Monday, March 30, 2009

Thoughts for the Day

Several thoughts occurred to me this morning:

What we appear to be going through is a home invasion robbery carried out on a national scale and over the course of decades. Barring a Pinochet-style military coup or a general uprising we are effectively as helpless as the unarmed victims of the home invaders.

The other thought is that the Democratic Party is effectively an industrial scale version of the Manson Family with brief cases and postgraduate degrees instead of old kitchen knives.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?


Let me rephrase that...

The Democratic Party is effectively an industrial scale version of the Manson Family with postgraduate degrees and paramilitary swat teams instead of LSD and old kitchen knives.

There...that works better, doesn't it?

Saturday, March 28, 2009

Quote of the Day

Today's quote of the day is from Mark Urbin's Political Signature Quote Page 15:

"The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism"

-- Karl Marx

In practical reality peace (as well as freedom and security) is the absence of Socialists, and all other Self-Appointed Superior Beings who want to use other people as their livestock.

Believe it or not, there are still a bunch of morons out there who still refuse to get it.


Wednesday, March 25, 2009


Mr. Welch continues to add to the list:

1251. Even the rules disagree, my character can still drown.
1252. I cannot take the following as my favored enemies: Southpaws, Mother-in-law or Keynesian Economists.
1255. Splitting the atom at will is not an acceptable super power.
1256. ‘Ignore the metaplot’ is also not an acceptable super power.
1257. No, the answer to the problem is not to make a gatling gun out of bazookas.
1258. Can’t base my character off a smurf.
1259. Even if I could base my character off a smurf, Ghurka Smurf was not a real smurf.
1261. If the villain’s three room lair holds over one hundred brutes, can’t just tip off the Fire Marshal.
1263. Can’t blame it on my gun.
1264. Will not retrofit my Federation Starship with fuses.
1266. I will stop referring to my rogue as a freelance subterranean locksmith.
1267. The lockpicking kit must be more than a sawed off shotgun.
1269. Even if the guy I based my character off was famous for doing it, I can’t kill eight guys with one bullet.
1270. Weapon Focus: Nukes is not a real feat.
1272. My Paladin can be charged with sexual harassment if he doesn’t watch exactly where he lays on hands.
1275. Will not reanimate dead familiars just to keep them around for sentimental reasons.

We now return you to your scheduled reality.

Monday, March 23, 2009

Thought for the Day

Idea for bumper sticker:


Let's just say that I got a little tired of seeing those "Village in Texas" stickers during the Bush Administration.

Saturday, March 21, 2009

Thought for the Day

I get the distinct impression that Die Grosse Null (The Big Zero) has fouled up more times in his first two months in office than the average Republican president fouls up in two terms. What's worse, Die Grosse Null's errors tend to be those which should be easily avoidable.

Back during the 2000 presidential election, Steven Michael Barry, the editor and publisher of THE RESISTER told everyone to vote for Al Gore. The theory behind this "endorsement" was that he expected the Gore Administration to become so incompetent, corrupt, and just plain evil, that it would provoke a Pinochet-style coup d'etat and the commencement of a campaign to shut down the Left in general.

No, I didn't vote for Gore. But I have the horrible feeling that SMB may have made a valid prediction.

This isn't advocacy. I'm just waiting for the other combat boot to drop.

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Thought for the Day

I just had a horrible thought:

If you asked a Special Needs Child if they would want to deliberately cause harm to another person they would most likely say no.

If you asked a "Progressive" (such as a regular at the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post) if they would want to deliberately cause harm to another person they would most likely say yes and then tear off on a hate-filled rant as to why.

It would then appear that a Special Needs Child has a better understanding of basic ethics than any so-called Progressive.

Horrible thought, isn't it?


I have found it necessary it enable the moderation function on comments.

Someone forgot or has chosen to ignore the fact that they were banned from commenting on this blog.

We have to wonder what part of "goodbye moron" they did not understand.

But then the idiot in question made every effort to demonstrate its refusal to understand.

And one final point: Those who would by force use other persons as a means to further their own material and spiritual goals are nothing less than enemies of human kind. Which is also to say vermin fit solely for extermination. To accurately describe the policies and behavior of such creatures is not demonization. It is simply telling the truth. Demonization is what the enemies of human kind have done to create the illusion of moral legitimacy to the systematic acts of slavery and murder carried out by those who have wrongfully called themselves progressives.

To Hell with them and to Hell with those who defend them.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Quote of the Day

“You can’t do a show about good and evil. Because then somebody has to be responsible.”

-- Dirk Benedict, Interviewed in NRO.

If there is one thing the Self-Appointed Superior Being hates it is the thought of being held responsible. Just like those dumbass Donks and their funding of the AIG bonuses.



Instead of spending the "stimulus" money on various construction projects (which will only have to be repaired or demolished later) why not cut out the middlemen and deposit the funds directly into the bank accounts of every officer of the Democratic Party down to the level of precinct captain?


Monday, March 16, 2009

Thought for the Day

If I attend a tea party (Probably the one at the state capitol on tax day) I think I'll make a sign that references both Ayn Rand and Wang Chung:


What are your questions on this concept?

Sunday, March 15, 2009


This book review was originally published in Volume 2, Number 3 of THE RESISTER. Price and book service contact information should no longer be accurate.

Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rand. Penguin Group, Penguin Books USA, Inc., 375 Hudson Street, New York, NY 10014, USA. ISBN 0-451-17192-6 Paperback. vii + 1084 pages. 1957. $7.99.

Reviewed by
D. van Oort

Atlas Shrugged is the opus magnum of novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand, and is the first work of fiction to be reviewed in these pages. Its theme is the role of the mind in the affairs of man. Atlas Shrugged illustrates this dramatically and memorably by showing just why, for the first time in history, the men of ability should go on strike against the advocates of incompetence and the purveyors of envy, and what will happen when they do.

"Who is John Galt?" Throughout Ayn Rand's brilliant expose of the decline of the industrialized west disguised as a novel, this is the question that pervades every page. "Who is John Galt?" is not a question, it is a smear spit out by every incompetent, every altruist, every hater of intellect who demands to know how competent men dare to be competent, how selfish men dare to despise altruism, and how intelligent men dare hold the willfully ignorant in contempt. "Who is John Galt?" is the unspoken demand by the mob that men of competence, ability and intelligence serve them as slaves. "Who is John Galt?" is the sneer muttered by stock-yard animals who cringe before the individual who denies the collectivist-altruist premise, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

The heroes of Atlas Shrugged answer the altruist-collectivist demand for their servitude by refusing them the one thing the altruist-collectivists cannot shackle--their minds. This resistance is beautifully stated by the hero of Atlas Shrugged, John Galt, when the collectivists demand that he return to "do something" to save a world they are willfully destroying:

"We are evil, according to your morality. We have chosen not to harm you any longer. We are useless, according to your economics. We have chosen not to exploit you any longer. We are dangerous and to be shackled, according to your politics. We have chosen not to endanger you, nor to wear the shackles any longer. We are only an illusion, according to your philosophy. We have chosen not to blind you any longer and have left you free to face reality--the reality you wanted, the world as you see it now, a world without mind."

Atlas Shrugged is set in a despicable near future, one much nearer today than when the book was first published in 1957. From the beginning, Atlas Shrugged was denounced and slandered by critics from both the socialist liberal appeaser and conservative Buckley-ite compromiser schools. Precisely because its theme is the role of the mind; because its scenario is a world increasingly of, by, and for the mindless; because it illustrates so beautifully the types of ideologies that lead to power blackouts in New York City and the creativity that leads to the discovery of new types of energy; because it predicted events and policies that have occurred since, and because it is the story of the most intractable of resisters on strike against those very ideologies, events and policies that are choking the life out of us today--this book is not dated. Indeed, it is prophetic. Atlas Shrugged is coming of age with a vengeance.

Throughout the novel, John Galt, defying every disgusting premise of altruism and collectivism travels the country on a mission of sedition to recruit true capitalists to his strike. In response to demands that he return with "the men of the mind" he defiantly states:

"All the men who have vanished, the men you hated, yet dreaded to lose, it is I who have taken them away from you. Do not attempt to find us. We do not choose to be found. Do not cry that it is our duty to serve you. We do not recognize such duty. Do not cry that you need us. We do not consider need a claim. Do not cry that you own us. You don't. Do not beg us to return. We are on strike, we, the men of the mind."

As with any legitimate work of fiction, Atlas Shrugged projects an ideal. So why would the ideal productive genius, Francisco d'Anconia, destroy his copper mines and become a useless playboy? Why would a brilliant young philosopher, Ragnar Danneskjold, sail the high seas as a pirate, waylaying ships transporting looted capital to various "People's States"? Why would the most brilliant of them all, John Galt, whose greatest invention is looted by the unworthy heirs to the once-great company he worked for, wage a clandestine war against the world by removing the men most hated by it? Why would the heroine, Dagny Taggart, after struggling against the combined efforts of the world to destroy her transcontinental railroad, vow to kill this man, and upon breaching the strikers' security, meet him and fall in love with him?

And what kind of new ideology would they forge from the ashes of two thousand years of mysticism, altruism and collectivism? What will be the greatest gift they give to the world, they, the ideal who are only concerned with themselves? This is their gift:

"We have granted you everything you demanded of us, we who had always been the givers, but have only now understood it. We have no demands to present to you, no terms to bargain about, no compromise to reach. You have nothing to offer us. WE DO NOT NEED YOU."

Atlas Shrugged is a long book, a great read for a long winter. But be warned; Atlas Shrugged is much like these pages it is reviewed on, because not everyone can handle it, and not everyone would like for you to read it. In spite of that, it is proper that Atlas Shrugged repeatedly tops the Book of the Month Club's bestseller list, because the type of person who reads this book is the type who makes his decisions on his own, for his own reasons, and for his own benefit.

If you have reason to seek a real literary masterpiece, and if you think you can benefit from a genuine ideological challenge, follow the tale of a few great men and women in a mindless world of "People's States" and cringing appeasers, as they launch the ultimate resistance movement for the ultimate reason, and stop the motor of the world.

Atlas Shrugged will reward you like no other book known to this reviewer. It will do so with entertainment, suspense, one hell of a premise, and a few years worth of things to think about.

But don't take my word for it. Judge for yourself.

Atlas Shrugged may be ordered from: Second Renaissance Books, 143 West St/PO Box 1988, New Milford, CT 06776. 1-800-729-6149 (orders only).

Thought for the Day

The basic goal of those who wrongfully insist on calling themselves Progressives is to turn a human being into something other than a human being. This usually has the practical effect of being lethal. In spite of the demonstrated toxicity of the behavior of self-styled Progressives the self-styled Progressives insist on calling their actions good. Self-styled Progressives are clearly a hazard to human life and we need to identify and deal with them as such. Self-styled Progressives insist on calling this evil.

Someone Else's Thought For The Day

"In a society of criminals, the innocent man goes to jail."

-- Phillip K. Dick, Solar Lottery (1955)

Friday, March 13, 2009

Thought for the Day

Peace is the absence of enemies. This is never achieved by pretending that an enemy is not an enemy.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Someone Else's Thought For The Day

Carl Pham had an interesting idea:

I bet if the entire Obama Administration and Democratic Congressional Leadership were sentenced to hang on December 1, 2009, if the stock market were not above 9000 and unemployment were not below 7%, they would become raging tax-cutting pro-business libertarians overnight.

I'm afraid that I would have to disagree.

To those who have adopted the ethical and spiritual mode of parasitism, power over the productive population is an absolute moral necessity.

I cannot repeat and emphasize this enough: For the Left POWER IS LIFE!

Surrendering power is in effect committing suicide and is therefore unthinkable. Faced with a deadline and a dance at the end of rope the parasitic master class will make every effort to identify and destroy the mechanism of their scheduled demise. The only way they will release a lever of power is if we pry their cold and dead fingers from it.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

(Hat Tip to the Instapundit)

Friday, March 06, 2009

Thought for the Day

I just had an idea.

Instead of having a tea party on April 15th, our annual tax day, let us instead have a Grape Kool-Aid party. Firstly to acknowledge the intimate connection between the ruling Democratic Party and the People's Temple. Secondly to acknowledge that the ruling Democratic Party and the Federal Government is now headed by a messianic socialist who is now leading his party and our nation to destruction. And thirdly as an open invitation to the ruling Democratic Party to simply GO AWAY! PERMANENTLY!

Grape Kool-Aid can be served at Tax Day demonstrations. Alternatively, packets of Grape Kool-Aid can anonymously slipped under the windshield wipers of cars displaying Obama stickers or into the mail slots and mailboxes of homes that still display Obama yard signs. (I live next door to one.) Again as an invitation to go away.

What are your questions on this suggestion?

Thursday, March 05, 2009

Quote of the Day

Dr. John Ray brings us the following quote:

"I believe that President Roosevelt has chosen the right path. We are dealing with the greatest social problem ever known. Millions of unemployed must get their jobs back. This cannot be left to private initiative."

-- Joseph Goebbels, National Socialist Propagandist, 1933

But try to point out the connection between National Socialism and the present policies of the Democratic Party and you will be called a liar. (Speaking from personal experience.)


Tuesday, March 03, 2009

The left's debate style

The debate style of the left is pretty consistent.

Rational Adult: "Let's discuss topic A."
Leftist: "You're wrong."
RA: "How am I wrong? Let's review these valid facts pertaining to topic A."
L: "You're wrong."
RA: "Let's review this second set of valid facts pertaining to topic A, and please explain why I'm wrong."
L: "You're a fascist."

You have to give the leftist credit for at least being consistent. Ignore the facts, stick to your emotion based viewpoint, and then dehumanize your opponent.
A classic strategy used skillfully by certain groups in history called…oh you know and so does the leftist who deliberately dehumanizes his opponents with the label they see every time they look in a mirror.