Friday, May 24, 2013

What Difference Does It Make?

In her testimony on the Benghazi Incident, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton showed her contempt for the four men who were murdered by terrorists by saying: “What difference does it make?”

From the collectivist view a person is simply a thing to be used. A tool. The fact that a person has a complete life outside of the alleged goals of the collective is completely blanked out. To the collectivist the full human life is completely meaningless.

And because a person is seen as simply a tool it does not matter if it breaks as a result of being misused. The tool can simply be disposed of and replaced, as were the men in Benghazi.

Secretary Clinton’s open contempt for the people serving under her is perfectly normal for a collectivist. In The Mask Of Command, John Keegan recounts an incident where Adolf Hitler was having dinner served to him in the dining car of his private train when it stopped at a station. When another train, loaded with wounded soldiers returning from the Eastern Front, stops beside Hitler's private train. Hitler had the stewards in the dining car pull down the shades so he wouldn't have to see the other train and the wounded passengers.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

A Spot Of Tea

I attended a Tea Party rally in downtown Minneapolis at noon today at the IRS Headquarters at 250 Marquette Avenue South. There about a hundred people in attendance and there was a bit of drizzle. Several people, especially those driving commercial vehicles honked and the drove by. Not everyone was happy to see the Tea Party. Some people were visibly hostile. One woman who walked by the rally had a look on her face that was like one would expect from a member of a royal family that had just stepped in a freshly laid pile of dung. She may have worked for the IRS.

Seriously, if the Democrats want to survive as a political party they must drop the partisan nonsense and take the lead on cleaning up the abuses of the Obama administration. If not, they will go down with him.

Oh, here's a previous piece I wrote on the Tea Party.

Monday, May 20, 2013

Thought For The Day

Doublethink is the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct.

For example:

Barack Obama is the President of the United States.


Barack Obama has no control over the actions of Federal agencies.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

Monday, May 13, 2013


Who does the Big Zero think he is? President Richard Nixon?

I expected bad behavior from the Zero but I didn't expect him to go Tricky Dick on us. Actually I expected the Idiot In Chief to go a full Hitler on us. I'm not sorry to be wrong on this.

On another topic, the Objectivist position on abortion is based on the concept that a person has right to be in full control of their own life. The result of a live birth is a person with the full rights thereof. Killing that person, even by throwing him or her out in the trash with the other biohazard material, is murder. In my opinion Doctor Gosnell clearly deserves the death penalty.

Wednesday, May 08, 2013

A Reminder

Humanity is not merely a physical condition, it is a state of mind. To be human is to be essentially rational and productive. The human mentality (or soul) looks upon the world, the land, the animals and plants, the natural forces, as things to be mastered for the benefit of himself and his posterity. On the other hand, the predator, or savage mentality does not seek to to master the world, but to be the master of men. The savage prefers not to sustain himself by his own effort, but to seize and consume the lives and property of others for material and spiritual sustenance. To the predator, justice consists of "getting away with it" -- those who rightfully resist the predator are to be punished or destroyed.

-- Leslie Bates, The Resister, Vol VI, N. 1, Page 42

Saturday, May 04, 2013


Today is the anniversary of what is commonly called The Kent State Massacre. Or the day a mob of nihilist punks came into contact with reality.

Here's a number of things I've said on the subject of peace activism:

If there is one thing I have certainly noticed, it is that pacifists in general have no objection to enjoying the benefits of civilization but are unwilling to take the measures necessary to defend it from foreign and domestic barbarians. Such as the National Socialists, the Soviet Socialists, and the home grown socialists of the Democratic Party. Contrary to their general delusion of virtue, pacifists are in effect, moral and political parasites upon civilized society.

Peace in the real world is simply the absence of those -- such as the socialists -- who seek to deprive you, I, and our fellow citizens of our own Life, Liberty, and Property. Real peace can only be achieved by the physical isolation or outright elimination of those who seek to subjugate, plunder and murder us. This can only be done through the use of physical force. In short, true peace can only be achieved only through the possession of superior firepower and the moral will to use it.

The narcissistic trash that makes up the membership of the so-called peace movement simply do not care whether you and your children live, or die, or suffer under the yoke of an unwashed barbarian. They plaster their cars with bumper sticker, carry signs, bang on drums, throw Frisbees, and perform other useless rituals so that they can feel good about themselves and show the world how morally superior they are. Never mind that they openly deny the fundamental fact which is the foundation of all valid moral law, that Human Life -- life as a rational being in control of one's own life -- is the standard of all moral values, and that those who would damage or destroy Human Life must be removed from human society and if necessary be destroyed. The adherents of pacifism have so inverted their own mental processes that they look upon the perpetrators of mass slavery and mass murder as good and those who take up arms to defend the society of consent as the most depraved evil.

Now there are some folks, who regard themselves as morally superior beings, who question why the other bastard has to die. The answer of course is that the other bastard is attempting to impose his will, or the will of his leader, upon you by force. It is the act of coercion by force that makes what General Patton called the other bastard an enemy. Peace is simply the absence of enemies. But there are some folks, who pretend to be morally superior beings, who would have us believe that "peace" could be achieved by submission to the will of the other bastard. In reality this is not peace, it is slavery. There are some well meaning people, some of whom that I respect, who believe that there are times that one cannot have both peace and freedom at the same time. I have to disagree. Liberty is simply the condition of existence in which the person is free to live his own life in accordance with his own rational judgment. This does of course require the absence of some other bastard who is attempting to impose his will upon the person by force. In practical terms real peace and real freedom are inseparable. I will go further is saying that to a civilized person, peace, freedom, and security, are simply three words that can be used to describe the identical condition, the absence of another bastard imposing his will upon the civilized person. Contrary to what those who describe themselves as peace activists would have us believe, and as General Patton has ably demonstrated, the path to real peace invariably takes us over the real dead bodies of those other bastards who insist on violently imposing their will upon us. Unfortunately this process is by no means a safe one. Let us take this day to remember those who died on the path to real peace.

A rational study of the real world would show that a real state of Peace is effectively indistinguishable from a state of Liberty and a state of Security. Peace, Liberty, and Security are simply three words that a rational person uses to describe the same condition, the rightful ability to live one's own life without coercive interference by others. A rational study of actual history would show that the state of peace for the citizens of a free nation is the result of the violent elimination of the would be conquerors and their pet quislings. If we rationally examine those who constitute the membership of the so-called Peace Movement we find that virtually every one of them is an open advocate of the coercive subjugation of the productive members of the Human Race. The occasional exception being a self-blinded fool who isn't paying attention to what they're ideologically in bed with. In short, a "peace activist" and the "peace movement" are in fact enemies of Peace.

Peace is only an affirmative value to those who live in the condition of liberty, that is being rightfully in charge of one's self and able to set the goals for one's own life. Peace cannot be a value to the subjects of a totalitarian socialist state. To the victim of such a state -- the ordinary worker who is bullied by a commissar, the inmate of a slave labor camp, or the occupant of a darkened cell awaiting murder at the hands of the local chekists -- war, either an internal uprising against the socialist masters, or an invasion by an army of liberation, is in fact the positive value.

I stand by what I said.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

Thursday, May 02, 2013

Thought For Yesterday

“Local NBC Reporter Hilariously Denies Soviet Flags Present At May Day Rally: ‘What Do They Represent?’”

I’m not surprised to read this. In my view the basic function of liberal (and specifically Marxist) doctrine is to deny reality.

The specific fact of reality that absolutely must be denied under all circumstances is that each of us as human beings has right to say no.

No to the demand for obedience. No to the demand for material support. And no to the demand for absolute power over our lives.

Liberals, and the left in general, are parasites on human society. Without the power to compel others to materially support them the members of the left would be compelled either to become rational and productive people or to literally die off.

And it is not enough for the Left, especially their leaders, to be materially supported. They must also feel secure in their status as the masters of the productive. They must stage spectacular rituals of mass obedience to create and reinforce their feelings of security.

The parades on May Day and anniversary of the local ruling party's ascent to power. The hours-long speeches that must be listened to with total attention and applauded with the greatest of enthusiasm. And don't be the first to stop applauding when the leader speaks, that's disloyal!

To the left, every word of dissent or refusal is in practical effect a sentence of death for each of them. It is no surprise that they are hostile to actual thought based on actual facts.