Since Mar 29, 2003
My Open Warning... to Anti-America!
Victor Davis Hanson made a rather prophetic point in a recent column at National Review.
".... I suppose we are witnessing a sort of American pop version of the French revolution journalists and politicians on the barricades and guillotines constantly searching for an ever-expanding array of targets, their only consistency blind and mindless fury at the old regime."
Add to that Leftist organizations, the spoon-fed mobs, and their defenders. It begins figuratively at first... the threats and mild violence dismissed as mis-directed passions, masking a slow escalation of intimidation and force. All the while, one is urged to look beyond the decline to barbarism; to understand the source of division and derision... to grasp the point. But there is no point, beyond the Barbarism, for that is where the debates, the converstations, any commmonality between Men and beasts ends. The Left is assembling their galloes and guillotines in the open, arming their radicals, shaking the cages, dispensing the fuel of violence; the hatred. And all the while they prepare for slaughter, they ask the men of reason to understand their rage.
No! We do not!
No! You will not!
No! There is no longer any place for you here.
In a civilization that rejects the initiation of violence, you will sever any rights that you have, the minute you pick up that sword... the right to speak, the right to assemble, the right to freedom, and the right to live.
"Their enemies will be torn to shreds, with no one to save them." (Micah 5:8b CEV)
O, pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth,
That I am meek and gentle with these butchers!
Thou art the ruins of the noblest man
That ever lived in the tide of times.
Woe to the hand that shed this costly blood!
Over thy wounds now do I prophesy,--
Which, like dumb mouths, do ope their ruby lips,
To beg the voice and utterance of my tongue--
A curse shall light upon the limbs of men;
Domestic fury and fierce civil strife
Shall cumber all the parts of Italy;
Blood and destruction shall be so in use
And dreadful objects so familiar
That mothers shall but smile when they behold
Their infants quarter'd with the hands of war;
All pity choked with custom of fell deeds:
And Caesar's spirit, ranging for revenge,
With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
Shall in these confines with a monarch's voice
Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war;
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial.
(Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act iii, Scene i)
How yet resolves the governor of the town?
This is the latest parle we will admit;
Therefore to our best mercy give yourselves;
Or like to men proud of destruction
Defy us to our worst: for, as I am a soldier,
A name that in my thoughts becomes me best,
If I begin the battery once again,
I will not leave the half-achieved Harfleur
Till in her ashes she lie buried.
The gates of mercy shall be all shut up,
And the flesh'd soldier, rough and hard of heart,
In liberty of bloody hand shall range
With conscience wide as hell, mowing like grass
Your fresh-fair virgins and your flowering infants.
What is it then to me, if impious war,
Array'd in flames like to the prince of fiends,
Do, with his smirch'd complexion, all fell feats
Enlink'd to waste and desolation?
What is't to me, when you yourselves are cause,
If your pure maidens fall into the hand
Of hot and forcing violation?
What rein can hold licentious wickedness
When down the hill he holds his fierce career?
We may as bootless spend our vain command
Upon the enraged soldiers in their spoil
As send precepts to the leviathan
To come ashore. Therefore, you men of Harfleur,
Take pity of your town and of your people,
Whiles yet my soldiers are in my command;
Whiles yet the cool and temperate wind of grace
O'erblows the filthy and contagious clouds
Of heady murder, spoil and villany.
If not, why, in a moment look to see
The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand
Defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters;
Your fathers taken by the silver beards,
And their most reverend heads dash'd to the walls,
Your naked infants spitted upon pikes,
Whiles the mad mothers with their howls confused
Do break the clouds, as did the wives of Jewry
At Herod's bloody-hunting slaughtermen.
What say you? will you yield, and this avoid,
Or, guilty in defence, be thus destroy'd?
(Shakespeare, Henry V, Act iii,Scene iii)
We are reminded that the Men of this Earth have yet again lended tolerance to its limit where the beasts are concerned. The barbarians gloat at their own ruthlessness and savagery; there self-immolating insanity. We are easy to kill when we are living according to our nature as benevolent Humans in our image of God... the image of God. And yet, when our blood is spilled in gallons and our patience and compassion raped and discarded, then the wraith of good men is mirrored against his virtue to reflect the true horror of vengeance wrought with the perfection of the hate that feeds it from the hearts of its enemies and falls upon them with fury of a storm so violent as can only be guided by the rational mind directed to a singular purpose to erase the presence of this malevolence with expediant demise from all corners of the Earth once and for all.
The Lion yields for one last warning to these wretched heathen as with the ultimatum of King Henry...
What say you? will you yield, and this avoid?...
Please us now, heathen, with the persistence of your immolation.
"The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it's yours. But to win it requires total dedication and a total break with the world of your past, with the doctrine that man is sacrificial animal who exists for the pleasure of others. Fight for the value of your person. Fight for the virtue of your pride. Fight for the essence, which is man, for his sovereign rational mind. Fight with the radiant certainty and the absolute rectitude of knowing that yours is the morality of life and yours is the battle for any achievement, any value, any grandeur, any goodness, any joy that has ever existed on this earth." (Ayn Rand, John Galt)
Points of Distinction...
A is A ! (a.rand)
Dissent without contribution is as meaningless as vandalism.
Good judgment does not simply require the recognition of the difference between food and poison, but acknowledges the quality of sense not to eat the one that will kill you.
Truth is a commodity of consumption among fiction, propaganda, conjecture, and opinion. The curse/blessing of Man is the imperative of volition. Of these things we choose from one or the other in the same way that we select between food and poison. The mind is more susceptible to poison than the body. There are no immediate indicators in the head that one has become polluted with bad ideas except and in terms of the contradictions that unfold within ones metaphysical existence. Ultimately the responsibility for the primacy of truth rests with each of us.
Monsters do indeed exist. They are among us now, in many forms. WE created them, when we surrendered discrimination to tolerance without judgment.
My 2 cents on the CREVO debate...(posted Friday 24, 2003)
Look, this is my first real experience with the CREVO debate on this forum. But, I am getting the feeling that I have stumbled into a maelstrom (or simply turned on the 'mayhem' switch). My first observation would be... that we certainly see now that the term Conservative is invalid to describe those who uphold the concept of Constitutional Primacy and Individual Sovereignty. We vote Republican primarly because it is the closest thing that we have to meaningful representation at this point in time. But there is no real concensus among us that the status quo is a defensible position... especially since the current status of the nation's vector is suicidal chaos at the hands of dimwitted Leftists and their irrational belief in the primacy of feelings and the indefinable concept of human rights.
My second observation is that there is a great schizm in the belief system of the defenders of man that can not be overcome because the two will NEVER be able to make each other agree. This begs the question... Do we need to agree on this? Really! Ask yourselves that. Because if the answer is 'yes', then the Leftists Dem's will continue to feed on our struggle for eternity. The left represents the worst of both worlds... Slavery to mystic collectivism on the one hand, and the chaos of relativity in an irrational universe on the other. Yet if WE (the defenders of man - including as a primary part woman) agree on one concept... that here and now man exists and deserves to exist by the fact of his being and creation, regardless of how that happened, then we can forever be unified on the primacy of the concept that man deserves to exist for his own sake, to pursue his own goals, in accordance with his own values, on behalf of whatever God he chooses to acknowledge, and that a government by the people and for the people protects each accordingly in their quest for life and liberty and happiness. Then we will all be unified under a common armor that will never be penetrated. the Leftists will be crushed for eternity... banished to the rotting carcasses of Western Civilization that remain in Europe and elsewhere on the Earth feeding off of individual prosperity when and where they can find it within the realm of the Hell that they will create by means of their own debaucherous nothingness.
My 2 cents on Friends...
The show is fairly humorous. But its value comes from the social analysis. It will serve as a striking condemnation of the pinnacle of liberal culture in America. A likeable bunch of co-dependent puppets void of any strongly admirably character traits or a defined set of values nor principles wandering helplessly through a miasmic fog of meaningless daily activity, isolated from 99% of the world, struggling with directionless careers, unfulfilled relationships, poor choices, lacking the influence of God AND philosophy and suffering accordingly from metaphysical vapancy. Hollywood makes shows that are reflective of the world they know. The rest of us in 'fly-over' country simply chuckle.
Answering The Arguments of The Fringe Left... (Countering the lies of a Leftist associate.)
My first reaction to your response (once I was able to retract my jaw) was close the post and leave it be. Where to begin and why? But, inexplicably I kept coming back to the statement like a peculiar object so ill conceived and poorly designed that one feels compelled to continue pondering the abomination in an effort to find anything extant with which to make some degree of sense. Finally concluding that it offers none I began chopping off bits to see what happens.
Like this, when asked to provide sources and context of your attacks on the Presidents policies, you reply that [You]dont see that any qualifiers are required. No! I can see why you wouldnt. Afterall, you believe that the Presidents actions are simply the product of some pathologic fixation. You do this in order to qualify your own irrational disgust for the man and his ideology and to correct the outcome of his election. Youd never accept, for instance, Stratfors analysis concluding that the Presidents move against Iraq was a shrewd and calculated, if not risky, strategic response to a very dangerous and complex threat; one that did not directly involve Sadams murderous fascist regime, but was certainly related to it. Time, fortune, and perserverance will ultimately determine the administrations righteousness in this endeavor and not the vitriolic and hateful rhetoric of the fringe Left.
Then theres this Sadam had nothing to do with Islamic Militantism. Except that, as was already pointed out and you conveniently ignore, Sadam funded Islamic terror, payed bounty on the acts, trained operatives, supplied arms, provided sanctuary, and celebrated each attack from shredding busloads of school-children with nails & glass laced with feces and rat poison, to destroying the WTC, to begin with (by the way, all this is done in the name of the cause you "agree" with!). Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy has pointed out that it is patently ridiculous to forward the notion that there is no connection between Al Quaida and Sadam. The evidence is factual, overwhelming, and has never been in doubt by anyone in Washington including Democrats in Congress. It includes the indirect connection with the 911 hijackers, definite connections with the first WTC bombing, and even a frighteningly and increasingly likely possibility of a connection with the OKC bombing. Based on these previous actions, was there any reason to believe that Sadams participation in an ongoing war with the US would not escalate with his continued development of WMDs . Included in the list of such weapons, lest we forget, was the possibility of a weaponized small-pox program that Ken Alibek (W.H.O, and former Soviet BW-Small-Pox researcher) suspected to be in operation. Sadams regime personified Middle East fascist militantism and the violence and strife that cause it to flourish. The use of the term Islamofascist, you contend, condemns all Islamic peoples for the acts of a few and shows a complete lack of understanding of the Middle East. And yet, the term has been coined and used by many authorities on Islamic terrorists to separate the actions of the person or movement from the people and their religion; much the same way that 'Nazi' did not define all Germans. What is fundamental here is your voluntary ignorance of the calculated semantic differentiation. The fascist wings of Islam are made up of twisted Marxist heretics disguising themselves as religious fundamentalist, as Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute, points out. They do not represent the people of Islam nor their religion. I will repeat this point for you, they (The Islamofascists) do not represent the people of Islam nor their religion. They do however represent you, as you have stated.
You chide the power vacuum left behind the removal of the Hussein/Baathist regime, implying that the Iraqi people would be better off living under the oppression of a murderous thug tyrant; whose legacy includes some 57 mass graves, one containing 1200 children as witnessed by Federal Judge Don Walters on a recent fact-finding mission. In doing this, you once again ignore relevant strategic facts: 1. that we freed a horribly oppressed Islmamic population; and 2. In doing so, we also moved the front of the current war into the heart of the Middle East. As long as we are taking the war to the enemy, we are not fighting it in our own cities. Our presence in the region at this time, provides tremendous political and strategic leverage. A free Islamic state could be the catalyst that allows the good people of Islam to dispose of the shackles of millennia of oppression and assume their rightful place among the civilizations of Earth proud, free, and self-determined. All of this, you choose to ignore, making you the one who is truly naive or simply ignorant of the history, politics, and conditions in the Middle East.
So you believe that your profound (?) understanding of the Middle East extends to socio-political conditions in Saudi Arabia and the ongoing struggles in Israel? You believe that the citizens of Saudi Arabia (unlike those in Iraq) are truly the subjects of horrendous oppression, [not] allowed any freedoms by a government that is being prop[p]ed up by America, ignoring the role that the rest of the nations of the world play independently and through the UN in maintaining the status quo in SA and the other oppressive nations of the Middle East... a situation that is certainly being reconsidered by this current administration in stark contrast to previous ones. You believe that the Palestinians are enslaved subjects to an occupying force of Jewish invaders ignoring countless UN treaties that established national boundaries for all of the peoples of that region, ignoring the fact that the so-called Palestinians (A loose collection Islamic and Christian Arabic peoples) rejected their own provisions for statehood and joined sides in a war to drive the Jews from the Middle-East and lost. You ignore the fact that the Palestinians were driven from Jordan into the territories, by Jordanians who did not want them to establish colonies within their borders. You ignore the fact that Israel accepted them within their culture and that most enjoy freedoms in Israel far in excess of any other Islamic nation in that region and that the only issue oppressing them at present is their own propensity toward and endorsement of acts of horrendous violence against their benefactors. Additionally you ignore the numerous offers by the Israeli government to give the Palestinian people everything that they profess to want. Further you go on to identify a certain allegiance with these murderous thugs in your very words, Terrorism is wrong, but their cause is right.
Excuse me? Terrorism is wrong, but their cause is right. What cause would that be? What cause justifies shredding women and children? What cause justifies 3000 dead in an hour? Is that the same cause that you agree with that took several million innocent victims in the killing fields of Cambodia at the hands of the Marxist armies of Pol Pot? Is it the cause against Capitalist affluence and the primacy of individual existence and human dignity that you support? Do you, like the terrorists to whom you profess allegiance, hate Mans existence to the extent that you might someday strap on a bomb and murder your way into a righteous afterlife? Or do you, like Sadam, simply hate your ideological enemies so much that youd supply money to the family of a 12 year old minion to kill himself for you and your hatred of those with whom you disagree. Perhaps you might just burn their houses down or torch their SUV, like your friends in the ELF.
Have these terrorist with whom you agree, outlined a declaration of human existence and independence for which they fight like the one used by "militant Christians", statesman, and farmers to targeted their muskets in a field outside Saratoga Springs some 300 years ago? targeting armed soldiers I might add.
I suggest you be damn sure that you know exactly what someones cause really is before you go declaring your allegiance to same or preaching tolerance of the murderers you choose to affiliate yourself with.
Shall I now define ignorance for you. Ignorance is the condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed. Stupidity on the other hand, is lacking the ability to comprehend. Personally I think the former describes the fringe left as I believe that you, as I have said, ignore facts in order to qualify the hate, and scorn that you have for people who do not agree with you, and facts that contradict your tenuous positions.
You may be one judge. History will be your other.
September 15th, 2003
The human race has exactly two aspects... the Man (Male) and the Woman (Female). The unification of the two aspects of humanity creates a balance (much the same way that the Taoists consider the universe to be symmetrical oriented by Yin and Yang). The concept of unified balance creating a whole is an ancient principle that stretches back throughout 6000 years of known human history and likely beyond and has been exorably associated with the concept of Marriage (again, the balanced unification of humanity). With the creation of the first true modern democracy, the Constitutional Republic of the United States, the recognition of natural (inalienable) rights of Man (truncated term: Mankind, to be understood as man and women) were codified. Note that they were CODIFIED as existing by nature of existence and NOT defined as men do not posess the mandate to manifest the definition of freedom for others. It must be acknowledged by men and governments as a natural state of being of the individual by virtue of his and her existence. The Bill of Rights did just that and your birth into this Republic and acceptance of citizenship is your promise that you will acknowledge and maintain these principles accordingly. Birth being the key term at this point in the discussion, we can acknowledge that birth is the event at which existence is understood by the US Constitution. This is an arguable point to be sure, but for the sake of discussion, this threshold will suffice. Birth is a natural termination of conception. And conception is the natural consequence of one action... the unification of a man and a women. Marriage, therefore, is the natural precept to the concept of inalienable rights. The accepted definition of Marriage, is the ideal condition of natural human existence. Marriage, therefore, is inalienably the unification of one man and one women with the express potential of propagating the human race in a free and natural manner.
Threads of Interest...