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.