Archive for the ‘Liberty’ Category

PostHeaderIcon Two Shooters!

Uh oh… We have been musing over the mysterious Vegas massacre a bit hereabouts; but I have deliberately avoided chasing the various conspiracy theories, involving multiple shooters. I had assumed that all of the reports of more than one gunman were the result of confusing echos. That just ended:

This sure strikes me as sound science (pun intended) and common sense. Now, what exactly are they hiding, and why? ◄Dave►

PostHeaderIcon Classical Liberalism

Politics managed to sneak back into the previous thread’s ribald attempt to evade such. Chris eventually explained why he thinks of ‘liberals’ as left-wing ideologues, and how outdated it is of me to omit the qualifier ‘classic,’ while employing the term outside of the modern Left/Right political paradigm. While composing a response, it occurred to me that this discussion probably deserves its own post. So, I fleshed it out as a more fulsome reply. The block quotes below are from his referenced comment

The dictionary is awash in Orwellian distortions of the English language. The venerable term ‘liberal,’ like ‘Liberty,’ is derived from ‘Liber,’ meaning ‘free’ in Latin. Liberal political philosophy was developed by 17th & 18th century philosophers during the enlightenment, known as the Age of Reason. Thinkers like Adam Smith, David Hume, Voltaire, John Locke, et al, and all manner of Liberty loving, anti-tyranny, radicals like America’s founders, would have proudly worn the label ‘liberal’ in their day. Thus, I had always assumed that the Left had deliberately co-opted and inverted the term, as typical Orwellian Newspeak. That is, until I finally took the time to look up the word.

As is not at all unusual, the muddled definition I had been carrying in my head for decades, I had originally surmised from context and common usage, rather than consulting a dictionary. I suppose this is how and why language evolves over time. I would bet that most Americans have only a vague notion that ‘liberal’ means one or more of: left-wing; altruist; collectivist; socialist; communist; Marxist; atheist; Democrat; or simply the opposite of ‘conservative.’ The way it is used so often as an expletive by conservatives, suggests as much. Yet, none of those terms are used to define it, by any dictionary I have checked.

The term is used differently in American politics as I’m sure you know. Liberal and conservative now pretty much refer to attitude regarding adherence to the meaning and intent to the constitution and rule of law.

I reckon Chris’ attempt to define it by one’s attitude toward the U.S. Constitution, is much too parochial. That would only further confuse anyone trying to make sense of politics in other countries, which have conservative political parties called, “Liberal.”

Currently, the Oxford dictionary definition of liberal is simply: “open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.” I really like the simplicity of that, and it describes me.

The Free dictionary offers: “Favoring reform, open to new ideas, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; not bound by traditional thinking; broad-minded.” That sure doesn’t sound tyrannical to me; quite the opposite.

My thesaurus suggests as synonyms for liberal: open-minded; broad-minded; moderate; freethinking; tolerant; laissez-faire; and noninterventionist. These are all positive values to my mind. Wouldn’t it require a rather staid dogmatist to reject them?

It turns out that all of these current definitions and synonyms, fairly describe my own attitudes and outlook on life. So, the only reason I ever need qualify my liberal bent with the prefix ‘classic,’ is to disavow the collectivist and altruistic nature of most Leftist social justice warriors, who are routinely labeled and disparaged as simply ‘liberals,’ by cultural warriors on the Right. Surprisingly, nowhere have I found the bugaboos of altruism and/or collectivism, mentioned under the heading of liberalism. This would suggest that in this case, the corruption of the English language was likely done by the Right, rather than the Left. They are the ones misusing the term.

More tutoring from Chris:

“I know it’s hard to accept but there will always be government. Always has been. Human nature doesn’t change like that.”

It depends on your definition of ‘government.’ By mine, in terms of systematic ‘rule,’ and ‘rulers’ employing armed enforcers to govern a population, there certainly has not always been. There have always been ungovernable frontiers on this planet, and there still are. E.g. the Pashtun tribal no-man’s-land, between Pakistan and Afghanistan. There are several others in that part of the world. Afghanistan itself is largely ungoverned, despite being considered a nation state.

You might not like the conditions extant in such frontiers; but there is nothing preventing those who choose to live there, from moving to the more ‘civilized’ areas of their countries, where they would be subject to the rule and rulers of the state. How many of us would move to a Galt’s Gulch in a heartbeat, to escape the tyranny of ubiquitous government rulers, tax collectors, and enforcers, if such a frontier still existed in America? I sure would.

“The single document in the world that comes closest to guaranteeing the liberalism you would desire is the constitution of the United States.”

Poppycock. Setting aside my rejection of your premise that a constitutional government is somehow required to maintain Liberty, the U.S. Constitution has obviously done no such thing, and never will. The only way such a document could ever hope to constrain a nation state’s tyrannical rulers, is if the citizenry were indefatigably ready, willing, and able to effectively revolt against their jackbooted thugs if necessary, and summarily hang the offenders without mercy, to strictly enforce it. With the passing of our generation, such will definitely no longer exist among the largely docile, dumbed-down, domesticated, sheeple that remain in America. More the pity… ◄Dave►

PostHeaderIcon NFL Solidarity

I recently mentioned that I rarely even turn on my TV anymore. That is primarily because, as a political news junkie, that is all I have ever watched for the past 40 years or so. It hasn’t always been that way. As a young man, I was hooked on football. It began long before TIVO, when I couldn’t miss a pro game on Sundays. When it advanced to the point of not wanting to miss a college game on Saturdays, it finally occurred to me that I was wasting my weekends, watching other people have fun. I went cold turkey in the mid ‘70s. Now, I only ever watch the Super Bowl, and half the time I DVR that.

Now that I am effectively boycotting cable news, for loss of interest in partisan politics, and am probably getting too old to enjoy much exercise, I just might become a football fan again. My prime motive would be to support the NFL, in the face of the state’s call for sheeple to boycott their games. Whatever one might think of their personal motives for doing so, the players’ open defiance of nationalistic rituals, needs to be encouraged by right-thinking Liberty-loving individuals.

The notion that those dissatisfied with the state, can just stop waving its flag or standing at attention for its anthem, is certainly to be encouraged. It wouldn’t do if the NFL had to knuckle under to the state’s economic pressure, so the least I can do is help keep their ratings up. I think I’ll set my DVR up to record all NFL games, even if I don’t bother to watch them.  😉 ◄Dave►

PostHeaderIcon Why Not Redefine The Problem?

How long has the war between western culture and Islam been going on? In round numbers, 1,000 years. Our own modern, active participation has been going on for over 20 years.

Are we winning?

The answer is a simple NO.

Why aren’t we winning?

Could it be that we either don’t know or refuse to admit who/what we are fighting?

I think so. If this is true, or even somewhat true, would this not be a good time to refocus and try one or more new approaches? If so, what keeps us from doing so?

First is a mistaken understanding of our own Constitution. Said Constitution does state that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion”. However, it does not say “Congress shall make no law protecting said Constitution (and the Republic it established) from destruction by group or system of thought that clearly states its intention to do just that”. Such a Constitutional clause/statement would be paramount to insanity. Yet, there are those among us who try to pretend that it says just that – and, to convince the rest of us, particularly those among us whose brains are still in the plastic state. So, are we insane? To a frightening degree, yes.

Second is a “hate America and everything it once stood for” group, embedded among us, that will support any cause, no matter how insane, so long as it promises to damage or destroy western culture. To this end, we now have a near majority of citizens who think that somehow the statue of a Civil War leader or Founding Father is a symbol of white supremacy or neo-Nazism. Can anyone truly believe that the pen that wrote “all men are created equal” really belonged to a man who did not think that Negros were human? Even though he lived much of his life with one of them playing the role of spouse? Yes, Jefferson owned slaves. Yes, he knew it was wrong. He understood it to be one of those wrongs that have no really good way to make right (“But, as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.”) Can anyone truly believe that George Washington was an early Nazi? Such is absurd. Yet, there are serious discussions about tearing down the Washington DC and Mount Rushmore monuments to these two people (among others).

But I diverge. My topic is about another approach to our war with “radical Islam”. Here I offer a suggestion that, IMHO, would alter the existing “war” instantly and in our favor… Our government (the President) should simply (and publicly) announce that, lacking any REAL evidence that there is a form of Islam that does not support (at least with its silence) the actions of the supposedly “radical” form, we (the USA) will consider ourselves to be at war with Islam and will act accordingly until such time that evidence of meaningful disapproval of the acts of the “radicals” by this supposedly “other” branch of Islam.

That is to say, we will outlaw the practice of Islam within our own borders and will cease to give aid, comfort and weapons to any nation/state that supports Islam. Further, we will respond with every weapon at our disposal to every nation/state that harbors and/or supports terrorism in any form or fashion.

Our next move should be to discover why so many American Jews seem to support a movement (Islam) that is vowed to destroy all Jews. Something about this simply has never smelled right to me.

Would the “left” have a cow over such a declaration? Of course. But, they are already trying to destroy the Republic as we know it so who really cares how many cows they have.

Am I a bigot? No, I think I am simply realistic.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

PostHeaderIcon The Big Lie

What would happen if all the useful idiot SJW sheeple, rioting across America under the banner of “Antifa,” watched this while actually sober?

 

 

These college indoctrinated fools couldn’t have read Jonah Goldberg’s ten-year-old book “Liberal Fascism,” which explained this subject well. Better yet was John Taylor Gatto’s earlier book “The Underground History of American Education: A Schoolteacher’s Intimate Investigation Into the Problem of Modern Schooling,” which not only covered extensively the subject of the collectivist nature of fascism; but explained how we have all been deliberately dumbed down by the Progressives (link points to free PDF of this remarkable tome – probably the most important book I have ever read!).

Alas, red pills are generally unappetizing for anyone under 30 or even 40, so they are unlikely to read  Dinesh D’Souza’s “The Big Lie” either. I suppose I should; but I already know the subject all too well, and am of the ineluctable opinion that it is far too late to do anything about it. ◄Dave►

PostHeaderIcon How Dare Trump Tell The Truth

I know we are supposed to be transitioning this blog from politics to religion and philosophy – yet I can’t stay quiet about the (in my view) approaching civil war.

Donald Trump’s overall reaction to the insanity in Charlottesville, VA (not NC as much of the lame-brained media seem to think) – his position that it took TWO sides to cause such trouble is right on. And he is catching hell for saying it.

There is no place in our society for neo-Nazis and we can all easily agree to that. But there was more to the protest in Charlottesville.

In the first place, there is nothing overtly racial or bigoted in the continuing Southern reverence for Robert E Lee. Indeed, his bearing and his conduct of the war was about all Southerners we had left to be proud of once the shooting had stopped and the looting began. And most present Americans understand to little about those days that I, for one, do not grant them the right to an opinion. In other words, learn about the thing you would pontificate on and THEN we can have a discussion.

A couple of simple thoughts to ponder:

First, Robert E Lee was at worst ambivalent about slavery (some say he outright opposed it, others that he simply knew it was untenable). For sure, his family (of whom he was titular head) used their own wealth to free slaves and relocate them to Liberia.

Second, while estimates vary, the net estimate is that no more than 20% of white Southerners owned slaves at the outbreak of the Civil War. If we assume that the makeup of the Confederate military pretty much reflected that of the South as a whole, then one has a quandary to deal with. It is somewhat easy to insist that the 20% were willing to fight to retain their primary source of wealth. Bit what of that other 80%? Do you suppose that they were gladly willing to die for the fortunes of a pseudo aristocracy? Somehow that does not ring true to one such as myself who grew up under the remnants of said pseudo aristocracy. Ergo, they must have been fighting for something far more personally important to themselves.

Let us diverge for a moment and think about the legalized abortion issue that plagues today’s politics. A clear majority of females, especially the younger ones, will fight like hell to preserve access to legal abortions. Yet, relatively few of them actually get abortions, even when an unplanned for family addition suddenly presents itself, mid-womb. Does this not raise the same question as the one above regarding the non-slaveholders willingness to fight and die? I contend that the same reasoning is at work. In both cases, the people involved simply do not want to surrender their right to make up their own minds about certain issues rather than be dictated to by others who have far less at stake in the issue.

I close with a warning to this nation: Years ago, the author John Donne postulated that “no man is an island, Entire of itself, Every man is a piece of the continent. A part of the main…” We Americans have so very little time left to understand our interdependence, ergo to respect our fellow humans as essential to our own survival. And then, to treat each other accordingly.

Were Trump WRONG about Charlottesville, the so-called riot there would have been no more than the sound of one hand clapping.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson


Users who have LIKED this post:

  • avatar

PostHeaderIcon Even Deeper Reflections

My frustrated comment to the previous post by Troy, caused him to reply with a thoughtful comment, regarding my increasingly serious flirtations with anarchy. My efforts to compose an equally thoughtful rejoinder, outgrew that somewhat off-topic comment section, so here it is as a new post specifically addressing my perspective on the subject of anarchy.

One of us is surely mistaken.

Perhaps we both are at this juncture, Troy, and now just living with very different illusory movies running in our heads, which we mistake for reality. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

some government is needed

As you well know, I spent the first 70 years of my life convinced of exactly that; but that in no way obligates me to be submissive to any so-called authority, or support the tyranny into which the Federal government has devolved. Madison particularly despised the concept of democracy. How then, did we end up with mob rule? Why is it so readily accepted by the sheeple?

Can we agree that mankind deserves at least the level of individual Liberty he and his contemporaries enjoyed? Would you not also agree that the odds now of retrieving that worthy goal, through any nonviolent political process, are essentially nil? Must we abandon it entirely then, perhaps out of some errant sense of patriotism, or is another violent revolution inevitable?

At a quick glance, anarchy may seem to have a lot to recommend it. But, upon deeper reflection, it soon becomes apparent (to most of us) that anarchy provides a sure and consistent path to some manner of “strong man rule”.

Troy, you have had a front row seat to my slow, cautious, careful, and deliberate investigations into the philosophical underpinnings of anarchical thought. This was in no way a causal “quick glance,” and I can assure you that after reading several books, numerous scholarly essays, and countless articles on the subject, I have given it considerable ‘deep reflection.’ Interestingly, the notion that it would inevitably result in “strong man rule,” is still not at all apparent to me. With all due respect, from my perspective, reaching such a conclusion appears to be the result of distinctly shallower thought than I have invested in the subject.

As for strong man rulers, try to convince me that the average citizen Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon What A Reversal

Just a few months ago, it seem certain the GOP was headed for certain destruction. Now it is the Dems that are hanging by thread (a thread they seem determined to break).

Even though I thought I was paying attention, I am still not sure what happened (although I am pretty sure the Russians did NOT do it).

Can it really be that a majority of Americans are simply tired of being lied to and treated like incompetent children? One can only hope.

As all of our readers know, I did not support Mr. Trump and I am still wary of him today – although I will credit him with at least trying to do exactly what he promised during the campaign.

As I predicted, sadly with some accuracy, a large portion of our citizens simply will not accept the outcome of the election and seem determined to cripple the elected government in any and all ways possible. The evidence following the 2 Obama elections suggest the same would NOT be true had the election gone the other way. For sure the losers grumbled after Obama’s wins but they did get out of the way and let him govern – however badly he did so.

If we are to continue to function as a free Republic, it is past time that the progressives do the same. If office-holding progressives cannot or will not accept the outcome of a free election, then they are in violation of the oaths they took upon accepting their offices and should be held accountable accordingly. Indeed, at what point does this behavior rise to the level of treason? Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon Will There Be An Inauguration?

To my knowledge, the last time our Republic was this screwed up was when Abraham Lincoln had to sneak into Washington D.C. for his first inaugural. We all know what started soon after.

It is interesting to note that the protagonists were them same then – a bunch of Democrats who could not accept the election of a Republican president. As the French say, “the more things change, the more they are the same”.

Then we have that citadel of responsibility, CNN, explaining to the kooks that, if they can kill sufficient government officials before Pence takes the official oath, an Obama cabinet member (the “designated survivor” – name currently unknown) will become POTUS. Whether legally true or not, this must be a great motivator to the “never Trump” movement. The only good side to this nonsense is that the people who must be killed for it to happen include Obama, Biden and the rest of the Obama cabinet minus the DS. Trump and his “cabinet”, having not yet been sworn in, evidently can be allowed to live although it is hard to imagine an event that would eliminate Obama’s cadre without taking Trump’s along with it since they will in such close proximity.

Never in my life did I expect to be discussing such a thing except as the script for a B grade TV show. Read the rest of this entry »


Users who have LIKED this post:

  • avatar

PostHeaderIcon Disrupt J20

James O’Keefe has done it again:

 

I have absolutely nothing in common with these foul characters, and refuse to consider them as my countrymen. Obviously, they would have similar disregard for anyone who thinks like me. Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon Sheeple Farming

This is very well done:

What would happen if everyone understood this? What would you do if you came to believe you didn’t need and/or want rulers controlling your life anymore? Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon The Myth Of A “Popular Vote”

The progressives learned long ago that any lie, no matter how egregious, can take on a patina of truth if – it is repeated long enough and often enough.

How many times have you heard, since the election, that Hillary “won the popular vote”?

What popular vote? There simply is no such thing. Yet, the progressive media continue to chant about it election after election. Why? Because they want to get rid of the Constitutional rule that the States elect the president and set up some form of national election.

Let me digress for a moment. What did Hillary actually win? Simple. She won the excess vote in several very large liberal states such as New York and California. What do I mean by “excess vote”. Simple again. The excess vote in any state is the number of votes in excess of the number required to win that states electoral vote.

What the crooked pundits fail to report to WTS is that, when the States established the federal government, by virtue of ratifying the Constitution, they delegated several of their inherent powers to said federal government in the name of a common defense and free trade between the States (among other things). One of the powers the States did not delegate to the federal government is the power to conduct elections. Ergo, there is no federal (or national) vote in these United States. That being the case, there can therefore be no national “popular vote”. End of statement. It is simply not possible without amending our Constitution.

Woe is us say the crooked pundits. This means we are not really a true democracy. How about that?? The Founders shunned the idea of a true democracy opting for a constitutional republic instead. Indeed, several of the founders compared true democracy to mob rule.

So, the fact that Hillary lost the election despite of winning the excess vote in a few ultra-liberal states proves only that our Constitution is working as intended by its creators. Read the rest of this entry »


Users who have LIKED this post:

  • avatar

PostHeaderIcon Relax About Bannon

Five Years Ago:

Color me impressed. This is the Left’s “racist monster?” Who could watch this and believe that? One thing he damn sure isn’t is a sexist! He is the guy who made Sarah Palin’s film, praises the women leading the T-Party, and his daughter is a West Point graduate. Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon Now What?

I’ve taken a week to decompress. I have had an interesting reaction to the outcome of the election. On election night, I was nearly euphoric, as I bemusedly watched the stunned media, dealing with the mounting results. What had seemed so obviously predictable to me, had been more or less inconceivable to them. But after that night, the news coverage of the aftermath has been somewhat boring, and I am looking forward to focusing on other subjects.

From the beginning of his campaign, my dream mission for Trump was to create havoc, among the elites in the Incumbrepublocrat duopoly. Several months ago, I reckoned that he had already accomplished my assignment, by thrashing and marginalizing the GOPe, in the Primaries. Although as a budding anarchist, I had no real interest in him (or anyone else) becoming the next POTUS, I’ll admit that I did enjoy watching him vanquish the particularly insufferable (and patently ineligible) Canadian Born Citizen, Ted Cruz in the process. A job well done.

At that juncture, his winning the General was unimportant to me, as the Federal government itself has little relevance in my own life. Eventually, however, my sense of justice, combined with the flood of revelations documenting the nefarious activities of the Clinton Crime syndicate, instilled in me a compelling interest in Hillary’s defeat, so I kept cheering him on. Again Trump overachieved, and that in the end she couldn’t even make it to her own retirement party on election night, was particularly delicious. Was she too busy bawling, shrieking, boozing, or perhaps all three? Another job well done. 😉

Yet, a fair evaluation from my worldview, would suggest Trump’s political achievements so far, go well beyond these triumphs. Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon Agenda Unmasked

In case you didn’t understand or believe the Progressive agenda for encouraging massive immigration:

…Obama has ripped the mask off. The word ‘unbelievable’ has literally become obsolete. There is simply no such thing left, in the world of partisan politics. Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon Dilbert’s Grand Wager

Scott Adams at his best: “The Crook Versus the Monster

Thanks to timely assists from Wikileaks, Trump has successfully framed Hillary clinton as a crooked politician. Meanwhile, Clinton has successfully framed Trump as a dangerous monster. If the mainstream polls are accurate, voters prefer the crook to the monster. That makes sense because a crook might steal your wallet but the monster could kill you. As of today, Clinton has the superior persuasion strategy. Crook beats monster.

Reality isn’t a factor in this election, as per usual. If the truth mattered, voters might care that the Democratic primaries were rigged against Sanders. They might care that the Clinton Foundation looks like a pay-to-play scheme. They might care that the FBI gave Clinton a free pass. They might care that we know Clinton cheated in at least one debate by getting a question in advance. They might care that Clinton’s dirty-tricks people incited the violence at Trump rallies. They might care that Clinton’s “speaking fees” were curiously high. They might care about all of that. But they don’t, because a crook is still a safer choice than a monster.

This is a consistent theme of Adam’s blog, in which he endeavors mightily to help us understand how insignificant most of the scandals we obsess over, will be to the ultimate outcome of this election. Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon How Much Worse Can It Get?

As we enter the final leg of the 2016 presidential race, we get mounting evidence that neither front-runner is fit to be elected dogcatcher, much less president.

I feel as if we are a nation of trapped rats because I see little or nothing that realistically can be done at this point. Electing Johnson/Weld is simply not going to happen, no matter how much I approve the idea. People are simply too ignorant to see what is about to happen. Massive protests would only enable the Obamanation to declare martial law and cancel the election. Moving Pence to the top of the GOP ticket might work but Trump is far too egotistical to do the right thing and resign the race. Ergo, it seems inevitable that we will elect either a known criminal who has now been exposed as a traitor as well, or, increasingly less likely, we will elect an egomaniac who, if elected, would most likely cause a global trade war while violating every aspect of our Constitution as well.

BTW, I am less bothered by Trump’s adolescent sexual chatter because the Republic has already survived two other sexual predators (Kennedy and Clinton) although I do think that such behavior did contribute to the failing moral character of the Republic.

I see from the polls (which I do not trust in the least) that the top issues in the minds of our citizens are the economy and terrorism, with illegal immigration close behind. If this is truly what concerns us then we should be very ashamed because the most obvious (IMHO) real issues confronting us are corruption and a failed education system. Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon Just Deserts

One frequently encounters the sentiment that people get the government they deserve. This is usually found in the context that those suffering tyranny in foreign lands, should rise up and overthrow their rulers. I must admit that I have in the past been persuaded by this logic, especially during debate over the notion that we somehow have a moral obligation, to go abroad seeking dragons to slay, on behalf of oppressed people.

I am pretty clear in my assessment that we have no such obligation; but is it even true that oppressed slaves deserve their masters, for lack of will to depose them, violently if necessary?

In a comment section here the other day, CT referring to Hillary said:

It boils down to CHARACTER … who has it and who does not.

I am not talking about CHARACTER of the candidates I am talking about character of the American voter who clearly is about to get exactly what they deserve.

From my increasingly anarchistic perspective, I was tempted to quip that this would be their just deserts, for legitimizing the oligarch’s Kabuki dance by voting at all, regardless of the winner of their sham election. The “Deep State” could care less who wins an election; because normally they control both candidates. The jury is still out; but this is the first time in at least a generation that this may not be true.

I have just finished reading probably the most important essay of this political season, which concluded with:

The election of 2016 is a test—in my view, the final test—of whether there is any virtù left in what used to be the core of the American nation. If they cannot rouse themselves simply to vote for the first candidate in a generation who pledges to advance their interests, and to vote against the one who openly boasts that she will do the opposite (a million more Syrians, anyone?), then they are doomed. They may not deserve the fate that will befall them, but they will suffer it regardless.

The pseudonymous author was referring, of course, to the #NeverTrump faction of the conservative intelligentsia, which he repeatedly excoriates with the delicious metaphor, of comparing them to the Washington Generals. Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon The Alt-Right

First, I would like to point out my “Cultural Bigotry” essay, which I wrote a few months back, before I ever heard of the “Alt-Right.” Since Hillary’s speech introducing the term to the rest of us, much is being made of the alleged ‘racist’ or ‘white supremacist’ nature of some of those associated with it. The research I have been doing, has revealed that multicultural challenges, are seen as much more important than race to these young folks. For one thing, they are actually intelligent enough to understand that terms like ‘Muslim’ or ‘Mexican,’ do not refer to the race of those they label.  However, here is a short discussion of the diversity within the movement, by one of its founders:

Certainly not PC; but I find his positions reasonable, and certainly worthy of open discussion in the marketplace of ideas. I also note his push back, regarding whether either Breitbart or Trump, Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon Eliminating Authority

For the first time in our society’s seemingly inexorable death spiral, I have regained a significant measure of hope for the future of America, and indeed all of mankind. Once again, it seems, technology will come to our rescue.

Would a world without any rulers, where war was rendered impossible, be such a bad place to live? If there were a way to eventually nullify the power of all states, not just our own, would it be worth doing?

“Anarchy is not lack of order.  Anarchy is lack of ORDERS.” -unknown

What if there were nobody left daring to even follow unpopular orders, much less issue them? Without so-called ‘leaders,’ and disciplined followers willing to execute their orders, no form of tyranny or warfare could possibly exist. Think about that undeniable fundamental truth for a moment.

I find it astonishing that I had never heard of Jim Bell, and his 20-year-old 10-part essay, “Assassination Politics,” in which he described and defended a technological method for eliminating unpopular politicians from society. Read the rest of this entry »

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Political Spectrum
Political Circle
Archives
Blogroll
Internal Links