Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Archive for the ‘Liberal’ Category

Scotch Socialists

Posted by DNW on 2014/09/16

Just trying to keep things straight here in case of potential developments in the Still Somewhat United Kingdom: but, if Scotland declares its independence in order to form a more perfect collectivist state, is Scotland somehow automatically grandfathered in on the various agreements and crap we have with Great Britain?

I mean, like, man, how could this legally be? Wouldn’t Scotland then be a brand new country, with no treaties or agreements with anyone and no membership in any international organizations?

So … then Scotland wouldn’t even be a member of the United Nations, right? And the United States, for example, would have neither direct nor indirect obligations or arrangements with the Scotch – assuming they even exist for much longer before turning their country over to foreign laborers in return for a promise that their pensions will be paid until they die, or whatever.

But think for a minute.  What if Denmark invaded Scotland? Would anyone be legally obligated to respond in its defense? What if Donald Trump invaded … with the intention of turning the whole place into a game preserve?

And, in somewhat happier terms, might this mean in a legal context, for example,  that any annoying  socialist son-of-a-bitch you might run across, would be –  as long as he was Scotch – virtually outside the law … if that is, you could catch it off its home turf?

Now, “Why in the world … “, you might ask ” .. would I even wonder about something like that”? Especially as I am always carping in favor of freedom and self-determination?

The answer is obvious: Alex Salmond.

Speaking of punchable faces

Speaking of punchable faces

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, that Alex Salmond, pictured above. (Though you might be forgiven for mistaking him for that other tubby leftist Scotch miscreant George Galloway.)

I’ve been doing a little reading about the Scottish Independence referendum, and it is clear that a great deal of what has been driving it, unfortunately, is not a desire for more freedom, but a demand for less.

And who is especially in favor of it? Well, according to those profiled in The Guardian, it’s those who have heretofore had little or no interest in politics, and but who presently draw checks from it.

Sort of like Alex Salmond and his 17 years older wife, and his parents.

So what we have here in the Scotch Independence Movement, is a movement that appears to be largely by and for those who draw their meal tickets from the government and who are determined to make sure that if England is infected by “neo-liberal” ideas of the kind that spell individual rights and less government direction, they will not be part of it.

Of course others have a different opinion. Some see it, and speaking of Donald Trump, as part of a vast right wing conspiracy for which Salmond is acting as crony or front man.

Who can say really. All we really know is what the Scotch in favor of the movement say, and that is that they want less dangerous classical liberalism and more guaranteed welfare statism, even if it means paying for their “Independence” by importing a non-Scots replacement population in order to to underwrite it all.

Why don’t they just put guns to their heads and pull the triggers?

The Nazis, famous for being infamous,  were once also famous for complaining that many of the most vigorous of the German nationality had emigrated to America; leaving behind a more stolid and less heroic population than was necessary for an anti-classical liberal national revivification of the kind they envisioned. Their proposed solution was the organized militarization of their political culture, and the expulsion (or murder) all non-Germans in the perfervid  hope of reinvigorating their “people”.

The Scotch solution to an endemic national ennui and the threat of encroaching classical liberalism, is to declare independence from the source of the individual self-direction taint (England), and turn the country over to immigrants who will, they hope, underwrite the comfort of the present pensioner class.

Talk about two suicidal extremes proposed as answers to what was essentially the same question …

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Culture, Humor - For Some, Law, Liberal, politics, society, We Won't Miss You | 3 Comments »

Senators Who Voted To Cut Military Veterans’ Pensions

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/09/07

From Facebook comes this gem. See how many squish Republicans are there. I saw a couple of very noteworthy Republicans in that list. And people wonder why the grass-roots are up in arms against Republicans, too.

The DEMOCRAT John McCain is on that list, as is the other Flake from Arizona and the sore loser from Alaska who needed K-Street to win as a write-in against the Republican in the race, as the Democrats jumped ship from their loser candidate to vote for her over the grass-roots Republican (who went on to snub the one person who had the king-maker mantel who could help him win). And of course, there’s Orrin Hatch, who got all wee-weed up that the grass-roots didn’t like him. Ever wonder why the grass-roots didn’t like you, lifer Orrin? (Even though I post your very worthy Hanukkah song every year.)

Posted in Character, Conservative, Constitution, Culture, economics, Elections, Law, Liberal, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, politics, society, war | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Adjusting the angle of attack …

Posted by DNW on 2014/09/02

I’ve come to the conclusion that the tenor of some of my recent postings have done virtually no one, including myself, most especially myself, much good.

To put it in the most self-serving terms possible, this lapse has generally occurred while I was critiquing the work of leftist bloggers.

Now, when doing so you have a choice: 1, to stick to pointing out the faults of the narrative, or 2, to also if it seems justified, go after the one doing the narrating – usually by judging them by the announced standard by which they judge others.

With the left, the fundamental standards of social and political, if not all human value, are generally implied to be “intelligence” and artfulness. In their moral universe, the liberal moral universe,  moral values are not discovered, but “created”. So, for example, so-called “Tea Partiers” are berated for being, not merely wrong, but for being uncouth, uncultured, generally ignorant, and above all as fundamentally unintelligent.

Obviously then,  it’s quite tempting to analyze the left’s own polemics in the same terms.

And when you do so, that is to say act by not only marking their errors, but also the “reasonableness” of the errors, the transparency of the errors, and the likelihood of those falsehoods being deliberate as opposed to inadvertent, you are quite possibly tempted, as I have been, to throw up your hands and simply conclude that the liberal writers are either lying, or idiots, or both.

The recent result here has been half-a-dozen of my  posts prominently featuring the term “stupid” in reference to particular persons spouting a leftist line.

Now, in the abstract, they might deserve this treatment. Or they might not.

But I am tired of seeing it in my own productions.

In fact I am going to re-title a couple of my entries and make some modest textual changes.

I don’t want to become in some measure what I am critiquing, by picking up their standards and flinging them back at them. No matter how much they may seem to deserve it..

Even though I have often accused conservatives of playing with one hand tied behind their back, and of being inhibited by limits liberals don’t share, there has to be a better way than sounding as if you have adopted leftist premises yourself.

It’s not only stupid to become the enemy, but ultimately wrong.

Posted in Blogging Matters, Culture, Liberal, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy | Leave a Comment »

Who Do YOU Shower With?

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/09/01

Yeah, the title is grammatically incorrect. I won’t suggest you sue me, because there are morons who do just that for other frivolous crap. (I’m looking at you, Wee Willy Widebody (and barely keeping my lunch down) and your idol, TDPK.)

So, I’m watching FOX News, and they tease an upcoming report regarding Michael Sam and ESPN. Yes, as I write this, ESPN reported on Michael Sam’s showering habits in regard to the rest of the team. And later apologized.

But that brings up an important point.

For many decades, pro sports did not allow women journalists into the locker rooms where men tend to be naked or almost naked. Likewise, pro sports did not allow their athletes to shower with the cheerleaders. Well, due to some blow-hards, there are women journalists in locker rooms with naked men. Movies like Jerry Maguire do comedic bits with this. Woman journalist asks naked man a question; woman journalist drops microphone; woman journalist looks away as she squats down and fishes for dropped microphone. But there are still rules preventing the football team from showering with the cheerleading squad.

I don’t think there is any reasonable person or group of people who would suggest the Lakers should be able to shower with the Laker Girls, or the Raiders should shower with the Raiderettes. And for good reason. Pregnant cheerleaders are kind of a turn-off. A Family Feud winner’s question session (I don’t know what they actually call it) asked 100 men about the visual rating (you know, rate a girl from 1 to 10) of a pregnant girl. It was extremely low.

Okay, there was some snark there. But it was based on the facts that are there, too. What happens when you put a bunch of naked alpha-males and a bunch of naked beautiful women in a group shower? You get a bunch of naked sex. Not every time, but it will happen.

There is also the morality aspect. Millennia of moral standards say women and men should not do such a thing. It will inevitably lead to the slippery slope of immorality. Yes, the slippery slope is real; thus, not a logic fallacy.

But what does the Cavaliers showering with the Cavalier Girls have to do with Michael Sam showering with his teammates? As “The Plague” said to “Zero Cool”, “think about it.” If you are against homosexual “marriage” (like me) or you are for it; if you think the Bible is truthful in calling homosexuality an abomination (like me) or you disregard the Bible; if you think homosexuality is abnormal (like me) or you think it’s normal, you have to agree that homosexual people showering with those of the same sex (the people they are attracted to) has to be a bad idea, because of what can result.

What can result if men and women shower together? Sex. Rape. Assaualt and battery. Murder. Self-defense – caused death. Appropriately modest people having to decide to stay stinky or violate their own modesty rules. Ostracization due to a person’s modesty. Ostracization due to a person’s lack of modesty. Ostracization due to a person’s Christian values. Ostracization due to a person’s refusal to bow down to the Leftist PC bovine byproduct.

Why should Michael Sam not have the option to shower with other football players? He is sexually attracted to what is between their legs. It’s the very same reason no football team should have the option to shower with the cheerleaders. They are sexually attracted to what is between the cheerleaders’ legs.

And, quite frankly, I should not have to shower with someone who is sexually attracted to sexual parts people of my sex have. Women should not have to shower with someone who is sexually attracted to their sexual parts. And women have no business being in a locker room full of men who are fully or partially naked.

Period. (For you Limeys who frequent this site, that means Full Stop.)

Posted in 1st Amendment, Character, Christianity, Constitution, Culture, funny business, Law, Liberal, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, society, truth | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

“We can’t save stupid white liberals …

Posted by DNW on 2014/08/30

From a provocative website I often read, resist agreeing with just as frequently, and occasionally comment on, comes this remark from another visitor concerning what looks to be a blossoming theme these days.

“We can’t save stupid white liberals and save ourselves at the same time.”

Seems that whenever there is a report that the chickens of chaos may come home to roost in the liberal coop itself, some observers are quick to offer up a grim “So who gives a damn?”

And what is a limited government type to think when the left/fascist social vandals and subverters of our once constitutional government of strictly enumerated powers, i.e., those who would drag us into fascistic liberty killing social programs like the Obamacare individual mandate, or who would flood the nation with illegally arriving aliens, are themselves targeted, quite literally and for death, by foreign jihadis?

Does one get upset? Do you ruefully shake your head at the irony? Or do you pull up a chair, and crack open a beer?

Now for the main bout of the evening, a tag team match. In the postmodern-left blue state corner, defending the internally driven ruination of western civilization, we have Amanda “Death to the Patriarchy” and borderline personality Marcotte, and Michael “Lord Humongous” Moore!

And opposing them in the Black Flag of Islam corner, we have Mohammad “The Knife” Mohammad, and Mo …

Ladies and Gentlemen, Ladies and Gentlemen I’m afraid that we have run into a difficulty here over the rules. Apparently, our contestants in the Black Flag of Islam corner, did not quite understand that they were supposed to await the bell before slicing into their opponents.

We are currently attempting to contact David Brooks and Chris Matthews as last minute replacements for the late Marcotte and Moore team.

 

So, somehow ISIS has not gotten the message that the American left is really more like them in their totalitarianism than not. And for some reason ISIS, not recognizing the American left as fundamentally their kind of people, proposes creating mayhem in certain leftist-rich targets.

Recalling then, Michael Moore’s infamous query as to why a liberal target like New York had to be attacked rather than some conservative place like Provo, Utah, what is a non-masochist to think about the possibility of the fat boy himself  (or those ideologically like him) being hoisted on his own malice packed petard?

Well, I’m not quite sure what to think, myself. It’s possible that there is a larger moral dimension to it, despite what one would naturally imagine.

But I am pretty sure that the guy who wrote this was on to something in a general way when he, to repeat, observed: “We can’t save stupid white liberals and save ourselves at the same time.

He says he figures we can’t.

If push comes to shove, I am as yet unconvinced we should even try.

 

Posted in Liberal, Socialists, society, terrorists, We Won't Miss You | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

All Multi-Nationals Should Invert Away From US

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/08/28

If you are a multi-national corporation headquartered in X country, you pay that country’s corporate tax for the business you do there and you pay the corporate tax in each other country for the business you do there with the exception of one industrialized country. If you are headquartered in the industrialized world’s highest corporate tax country, not only do you pay that country’s highest in the industrialized world for the business you do there but you also pay that country’s highest in the industrialized world for business you do anywhere else. You do get a tax credit for paying taxes elsewhere, but you also still pay taxes in that country for business you do in other countries.

Now, why would any fiscally responsible corporation spend more than double its by-nation required corporate taxes if it could just as easily cut it down to the actual rate of said country? If Canada has a 15 percent corporate tax rate (it does), then why would a corporation pay the offending country’s 35 percent corporate tax on business done in Canada, just because the business is headquartered in that offending country? It makes no fiscal sense whatsoever. Especially when it is possible to work the laws to divest yourself of insane tax requirements for doing business elsewhere in the world.

That’s exactly what Burger King (owned in a very large part by a Brazilian) did. (And I have a major issue with Burger King’s rainbow whoppers, but that’s beside the point here.)

Meanwhile, Forbes reported three days ago on the prospective merger and said:

Burger King’s majority owner, the Brazilian private-equity firm 3G Capital, would hold the majority of shares in the combined company, their statement said.

These Brazilians need to get patriotic and pay their absurdly high American tax rates.

See, Burger King’s majority owner, a Brazilian company, did what it took to get out of the outrageously high taxes the US put on it. That’s right. The United States has the industrialized world’s highest corporate tax, and is also the only nation in the industrialized world to force its outrageous taxes on business done in other countries.

Never mind Michelle Obama will never allow Burger King to sell its product in American schools, and would rather Burger King ceased to exist, the Loony Left are all up in arms about a business deciding it’s not a good idea to overpay their taxes.

Posted in economics, food, Law, Liberal, Over-regulation, Philosophy, politics, Socialists, Tax | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

I Have An Idea Putin Will Love!

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/08/28

Putin has this idea that he can invade sovereign nations that have Russian speakers if those Russian speakers are “threatened.” Sounds very Hitleresque, don’t ya think? Even Stalinesque, as Hitler and Stalin agreed to sub-divide Poland before Hitler decided to kill Russians.

In addition to stipulations of non-aggression, the treaty included a secret protocol that divided territories of Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland into Nazi and Soviet “spheres of influence“, anticipating potential “territorial and political rearrangements” of these countries. Thereafter, Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939. After the Soviet-Japanese ceasefire agreement took effect on 16 September, Stalin ordered his own invasion of Poland on 17 September.[3] Part of southeastern (Karelia) and Salla region in Finland were annexed by the Soviet Union after the Winter War. This was followed by Soviet annexations of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and parts of Romania (Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina and the Hertza region).

The pact remained in force until the German government broke it by invading the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941.

Of the territories of Poland annexed by the Soviet Union between 1939 and 1940, the region around Białystok and a minor part of Galicia east of the San river around Przemyśl were the only ones returned to the Polish state at the end of World War II. Of all other territories annexed by the USSR in 1939–40, the ones detached from Finland (Karelia, Petsamo), Estonia (Ingrian area and Petseri County) and Latvia (Abrene) remained part of the Russian Federation, the successor state of the Soviet Union, after 1991. Northern Bukovina, Southern Bessarabia and Hertza remain part of Ukraine.

I know that’s a wiki source, and it only a little more trustable than a Leftist, but it is a source that provides other sources (eventually), and everyone knows by now Communist Russia (hello, Putin and American Leftists) and National Socialist Germany (hello, neo-Nazis and American Leftists) divvied up eastern Europe before Germany invaded Poland, and that’s why Germany deemed it safe to invade Poland to begin with. Also note how Communist Russia had an officer-depleted military due to Stalin purges. Anyone else see anything familiar happening now? (Hello, Obama, you formerly official member of Socialists in the US.) Here’s an article from The History Channel (and it is still less than honest in favor of a Leftist retelling of history).

The former KGB agent who is trying to reconstitute the old Soviet Union, with whom Hillary Clinton had that horrendously failed “RESET BUTTON” and to whom the formerly official and still Socialist Barack Obama (link, link, link) said he will have more flexibility, has decided any who “speak Russian” are reasons to invade sovereign nations. So, once we throw the known Socialist out of office and put a patriot in office, maybe we can declare any English speaker who is “threatened” gives the US reason enough to invade Socialist and Islamist nations. Vladimir Putin, the former KGB Colonel, has given us precedents (as opposed to precedence (a singular term)).

Posted in Character, Islam, Law, Liberal, Obama, Philosophy, politics, Socialists, truth, war | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Scotland The Nanny State

Posted by DNW on 2014/08/25

Albania The Brave?

Alba Alban Albanay Albania what's the difference anyway ...

Alba Alban Albany Albania what’s the difference anyway …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Great Britain no more?

Scotland is facing an independence referendum in about 23 days. And at present the news reports a 48% favorable headcount.

There are any number of implications to Scottish independence having to do with defense matters and currency, but the driving force behind the movement is from my perspective, surprising, as it is driven seemingly by the politically left-wing.

A glance at The Guardian’s article on divided families shows some very interesting opinions by those in favor of independence.

Apparently a significant number of supporters want national sovereignty, or independence, for the purpose of enhancing an already substantial Scottish welfare state.  This leaning is confirmed by a look at the Scottish National Party web site.

The Freedom to be unfree

The Freedom to be less free

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In addition, and speaking of voting away your freedom in the name of a worry free existence,  there seem to be numerous questions which would have to be resolved only after independence is declared.  Sort of like ObamaCare: you know, you have to vote for it before you can find out what’s in it.

Anyway, here are a couple of pro-independence voices recorded by The Guardian. Remarkably, they do seem to channel Ms Pelosi in a number of ways.

 

Caroline Wylie, says:

“I’m voting yes because of many things. I think the nationalists, while they’ve been in power, have delivered things that show they can govern properly. I like the fact that I live in a country that can deliver free prescriptions and university education for its children …

The no side say they will give us fresh tax-raising powers, although they are unspecified, but if they are to be believed we will get that anyway, whether it’s yes or no. …

I have to confess, though, that until the referendum campaign I was very apolitical, whereas all the rest of my family – my mum and dad and my two sisters – were all more politically engaged than I and are all against independence.

Most politicians are selfish, I think, and purely in it for themselves, but I think the SNP are different and want to look after ordinary people. We have a chance here to throw out all the debris of Westminster; the large, corrupt and cumbersome government that does not represent the ordinary people in the street.”

 

So, the previously politically uninformed and disengaged Ms Wylie says that the taxing power is going to go up anyway, and she likes free government stuff, and [elsewhere] that she trusts the Nationalists to properly spend the money they take in.

Our next example is from Clare McKenna. Clare says,

I never used to be very interested in politics, as I thought that most of our politicians were just in it for themselves. Then, when I began to study social work, I began to see the negative impact of London’s policies on very many poor and vulnerable people.

I just see independence for Scotland as an opportunity to reject the neo-liberalism at the heart of Westminster politics. This is all about protecting the interests of a tiny political elite and their wealthy supporters.

You can see that in the way that the coalition government, aided and abetted by the so-called Labour party, have punished poor people and disabled people in their austerity drive.

I have seen the pain and suffering that the Westminster government has caused to vulnerable families in Scotland. And now we have been given this fantastic opportunity to reject the greed, corruption and self-interest of Westminster rule and to create a new politics in Scotland.

 

Like Caroline then, Clare had also been uninformed and politically disengaged. But since then, she has discovered through her government job, that she likes and that people are deserving of free things. There is at present she says, just too much London driven Classical Liberalism going on. And like Caroline again, she is certain that once Independence is achieved and the tides of English influence recede from Scotland’s shores, Scots will finally have the freedom they need to be less free and more sharing; as corruption disappears and compulsory wealth redistribution blooms.

Now, for those of us who have been reading about the dwindling away of Scotland’s population and the  ratio of pensioners to workers, we wonder just how do Clare and Caroline expect this to happen?

Well, my guess is that Clare and Caroline really have no idea at all as to how this is supposed to work, since they have they admit, just begun to take an interest in politics. They cannot after all, be seriously expected to have it completely figured out. Discovering that Classical Liberalism is wasteful, corrupt, inhuman and cruel, and that Independence means compassion and caring and sharing out the wealth, is quite enough for starters.

On the other hand, the Scottish National Party has at least some notion as to how they will attempt this multiplication of loaves.

They will do it in part, by importing a replacement population, and then dressing them in kilts, or something ….

What a Yes vote means for immigration

The Scottish Government’s White Paper ‘Scotland’s Future’ lays out our approach.

We plan a controlled points-based system to support the migration of skilled workers for the benefit of Scotland’s economy. An independent Scotland will have an inclusive approach to citizenship and a humane approach to asylum seekers and refugees.

The Scots are exposed to the same anti-immigrant rhetoric of the right wing press, and Nigel Farage is as ever-present on Scottish TVs as he is south of the Border.

In Scotland we have to lump inappropriate Westminster immigration laws, and we are constantly told that they must become even more restrictive to protect us from the various ‘floods’ of ‘foreigners’ who are to erode our way of life.

Scotland votes for a Government at Holyrood that couldn’t sound any more different from the UK Tory Government on immigration and we are a better country for that. The difference in how the two Governments see immigration is best demonstrated in their various responses to the annual census of net migration.

In Scotland, when we see an increase in our population given our history of depopulation, we celebrate the good news. At Westminster it couldn’t make the politicians more miserable.

Scots are also becoming increasingly aware of our own population and demographic requirements. Only 20 or so years ago there was a real fear that our population would dip below five million. Although our population is currently growing at a healthy and welcome rate, there is still a realisation that our population levels remain more fragile than south of the Border.

We can only properly deal with that if migration policy is decided in the Scottish parliament, not by Westminster.

Scotland has always accommodated new people coming to our country — and one of the greatest sayings in Scotland is that ‘we are all Jock Tamson’s bairns’.”

 

And all will then be well: as Caroline and Clare will henceforth be able to more fully enjoy the comfort and security and caring and sharing which they have so recently discovered they, and all others, are entitled to experience through the miracle of redistributive justice, finally, at last, enabled by “Independence” … of a sort.

Well, free to enjoy as long as the imported replacement population allows them to.

Of course nothing to worry about anyway. Those scare mongers on the other side of the debate are making false claims, claims which don’t matter even if they are true, as we SNP types eventually get around to admitting:

 

” … people on the state pension are not necessarily dependent. It sounds academic, but it is also common sense. Think about friends and family who are on the state pension – are they all ‘dependent’? Even if they are right that more people are reaching retirement age, this does not mean suddenly our population will be unable to produce what a country needs to prosper, or that suddenly our spending on health will increase beyond control.

As one of the report’s authors puts it: “Sometimes you hear people saying that 60 is the new 50, and that is absolutely right. The health status of people the life expectancy of 60-year-olds is pretty much the same as it would have been for 50-year-olds 20 or 30 years ago”.

Older people are not the burden that the No campaign tells us they are.

But those who work to represent older people say what we already know – that older people contribute more to society than we tend to admit, including as workers. Age Scotland said “Older people have a great deal to offer to society: as workers, active citizens, cultural contributors and carers.” They say the Edinburgh findings “will help dispel the myth that our ageing population is a burden. On the contrary, it is something to be celebrated.”

See! All you have to do is equivocate the word “dependency”, and then celebrate it, and the problem magically goes away through the miracle of subversive redefinition and (more quietly now) …. changed expectations.  Ain’t that great?

Oh yeah, and don’t forget to import those foreigners. (Link within the above link:) “Our immigration policies and policies to support and encourage families could and must also address this trend.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Culture, Elections, Liberal, politics, stereotype | Leave a Comment »

ISIS threatens to destroy Chicago and Americans shrug

Posted by DNW on 2014/08/22

 

“E Pluribus Unum” no more.

WGNtv Chicago posts the alarming “news” that ISIS has the destruction of Chicago in its sights.

And Americans fed up with the totalitarian collectivists and moral nihilist appetite entities of the left who have already eaten away at not only our civilization but at our heritage of liberties, react with a shrug at the notion of the mayor of chicago trapped in the flaming ruins of the ecological niche his leftist ambition fouls and undermines.

We recall of course  that some 13 years ago progressive propagandist and cherished celebrity, His Rotundity Michael Moore, infamously set the stage for the spread of this attitude, when he asked in dismay why the Muslims had to attack New York, a liberal metropolis, rather than some conservative heartland site.

Gee, if the terrorists had just murdered conservative Christians, then Michael Moore could have understood, and maybe even sympathized.

Yeah Michael you submoral dog. So much for E Pluribus Unum, eh?

Well, thirteen years into it, those Americans who still value liberty and self-direction have gotten so used to the homicidal malice of the collectivist class, that they now, in turn, shrug at the thought of the collectivists themselves being destroyed by morally alien forces.

The underlying question is: What do you actually lose, when a malevolent parasite which has attached itself to you through your own long suffering tolerance and forbearance, is swept away by another?

Many have noticed that modern liberalism and Islamism are both anti-liberty of conscience, socially fascistic, and legally totalitarian ideologies. Many freedom loving Americans, less naive than their parents and grandparents, are apparently now prepared to stand back and watch “Hitler “and “Stalin” destroy each other; even if the war takes place on our own soil.

The question of whether the destruction would have unstoppably catastrophic side effects aside, it’s hard to blame a free man for shrugging at the destruction of those emotionalists who are, and have been, working for decades to destroy his freedom and ultimately his life.

What has a free man got to lose, when one flavor of collectivist is killed by another?

 

 

UPDATE:

Now here is something puzzling: the comments don’t seem to load up from the WGNtv link above anymore. Nor from the old (earlier today) history link, nor from internal links in the web page I preserved .

So, as a fair comment proof of this post’s contention, I shall quote a few of the more temperate comments below. Recognizable personal names are redacted, and discernibly racist crackpot bigotry is deleted.

 

            *****

    • J********a

      Dear Chicago,
      God forbid that you should fry like so many little french fries caught in the searing heat of a deep fryer. But, if you do, remember it was you and your kin that put Obama in office. You gave us a slug of a president whose ability in foreign affairs is zero to none.
      I will feel sorry for you later, because right now I can’t.

      w*****9

      Chicago goes up and this president must be removed before he takes the rest of the country down Impeachment and removal. He has clearly shown a total disregard for the security of this country and dares play golf at a time of crisis. Unfortunately, with ISIS here, possibly, we will need to employ every weapon at our disposal to eliminate them and their threat. Without security, what good is anything.

      1Yousuck

      perfect target! beautiful poetic justice!

      make no mistake. obama, democrats, libs, etc…truly believe in the undoing of Aimerican pride, power, success, etc…and a much more destructive and impoverished world is the natural result, when you undercut a free people.

      so, let the reaping of their sowing be true. these dark-hearted people are intent on allowing more evil, and letting it come here. therefore, let it come upon them FIRST!

      my prayer since obama’s first election has been simple: let ALL them that voted for him reap to the fullest, what they have sown: social degradation (ferguson), economic failure (unemployment, welfarism), and ground zero as the next terrorist attack (chicago)

       

      gunnyginalaska

      Dear ISIS, if you can’t hit Sh*tcago, might I suggest other cities like Oakland, SF, Trenton, Filthadelphia, Camden, Detoilet, or any other city full of liberals will work.

      *****

      Chicago and their corrupt leftist progressive politician’s polices and the “peaceful” muslims who live among them deserve each other.

      Iraq/Afg Vet

      Most Americans don’t have the stomach for what it would take to truly rid the world of this cancer. Rules of Engagement, the enemy using human shields and hiding in schools, religious temples and mosques all make any operation dicey, and open to scrutiny by those too meek to even take part — but not afraid to arm-chair QB. Once again, the U.S. is alone because our allies in Europe don’t have the stones to do what is needed. Once again, we will inevitably come to the rescue and risk our troops, spend our money and resources, and bear the burden of fighting another terrorist group in someone else’s backyard — while the rest of the world does nothing but judge. The only way to rid the world of these guys is to take them head on with severe malice. No more of the ticky-tack, PC, inoffensive stuff. Either we go in guns blazing and with bad intentions, or we sit out and tell the rest of the world to figure it out.

      Psalmon

      1. Sickens me to hear O talk about Justice for anyone who harms Americans, when he does nothing on Benghazi
      2. John Kerry our SOS keeps claiming Climate Change is our #1 threat

      These guys are almost bigger lunatics than ISIS.

 

Posted in Islam, Liberal, Philosophy, politics, Socialists, society, terrorists, Uncategorized, We Won't Miss You | 9 Comments »

The Burka Cannot Cover Perry

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/08/21

No, I am not talking about Perry Hood, the (near?) octogenarian insane socialist from Lewes, Delaware, although I would pay a Philippine Peso to see him in a burqa. No, this is about Texas Governor Rick Perry and the completely out of control, criminal, corrupt, Left-Wing lunatics in Austin. (There’s a reason “they” say “Keep Austin Weird.”)

In case you have been living under a rock, Travis County DA Lehmberg got busted driving on the wrong side of the road with a BAC of .238, or nearly 3 times the legal limit. She then tried to use her position of authority as a bludgeon to get out of her criminality. Among other things, “get me your boss”, spitting at people, kicking things, having to be placed in full restraints while seated all describe Travis County DA Lehmberg’s activities while drunk.

“You’re going to ruin my political career.” Yeah, I think you did that yourself, you belligerent fool, other than the fact you work in Travis County. Keep Austin Weird. “I’m a District Attorney, I’m a District Attorney.” Continuous power-play by the drunk criminal DA of Austin.

And Travis County DA Lehmberg refused to resign her position as chief Law Enforcement Officer in Austin, and head of the “kill the political corruption” unit for the whole of Texas. Governor Perry declared she needs to go, or her office will not get the money for the “kill the political corruption” unit that is normally sent from the budget of the State of Texas to the budget of the DA of Travis County. Imagine that. A convicted criminal is ordered to step aside or money from all the taxpayers of the entire state of Texas won’t be sent to the convicted criminal. And since the convicted criminal doesn’t like when the Governor tells her she is in no position to judge whether other politicians are corrupt, she decides to work to file bogus Felony charges against the person who thinks a convicted criminal is not the type of person who should be looking for corrupt politicians.

I have come up with a solution of my own. Move the “investigate corrupt politicians” unit to neighboring Bell County. It’s right next door to Travis County. And it’s growing rapidly. And it’s not hyper-Left-Wing. Just take the power completely away from those who destroyed Tom DeLay for purely political reasons, and is trying to destroy Rick Perry for purely political reasons. There are multiple years of evidence Travis County (Keep Austin Weird) cannot be expected to have integrity or Honor in their investigations.

So, how did I come up with the title of this article? Where does the Burka come in? Well, now that you asked, Paul Burka is an editor of a dead-tree magazine in Travis County, more notably called Austin, Texas. Keep Austin weird. Two years ago, Paul Burka wrote an amazingly dishonest and agenda-fed article attacking, among others, Governor Rick Perry. Rick Perry, who was the Texas campaign chief for Algore’s campaign to be President. Rick Perry, who just a few short years ago was a card-carrying Democrat. Rick Perry, who dead-tree-magazine editor Paul Burka declared a radical Right-Wing insurgent with no civic interest.

And here’s how I fisked Paul Burka’s article two years ago:
______________________________________

Editor/Journalist/Pundit Paul Burka ( @paulburka ): Research 0, Integrity 0, Propaganda 100

 

(This article made “Post of the Day” for Monday, July 9 at Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion.  Professor Jacobson called it “What’s under that Burka?”)

 

Paul Burka is the Senior Executive Editor of Texas Monthly, a dead tree magazine with an online footprint. And Paul Burka likes to think of himself as better than us plebes. I’ll show you that very clearly throughout this article. But first, let’s quantify Paul Burka just a wee bit, shall we? In writing about the Ted Cruz/David Dewhurst debate in which Burka declared Dewhurst the winner, Burka had this little gem which gives everyone a glimpse into his heart and soul:

[I just want to point out here that the bailouts worked extremely well, that they kept the American automobile industry alive through the worst of the recession, that most, if not all, of the money has been paid back, not only in the auto industry but also in the financial industry, and that the opposition to them is an example of how ideology can be blinding, even when we know all of the facts. Isn't it clear to everyone by now that the bailouts saved the international financial system?--pb]

That is indeed the position of the radical Leftist establishment, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists, Fascists, Mainstream Media, and propagandists (brought to you in triplicate by the Redundant Department of Redundancy). That is not at all the position of Conservatives, mainstream Republicans, or even Ruling Class Republicans. It is also not at all true. Ford did not take any Government bailout and it’s doing just fine, thank you very much. The fact Obama threw the entirety of the bankruptcy Laws in the trash heap in order to feed the United Auto Workers Union meant that grandma and grandpa lost a lot of their retirement investments, permanently. And it is a stone-cold fact that GM paid it’s Government loans with Government money and not its own. And the Government still has tens of billions of dollars stuck in GM today. And, no, these bailouts did not at all “save the international financial system”. It is still a mess, and will be an even bigger mess since Government is still getting in the way of Free Market corrections and eliminations of wasteful and failed agendas. The bailouts only made matters worse.

Now that we’re a bit more clear on just who this clown Paul Burka is (he’s clearly a Liberal), let’s get down to Fisking his article in the July, 2012 print edition of Texas Monthly, which I have in my currently nicotine-stained fingers. *crinkle*crinkle*crinkle* It is available online if you’re registered. I’m not registered, so I’ll use the print version. (I trust it more, anyway, because lamestream media outlets are notorious in stealth changes to their articles, or memory-holing them in their entireties.)

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in 1st Amendment, Character, charitible organizations, Conservative, Constitution, Constitution Shredded, Culture, Elections, funny business, history, Insanity, Law, Liberal, media, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, Socialists, society, TEA Party, truth | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A moment of reflection …

Posted by DNW on 2014/08/19

I’ve taken a backward glance at a number of the posts I have put up in recent months, and noticed what has become a recurring theme for me: the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the everyday left and its mouthpieces.

I also notice that in choosing the most plainspoken and idiomatic terms available, I have repeatedly labeled their condition “stupidity”.

Now, this “Dishonest stupidity of everyday Progressives” business, is not a theme I have intentionally chosen to harp on. It is simply the result of watching what everyday progressives do, of listening carefully (and dispassionately above all else) to what they themselves say, and of then evaluating the narrative they are putting forth for (presumably) our consumption, for its logical coherence, evidence of intellectual integrity, and overall sense.

It is startling to reflect that in the process of reviewing so many different progressives’ work for intellectual coherence and truth value, I have been inexorably led to the same end-point; a place wherein I was confronted with the obvious:  that progressives habitually lie, are untroubled by their lying and duplicity, and that they are not even very clever in doing it.

Katie Halper, John The Liberal, Benjamin Crump, progressives big and small, public and not so public, they are all essentially the same ends-justify-the-means types who live in a world of moral convenience: one which they ultimately strive to order for their emotional comfort and satisfaction.

Ann Coulter sometime ago commented that despite the progressive’s constant talk of intelligence as if it were a cardinal if not the supreme, moral virtue, they seem to be quite deficient when it comes to exercising it themselves or in applying that intelligence standard to members of their political client class.

And perhaps that is the key, and why I placed the word “presumably” in parentheses when I said above that progressives were speaking for “our consumption”. They really are not. The progressives are not trying to convince us. Instead, as David Horowitz had made himself blue in the face pointing out, their rhetoric is not designed to convince us of the validity of their reasoning, so much as to wage social war upon us by manipulating emotionally immature, and mentally limited third parties.

Knowing their own herd then,  given who they themselves are, what they value, and who it is that aligns with them, they know that they need not be careful, accurate, or truthful; and that emotion and sarcasm serve their ends better than reason.

As their chosen audience has presumptively little or nothing in the way of critical faculties or genuine knowledge, they need not trouble themselves too much when it comes to arousing them.

“Stupid”, may not be the most artful word to describe the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of political progressives. But apart from terms such as “nihilist”, “self-serving hypocrite”, or “evil”, it seems upon consideration, to be the most accurate.

Posted in Blogging Matters, Liberal, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

I Wrote A Comment At American Liberal Times

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/08/17

DNW has been regaling us with the absurdity that is the Loony Left as represented by one John the Liberal, who runs American Liberal Times. Well, the clown who unfortunately shares my first name wrote an article blasting Voter ID (which is supported by a majority of each segment of each spectrum) and simultaneously calling for mandatory voting. I responded. I expected to get a message saying my comment is in moderation. I did not get that message. Instead, I got a response from the site that suggested my comment went directly into the spam filter. That response was a refreshing of the direct page without even the hint that I commented at all. Good job, DNW. Not only did you get yourself banned from the illogical, deceitful, dishonorable site, but you also got this site, which is based on Honor, banned from it. That does, indeed, show the depth of depravity, the complete inability to hear the truth, the total disregard for Honorable debate “John the Liberal” has.

Knowing there might be an issue with commenting there, I had the forethought to save what I wrote before hitting the submit button. And here it is.

You say “feel free to comment” when you actually mean “comment when and if your opinion matches my own completely off-balance opinion”. I know this to be the case because an author on my blog has attempted to enter into an intellectual and logical debate with you. What did he get in return? “La la la la la I can’t hear you.” And a “you’re not welcome” sign.

You’re not interested in the truth. While I do know Leftists who are, indeed, interested in honest debate; aphrael (the “married” homosexual Leftist at Patterico’s Pontifications) and Jeff (the Left-wing Jewish heterosexual who is down for the cause of homosexual “marriage” (something every true Christian is foursquare against) at Opinions Nobody Asked For) are two such examples, you, however are not in that crowd. I have strong respect for both aphrael and Jeff, despite their being wrong on just about every issue. They, at least, try to debate honestly. You should give it a try yourself.

The only thing that seems to happen is that the voter ID laws become ever increasingly demanding

Prove it. You won’t because you can’t. It’s just a sham you on the Left push in your efforts to make enforcement of eligibility requirements as difficult as possible. You need the fraudulent votes. You need the politicians’ lies. Without both, you lose lots of elections you’re currently winning.

You claim vote fraud is rare. The way you write suggests it’s virtually unheard of. The only reason it would be unheard of is due to the fact mainstream media works so hard to hide it. Vote fraud is hardly rare. I have personally compiled a small sampling of massive voter fraud and voter registration fraud. And it inevitably points to your side of the political spectrum. The side that has the absolute belief that there are no absolutes. (Talk about an intellectually and logically untenable position…)

While it is difficult to ascertain the depths of the vote fraud and voter registration fraud perpetrated by Democrats and Leftists, my proven documentation of Democrat officials engaging in both destroys your claims. As does the 120 percent voter registration in Indianapolis. 120 percent. When even 100 percent is statistically impossible without fraud. And the over 100 percent vote in Florida, used to unseat a black man from office because he didn’t toe the Democrat plantation line.

But your suggestion of making voting mandatory does two things I want to point out here.

1) It proves you on the Left are not at all about independence. You are not at all about individual freedom. You are about control of the people. You are fascist at the core. (That’s what mandatory voting is: Fascism. So, own it or be dishonorable and run from it.)

2) It proves you need the wholly uninformed to vote for your emotionalist scare arguments because, when it’s only the informed who vote, you lose cataclysmically. You cannot win when the people are truly informed and involved. It is impossible. Therefore, the more uninformed the people who vote, the better it is for your totalitarian side. This is proven by the results of “low voter turnout” votes. Those who “don’t get into politics”, in other words, those uninformed types, are more likely to not vote in low voter turnout elections. And low voter turnout elections tend to tilt far to the Right. Thus your need for the uninformed, uneducated, non-critical-thinking masses to be “forced” to vote.

Quite frankly, I would be happy if those who did not pay Federal taxes in the previous year or two were not permitted to vote on any issue that raised taxes on those who actually do pay taxes. Why should the leeches of society get to vote on how much they can leech off those who are forced to lend their arms for the blood-sucking? But my position would be clearly unconstitutional, so I do not advocate for it. Your position, which you are strongly advocating for, is equally unconstitutional.

But since when did the Constitution ever get in the way of you on the far Left?

Here, you can find other articles on this site that concerns voter fraud, voter registration fraud, and the like.

Posted in Blogging Matters, Constitution, Constitution Shredded, Elections, Law, Liberal, Over-regulation, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, society, Vote Fraud | Tagged: , , , , | 4 Comments »

Speaking of Benjamin Crump

Posted by DNW on 2014/08/15

From his website: Intellectual powerhouse Benjamin Crump.

How did this clown ever get a law degree?

How did this clown ever get a law degree?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read the screen capture below and weep for civilization.

Three so-called “Esquires”, all signing off on a contemptibly inflammatory polemic intended to shift attention away from what appears to be a steadily creeping indictment of the moral character of the late Michael Brown of Ferguson, Missouri.

And all they succeed in demonstrating is their own moral and intellectual incompetence.

See the first paragraph issued by these legal geniuses: “piece mil” for “piecemeal”.  Unfortunately for them, it is the kind of error spell check won’t catch; since, both “piece” and “mil” are real words.

So three activist lawyers rush to the scene of a fiasco, put their demonstrably sub-par heads together, and that is what results.

 

Crump the illiterate crop

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did they write the nonsense they published above? Who knows? But it appears over Crump’s name.

 

Did they read it? Again, who knows? But one is justified in presuming that material published over a man’s name has at least been read by him.

 

Three publicity seeking bomb throwing lawyers, and apparently not one of them could spell “piecemeal”.

 

And just in case people are wondering if some AOL typist is responsible for the error in the statement:

 

Crump Esquire's statement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kind of sums it up, doesn’t it?

Posted in Culture, education, Humor - For Some, Insanity, Law, Liberal, media, politics, society | 2 Comments »

The liberalism of the American Liberal Times blog

Posted by DNW on 2014/08/14

A little while ago I posted on my failed project to enter into a constructive dialog with a liberal … any liberal at all. The latest case being, one John The Liberal, the proprietor of the “American Liberal Times” blog.

That was then.

 

Now, introducing just a little more of John The Liberal.

American Liberal

Screen Shot

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

John The Liberal has a few observations and rhetorical-style questions.

We will present his remarks as “questions” and “comments”, and then propose our own “answers”.

 

1, Question  from John:

“It seems that some “Christians” . . . ( I have no reason to doubt they are Christians . . . I am not their judge and jury . . . That is God’s Business) . . . some Christians seems to be Hell-bent ( pardon the unintended pun) on getting themselves into trouble by trying to export their belief system to foreign cultures . . . did you ever notice?”

 

Answer:

Dear John.

Yes we have. This is probably due to the fact that it is a critical and essential part of their faith according to its very Founder. Sometimes it is referred to as “The Great Commission” . You have repeatedly referred to your own religious faith in terms which would lead one to assume that it had, or once had, something to do with Christianity as well. So perhaps you heard of the command to evangelize at one time.

The following references were mostly taken directly from a Bible verse site which easily accessible to anyone looking to confirm.

 

Matthew Chapter 28

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, [even] unto the end of the world.
Mark 16:15

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.
Acts 1:8

But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Luke 12:8

Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God
Mark 4:21

And he said unto them, Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed? and not to be set on a candlestick?”

 

It should also be noted that Church history records that all the original apostles did in fact “get into trouble” exporting their faith to foreign cultures; with only one apostle even surviving the commission: albeit in exile.  The plain fact is that the faith was at one time foreign to all cultures; even the culture of its homeland.

So yes, John. Many people have noticed.

 

2, Comment from John:

“I am one of those “Liberal Freaks” who firmly believes that if some pew-jumper church starts preaching politics from the pulpit it should lost its tax-exempt status . . . period . . . end of story. Why should they rake in millions of tax-free dollars for their big wig preachers to live high on the hog on and be able to shove their politics down their parishioners’ throats at the same time?

It has nothing to do with “freedum of ree-ligiun” at all.

It has to do with trying to mix politics and religion – – and that is something that simply cannot work out in the long run. …

I’m all in favor of the government taxing the Living Hell out of any church that makes itself a virtual headquarters of some political party.
Share this:callous! I didn’t mean for it to sound that way but I think it has to be asked.)

 

Answer: Jeremiah Wright and Trinity United

 

3, An “observation”  from John The Liberal of American Liberal Times:

“When tyranny comes to a nation it always comes wrapped in a flag and carrying a gun and a Bible.”

Answer:

Really, John?

Pol-Pot Mao Zedong (1) Mao Zedong (2) Robespierre

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pol Pot

 

Mao

 

Stalin

 

Robespierre and the efforts of his friends and allies

 

Posted in Blogging Matters, Character, Christianity, Humor - For Some, Insanity, Liberal, truth, Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

You are a modern liberal …

Posted by DNW on 2014/07/21

 

 

You are a modern liberal

… and you don’t believe in natural rights.

Ok … let’s ask some questions which may even seem silly at first, but which, in the asking, will clear away some of the unhappy vagueness we tend to live with out of social politeness or the fear of seeming too radical.

So:

Do you have, let’s say, a right to breathe? If so, where does this “right” come from? An act of Congress?

Do you have a right to be served by others? If so;

Do they have a right to be served by you? If so;

Do they have a right to serve themselves by not serving you?

 

The questions are too general or abstract or silly or provocative you say? And anyway, it all depends, you say? Alright then, “it all depends”.

In hopes of making some kind of progress, let’s wave away any of the question begging “balancing of rights” or “cultural context” distractions into which you would like segue, and try to press forward instead.

To continue on a slightly different tack.

Do you (yeah you personally) let’s say, have a right to speak freely? If the answer is “yes”, is that “right” merely a contingent legal permission – be it constitutional, statutory, whatever – which you for the time being enjoy? Can you equally well be deprived of that permission in a way which would leave you with no rational cause for complaint to someone else? If you cannot so be deprived without a rational cause for complaint to someone else, do you then claim a more basic right to that express right? If so, how, or upon what, is that claim grounded?

 

You are a modern liberal; and, let’s say for the sake of argument, that I am not.

And you’re determined that you are not  going to “fall for” any of the questions I have asked. A “right” you insist and will boldly maintain, is nothing more than an arbitrarily recognized social permission – that tolerance or support which others are habituated or intimidated into conceding to you. Usually written down if it is to mean anything.

You then as a modern liberal, consistently and without exception or proviso do assert and affirm that the concept of “rights” really renders down to what are in essence, no more than social permissions; having no other objective grounding or reality.

So now, let’s say that you the modern liberal, and I the not-modern-liberal find ourselves on an island. One with no law books.

I’m stronger that you are and … Yeah, yeah, trust me, I am. And, and anyway as I was about to say, although there is enough for both of us to survive, if I kill you now, I can live more than just comfortably. Besides, I find your weakness and whiny-ness annoying.

If I do kill you, have I done anything objectively wrong? If so what is it, and how do you know? Have I thereby, on this law book free island, deprived you of anything that could be called “rights”? Is my killing of you, “unjust” in any sense, even though no judicial writ runs here? If so, then how so; and, how do you know?

Have you any reason to complain over an injustice in my act? Notice I said “reason”; and notice that your utility to me is not an issue here. How would all this be balanced out under a social permission theory of rights?

Well now, I don’t really expect you as a liberal to answer these questions, or to take them seriously, or even to grant that the framing of the speculations is something you would abide or tolerate.

Because of course, these questions are not really meant to change a liberal mind regarding the nature and status of rights by means of pointing out just how incoherent the liberal use of the term rights is, when the term is used in the sense conceived of, and conceded by, liberals.

I know this because I have wasted many hours attempting to get modern-liberals to explain themselves: and their strategy has been, without exception, to either refuse to do so, or to shelter behind the terminology of a moral worldview which they in fact reject.

You liberals, high-minded or low, already know all this too. You know, explicitly or implicitly that you are are spouting clandestinely self-serving rhetoric not reason, and emoting, not deducing, when you speak of “rights”.

So what’s the point?

The point is that: what this exercise is really meant to do is to remind non-liberals that, in the final analysis, modern liberals are motivated by a simple will to power and/or by urges which they themselves don’t care to justify or explore too deeply.

This is a fact of social life which non-liberals need to face, and of which they need to steadily keep reminding themselves.

Liberals are able not only to readily face this view of themselves, they ultimately embrace it; and when pushed to the wall, they will even proclaim it. They see it – entropy, inherent meaninglessness, and ultimate nothingness – as a state of affairs which grants them freedom from ultimate consequences. Insofar of course, as there is a coherent “they” to them, and insofar as “freedom” has any any meaning, insofar as consequences have any significance, and insofar, insofar, insofar …

So, isn’t it about time that conservatives become brave enough to face what it is that liberals are blithely admitting about themselves as liberals?

Its only prudent, after all.

 

Posted in Conservative, Culture, Liberal, Philosophy, Real Life, society, Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 216 other followers

%d bloggers like this: