Wednesday, November 12, 2014

5,000 gun owners to defy Washington gun law

Washington state gun owners will take things to a new level, responding to Washington’s new gun control law. At least 5,500 are going to choose to openly violate the gun control  law, I-594, at the state capitol in Olympia on December 13th. The law goes into effect on December 4th, after the Secretary of State certifies the election results. No mainstream media source has mentioned the rare event, even though reservations increase every day.

Basically unheard of in the modern era; 5,500 people will willingly violate the law through civil disobedience, and violate felony gun laws. Washington is one of few remaining states that has stayed friendly to gun owners, but gun owners are outraged that a few billionaires were able to buy the election, contributing almost half the $10 million gave to the race to support I-594, which was right at 10 times as much as the opposition. Unsuccessful at coercing the legislature to pass the law, gun control supporters relied on billionaires to push it throughas an initiative. Their money provided the funds to run non-stop misleading ads on TV.

“We will rally at the capitol, openly exchange guns, unveil and plan to break apart the entire legislation and violate I-594 in every possible way … We will buy and sell guns from whom we please, we will not submit to background checks, we will not give up our rights, WE WILL NOT comply.”

Spread it around.

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

Initiative 594 (gun registration) Passes by stunning 20% majority in Washington

Billionaires poured millions into I-594, while the NRA took its members money and ran away (Alan Gottlieb does not have your best interests at heart either). This perfect storm was made complete by  the statists who moved here from California over the years (yes I am aware not all Californians are commies), as well as the freshly indoctrinated drones of local colleges.

This initiative demonstrates why the founders were against democracy. When a majority violates the rights of the minority, it is nothing more than mob rule.

The enemy promotes a sugar coated version of this bill. What they want you to see is sales. What they do not tell you is that this law criminalizes transfers.

(25) "Transfer" means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.
(26) "Unlicensed person" means any person who is not a licensed dealer under this chapter.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Stunning Investigative Video Proves Turkey Conspiring With ISIS on Syrian Border

I am well aware that this is outside the focus of this blog, but Turkey is a NATO member and receives our tax money, and training from our military, and "our" government is also legally obligated to aid Turkey in war. Yet as with the majority of Muslim "allied" states (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, UAE), Turkey has given the US lip service and supporting the very terrorists that they publicly denounce.

ISIS does not care that the American left wants to appease them and they do not care that "our" government is giving them easy access to the country under color of law (through political correctness and keeping the border open); every American, left and right, are infidels that have to pay Jidziya or be shot. Of course that does not matter to Turkey, who wants to resurrect the Ottoman Empire, or especially the US government, who will be all too happy to use the threat of ISIS to justify the powers they need for their agenda.

From Conservative Treehouse

Last week a U.S. journalist, Serena Shim, was murdered in Turkey for exposing the truth of Turkey’s President Recep Erdogan allowing and facilitating ISIS militants going to and from Turkey into strategic positions around Kobane (Kobani).
Now an independent journalist team have used video to show Turkish police and military meeting with ISIS militants on the Turkish border.
Obviously the brutal reality of this expose’ is dangerous to Erdogan’s deceptive claims to the contrary.
As a consequence, and in an effort to hide the inherent reality while simultaneously deflecting attention from both events, the Erdogan administration is directing Western media to report on Iraqi Kurds (the Pesmerga) being permitted by Turkey to aid their sisters in Kobane:
Arbil (Iraq) (AFP) – Heavily armed Kurdish peshmerga fighters were on their way to joining militias defending the Syrian border town of Kobane from the Islamic State group after setting off from Iraq Tuesday.
Military trucks loaded with weapons were seen departing from the base northeast of the Iraqi Kurdish regional capital Arbil bound for the besieged town on the Turkish frontier. (link)
However, people should not be distracted from the reality that Sunni President Erdogan is working diligently to aid his Sunni ideological brethren in ISIS.
As Egypt’s Fatah el-Sisi continues to outline - the regional influence of the extremist Muslim Brotherhood – it becomes even more obvious that Turkey is facilitating ISIS extremists who are in direct alignment with the Brotherhood. Both Qatar and Turkey are financing and aiding ISIS / The Muslim Brotherhood in Syria and beyond.
The regional concern has now extended toward Kuwait.

It has been a month since we first proposed the theory of why Erdogan was willing to watch Kobane fall to ISIS.  So far every action has solidified that hypothesis.

Remember, Turkey is a NATO member

Saturday, October 25, 2014

Democrats seek to Use FEC to regulate libertarian and conservative blogs and websites

Under a 2006 FEC rule, free political videos and advocacy sites have been free of regulation in a bid to boost voter participation in politics. Only Internet videos that are placed for a fee on websites, such as the Washington Examiner, are regulated just like normal TV ads.

Ravel’s statement suggests that she would regulate right-leaning groups like America Rising that posts anti-Democrat YouTube videos on its website.

FEC Chairman Lee E. Goodman, a Republican, said if regulation extends that far, then anybody who writes a political blog, runs a politically active news site or even chat room could be regulated. He added that funny internet campaigns like “Obama Girl,” and “Jib Jab” would also face regulations.
From Washington Examiner 

As usual, the ends justify the means to the Democrats. The problem for them is that no one is going to abide by their decrees.

Friday, October 24, 2014

Rule 5: Kurd Amazons

Rehana (at the top) has become world famous for taking down 100 or more ISIS fighters, but the Kurds do have an all-woman militia that is helping to grind ISIS's advance to a halt, despite attacks from Turkey and Obama's wag the dog "support" operation that has resupplied ISIS by accident (or not, considering US arming of drug cartels and islamic Syrian opposition).

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Full Metal Bitch: This Woman Butchered 100 ISIS fighters

Okay, I couldn't help using the name assigned to Rita Vrataski in All You Need Is Kill, the novel that the movie Edge of Tommorow is loosely based on, but still, in Islamic beliefs, being killed by a woman means you don't go to heaven and get 72 virgins.

Story here.

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Affirmative Consent Laws: Leftists Invading The Bedroom

As UNC and other campuses nationwide engage in sexual assault policymaking efforts, California has become the first state to enact a new consent standard for colleges and universities in hopes of changing the culture surrounding sexual violence.
On September 28, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a statewide “yes means yes” law for institutions that receive state money. The law stipulates that the person accused of sexual assault must prove that a clear affirmation of consent was given by the accuser.
From The Nation.

Ever since the sexual revolution in the 1960s, the left has claimed that the right wants to invade the bedroom. It may come off as surprising, but the progressives' "well intentioned" control of others has always extended into the bedroom, once they get sufficient power.

Another standard operating procedure of the left is on display here: guilty until proven innocent. You either justify your worthiness to the collective, or it is off to prison (or the gulag). At some point, you will need to sign a consent form just to have sex.

Other states are copying California's new law.

Monday, October 13, 2014

In the People's Republic of Seattle, Columbus Day is out

Seattle is the northern, coffee loving, hip and sophisticated version of San Francisco. At least San Francisco has not banned Columbus Day! Yet.

Heavy Metal Monday

I am going to see Judas Priest at the Tacoma Dome on November22nd. Yeah, I am aware that's still more than a month away, but I'm excited ;p

The title track. It doesn't feel like a title track (Dragonaut would have been a better choice) but still a good song.

My favorite song off the new album. Judas Priest's classical style.

A very good, slow paced song.

And of course what would the Priest be without Painkiller

Not So Egalitarian: The Real Che Guevara

This iconic image (minus the "No" symbol overlay, which came from here) of Che was originally photographed at the memorial service for the victims of the explosion of the La Cobre, a French ammunition ship that carried Belgian munitions from Antwerp to Havana. Called, Geurrillero Heroico, the photo became both a communist and capitalist icon.

Che Guevara is a folk hero among the college left, and why not? He was enraged at the working conditions and poverty of South America, did something about it, and brought justice to the proletarian masses. If you are a young freshman in college, that is all you will hear, because the reality would encourage potential admirers would question just how justifiable it is to fight one evil with another.

Rise of Evil

Okay, I couldn't help using the same title as the Sabaton song, but Che hated rock music. Evil is not born in a vacuum. Che Guevara grew up in a family that fought on the socialist side of the civil war in Spain, and so was politically aware even at a young age. He had an affluent childhood and was well educated, even being able to go to medical school in a country where poverty was rampant. He went on motorcycle trips throughout South America, and found himself caught up in a coup that was allegedly meant to protect the business interests of United Fruit. The violence he witnessed convinced him that capitalists had to be destroyed through violence, and set him on the path to becoming Fidel Castro's top enforcer.

United Fruit and Banana Republics

US policy in Latin America has been notorious, largely motivated to protect the interests of United Fruit (now Chiquita) and Standard Fruit (now Dole). These big fruit companies enlisted local corruption in Honduras and Gautamala to keep prices artificially low, but it was not until the progressives entered government that official policy would be designed to protect the interests of these corporations. Under the presidencies of Theodore Roosvelt through Franklin Roosvelt, the US military would be deployed in indirect support of these corporations (the narrative that socialists and corporations are opposed will be the next one I deconstruct). Che was motivated by the 1954 coup in Guatamala, which was funded by the CIA against the Soviet backed government that ran the country at the time, and while there is no hard evidence of any United Fruit involvement, from his view, there was no question.

"Along the way, I had the opportunity to pass through the dominions of the United Fruit, convincing me once again of just how terrible these capitalist octopuses are. I have sworn before a picture of the old and mourned comrade Stalin that I won't rest until I see these capitalist octopuses annihilated." -- Letter to his aunt, describing what he had seen while traveling through Guatemala.  

Cuban Revolution 

Che, after the Battle of Santa Clara
 Che spent the two years of the Cuban Revolution among the impoverished and illiterate farmers, motivating him to set up factories and schools. This phase is the phase that is watered down and made heroic, but while he was a cunning leader and strategist at the time, he was anything but noble. It was during the revolution that he also gained a reputation for brutality, shooting any and all suspected of being loyal to the Bastita regime. This brutality was not one sided; the Bastita regime conducted terror bombings of citizens to demoralize the revolutionaries, but helped to drive public sentiment toward them, and further hardered Che's view that capitalism had to be destroyed through violence. After the overthrow, Che oversaw the shooting of Bastita loyalists at La Cabana Prison, further hardening his belief that socialism could only succeed if capitalism was violently suppressed.

Hatred is the central element of our struggle! Hatred that is intransigent...hatred so violent that it propels a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him violent and cold- blooded killing machine...We reject any peaceful approach. Violence is inevitable. To establish Socialism rivers of blood must flow! The imperialist enemy must feel like a hunted animal wherever he moves. Thus we'll destroy him! These hyenas are fit only for extermination. We must keep our hatred alive and fan it to paroxysm! The victory of Socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims!” -- 1966 speech to the Tricontinental

The New Man: Chaste, Straight, and Non-Negro

May 17, 1959: Upon his return to Cuba, Castro signs the Agrarian Reform Act. The government expropriates farm lands over 1,000 acres and bans land ownership by foreigners.
Che became Industrial Minister of Cuba, and oversaw the implementation of the Land Reform laws. Theses laws allowed the government to confiscate private farms, separate them into 1,000 acre segments and run them collectively. The process got off to a slow start, as not all of the peasantry was willing to turn over their private property to the collective and work without pay. Che himself believed that the law alone could not ensure a transition to socialism: everyone would have to be so fundamentally changed so that the acquisition of wealth, property, and deviant sexuality were no longer instinctual desires. Prostitution and pornography were eradicated on the island, but Che and many of the rest the top Cuban revolutionaries saw gay men as examples of "improper masculinity" and Afro-Cubrans as a lesser race (similarly to the Nazi view of the Jews). 

Raul Castro was the originator of the idea, but it was Che who oversaw the implementation of the Gulag-inspired UMAP system, first by building a militia to run the labor camps, then drafting every Cuban citizen to work in what was advertised farming as a way of building military readiness. The reality was that these camps were also used to segregate and reeducate the religious through torture and segregate Afro-Cubans from the Latino Cubans, but gay men were experimented upon in attempts to "cure" their homosexuality. 
They thought they could apply that [Pavlovian experiments] to the gays. Then they would give you an insulin shock and an electric shock while they showed you photos of nude men and afterwards they gave you, while they gave you food, gave cigars, they showed films of heterosexual sex. They thought like that they could … convert you into a heterosexual … Sometimes they left you without food and water for three days and then they showed you photos of nude men and later they gave you food when they showed you the photos of the women. If you are not diabetic, and they give you an insulin shot, it shocks you, you urinate and defecate and vomit … Electric shock … you lost your memory and two or three days after you don’t know who you were and you are catatonic and you cannot speak. -- Héctor Santiago, survivor of experimentation.
Similarly to Marxism itself, these experiments failed and many of the soldiers running the camps were deviant themselves, often engaging in sex parties with the inmates.
“They put all the homosexuals together, and what they do, they fuck with the guards … At night, the gays escape and they fuck with the soldier, they fuck with the peasant, they fuck with everybody” -- Héctor Santiago

Revolution and Racism

Che's views on blacks are commonly quoted from the Motorcycle Diaries, the diaries he kept on his motorcycle trips through South America. He was young at the time, and many on the left and right buy into the narrative that he changed.
"The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have maintained their racial purity thanks to their lack of an affinity with bathing, have seen their territory invaded by a new kind of slave: the Portuguese. And the two ancient races have now begun a hard life together, fraught with bickering and squabbles. Discrimination and poverty unite them in the daily fight for survival but their different ways of approaching life separate them completely: The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving, which has pursued him as far as this corner of America and drives him to advance himself, even independently of his own individual aspirations." 
Supporters of Che use his support of the failed revolution in the Congo as "proof" that Che was not a racist. After all, he led an all-black army in battle against Congo's capitalist oppressors. However, his secret diary, The African Dream, reveals that his views did not change.
"Given the prevailing lack of discipline, it would have been impossible to use Congolese machine-gunners to defend the base from air attack: they did not know how to handle their weapons and did not want to learn."
"We're going to do for blacks exactly what blacks did for the revolution. By which I mean: nothing."

Capitalist Icon

 Che was used to promote Mercedes luxury cars, a symbol of capitalism and affluence (source Fox News)
Che's grestest failure is not his hypocrisy but his presence on T-shirts, baggage, and notoriously, his use in a Mercedes Benz promotion. He struggled to turn Karl Marx's vision of world revolution against capitalism and imperialism into a reality, and in the end, those very capitalists have exploited his popularity with the young and hip.


 Che, the day after he was shot by the Bolivian government

For all his bluster, Che would ultimately not go down in a blaze of glory. His last sentence was; ""Don't shoot, I'm Che Guevara and I'm worth more to you alive than dead."

Thursday, October 9, 2014

Not So Free Love: Progressive Prudes

Ever since McCarthyism and the Sexual Revolution both took America by storm, the narrative has been that the left are perverts and the right is prude. The truth however, is far less black and white. Heck, just look around the right-wing blogosphere and you will see many "rule 5" posts featuring attractive women, some not so safe for work. Conversely, many anti-pornography efforts and efforts to regulate the sex industry come from the feminists on the left. Sex-positive variants of feminism may promote today's "hookup" culture, but not all progressives are so libertine. Once progressivist movements gain sufficient political power, they often have reasons of their own to regulate the sex lives of those they rule over.

 Nineteen Eighty Four's Junior Anti-Sex League was inspired by the Komsomol (Young Communists), a youth division of the CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union) that indoctrinated party values (including stances against alcoholism, smoking, and the Bolshevik belief that sex was "wasteful") into teenagers and young adults.

What Is Sexual Freedom?
Many in today's world erroneously see sexual freedom as "free love" and nothing more. The reality is that it encompasses far more than just intercourse itself. Sexual freedom means the freedom to choose who you love, the freedom to say no to an unwanted advance, the freedom to marry, and the freedom to have children.

Progressives by nature are very suspicious of individual choice, believing that without the intrusive authority of the state or the consensus of the collective, that everyone will intrinsically make the wrong choice. They are against the choice of flight or fight (self defense), they are against the choice of keeping what wealth and property you possess or giving it to charity, and they are against the right to make choices in private. It is only natural, that in the interests of the collective or national good, that they would dictate who you take as a lover, and how many children you have.
The Soviet Union enjoyed a brief period of sexual liberation after the Communist Party began its rule, but other than a handful of early feminists, the party's hardliners (including Vladmir Lenin himself) saw that sexual enjoyment was a danger to the integrity of the party, and discouraged and even illegalized sexual activities.
“Youth’s altered attitude to questions of sex is of course ‘fundamental’, and based on theory. Many people call it ‘revolutionary’ and ‘communist’. They sincerely believe that this is so. I am an old man, and I do not like it. I may be a morose ascetic, but quite often this so-called ‘new sex life’ of young people and frequently of the adults too seems to me purely bourgeois and simply an extension of the good old bourgeois brothel. All this has nothing in common with free love as we Communists understand it. No doubt you have heard about the famous theory that in communist society satisfying sexual desire and the craving for love is as simple and trivial as ‘drinking a glass of water’. A section of our youth has gone mad, absolutely mad, over this ‘glass-of-water theory’. It has been fatal to many a young boy and girl. Its devotees assert that it is a Marxist theory. I want no part of the kind of Marxism which infers all phenomena and all changes in the ideological superstructure of society directly and blandly from its economic basis, for things are not as simple as all that. A certain Frederick Engels has established this a long time ago with regard to historical materialism.
-- Vladmir Lenin, during an interview with fellow communist Clara Zetkin, criticizing a popular theory of Alexandra Kollontai, who herself felt that sexuality had to be regulated to maintain the "hygiene" of the race.
“The revolution calls for concentration and rallying of every nerve by the masses and by the individual. It does not tolerate orgiastic conditions so common among d’Annunzio’s decadent heroes and heroines. Promiscuity in sexual matters is bourgeois. It is a sign of degeneration. The proletariat is a rising class. It does not need an intoxicant to stupefy or stimulate it, neither the intoxicant of sexual laxity or of alcohol. It should and will not forget the vileness, the filth and the barbarity of capitalism. It derives its strongest inspiration to fight from its class position, from the communist ideal. What it needs is clarity, clarity, and more clarity. Therefore, I repeat, there must be no weakening, no waste and no dissipation of energy Self-control and self-discipline are not slavery; not in matters of love either. But excuse me, Clara, I have strayed far from the point which we set out to discuss. Why have you not called me to order? Worry has set me talking. I take the future of our youth very close to heart. It is part and parcel of the revolution. Whenever harmful elements appear, which creep from bourgeois society to the world of the revolution and spread like the roots of prolific weeds, it is better to take action against them quickly. The questions we have dealt with are also part of the women’s problems.”
          -- Vladmir Lenin, from the same interview.

Vladmir Lenin re-enacted many of the morality laws that were originally repealed by the communist government, and communist intrusion into private life got even more severe under Stalin. Mao Tse Tung took things a step further, by not only decreeing that sex was only to be used to birth babies, but criminalizing polygamy, dating, the public display of affection, and indoctrinated the youth into believing that the very concept of love was a bourgeois (capitalist) construct. During the Cultural Revolution, the party went even further still, encouraging and even mandating unfeminine, unisex clothing, and short hairstyles for women.

China's Cultural Revolution drastically altered the way women dressed, with the Maoist government at first encouraging, then imposing military and military-inspired uniforms.
North Korea and Cambodia went to even greater extremes still; by dictating hairstyles, clothing, arranging marriages, and shooting any couple who displayed affection or even flirted.

Wouldn't families and a positive birth rate strengthen the proletariat, or the nation, or whatever the revolutionary class happens to be? According to Marxists, no. Karl Marx and his followers considered marriage to be a capitalist arrangement, with wife and child being completely dependent on the husband.

Marxists have long sought to eliminate love between individuals. From the Marxist view, the needs of the collective come first. When a man and woman fall in love, their dedication to each other exceeds their dedication to the proletarian class. When they have a child, dedication to the proletarian class reduces in priority by an order of magnitude. Marxist regimes therefore have to suppress this dedication, in an unintentional admission to the inferiority of class-wide collectivism. To suppress love, many Marxist regimes act preemptively, through indoctrination and suppression of desire. Suppression of desire is accomplished by de-feminizing women, often by disallowing (either overtly, or simply by lack of production in planned economies) products that improve feminine beauty. Marxist regimes also ban sexually arousing martial, such as pornography and erotic literature. Sex education in Marxist regimes often drops to near-nothing, as it did in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia and North Korea. Marxist regimes also use more subtle methods, such as indoctrinating women to be completely needless of men, and to put the needs of the proletariat above their desire to attract men.
 “A woman who spent time doing such things was deemed to be selfish, shallow, and therefore not putting the good of the collective above her personal desires.” -- Anne Marie Skvarek, describing Soviet party bias against feminine beauty.
Far from being right wing, Fascists and Marxists both believe that society needs to be collectivized, but differ in their views of how a collective society can be accomplished, or run. While Marxists believe that everyone must love everyone else equally in a classless society, Fascists adopted the early feminist belief that a society is only as good as the physical quality of its members, and coupled it to what was on the surface, support for traditional marriage.

Fascist regimes may appear more tolerant of love between men and women, but they do not believe your love for your wife is above the common good of the nation (or world, in today's rule by global trade treaties and multi-national corporations). Rather than prohibit families, Fascists dictate who can marry who (the best example being Nazi regulation of marriage), and how many children they can have (modern corporatist China and its one-child policy).

 The Nuremberg Laws dictated that Jews and Christians were not to marry "Aryan" Germans.
Fascist regimes also regulate or ban "indecent" material, as such material is contrary to their view that a strong nation can only arise from regulating strict morals.

Feminists fall into one extreme or the other on sexual politics. The original feminists (other than a handful of early feminists such as Alexandra Kollonai and Margaret Sanger) viewed heterosexual sex, feminine beauty, alluring advertisements and pornography, as symptoms of the "patriarchy" at best and "rape" at worst. Sex-positive feminism originated in the 1980s to dissent against the prudism of the earlier feminists, and on the surface it appears these women buck the trend of progressivism's miserable record on sexual freedom. The reality is that both variants of feminism believe women to essentially be the revolutionary class, and that men have no say, either sexually, socially, or legally.

Fascist and Marxist regimes both put homosexuals in concentration camps. Progressive support of homosexuals is a recent phenomenon, and the sentiment is not shared by all variants of progressivism. The Soviet and Nazi regimes both started out more egalitarian than they were, with the Nazis originally being a pro-homosexual party (the Nazi party originated in a gay bar).
 Ernst Rohm, leader of the SA, was one of the victims of the Night of the Long Knives. This openly homosexual officer was one of the top leaders of the early Nazi Party. The party's attitude toward homosexuals and the trade unions changed, and Hitler needed to remove the old guard of the party.

When progressivist regimes gain absolute power, the useful idiots are always the first to go.

Progressives not only regulate the sexual and social behavior of individuals, they also regulate or ban depictions of sexual activity. Pornography and sexual literature are banned, either because it is a capitalist construct from the view of a communist, or because a strong nation depends on strict morality law from the view of a fascist. It was banned in the Soviet Union (and the law is still officially in effect, though no longer enforced), Nazi Germany and even East and West Germany banned it (until 1968 in the west, and 1989 in the east), Fascist Italy had laws against it (though not always enforced). Alternatively, it can be used as what George Orwell called "prolefeed," but porn-as-circuses is rare in real life collectivist regimes (foodstamps-and-mainstream-media is far more effective at appeasing the subjects).

North Korea, Vietnam, China, Cuba and nearly every Islamic country maintains a hard ban on pornography. Map from Wikipedia

 Progressives banning pornography is not restricted to the 20th century:

Eugenics and Population Control
The progressives' desire to micro-manage everyone to perfection would require the deprivation of both sexual and every other right.

Since the 1970s, the progressives have been pushing an environmentalist agenda. Starting with global cooling and the "population bomb," the new pretext to impose fascism has been a combination of global warming and a renewal of the population-scare. These environmental fascists blame every technologically dependent individual for having a "CO2 footprint" that contributes to runaway warming of the planet. During the past decade, political environmentalists have been openly citing China's "one child" policy as a way to curb both "runaway" population growth and reduce the amount of polluting individuals who are allegedly terraforming the planet simply by living in technologically advanced societies.

In order to impose their agenda and maintain the population "in balance" with nature, mandated abortions would not be enough; the forced sterilizations would be necessary. Not only would these be necessary, only those who have the "right traits" would be allowed to have babies.

 The Georgia Guidestones (source: Wikimedia Commons) have ten commandments engraved on them.
Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
 Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
 Unite humanity with a living new language.
 Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
 Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
 Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
 Balance personal rights with social duties.
 Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.
 Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.

While environmentalism is a relatively new phenomenon, eugenics is not. There is a strong belief that the genes of our bodies dictate a lot of our behavior, and an even stronger belief that bad physical and social genes need to be eliminated. The progressive states of Sweden, Norway, Germany (Nazi) and even the majority of US states sterilized who was physically imperfect or socially deviant, with Sweden continuing the practice all the way into the 1970s.

Abortion and Racism
Margaret Sanger was one of the only progressives who advocated greater sexual opportunity until the branching of feminism into sex-positive and sex-negative variants. On the surface, she promoted choice, but privately, her agenda was exactly the opposite. She did not believe that anyone had a right to have children unless they were physically "perfect." She also advocated maintaining the purity of the white race, and her end game was the elimination of blacks.
“By all means, there should be no children when either mother or father suffers from such diseases as tuberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, cancer, epilepsy, insanity, drunkenness and mental disorders. In the case of the mother, heart disease, kidney trouble and pelvic deformities are also a serious bar to childbearing No more children should be born when the parents, though healthy themselves, find that their children are physically or mentally defective.” (“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 7).
“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members” (Margaret Sanger commenting on the ‘Negro Project’ in a letter to Gamble, Dec. 10, 1939).

Sexual Freedom and Morality
Can a society have both libertarian attitudes toward sex and still be morally strong? The answer is yes. If parents taught their children responsibility and instead of leaving it to the state, there would be far less teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other sexual problems. If there were MORE guns, not less, there would be far less sexual crimes; an armed society is a polite society!


Wednesday, September 24, 2014

The Needs Of The Many

The majority remember this belief from Star Trek. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. This idea was nearly put into practice on 9/11 when this F16 pilot was ordered to kamikaze Flight 93 (this F16 was not armed but if it had been, a shoot down order would have probably been given). The majority of moral dilemmas use the needs of the many versus the needs of the few, while completely (even deliberately) ignoring ways to win the scenarios without sacrificing anyone against their will.

One of the poorest constructed dilemmas is the crying baby who alerts the secret police to a hiding place, where the listener is given the option of letting him lead the police there or silencing him by smothering him. No one who presents this scenario gives the option of rallying everyone to grab blunt or sharp instruments and deliberately lure the police into an ambush, club them, grab their weapons, and then attack the local HQ to get more weapons, body armor, maybe even an armored vehicle.

The runaway trolly scenario, where pushing a total stranger onto the tracks to stop it versus letting the trolly run into several other people, is also total garbage. If the cable moving the car gets snapped (I am assuming this is a San Francisco style car on San Francisco style inclines), and the emergency brakes go, nothing is stopping it. If that were to occur, sounding the horn to warn others out of the way is a solution that does not involve sacrificing others against their will.

The concentration camp scenario, where the guard extorts a father into hanging his son on the pain of hanging the sons of others, ignores the intent of concentration camps. Concentration camps are designed to gather a hated group, extract what little value they have through physical labor, and once their usefulness is over, shoot them. Governments very, very rarely ever intend for anyone to leave a concentration camp. Instead of putting up with the guard's threats, acts of sabatoge, constructing weapons (there was once an inmate of San Quentin who built a fully functional submachinegun, which is on display in the prison's museum) or simply overwhelming the guards is an alternative way of dealing with that situation.

Sacrificing a few to save many is only supported by those who are the majority. The very concept that it is okay to violate the rights of others in an emergency should be fought. The founders went to great lengths to prevent majority rule.

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Dialectic Materialism

Have you ever noticed that the gun control advocates focus more on the guns than those who use them? The only time they mention gun owners is when it is politically expedient to accuse them of being members of a conspiracy to profit from the misfortune of others, but even then, they ultimately go back to the idea that the guns themselves are the problem. They rarely even consider the fact that there are criminals.

Attacking leftists on the goals of the gun grabbers will go nowhere. The historical record is plain to everyone on both sides. Then there is the fact that the leftists have turned to guns themselves to fight oppressive (and generally other leftist) regimes. Spain's civil war is a good example. The majority of the anti-Nazi resistance in Europe consisted of communist movements, including the famous Italian and French resistance movements.

Where the left should be attacked is their belief in materialism. If you examine their propaganda, their essays, their books, you will see one thing that every type of leftist believes: that everyone is intrinsically good. From their view, violence only arises from either the deprivation of basic necessities, or the accumulation of too much wealth and power. From their view, the gun itself is a source of power that corrupts those who hold it, by giving them a superiority or even god complex. The worst variants of leftism believe that money is also a source of corruption and would seek to eliminate it despite the slavery that would ensue without a universal medium of trade.

They never see the rapist who would rather force a woman into sex than charm her. They never see the armed robber who would rather steal than earn. They never see the mohammedan who blows up a shopping mall because the Koran advocates the forced conversion of infidels and because the same book advocates the capture and rape of women and theft of the "infidel's" valuables.

They see the rapist as a symptom of the "patriarchy;" if only men were brought down in terms of wealth to the perceived level of women, then they would disappear. They see the armed robber as the desperate man who had no other way to feed his family, or as the troubled man who felt the power of the gun. They see the terrorist as the third worlder who lashed out funding and arming of Israel.

Ironically, this belief has resulted in more violence and destruction than every war combined.

Hope And Change Comes To Syria

Saturday, September 20, 2014

Even Sarah Palin couldn't imagine the depravity of Obamacare's designer

From Canada Free Press
Democrats seem to love death.  Whether they’re yammering about abortion or “end of life” planning, they just can’t get enough of talking up the myriad ways people can exit life’s stage.  They always claim this is simply a discussion about personal responsibility and individual choice but, since they despise those ideals in virtually every other matter, it’s a hard argument to buy.

Enter Ezekiel Emanuel. 
Emanuel was one of the chief architects of ObamaCare and is, of course, the brother of Rahm.  Over at The Atlantic, he’s penned an article about his own death and he’s made a shocking announcement about the perfect age at which he hopes to die. While he very specifically rules out euthanasia, Emanuel says he hopes his ticker shuts down at the not-particularly-old age of 75.
The reason? 75 is, apparently, the perfect age for a human to buy the farm. According to Emanuel, people who live longer than that risk struggling through a less-than-perfect existence.

He says he rules out euthanasia, but what happens when the government controlled medical system becomes overwhelmed? A pandemic virus, a debt default, hyperinflation, and even the sheer incapacity of a government medical system can and will result in this, either overtly or by denying care as the VA did. Collectivist regimes always end up having to sacrifice others for the needs of the many. Action T4, the progenitor to the Holocaust, was designed specifically to euthanize the elderly and others who were a drain on the country's treasury, then moved onto political enemies.

Only ducks resemble ducks. Only ducks quack. Only progressives believe in the deprivation of free will and consent, for the needs of the many.

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Order Followers

The majority of soldiers and police have committed atrocities under orders, and used the chain of command to justify their actions, and more importantly, distance themselves from what they have done.

The question is, why? The Milgram and Stanford experiments showed that 75% of people will do anything they are told, if they see those telling them to do so as authority figures, but that still does not answer why. Authority alone is not enough: few Americans would covert to Islam if ISIS invaded, regardless of the costs of non-compliance. Admiral Yamamoto would not invade mainland US.

The only type of authority that could convince anyone to commit atrocities is one that is seen as legitimate. What is legitimate authority? It is authority that is consented to and seen to act in the interest of the majority supporting them. While many believe that only voting republics could be seen this way, few totalitarian powers were established against the will of their subjects.

Left Poster: The Mind And the Fist. Vote for frontsoldier Hitler! Right Poster: Fight Hunger and Despair! Vote Hitler!

They often turn against those who put them in power, but only after riding a wave of popular sentiment. This sentiment can either be genuine or deceived, but tyranny only happens when one group of sees the slavery of another group as necessary to the security of the state, and by extension their personal security. Alternatively, egalitarian tyrannies arise from the belief that everyone including those supporting it have to sacrifice for a greater good, usually equal economic outcomes.
The irony about collectivism is that it is supported only when there is personal gain. Financial security for one’s family usually, or more rarely, physical security (rarely because totalitarian regimes always purge their enablers once they are no longer useful). Those tasked with stomping on the serfs do so because it benefits them either financially (anyone who says they won't follow illegal orders: find the pay table of that person's rank and benefits), gets them a more politically secure position in the new order (purges of police and soldiers always happen in totalitarian regimes), or because they have been duped into believing that attacking one group benefits everyone, and by extension, themselves and their own families.

None of this changes the fact that those who follow orders bear greater responsibility than those giving them.

Preventing this from happening should be the first priority.

Remind police and soldiers that terrorism and narcotics laws do not justify violating the very constitution they swore an oath to. The Bill of Rights has no exceptions, not even in war. This should be a grassroots effort, as any centralized opposition organization can become controlled opposition (the SAF and JFPO are good examples), or turn from fighting for your rights to profiting from the struggle (The NRA is a fine example). Show historical records of atrocities committed under orders and emphasize that every soldier and policeman chose to follow those orders. There is always a choice, even when others say there is not.

Attack the regime's legitimacy. This is the strategy leftist revolutionaries use. There is no moral-equivalency on this one: deconstructing legitimacy is better than having to deconstruct enemy soldiers through gunfire. Deconstruct propaganda, ridicule propagandists, refuse to play by their rules (again this has to be a grassroots effort), find ways to force the regime to drop its facade of civility.

Should all of that fail, then going after leaders could be the worst possible strategy. Authoritarian regimes build cults of personality around their leaders. Breaking the will of the rank and file to follow orders will have far greater effect, and it does not always have to be violent; simply presenting a moral delimma they cannot ignore can work (a crowd wearing yellow stars will throw off even the campus commie who joined for whatever reason). Though Alexander Solzenitsyen was right; few of the NKVD would be so bold if they knew they might not return home.

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Navy illegally searched millions of PCs in support of police

From Infowars.

PDF here

The Navy's justification was that because of the large amount of Navy personnel living in Washington, NCIS had the authority to violate not only Posse Commitatus, but also the 4th Amendment rights of millions of people, including ones who did not serve.

Monday, September 15, 2014

More Metal!

Battle Beast. The lyrics are corny, but awesome!

Heavy Metal Monday

Just getting get back into posting my regular;y scheduled non-political posts. Starting off, monday heavy metal videos. This one will feature Fozzy heavily. I saw these guys perform live in support of Saxon and they were just awesome.

My favorite song of the new album

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Obama's ISIS speech between the lines

Obama insists that ISIS is "Not Islamic" despite the fact that ISIS's flag matches the original of Prophet Mohammed. Obama insist that ISIS is "Not Islamic" despite the fact that ISIS imposes the Jadzia tax on Christians and uses rape and torture not only into intimidate, but also initiate captured men to become their Jannisaries.

More importantly, ISIS not not represent true Islam according to the propagandists, but Tea Partiers are still Domestic Extremists according to those same propagandists. ISIS does not represent Islam, yet is called radical islam, and is so evil that the anti-war left are becoming hawks and they are being joined by their establishment Republican buddies.

The citizens are rallied against an external enemy (they can be made up, but historically, the more genuine, the better a government can rally its people) and anyone who questions official government policy is unpatriotic. As time goes on, dissenters are increasingly scruitinized, then classified, then targeted. Adolf Hitler and the Nazis did this to the Jews, using the threat of Communism to unite the country and turn Germans against the Jews (while simultaneously sharing Poland with those same Communists).

Similarly to the Nazis being frenemies with the Soviets, the US is arming ISIS. Arming them and using them against a third party.

Wednesday, July 2, 2014


 From SHTF Plan.

In 2012, the DHS held a graduation cerimony of its own disaster response team.

For the majority, the notion that such a force would be assembled in the United States was nothing but another conspiracy originating from the lunatic right wing. But in October of 2012 the Department of Homeland Security quietly graduated their first corp of civilian responders under the new program. And since then it is likely that thousands more have been trained and deployed across the country to be called upon in the event of an emergency.
And if there were ever an emergency that required a military level response in the United States, many believe it is happening right now on the Southern border as hundreds of thousands of migrants make their way illegally into America. Because of the sheer number of people heading to the U.S. and the complete failure, whether by chance or by design, of the Obama administration to secure the border, America is now faced with housing, feeding, clothing and providing medical care for more people than it was prepared to handle.
In response, rather than deploy Homeland Security or the National Guard to stop the migration at its source, the Administration has instead set up makeshift internment camps, some of which put scores of people in a room the size of a studio apartment. As a result, disease has spread and civilian emergency personnel have been tasked with providing care.
But among the doctors and caregivers is also a private security force that has been hired to keep the peace. And according to several people working inside the camps, the security groups have turned their attention not towards keeping peace between the migrants, but rather, at keeping the goings on of the facilities completely secret from the general public.

“There were several of us who wanted to talk about the camps, but the agents made it clear we would be arrested,” a psychiatric counselor told me.
“We were under orders not to say anything.”

The sources say security forces called themselves the “Brown Shirts.”
“It was a very submissive atmosphere,” the counselor said.
“Once you stepped onto the grounds, you abided by their laws – the Brown Shirt laws.”
She said the workers were stripped of their cellphones and other communication devices. Anyone caught with a phone was immediately fired.
“Everyone was paranoid,” she said. “The children had more rights than the workers.”
She said children in the camp had measles, scabies, chicken pox and strep throat as well as mental and emotional issues.
Fox News via Drudge

Monday, May 19, 2014

Federal court: police can break down door and seize guns without warrant or charges

From Police State USA
MILWAUKEE, WI — The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that it is not a violation of constitutional rights if police break down a citizen’s door, search the home, and confiscate firearms, so long that they believe it is in the citizen’s best interest.

A Doctor’s Concern

The lawsuit stems back to an incident that occurred on May 22, 2011.  A psychiatrist, Dr. Michelle Bentle, phoned police to report that a patient had expressed a suicidal thought during an outpatient appointment; the woman had received some bad news and privately expressed grief during a difficult appointment.
At approximately noon, Milwaukee Police were dispatched to search for Krysta Sutterfield, age 42 at the time, in order to forcibly detain her and commit her for a mandatory medical evaluation.  In Wisconsin, the mere suggestion of suicide is grounds for forcible police detention.
Police had a description of Ms. Sutterfield’s vehicle but could not immediately locate her; police checked her garage and it was empty.  Hours passed.  At 2:45 p.m., Dr. Bentle notified police that her patient “had called her some minutes earlier stating that she was not in need of assistance and that the doctor should ‘call off’ the police search for her,” according to court documents.

Confrontation At Home

However, police did not call off the search.  At 8:30 p.m., Officer Jamie Hewitt found that Sutterfield was at home.  Sutterfield answered the door when police knocked, but would not permit them to enter.  She told them that she did not need assistance and had requested that the search be called off.  However, police would not take ‘no’ for an answer.
“Unable to gain admittance to the house,” the court summary states, officers “concluded that the police would have to enter it forcefully.”  Approximately 9 hours had passed since the doctor’s concern had been reported.
The showdown continued for approximately 30 minutes.  Police requested backup, and Ms. Sutterfield called 9-1-1 to attempt to call off the pushy officers.  As the call was in progress, police breached her door and accosted her.
The recorded 9-1-1 call documented Sutterfield’s voice demanding that police “let go of her and that they leave her home.”   Instead, she was shackled and detained against her will.
Despite having no warrant, officers helped themselves to a “proactive sweep” of the woman’s home.  During the search, police opened up a locked, opaque case and discovered her pistol.  Officers seized the pistol, as well as a BB gun (physically incapable of taking a human life), and her Wisconsin CCW license.
Sutterfield was taken into police custody and to a hospital for a forced medical evaluation at the county’s Mental Health Complex; the state’s forced evaluations can last for as long as 72 hours.

Operation Choke Point: Government using banks to shut out gun merchants

Gun retailers say the Obama administration is trying to put them out of business with regulations and investigations that bypass Congress and choke off their lines of credit, freeze their assets and prohibit online sales.

Since 2011, regulators have increased scrutiny on banks’ customers. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. in 2011 urged banks to better manage the risks of their merchant customers who employ payment processors, such as PayPal, for credit card transactions. The FDIC listed gun retailers as “high risk” along with porn stores and drug paraphernalia shops.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department has launched Operation Choke Point, a credit card fraud probe focusing on banks and payment processors. The threat of enforcement has prompted some banks to cut ties with online gun retailers, even if those companies have valid licenses and good credit histories.

“This administration has very clearly told the banking industry which customers they feel represent ‘reputational risk’ to do business with,” said Peter Weinstock, a lawyer at Hunton & Williams LLP. “So financial institutions are reacting to this extraordinary enforcement arsenal by being ultra-conservative in who they do business with: Any companies that engage in any margin of risk as defined by this administration are being dropped.”

Benito Mussolini would be proud of today's USA, where Fascism lives on in big companies and big unions willing to do the government's dirty work.

Thursday, April 24, 2014

FBI Visiting Gun Shops to Investigate “People Talking About Big Government”

If you see some Middle Eastern guy come in, you don’t have to be so worried about that. What we’re really looking for are people talking about being sovereign such as sovereign citizens or people talking about big government,” the agent reportedly stated.
Before the agent left the store, he handed the employee a flyer which lists paying with cash, buying in bulk, along with other seemingly innocuous behavior as suspicious activity.

The same FBI that ignored warnings about the Tsarnev Brothers and the first Fort Hood shooter is not ignoring the "threat" of people that just want to be left alone. Any of these SOBs question you, don't say a thing. You have no legal obligation to do so. You have no legal obligation to consent to a search. You have no legal obligation to give up your private property to them.

Friday, April 18, 2014

No-Win Scenarios

From The Captain's Journal (a radio host, not the captain)

Well, Andy, with a handful of minutes to spare, I have complied with your law.
Your hateful, unconstitutional affront to my rights.

After a year of thinking it over, of going back and forth, of deciding where duty and honor called me to be, this is where I am.

I am ashamed to say that fear was one of the factors in my decision. I am a public person, it is well known that I own an AR-15. I wrote a newspaper column about it when I bought it 20 years ago. I have talked about it on the radio, on television and in web broadcasts ever since.

Further, I’ve got a Democrat district attorney – whose election I opposed – and half the cops in town hate me. So if I don’t register today, there’s a good chance I get arrested tomorrow.

And with five kids still at home, I can’t afford to be the test case.

I’d be a felon, I’d lose my job, I’d lose my house, I’d lose my right to vote and own guns.

And you’d win.

The radio host says he will draw the line at confiscation. But when they start doing that, they will have set the terms of engagement simply by knowing who has the guns.

The regime is very good at giving the impression of a no-win scenario. This illusion is not just their greatest strength, it is their only strength. The solution: don't believe in a no-win scenario.

The Startfleet Academy made the Kobayashi Maru on the belief that cadets would attack the problem head on, fighting on the developers's terms of engagement. Kirk changed the terms of engagement in a way not even his best friend (Spock, who conceptualized it) could foresee.

Our enemies in the real world believe that everyone will cower under threats, or fight under their terms of engagement (fighting a minority resistance in isolated pockets). The regime is no doubt changing their strategy (which will have to be large scale) after the united front they met at Bundy's Ranch, but there is always a way to win.