloudsGathering

        He says the same thing very eloquently. If we fire the first shot, we lose moral legitimacy. By the same token, if we wait until they’re throwing flash-bangs through our windows to take us to the camps, it’s too late.

        Our job–absolutely, frighteningly, panic-inducingly urgent job–is to build a critical mass of moral revulsion at the illegitimacy of the State.

        A few of us will have to go down, like the Occupy people, under a hail of “non-lethal” weapons and arrests. Agree or disagree with Occupy, they forced the State’s hand and showed its naked aggression–de-legitimatizing it and destroying its moral authority.

        Many, many more of us must attack with education; some of us are like Alex Jones, the bunkerbuster of the infowar; others like Larry Pratt, the stealth bomber of the infowar. Some will be info-snipers…you get the point.

        But we have to attack from a million, ten million, different positions. I don’t aspire to be a great radio host; that’s Alex’ and Noory’s schtick. I write here and elsewhere…sure, preaching to the choir a lot, but it strengthens my arguments and hopefully yours. I rant and rave everywhere I go; 90% dismiss me as a nut, but 10% come back a few weeks, months, or years later and say “Hey remember you were talking about…”

        Hey–some ANFO would have taken care of the Berlin wall right-quick. But a million pissed-off East Germans will claw hammers and crow bars did a fine job…and left valuable souvenirs to fund their efforts!

        • skunkbear
          January 12, 2013 at 11:17 pm

          Meth said, “… moral revulsion at the illegitimacy of the State.”

          You nailed it: “moral” is the key word here. And we must use the NAP as the centerpiece to the moral argument.

          “So you want to put a gun to someone’s head and make them do fill-in-the-blank” “What do I mean by a gun to the head? Well, isn’t that what all government is, ultimately a gun to the head? Do you really think it is moral to force people to do things against their own conscience? And by what authority?”

          • January 12, 2013 at 11:49 pm

            Dear skunkbear,

            Exactly!

            As Gandhi put it, “You must make the injustice visible… “

          • skunkbear
            January 13, 2013 at 12:08 am

            Thanks Bevin, and I dig the Gandhi quote.

            And you are correct, every little bit counts. We must build our army one man at a time.

          • January 13, 2013 at 12:36 am

            Dear skunkbear,

            You bet!

            Most people, probably even most sheeple, do have consciences, at some level.

            If they are part of the 96 to 98 percent, rather than the 2 to 4 percent of incorrigible sociopathic PTB, then they can be reached, albeit with immense effort.

            The challenge is to make the injustice visible.

            Only then might the 96 to 98 percent who are not part of the sociopathic PTB, refuse to violate the NAP.

            Only then might they realize that by participating in lynch law, aka “voting in free and fair elections” under the cover of a bogus “social contract,” they are just as guilty of premeditated murder as the lynch mob leader who put the noose around the victim’s neck.

          • ozymandias
            January 13, 2013 at 12:59 am

            2-4% INTJ mouse unhinges jaws, swallows the other combinations…?

            plop,plop,fizz,fizz…

            alt: INTJ’s supplant the psychos…? the other combos are, will remain I bet it all, convinced we are the four horsemen of the apocalypse….

            psycho-love: way bigger than “big love”…..

        • January 12, 2013 at 11:46 pm

          Dear meth,

          sure, preaching to the choir a lot, but it strengthens my arguments and hopefully yours. I rant and rave everywhere I go; 90% dismiss me as a nut, but 10% come back a few weeks, months, or years later and say “Hey remember you were talking about…”

          Spot on!

          Don’t underestimate the value of “preaching to the choir.” It’s a valuable process. It helps develop and refine the arguments for rights and liberty.

          Ditto pestering non-choir members. It gets the word out, it leads to conversions, however slowly. Every little bit counts.

          • ozymandias
            January 13, 2013 at 12:37 am

            Yes. But also a point of training is for the fun of “time to be among them” (“Rising Sun”). Not for conversions – you’ll starve if those are your calories…more for something along the lines of William Blake’s position, “When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do.”

            Wondering, now, when Wesley gets out….

          • January 13, 2013 at 1:28 am

            Dear oz,

            I never expect conversions of course, but I speak my peace anyway.

            As I see it, the hook has to at least be in the water to catch any fish.

            But I agree. Like virtue, truth speaking is its own reward.

          • ozymandias
            January 13, 2013 at 2:02 am

            Chance is always powerful. Let your hook always be cast; in the pool where you least expect it, there will be fish.
            Ovid

            Lot less mercury, etc, in Ovid’s day. ‘Course, you’re not eating the fish, lol. I’m more of a surfer…but it might be fun to combine that with fly-casting…catch & release on the fly.

            Was going to mention “the remnant”, so-called. But that’s a faithical thing – maybe they’re there, maybe not. Altruism isn’t a valid motive, but neither are hopium visions, other cognitive biases.

            Wield your piece, like a claymore, two hand grip, cleaving…..☻

          • methylamine
            January 13, 2013 at 4:29 am

            As you know, it’s a Sisyphean task converting the sleepers.

            But I’m constantly given nuggets of encouragement. A young guy I worked with starting two years ago began coming around my desk with “new” insights–things I’d told him about months before. Within a year, he was about 70% of the way there. Recently we went to the shooting range together–and he came out with “you know, the 2A isn’t about hunting is it? It’s about staying free.”

            Wow.

            And just this week, the guy who hired me on my current contract was signing my invoice and he asked if I knew anywhere that still had Evil Black Rifles. It started a 2A conversation, and he volunteered the same thing–understanding what the 2A really meant.

            And then tonight, I went to dinner with a neighbor who’s become a friend and HE started out with a 2A conversation while we were cleaning up. We’re standing there alone in the kitchen and he said–sotto voce–“If they came for them, what would you do?”

            I told him it’s my line in the sand–I’m not giving an inch, not even to register.

            What he said next blew me away: “If they come for yours, I’ll be shooting from behind…will you do the same?”

            Again…Wow.

            These are mild-mannered people. I knew both of them already owned hunting rifles and self-defense pistols; but they were suddenly hard core–they both had a steely look in their eyes, a look I’m not used to seeing in American’s eyes anymore.

            Something’s in the wind, change in the air.

            You know what it reminds me of? It’s like king Rohan…the one Wormwood has psy-op’ed into catatonia–and as he wakes up that fire returns to his eyes.

          • IndividualAudienceMember
            January 13, 2013 at 5:19 am

            Fulcrum is right – but have we ended up there – or were we placed there for a reason?

            Big difference,… one… oh wait, sorry I was distracted by burnt, heated up grilled chicken from last Summer, I hope the reloveution can continue without me for now.

            Seriously, I feel like ‘everyone’ is being herded to the ramps.

            Insert image of Swamp Rat – here – .

          • ozymandias
            January 13, 2013 at 5:39 am

            @ methylamine

            Atlas shrugged, but Sisyphus slogged…forever.

            Maybe you’re a better judge of character than I am (I don’t consider myself unskilled), but declarations not vetted in tight spots, I’ve learned to weigh lightly.

            If things go that way, the learning curve, including who is who, will be very steep, costly.

          • January 13, 2013 at 5:53 am

            Dear meth,

            You know what it reminds me of? It’s like king Rohan…the one Wormwood has psy-op’ed into catatonia–and as he wakes up that fire returns to his eyes.

            Hey man, like I said, all wisdom is either in the Godfather, The Matrix, or LOTR!

            The New Left used to talk about how the first step in their strategy was always to “polarize the masses.”

            Well that polarization is happening now.

            I’ve noticed it even inside the anarchist/libertarian camp.

            More minarchists are becoming or have already become anarchists.

            The old muddled status quo is over.

            Whichever side prevails, it won’t be the old “we’re all in more or less agreement” crap that the Demopublicans and Republicrats have been trying to perpetuate.

          • methylamine
            January 13, 2013 at 6:44 am

            @ozymandias–

            I’m not saying I’ll bank on his promise; but I am stunned that this very mild-mannered architect would bring it up at all.

            Whether he’d act on it I don’t know…and I don’t plan to be in a situation where I’d have to count on it either.

            If it starts, we would all be wise not to be–as Solzhenitsyn describes the terrorized inhabitants of Russia–huddling in our homes, quaking at every door banging open.

          • ozymandias
            January 14, 2013 at 1:28 am

            Dang…the responses are not hitting my inbox as before….

            Meth…there’s a novel, “Unintended Consequences” by John Ross. The “gun culture” sort of just solidifies, stands up, in the story, & the blackhats don’t fare well. Enjoyable story. but…
            Looking on amazon, 3 used copies starting at $550(!). Jeeze, maybe i should sell mine.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_Consequences_%28novel%29

            Bevin…Javert. Exactly. Racked my brain trying to remember that name as I watched Keitel. From javerts & to Clouseau…is that progress? lol

        • January 13, 2013 at 1:48 am

          Dear meth,

          Hey–some ANFO would have taken care of the Berlin wall right-quick. But a million pissed-off East Germans will claw hammers and crow bars did a fine job…and left valuable souvenirs to fund their efforts!

          I agree.

          This was another instance of the pen being mightier than the sword.

          The images of people with pickaxes and sledgehammers taking down the wall with their own hands — even Edward Bernays couldn’t have orchestrated a better photo op.

          Images of the wall being blown up would have been far less valuable to the cause of liberty.

          Hearts and minds. Hearts and minds.

          Then if that fails. guns and ammo. Guns and ammo.

          • ozymandias
            January 13, 2013 at 2:17 am

            Pissed off maybe. But they also had permission……

            i.e., it wasn’t the scene from “V for Vendetta” in which the auto-armed servo mechs stood down for lack of up-chain input. My Lai would have been more like it, but it wasn’t in the script….

          • January 13, 2013 at 2:23 am

            Dear oz,

            “But they also had permission……”

            Yeah, but that’s the whole point.

            Getting to where “beyond the pale” finally becomes the “convention wisdom.”

            “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

          • ozymandias
            January 13, 2013 at 3:47 am

            Well…couldn’t you say that internal contradictions laid authoritarian gang C (for commie) low first, facilitating authoritarian gang F’s (for fascist) sound-biting (“Mr. G, tear down this wall”)?

            Meet the new bosses…..

            “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you discover you, Connor Macleod, are immortal, then you may live long enough to win.”

            The sword stuff is heavy tonight…Harvey & Keith have already had I don’t know how many duels, & at least half the movie to go still…lol

          • methylamine
            January 13, 2013 at 4:20 am

            @Bevin:

            re: the Ghandhi “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”–

            Precisely! And it’s so timely; I was thinking of exactly that quote when I saw the reaction this week to Alex Jones’ appearance on Piers Morgan.

            They’ve ignored him (us) until now. After the show, Jon Stewart, the whole CNN crew, and many others poked fun…laughing at him.

            In other quarters they’ve even begun fighting us.

            We are truly at the crux, a fulcrum, the inflection point of this battle right now

          • January 13, 2013 at 9:12 am

            Dear meth,

            Gandhi had it right. The script always plays out the same way because TPTB have no choice.

            As more and more people become awakened, they start coming over to our side. TPTB see this, and become alarmed. They can no longer afford to ignore us or laugh at us. Those are stages 1 and 2.

            They have no choice but to go to stage 3 and fight us. That’s when we finally win, or at least have a fighting chance at winning.

          • January 13, 2013 at 9:15 am

            Dear oz,

            The Duelists. I saw that waaay back, first run in the theaters.

            The Keitel character reminded me of Inspector Etienne Javert, the Clover cop in Les Miserables.

            What an asshole.

        • Tor Munkov
          January 16, 2013 at 6:07 pm

          Monetary Collapse & Problem-Reaction-Solution
          http://www.youtu.be/X_KAj8O8qes

    • skunkbear
      January 12, 2013 at 11:10 am

      gray man, the last thing anyone here wants is for you to be at our side. You would be the worst thing for a resistance movement: a snitch!

  33. Tor Munkov
    January 13, 2013 at 2:22 am

    Spiel Turd has become a real Mother Trucker alright. He’s gone full Judeofascist. Why?

    http://www.judeofascism.com/2010/11/case-study-steven-spielberg-and-use-of.html

    Band of Brothers used to seem great. Saving Private Ryan was technically amazing. But come on, Some Oligarchs engineered the war to make a few bucks, no one was fighting for the Jews, they should have prepped & had a bugout plan.

    Under an international starvation blockade from a criminal syndicate, someone had to skip a few meals. The final solution shit was mostly just an ideological cover story.

    It’s almost like his movies are calculated to make you stupider.

    Throw his new movies in the ovens?

    • ozymandias
      January 13, 2013 at 4:05 am
      • Tor Munkov
        January 16, 2013 at 5:58 pm

        Spielberg seems to be one of the “above it all” type of Jews. Sort of a Larry David, Mel Brooks, Adam Sandler type, but without their sense of humor. He has an amazing ability to distract and entertain, yet leave you with nothing of lasting value. Certainly, this is what many people want him to do.

        “Spielberg critics complain that his films are overly sentimental and tritely moralistic.

        Peter Biskind summarized the views of Spielberg’s detractors, accusing the director of “infantilizing the audience, reconstituting the spectator as child, then overwhelming him and her with sound and spectacle, obliterating irony, aesthetic self-consciousness, and critical reflection.

        Claude Lanzmann labeled Schindler’s List “pernicious in its impact and influence” and “very sentimental”

        Ai WeiWei said, “It’s disgusting. I don’t like anyone who shamelessly abuses their profession, who makes no moral judgment.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *