I didn’t have time to write this evening as I had a lot going on. The last couple of weeks have been extremely busy for me so I apologize that I have have struggled to keep up with the writing schedule that I usually do. It seems I have missed a day writing each week or two. I have been formatting some guest commentaries from Jon Smith and G-Man. I will be posting the one from G-Man tomorrow night. In the mean time, feel free to bring forward any conversations that you want to continue to this thread and also to post any “open mic” items you want to discuss to this thread. Sorry for the delay in getting the guest commentary up. Hopefully I will be able to get some folks hired soon and stop working every day!
Advertisement
USWeapon
gmanfortruth
Jon Smith
Life of Illusion
Black Flag®
d13thecolonel
commonman55
USwep,
Your lack of dedication to such an important but voluntary blog requires you to be fired!
Oh, wait… that means the blog stops.
…ok, on further review…
you can keep up your sub-par posting… !
I appreciate you not issuing me the pink slip quite yet. I hate it when I get into a work funk that keeps me from doing what I want to do on the site. But work is, unfortunately, what pays the bills. It is whenever I have mad turnover that things get interesting. I end up working weeks with one or no days off. That makes things difficult. But I have several people in the pipeline and should have staffing up to regular levels soon. It will certainly make my life easier for a bit, until the next group of folks leave, lol.
And that is saying nothing of the fact that there have been some really interesting discussions happening that I was unable to thus far be a part of.
USW
I applaud you – my early 20s were spent in the restaraunt business – extremely long hours and off the charts turnover. I remember the place you and I used to call hometown – jobs were scarce and few/far between. Sometimes you considered yourself lucky to get the min wage job cooking steaks at the Golden Corral for Dave Tuttle…..
Nowadays I see waaaaay too many kids that get debit cards direct to Mommy & Daddys accounts, free cars and a free ride to irresponsibility. Even many who do work in food, retail, etc will drop you in a second if the guy down the road offers a better nickel. But it is our system – not sure what the alternative is.
Anyone following Jesse Ventura or read his book? Just curious – have heard some odd things coming from the ex-Guv.
Ray
Odd is a polite understatement.
Have not read his book but I did watch a series he did on conspiracy theories about population control and our food. Saw it on the internet.
It was very freaky.
I had heard him in the past talk about CIA and other black op’s doing things that would violate our laws. He speaks with authority but not sure he actually knows or just uses his “seal” credentials to portray knowledge.
Quite frankly I just don’t know what to think of the guy. An ex governor who talks and acts like he’s gone off the deep end. But is he really goofy or is he telling us what he actually knows?
I had the same feeling JAC – some major wtf stuff – at least one thing that was portrayed very dishonestly (Infragrd).
My sense is that he needs some $$$ and found a good way to do it.
Ray
That was my thought as well. Big Time Wrestling done over. Made for TV conspiracies.
What was the one you found as dishonest? I’m not familiar with INFRAGRD.
Also remember he left the country for awhile for supposedly political reasons. I never did hear where he went or why he came back. You???
I suspect he is an agent of what is known as “Controlled Opposition”.
So is A. Jones, Bill Cooper, Jeff Rense, Beck, Hal Turner, etc, etc…
Notice the hijack attempts aimed at the Tea Parties?
I know Pete knows what I’m talking about as he explained Controlled Opposition a couple of weeks ago without ever saying the term.
And BTW, Mr. Ventura went to Cuba to see Castro. The CIA pretended to spy on him and he pretended to be annoyed by it.
He lives on a ranch somewhere in nowhere Baja Mexico.
JAC, RAY,
I don’t exactly care for the way Mr. Ventura presents these “Conspiracy Theories”. It’s exaderated and sensationalized to the point of being a detriment to the legitimacy of his claims.
However, I will assure you that there is some truth to at least part of it.
There is a well documented history of our government doing some really freaky black ops projects with human experimentation for at least 60 years.
I encourage you both to go back to G-man’s articles (“Is the Government Killing Us” parts 1 and 2) and read through all he links G and I provided. You may start to get an understanding of just how weird, widespread, and technologically advanced it is. (For as many links as I provided, they are all just a drop in the bucket.)
Like thousands of Americans, I do not have the luxury of being dismissive. Perhaps I will one day write an article of my story. Perhaps not. I am reluctant to do so simply because it is rather lengthy, and I’m not sure if I want to share all the details with the world. Ya’ll may not believe it anyway. It may very well be a waste of time.
JAC,
Do you remember that thing over Norway in December? Do you remember our conversation about seeing weird similar glowing things in the sky?
Thirteen years ago, I was a part of earlier testing of HAARP and “Project Blue Beam”. Months prior to the test event, one of my buddies stole a pentagon issued lap-top containing lots of sensitive information. He wasn’t a spy or anything. He was just pissed off and trying to play a dirty joke on the commanding officer. As you can imagine, Naval Intelligence was ALL OVER it, and in a most expedient fashion. They spied on all of us even though we had nothing to do with it. Understandably, they wanted to be thorough and eliminate any loose ends. I can’t say that I blame them.
Two years later, while house-sitting for an Infragard member, I mistakenly tried to install a video game onto a computer used to write programs for the FBI. Oops.
That was perceived red flag number two.
It’s been about four years since my last encounter with government spooks, but I am more than likely still on their paranoia shit-list. When our government decides on who to pick for their weird ass black-ops human research programs, they obviously pick someone already on “the list”.
Ray,
I’m not as familiar with Infragard as you are, or at least not in the same capacity. And I would guess that 90% of Infragard is exactly what they claim to be. But, I assure you there IS a very corrupt element to it, or at least the ones that I’ve encountered.
Watching someone to determine whether or not they’re a security threat is one thing…Following them around while harrassing them and trying to drive them crazy is another.
BL – I do recall the articles – unfortunate I cannot watch the links at work for where I work now.
I can only offer personally that Infragard is not how Ventura and others portray it. I have attended numerous meetings, am a former instructor and have several current/former employees that are members. They do not spy on fellow citizens – it is no more than a program to share information, share knowledge and learn from each other in a discrete manner. I am close to folks who have been members since inception, both from LE and Industry-sides – there is certainly no formal capacity at all for black ops activity. Could there be some rogue chapters out there? Sure – I guess so.
Ray – “Could there be some rogue chapters out there? Sure – I guess so.”
BL – I know so.
After being harrassed for a few years, I eliminated any means of tracking me and then just disappeared for a while.
I later returned and began stalking my stalkers. Call it an independent investigation to answer the question of “who is/was organizing it”. I had exausted all my leads but had managed to gather some useful information.
Then I started hearing about Infragard and their alleged activities. What was so interesting is that their stories were quite similar to my own.
It was worth checking out, so I did.
What I found was a bunch of good evidence and a direct connection between at least two members of Infragard and my numerous stalkers. I suspect it is more like 7 of them, but without having a member roster sheet and/or renting an office space and putting the FBI office under 24/7 surveilance, I cannot confirm it.
I don’t really have to. It’s them. I finally figured it out. It took years, but now I know who.
And it’s not just Infragard doing this COINTELPRO shit to people either. They’re just a small part of it. It’s a whole network of various governmental and civillian/private organizations across the US and elsewhere.
It’s based on a system of fractioned command structure and plausable deniability. Which is why you never heard of it. You’ve simply been left out of the loop.
USW,
I can relate to being quite busy. I feel like a one legged fat man in a fast ass kickin contest
Off for 4 days now! Heading to the mountains to finish the pole barn, engage with nature and enjoy the fruits of my labor (homemade brandy!) I will have access and will engage in the conversations over the weekend.
For those that chase the elusive whitetail buck, it’s antler growing season. While most of my friends report some nubs and maybe 3 to 4 inch growth, Dad had five in the yard Tuesday morning, 3 were already 6 points and two were 4 points. Wish I could post pictures, and will be taking more this weekend.
Peace!
G!
Be careful what you wish for BF. If USW gets fired we’ll all just pile in at your blog !
God, wouldn’t that be awful.. I already feel like the lunatic fringe on SUFA, imagine what it would be like to be on BF’s blog..
He’d turn you into HIS slave
Okay, folks, you all know I am an alcoholic and do not drink. The following was sent to me via e-mail by one of my longtime friends who does still drink although in his old age his drinking has turned to very much moderation. He is also a conservative living in Southern California and has one wicked sense of humor. I don’t care what your political bent is, THIS IS VERY FUNNY! And to all the liberals out there who hang around this site; I haven’t seen anything similar to this about conservatives, so if you have any please feel free to let loose – but remember IT HAS TO BE FUNNY! Because we all need to chuckle, or even hoot out a horse laugh, now and then . . . Enjoy. GAR
For those that don’t know about history … Here is a condensed version:
Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.
The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:
1. Liberals
2. Conservatives
Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That’s how villages were formed.
Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement…
Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQ’s and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.
Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. They became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.
Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass for obvious reasons.
Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare.. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn’t fair to make the pitcher also bat.
Conservatives drink domestic beer, mostly Bud or Coors. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, engineers, corporate executives, athletes, members of the military, airline pilots and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.
Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America . They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.
Here ends today’s lesson in world history:
It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above before forwarding it.
A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers and to more liberals just to piss them off.
And there you have it…Let your next action reveal your true self, I’m going to have another beer.
groan.
Do I hear DPM down there in in the basement rattling his bones with laughter?
Maybe not.
Nope. I have a better sense of human than that.
What’s better than ten liberals in one trash can?
One liberal in ten trash cans?
meh
I wonder why, if the liberals just mooch off the conservatives, there is such a massive flow of wealth from blue states to red states.. Give that the liberals are, apparently, in charge of deciding what to do with what the conservatives produce, I wonder why we’re sending all the money to the conservatives.
It makes no sense!
I’m so confused – I need some group therapy..
Mathius
The answer lies right next to you.
You will find them both there in your LEFT hand.
Straight answer: Many of the Red states that receive “federal funds” are dominated by Federal lands. The tax dollars paid vs. received comparisons always include all federal money expended in the state.
Now take Montana, a state of around 1 million people with over 70% owned and managed by the Federal Govt. Add a major military base, ICBM silos, national forest, parks, and Indian Reservations bigger than some states. What you get is huge “federal govt” employment as a % of total employment. Eastern Oregon and Washington, also massive federal lands, Hanford nuclear facility and numerous federal hydro electric projects. Idaho, massive federal land ownership, air base training grounds, nuclear research, hydro electric, etc. I think you get the idea.
There are REASONS that go beyond the insinuation that Conservatives are simply welfare leaches. But the reality is that Conservatives and Republicans are as statist as the Liberals and Progressives. They all just have a different way of taking our freedom and liberty, and of course our property (money).
Oh yeah, I can relate!
Alright…joke day at SUFA..Hat tip to Cyndi
A WOMAN’S WEEK AT THE GYM
If you read this without laughing out loud, there is something wrong with you. This is dedicated to everyone who ever attempted to get into a regular workout routine.
Dear Diary,
For my birthday this year, my Husband (the dear) purchased a week of personal training at the local health club for me.
Although I am still in great shape since being a high school football cheerleader 43 years ago, I decided it would be a good idea to go ahead and give it a try.
I called the club and made my reservations with a personal trainer named Christo, who identified himself as a 26-year-old aerobics instructor and model for athletic clothing and swim wear.
My husband seemed pleased with my enthusiasm to get started! The club encouraged me to keep a diary to chart my progress.
________________________________
MONDAY:
Started my day at 6:00 a.m. Tough to get out of bed, but found it was well worth it when I arrived at the health club to find Christo waiting for me. He is something of a Greek god – with blond hair, dancing eyes and a dazzling white smile. Woo Hoo!!
Christo gave me a tour and showed me the machines. I enjoyed watching the skillful way in which he conducted his aerobics class after my workout today. Very inspiring!
Christo was encouraging as I did my sit-ups, although my gut was already aching from holding it in the whole time he was around. This is going to be a FANTASTIC week-!!
________________________________
TUESDAY:
I drank a whole pot of coffee, but I finally made it out the door. Christo made me lie on my back and push a heavy iron bar into the air then he put weights on it! My legs were a little wobbly on the treadmill, but I made the full mile. His rewarding smile made it all worthwhile. I feel GREAT-!! It’s a whole new life for me.
_______________________________
WEDNESDAY:
The only way I can brush my teeth is by laying the toothbrush on the counter and moving my mouth back and forth over it. I believe I have a hernia in both pectorals. Driving was OK as long as I didn’t try to steer or stop. I parked on top of a GEO in the club parking lot.
Christo was impatient with me, insisting that my screams bothered other club members. His voice is a little too perky for that early in the morning and when he scolds, he gets this nasally whine that is VERY annoying.
My chest hurt when I got on the treadmill, so Christo put me on the stair monster. Why the heck would anyone invent a machine to simulate an activity rendered obsolete by elevators? Christo told me it would help me get in shape and enjoy life. He said some other crap too.
_______________________________
THURSDAY:
Butthole was waiting for me with his vampire-like teeth exposed as his thin, cruel lips were pulled back in a full snarl. I couldn’t help being a half an hour late – it took me that long to tie my shoes.
He took me to work out with dumbbells. When he was not looking, I ran and hid in the restroom. He sent some skinny witch to find me.
Then, as punishment, he put me on the rowing machine — which I sank.
_________________________________
FRIDAY:
I hate that jerk Christo more than any human being has ever hated any other human being in the history of the world. Stupid, skinny, anemic, anorexic little aerobic instructor. If there was a part of my body I could move without unbearable pain, I would beat him with it.
Christo wanted me to work on my triceps. I don’t have any triceps! And if you don’t want dents in the floor, don’t hand me the darn barbells or anything that weighs more than a sandwich.
The treadmill flung me off and I landed on a health and nutrition teacher. Why couldn’t it have been someone softer, like the drama coach or the choir director?
________________________________
SATURDAY:
Satan left a message on my answering machine in his grating, shrilly voice wondering why I did not show up today. Just hearing his voice made me want to smash the machine with my planner; however, I lacked the strength to even use the TV remote and ended up catching eleven straight hours of the Weather Channel.
________________________________
SUNDAY:
I’m having the Church van pick me up for services today so I can go and thank GOD that this week is over. I will also pray that next year my husband will choose a gift for me that is fun — like a root canal or a hysterectomy. I still say if God had wanted me to bend over, he would have sprinkled the floor with diamonds!!!
Send this to a friend who needs to laugh. We all need a good laugh!
Y’AARGH!
Now traveling through Oklahoma on my way to the port of Los Angeles. Making good time.
I can almost taste those In ‘n’ Out burgers. I’ve got some pirate points saved up if anyone wants to grab a grog en route.
It’s nice to be out of the basement.
Is the secret menu really a secret if everyone knows of it dread pirate?
5×5 Animal Style!
But no, if you google it, they even list (some of) the secret menu on their website calling it the “not so secret menu”.
Dread Pirate Mathius – “I can almost taste those In ‘n’ Out burgers.”
Quit it! I’d rather be waterboarded.
The last time I was in LA, I went bar-hopping with a couple ladies. On our way home, I mentioned that “White Castle” sounds good and that I wish they had them out west. The one from NY let out a moan and then scolded me for reminding her of something delicious and unavailable.
Perhaps this is Karma getting around to me.
I saw a billboard a while ago in New York for Fatburger. They were calling themselves “Los Angeles’ favorite burger.” I had to do a double-take. I simply could not believe they had the audacity to make that claim.
I do not recall ever seeing that billboard in LA.
How the bloody Hell do you think I feel??? No Taco Bell, Jack in the Box, Pizza Hut or Carraba’s. Only a crappy snack bar with Anthony’s Pizza, Subway, BK, and Baskin Robbins. That is the extent of our dining out. My brat daughter called me up one day. “Hey Mom, guess where I am? I’m at Carraba’s eating Chicken Bryan, you FAVORITE! HAHAHAHA!!!!”
Bitch.
That’s roughly how I feel when it’s the middle of winter and I’m dying and my parents call to tell me it’s 70 degrees with a light breeze out of the northwest and they’re at In ‘n’ Out eating burgers on the patio.
That’s funny.
I don’t just get mad, I get even. She’s coming to visit me in a few weeks. We’ll have three weeks of hanging out on the beach, sailing and partying. She’ll know first hand just how nice this lump of coral can be. In a few months, when she’s getting her butt kicked by crappy weather, and a horrendous load of coursework at school, I’ll strike…..BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Adding, I feel your pain.
USW – “The last couple of weeks have been extremely busy for me so I apologize that I have have struggled to keep up with the writing schedule that I usually do.”
Weapon,
I think I speak for most everyone when I say that there is no need for apology. A man has to do what a man has to do, …and you have to pay the bills.
Thank you for SUFA.
Bachman Turner Overdrive-Taking care of business
My kinda music BL. Along with CCR, The Doobie Bros, Moody Blues, ELO, Allman Bros, I can go on if you like….
Anita
Its time for you to answer the question of the other day.
Suggest you start a new thread as it will generate some discussion.
A little lake time planned for the weekend?
Still snowing in the mountains here. Cold and rainy.
Hang on.. I have not forgotten you JAC. I’m waiting for a customer to drop something for me then I’m headed out for the day. I’ll be sure to post later.
Sweetleaf,
I like every band you just mentioned. I suspect the rest of the list would be the same.
The first song that came to mind as I read your list…
Creedence Clearwater Revival: Fortunate Son
Black Water – The Doobie Brothers
Allman Brothers – Ramblin’ Man
USW….I too…have missed being more on the blog but things are slowing down a little..
The raptors are on hold…however, it will take me awhile to replenish my raptor force…the defenses in the basement of Mathius were stronger than anticipated…however, the Dread Pirate is now roaming the highways and byways and will soon be on the open sea to Laguna Madre where the sun is plentiful, the margueritas proliferate, the local….ummmm…..natives are….ummmm….friendly….(they love pirates and parrots)….chips, salsa, cerveza, tamales, chicken fried steak (cream gravy w/cream gravy, of course) A private villa and backyard vat of grog for the captain….(not to mention the open shed in corner with the wine vat and the grape stompers in full non reaglia awaiting the arrival of the notorious Dread Pirste, etal.
Have a great day, sir.
Will be at the Texas border in a few more hours..
Officially in Texas!
Gonna hang out here for the long weekend and enjoy being in a state full of freedom loving men and women.
Allright!!! I’d ask what kept you so long, but I already know you were locked in that basement….
Enjoy your stay!
Murf
SUFA
In our quest to figure out WHERE we want to go there is a basic question that comes to mind.
So lets call it the question of the morning. Actually its a multiple choice so in effect multiple questions.
We assume that we want to resurrect an America based on principles of freedom, liberty and justice. But first; Is mankind:
A) Civilized?
B) Not civilized but capable of becoming civilized?
C) Not civilized and not capable of changing?
I think that without much effort you will see why the answer to this question is critical to addressing many of the questions and issues we kick around here on a daily basis.
I will add one other question that pops into my mind as I finish this.
Does your answer apply to all of mankind or only to part? If you think we are not the same they you should try to identify the groups and answer the question for each.
Happy Thinking
JAC
Good question JAC,…Is pertinent to our conversation about the plausability of true Anarchy and how it relates to human nature.
Answer:
D – All of the above.
Some are civilized and always will be, some aren’t but are capable of personal growth, and some are just a lost cause.
B.L.
Your answer requires “groups”. So how do you distinguish these groups? Are they geographical, psychological, racial, ethnic, etc, etc????
Groups of individuals with widely varying differences.
…Kinda like colors. How many shades of purple are there?
Again answer is all of the above.
It all plays a role.
B.L.
So in your opinion could these groups segregate themselves?
In other words, could the “civilized” move to where other “civilized” people live or are they tied to the group in someway that inhibits their movement.
Would like you to address the whole of humanity, not just the USA.
JAC,
I’m not sure exactly what you’re asking or why you assume that I meant just the USA.
And I didn’t mean to divide people into groups. In fact, my point was just the opposite…kinda.
Here’s what I meant:
ALL humans are individuals, all 7 billion of us. We aren’t “The Borg”.
Take ANY group of people, whether picked at random or according to some specific criteria…doesn’t matter. They are all different and unique, and all capable of coming up with a different answer.
Grab any group of people and ask them to draw a picture of a bird. No two will be alike. Idealism isn’t much different.
Some people might be Civilized
Some people might not be civilized but are capable of becoming civilized?
Some might be uncivilized and incapable of changing.
Some might be civilized and capable of becoming uncivilized.
Some people might be civilized and incapable of changing.
Some might not know what civility is.
etc… etc…
B.L.
OK I think I get it now. All types exist throughout the world and their condition is individual and not determined by group identity.
Now, what is YOUR definition of “civilized”?
Without using a dictionary, I would define “Civilized” as it pertains to people as:
~ Having enough sophistication or being developed enough socially to live peacefully and harmoniously in a given social order.
History channel put it well this weekend..
We think that people are nice and inherently good. This is because we are rich and fat and comfortable. If you take that away, we become very nasty very quickly.
This was in a show on what happened following the fall of Rome.
I’ll go with B.
Mathius
My studies would indicate that the reverse is true. During the hardest of times humans fall back on the formation of groups based on cooperation to enhance their survival. It still looks ugly from the outside but it is not “every man for himself” as is often portrayed.
Humans are like any other animal when cornered and threatened. But then we think that the key to order and civilization is to corner and threaten people to behave in a certain manner. It is no wonder our society seems in decline. Set my people free!
One way to find out. Let’s burn it down and see what happens.
JAC,
An excellent question. I would first do exactly what Jon did below and ask for the definition of civilized. But given your response to that, I will offer my own.
Let’s say civilized is having moved past the barbarian stage. Which means that one has generally gotten past “might is right” or the general use of violence or the threat of it to get action accomplished.
With that as a definition, I believe that mankind is not yet completely civilized, but has the capability of being so. I believe we have gotten to the point of believing it is better to not use violence, but still have it as a far too often used fallback plan when reason or logic do not work. Obviously there are higher levels of “civilized” in better education countries.
I believe that the key to moving forward towards being civilized is education. But not the education we currently think of (public or private schools). Instead, it is a move to liberate the mind from the belief that violence is a justifiable act.
The question for me becomes, even if we were better educated this way, and were civilized, is that simply a group norm, or a true state of mind. If the education around being civilized were to be taken away, what would the outcome be? IS it man’s natural state to be violent is that a learned behavior?
define “civilized”
Civilized – adj
Of or pertaining to being to an individual who favors progressive taxation.
LMAO
I guess it does fit with your prior answer though.
Of course we should expect a “liberal” to define civilized in terms of barbarian behavior!!
Bwahahahaha
He with the power to define the terms of an argument will always win the argument.
Jon
I was wondering how long it would take for that question to pop up. Excellent!
Tell you what. For this exercise perhaps everyone should define “civilized” for themselves as an explanation of their answer.
Serious answer.. it’s tough..
I’d say having a sense of duty toward others in the community whether it is in your interest to help or not*. Beyond that, it would require that you be respectful of others and their property.
Basically anyone you would be proud to call your friend is a civilized person.
*NOTE: even the most far right among us have a sense of duty, though they recognize it as an internal force rather than external. So, to be civilized, you must have a sense that you should do what is best for others, though not necessarily agree with the government’s wealth redistribution as it currently stands.
Mathius
Lets leave the govt out of it for now. So does this sense of “must” do whats best for others include the individual who has the sense of duty?
In other words, must the individual be willing to sacrifice his own best for that of others, or is the duty limited to finding balance between the best of others and the best for oneself?
Exactly on point, JAC, old boy!
The art is, as ever, in the balance. You’ll note that I said “should” in my post, not “must”.
A civilized rich man should have a very strong compulsion to give to the beggar.
A poorer civilized man should not feel compelled to harm his own interests if giving that same beggar money would do so.
Any time you give, you harm your own interests. That is one dollar less that you have available to spend on yourself. So, in that sense, yes, it is always sacrifice, but I would never advocate that someone has to give until they are equally poor. This is an argument that has been used repeatedly against me and remains false. The duty to give does not require that you harm your own well being.
Great question, I hope my rambling answer clarified.
DPM or Mathius
Having a little trouble controlling your split personality again I see!
Since you brought up the rich giving to the beggar I thought you would find this fun:
“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. … I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
Care to identify the author?
Actually you answer raises many more questions than clarity. Let me sum it up with this. It seems your definition of “civilized” is very “relative”.
You say it should not require you to harm your own well being, but then for the rich man it is not the rich man that seems to get to make that determination. It appears that you or someone else is making that decision when you say, he should give but not make himself equally poor.
I did make a slight error in my rephrasing. Your “must” was assigned to the “sense of duty” but if you “must have a sense of duty” that you “should do” then are you not also requiring action. Otherwise a “sense of duty” is meaningless.
Does not duty require action to carry out such duty?
That is, of course, none other than Ben Franklin. And he makes an excellent point. What I would argue is that his sense of duty extended to creating opportunities for the poor, but not necessarily to giving them handouts. So the means is different, but the underlying principle is the same. (for the record, I generally agree with this sentiment).
Now, to your comments..
A rich man should – internally – feel far more compelled to give than should a less wealthy individual. I think this point should be fairly intuitive.
I am sure whether or not I would define civilized duty as requiring action or just the internal urge to meet that duty. I think the later. A civilized person should want to help, but if he does not that does not automatically make him uncivilized.
Mathius,
You make assumptions without merit.
Why do you believe that a rich man should do more than another man?
A rich man knows how to be rich and understands that wealth is created, not given.
If the poor wish not to be poor, they should do what the wealthy do, and not expect the wealthy to give it to them.
Mathius
I submit that one can not IMPOSE a sense of duty by outside force. One may be compelled but I don’t think it would be from duty, but from fear.
By its very nature, a sense of duty would have to come from internal forces. Now, those forces can be created by outside influence like education, acculturation, etc.
Well, therein lies the rub.
I trust your internal sense of duty.
I trust USW’s internal sense of duty.
I trust Ray’s internal sense of duty.
I trust Buck’s internal sense of duty.
I trust Anita’s internal sense of duty.
I trust D13′s internal sense of duty.
I trust Todd’s internal sense of duty.
I trust Black Flag’s internal sense of duty.
I trust G-Man’s internal sense of duty.
I trust Canine Weapon’s internal sense of duty.
They would all give, I am convinced, willingly and generously of their own free will to good and worthy causes. They are all civilized people (except Canine Weapon who is a civilized dog).
But there are a lot of people I do not trust. There are a lot of people who would give nothing. These are the uncivilized people.
The problem is that if only one side pays, then they have to pay twice as much. And to get the same effect, it would necessarily harm our interests severely to bear the full burden and we couldn’t necessarily meet the needs of society. So, government steps in and forces your “generosity.”
For you, 80% of your taxes are probably what you would have given to good causes voluntarily. 20% is taken because Uncle Sam thinks you should give more.
For me, 100% of my taxes are what I would have given to good causes voluntarily. And then I give another maybe 10% on top because I feel I have an even greater obligation (and ability to meet that obligation) than Uncle Sam thinks I do.
For a broad swath of society, 100% of the taxes would have been hoarded and never made it to good causes. These are the people that necessitate government intervention. These uncivilized people are deadweight and Uncle Sam is forcing them to act like good citizens. It doesn’t actually make them good citizens, but the effect on the rest of society is comparable.
Think of it this way: I cannot make the evil man into a moral man. But with sufficient leverage, I can sure make him act morally. And externally, to the rest of society, there is no difference.
Mathius
So if I kill the rich man and take his money and I then give it to a poor man; Am I civilized?
Lets assume killing is bad. Am I still civilized if I Rob from the rich man and give to the poor?
Murder is not a civilized activity. Neither is theft.
You’re conflating two issues – the internal obligation to help others, and society’s imposition on those who are unwilling to do what it views and their fair share.
You are attempting to show that the government in uncivilized because it steals from the rich and gives to the poor and theft is immoral, yes?
Mathius,
There does not exist an obligation to help anyone.
The determination of such help is wholly on the helper’s choice and opinion. He, and he alone, determines his own risk/reward/capability/ability to help or not, and his reasons are his alone regardless of the ultimate decision he makes.
The determination of “fair” is egotistical and conceited. You are not the measure of fairness on my behalf or anyone else. No one is.
Government IS uncivilized and evil not just because of a manifestation of itself (theft) but by its core and premise – the self-provisioned right to inflict violence on the non-violent.
I feel I have been very clear that your obligation to help is internal.
That society forces you to do so is entirely separate.
Mathius,
…but in your argument you linked them!
Mathius
Drop to the bottom for my response. It will be easier for you and I if we keep the conversation on one thread.
Mathius
So under your theory, the reason I pay such-and-such for a burger a McD’s is because you didn’t buy your share?
If the goods/services you want has value to you, you will trade your money for it.
You trade because the money you have is of less value than the good you want.
Whether or not I buy the same good or not is completely irrelevant to your sense of value.
The crux of your thinking: you want your goods subsidized by me.
Exactly!
I want to help the poor. You (the ethereal you, not you personally) do not. I view helping the poor as a moral imperative. You do not. I cannot afford to do what needs to be done by myself, so I force you to subsidize it.
Now replace me with “the consensus of society” and you with “the subset of individuals who do not wish to pay any taxes” and we have it.
(yes, I know, just because the majority think one thing does not make it moral.)
Mathius,
It is your evil conceit to believe that your personal purpose (help the poor) overrules my personal purpose (whatever it is).
Perhaps.
Perhaps it is your evil conceit to believe that your purpose (whatever that is) overrides your duty to help the less fortunate (assuming such a duty exists).
Mathius,
The conceit is believing that you know better about another then that soul about himself.
Your position requires the above to be true.
But you have no proof or demonstration that makes it be true.
So your position lies purely on conceit.
I know that eating veggies will make you healthier.
So eat your vegetables.
Mathius,
Again, you are evil conceit.
You do not know whether or not such food is poisonous to that person.
But you do not care because in your conceit, you are always right.
Mathius
You are stuck in fantasy.
There does not exist a “good cause” that is the same for everyone.
All there is, is YOUR good cause that YOU think is good.
But you are so egotistical to believe that it is so good, you are willing to put a gun to my head to force me to pay for it.
No me.
The consensus of society.
We have all gotten together and reached the general agreement x is good, y is bad.
And as you well know, I am perfectly comfortable with the tyranny of majority.
Mathius,
There is no such thing as a consensus of society.
“We” have NOT gotten together and reached any agreement. Such a claim is a total fantasy.
Tyranny by one or by millions is still evil.
So you say. I say that I voted in the last election. I voted in the election before that. My vote and the votes of millions of others carried the authority to appoint an individual to make laws and decisions in my name and the name of those other millions. By our aggregate votes, we have made our decision about what we (generally) stand for.
That you opt not vote and so delegitimize the government is your prerogative, but decisions are made by those who show up. Before you were born, this country was founded on the premise I use which you reject. Accepting citizenship in this nation is tacit acceptance of the laws and governmental structure upon which it is built.
If you live under my roof, you will follow my rules. As my father has said to me, so your fellow citizens say to you. Don’t like it? You have two choices: deal with it or move.
Mathius
Yes, SO I SAY!
I was not there to make such an agreement! So the concept of “WE” does NOT include ME!
It is YOU and your merry band of evil men and that is not a “WE” I join!
My merry band just voted that we own your house.
Move out please!
Matters not how many people agree to murder – does not make murder a ‘good’.
It does not matter who attends or not, murder is still murder.
Just because the Pope may bless you, murder is still murder.
Thus, you believe what one man writes on a piece paper obligates another man to obey?
If you believe this to be true, you should read what I just wrote on my piece of paper regarding your obligations!
No acceptance has been made – and no offer give.
I am who I am because of me, and not you.
I live, and not because of you.
You leave. You’re the evil one, not me.
Mathius
One little butt into your discussion. It might help in many ways.
Your term: “The consensus of society.”
I suggest you explore using the word “consent” instead of consensus. It seems to me much more appropriate is so many ways.
Mathius-
If a free society could not voluntarily find solutions to ensure its survival (ie: in your scenario where people didn’t “give enough”), it would perish.
In a world with a multitude of societies (communities are largely local), somewhere one would figure it out. The rest would quickly copy/improve the formula or also perish, leaving room for the successful societies/communities to expand and thrive.
The concepts of evolution do not apply solely to the DNA of life forms.
Cleverest headline of the day. From Michelle Malkin’s site regarding Mr. Obama consulting with Mr. Clinton over response to the current oil spill:
“Because When You’re Seeking Advice on Damage Control After an Embarrassing Spill, Experience Matters”
I saw that, and thought she was going to make a joke in some way about “Slick Willie”.. oh well..
Mathius
Good one. Maybe you should submit a list of headline suggestions.
Mathius:
Your comment: “You’re conflating two issues – the internal obligation to help others, and society’s imposition on those who are unwilling to do what it views and their fair share.
You are attempting to show that the government in uncivilized because it steals from the rich and gives to the poor and theft is immoral, yes?”
My answer is NO!
Was not chasing that rabbit at all.
Was trying to determine if there were any other factors you consider to be part of your definition of “civilized”. So far you have focused entirely on “charity” or more specifically a “sense of duty to provide charity”. Now I use charity here in a very broad, willing to help others way. Not just giving money and clothes.
I am looking for a little more clarity in your definition with as little “relativism” as possible. Its hard to use definitions that have “relative” meaning. But if that is what you believe that is fine.
If I see a contradiction I will question whether you really want it to remain or if you wish to clarify. Your focus on charity as a primary principle allowed for theft and killing, for example. I didn’t think you would agree but wanted to point out that your definition of “civilized” actually allowed for these actions.
Today I am not trying to prove anything about govt. In fact I am trying to identify the metaphysical and epistemological nature of man, as each of us understands it. Without this there is no reason to explore ethics, morality, law and politics. It would be like discussion quantum mechanics without having any understanding of what molecules and atoms are.
Mathius:
From your comment above: “I am sure whether or not I would define civilized duty as requiring action or just the internal urge to meet that duty. I think the later. A civilized person should want to help, but if he does not that does not automatically make him uncivilized.”
The application of Logic makes your definition useless.
If being civilized requires a sense of duty then you can not also declare that no having that sense is not uncivilized.
Not having the sense of duty makes you a sociopath.
Not acting on your duty is not the same thing. I might not give to charity because I can’t afford it right now.
There’s a difference.
I’m thinking aloud here, but it seems to me that it’s all about intent when you’re asking about whether a person is civilized.
Mathius,
You confuse a sense of duty with agreeing to YOUR sense of duty
You believe that if someone does not share YOUR sense of duty, they must be wrong.
You wish to help the poor. You wish to do so by not helping and thus motivating them to be more successful.
You feel the same urge, but approach the problem with a different solution.
If there were no taxes, and we lived in a geographical location with rich resources coveted by a foreign power, would you give money to fund a common defense? Why wouldn’t you just pay nothing and let others foot the bill? Would you give extra because you are able to afford a little bit more (of your own free will)?
Mathius
NO!!
I help the poor in the manner of my own choosing.
You have NO right and no REASON to determine that manner nor proof that YOUR manner is superior.
Flag, you’re missing it. I do not claim that you have a duty to help in the same manner that I proscribe, but just that you have an internal sense of obligation to help – which you tacitly admit.
I do not think you can be civilized if you do not want to help, but I do not think it matters how, nor do I think I’ve ever made that claim.
You say: I help them in the manner of my choosing. That is sufficient. You are civilized.
Mathius
You miss the greater point.
It is not yours to determine for me what I do or do not
Mathius
IF I feel there is something worth defending, I probably would pay for it. I buy insurance for the same reason.
Further, IF I think it is valuable and thus pay, and you don’t pay, so what????? Does the value of my defense go down because you didn’t pay???
Stop looking in my wallet to determine your value
My initial response: I’d say having a sense of duty toward others in the community whether it is in your interest to help or not*. Beyond that, it would require that you be respectful of others and their property.
Theft and murder would fall within the purview of the second part. It is not respectful of others to murder them, nor of their property to steal.
You could tack on honesty, though perhaps that is implied by respectful.
You’ll also not I said toward others, not just the less fortunate. This would incorporate such things as mutual defense, public works (roads/bridges), et cetera. Not just charity for the poor.
Duty and respectfulness.
If you think about it a civilized person is a person who possesses the basic characteristics which support the formation of a civilization. Think about a small town in the middle of nowhere – now ask yourself, what does it need from it’s members – it needs shared defense to be funded by the community, it needs someone to maintain the public roads, it needs to feel the hungry, it needs people to not kill each other or steal from each other, etc.
Mathius
I have another question for you. Related in that you keep bringing it up but I don’t think you ever explained it.
You use two words consistently in these types of discussion. They are “duty” and “obligation”.
Where do you get this sense of “duty” and “obligation”? Can you identify its source?
Not a trick question.
I personally have absolutely no such sense of duty nor obligation. So I am curious as to how you come to have it.
Off to the gym for a couple of hours. Hopefully you will still be here when I return.
Have fun at the gym. I am very jealous since I haven’t had the opportunity to hit the gym in months (14hr days and a new house will do that to you).
The question: where does this duty come from.
It comes from inside you.
You say you have no sense of duty, but I know this is not true. You might just see it differently.
When you walk past a starving homeless vet begging for change, you give him a buck. Do you not? Have you never given the guy a single dollar out of your pocket?
Why? Why did you give it to him? If you had no duty to help, why didn’t you just walk past and spend that dollar on a cup of coffee before the gym?
You gave it to him because helping your fellow man is intrinsic to being a good person. You don’t necessarily have to actually do anything (maybe you can’t afford it or whatnot), but you have to want to.
If you are driving along and the car in front of you hits a pothole and swerves into a tree, do you get out and help even though it might make you late for where you were going, or do you drive past and go on with your day?
You do it because you know it would be wrong for you not to. Because someone needs your help. And you answer that call of duty.
Because you are civilized.
The obligation comes from inside you, but it’s very real.
Mathius
So if this sense is required to be civilized and this sense is “internal” and we accept there are “uncivilized” people who do not have this “internal” sense, then WHERE does it come from?
If some have and some do not have, yet we believe those without can develop it, how is that accomplished?
How do the “civilized” teach the “uncivilized” to become “civilized” without sacrificing their “civilized” nature?
Warning: You have already established that theft and killing are “uncivilized” behaviors. So these can not be used without attacking your own definition.
Hopefully we are able to teach the uncivilized to become civilized in this regard.
Note that babies are screaming bundles of id and nothing more. They care nothing for anyone but themselves and their stomachs. Feed me, bathe me, burp me, change me, play with me. They care not at all that you are exhausted and just want to sleep. But somewhere along the line, they learn to be take others into consideration. That is from parenting.
Some people (like my older brother) will never care about another human being. They will take and take and give nothing back and they have no drive to leave the world a better place than when they left – it is all about me me me me me.
Absent society, these people would kill, rape, and pillage until they themselves were killed. There is no hope for them. But we can exert external pressure to make them conform to more civilized behaviors.
Think about pascal’s wager. He said “I do not believe in God, but I will act as though I do. If I am right and there is no god, nothing happens. If I am wrong, at least I acted like I believed my whole life.” Where this breaks down is that God would not be fooled by false belief. Neither can you be a civilized person just because someone is making you act civilized at the point of a gun. It has to come from within.
Mathius
How did civilized men acquire this sense of caring?
Are they born with it? If so, then why some and not others?
Did the swallow it, breath it, see it, hear it, discover it, or were they “taught” by others?
If they were taught, then how did the teachers acquire this sense of caring.
Chicken/egg…
Almost everyone has some capacity for empathy – for caring about others regardless of self-interest.
Some do not. My aforementioned brother is one such case, unfortunately – regardless of his education/upbringing/experiences, he will never feel empathy or a desire to help others.
Most people learn from an early age that helping others is a good thing. It is drilled into us at school, in children’s programming, by our parents, our churches, practically everywhere.
Giving charity (sadaka) is a central pillar of Judaism and Jewish culture. Same for Christianity – “as you do unto the poorest of you, you do unto me.” Recall Jesus washing the feet of the leper.
I like to think that it comes from our DNA. That it is in the interest of the species to help other members of the species. It certainly provides a possible evolutionary advantage. There are instances of squirrels who will sacrifice themselves to distract a predator in order to alter and save the group. That’s the spirit.
Mathius
This is not a chicken/egg thing.
If empathy is learned, then it can be unlearned, or not taught.
If it is part of our DNA then teaching will not really help. It might reinforce or develop full potential but you can not create it where it does not exist.
If babies do not show empathy then it is probably not genetic but learned.
The squirrel example is provided in the wrong context. The group is the squirrel’s family or clan. It is not a group of “stranger” squirrels.
This is a very, very important distinction.
As is the mother or father’s willingness to sacrifice or draw predators away at personal risk, to save their offspring.
The distinction is defense of those who are known versus those who are strangers.
Mathius,
But that is not what makes civilization. Barbarians provide shared defense and a community, they cut roads through woods, and it feeds itself when hungry.
The entire difference between Barbarians and the Civilized is rooted in one single concept – Human Right.
Once again, I listed respect for others and their property as a criterion. Would that not respect for human rights?
Mathius,
Depends on what you define as “respect” and “property”
Ok, first to define “civilized”. One must have the following qualities:
1) Self-awareness, recognition of one’s own being and the abstract concept of existence.
2) Awareness of others, recognition of the existence of other persons, and the abstract concept of interaction/relationship with those persons.
3) Respect of Relationship, recognition of the need for cooperative action, trade, communication, etc. This is needed for survival and for advancement.
4) Desire for advancement, a cognitive desire to improve oneself and those with whom you excercise some sort of relationship with.
5) Respect for others, recognition of the rights, desires, needs, wants, abilities, beliefs, and property of other persons. This is what allows us to recognize rights and to reach thinking that is best for all, not just ourselves. This is the key to true civilization, without it, we are just smart animals willing to prey on each other when it is useful to us.
I would say that all human adults, with very few exceptions generally caused by mental disability, qualify for #1 and #2.
Among those, with only a few exceptions for persons who have lived in isolation, all qualify for #3 as well.
I would say that except for only a very few who have been burnt out in their lives, all would also qualify for #4 as well. There is an instinctive drive to better oneself. Sometimes there are different interpretations of this, even those who seek a life of simplicity are generally doing so for a greater peace of mind or some other philosophical reason.
Number 5 is the elusive one. I would say that all mankind is capable of it in theory. There may be a few who are genetically hardwired to ignore all but themselves, but for the most part those who disrespect others do so because of bad upbringing or horrors in life that have left only the selfish animal instinct in place, and have done so to the detriment of reason. Some may be so far gone that they cannot be changed back into civilized people, but this is a case-by-case situation, not a segment of society or an inevitable percentage of people.
So, In short, I would go with a cross between a and b. Some are currently civilized. Some are capable but untrained and are seeking civilization erroneously becuase of failed reason, and some are damaged and cannot be civilized but in theory they could be, so a look to the future would be the potential for a, with a more likely situation of a lot of a with some b mixed in.
Jon:
I find #4 of interest.
“4) Desire for advancement, a cognitive desire to improve oneself and those with whom you excercise some sort of relationship with.”
#4 includes not only the desire to improve one self but to improve others. So in your view, is this #4 similar to Mathius’ “sense or desire to help others”?
I am also a little curious as to why you feel “advancement” or “improvement” is a requirement of being “civilized”? It seems to place a requirement of constant motion or change regardless of the state reached.
In other words, if I become civilized then why must I keep improving to stay civilized. And of course, what exactly is it that I must keep improving?
“Civilized” is a politically correct term used by the left used to describe their elitist control culture in an attempt to downplay the humanity of certain “other” cultural groups!
The true definition of civilized is as a state of awareness in a persons core being taking into consideration both mental and spiritual condition.Can’t get any more simple than that gentlemen!Good day all!
On a side not you guys sure know how to make something simple complicated!
TC
Yeah right! That was about as simple as string theory.
No it is not similar to Matt’s point. More likely I articulated it poorly. Essentially, part of technological advancement, for instance, is a recognition of needs of society, not just one’s own desires. Various inventors have been motivated by a desire to advance all people, not just themselves. Edison was not just looking for a better light source for himself. The tendency of people seeking advancement is to lead others in the same direction as themselves. Perhaps it is not necessary to desire an advancement for all to be civilized, but it is possible to desire an advancement for all, without a specific need to advance one’s self. So I suppose it is an either/or/both rather than a definite and.
As for what sort of advancement, that is up to the individual. To believe that one has “arrived”, however, is to lose a sense of civilized thought. It is that sort of arrogance that leads to uncivilized behavior. To cease to strive is to cease to be a real human. We seek betterment, that is part of what separates us from animals. If we believe we have achieved all, then we stagnate and are nothing more than advanced animals. There is always a higher plane to reach.
I agree Jon.
I wouldn’t juxtapose industrialized with civilized and expect them to have the same meaning though!
Agreed, that was not my intention. That is why I said the type of advancement is up to the individual. Technology is certainly not the only form of advancement or the only thing a civilized person or society should strive for.
Here’s some info on gold confiscation. This company is in Arizona, if you’re in the mood to buy gold or silver. Go Arizona!!
http://www.cmi-gold-silver.com/gold-confiscation-1933.html
Probably shouldn’t post since I’m only gonna be here a minute but it seems you are all requiring a lot to be considered civilized-I would think to be civilized really only takes not purposely or continually hurting someone or causing trouble. The rest, responsibility, being nice, etc. are simply different words with different meanings.
V.H.
Given your stated goal I think you could shorten your definition even further.
How about: “To be civilized really only takes not purposely hurting someone.”
But this does not allow self defense so we could add “….who has not hurt me.”
Does that hit the spot, or did I miss something?
Definitely think in defense against an imminent danger should be in there. Also wondering if societal norms of where ever you live should be part of being civilized or just considered immoral.
V.H.
Certain definitions should be universal. The closer to the root or foundation the more this should be true.
I believe that a definition of “civilized” is applicable to ALL humans. There are other words that can separate us by cultural, religious etc norms.
Would that make sense?
I don’t know-will continue to think about it-but to me being civilized is basically the ability to co-exist in society without doing undue harm to people or property.
Let’s throw in the word intentionally doing undue harm-left it out.
V.H.
You already had the word “purposely” in your definition. That is the same as “intentionally” in my book.
As I read your definition it means will not initiate force/violence/harm against another.
I use all three descriptors to cover the bases of the differing words used at SUFA.
I hope it says more than that-I purposely used the word Undue.
(Exceeding what is appropriate or normal; excessive)
I think it covers self defense. If the action is intentional, undue, and harmful. If it fits all three, it is uncivilized. I realize the three words I used require judgement to determine whether or not someone is being civilized but that was my intention. I think what is civilized is much like what is moral-it is a matter of public opinion and it changes with time.
Oh crap-I just realized why my definition is wrong-If this was followed it would make what some countries do that I know are uncivilized-Okay.
I don’t know- wasn’t in answer to your question-of course it makes sense-would help if I could identify this word
Will continue to try.
Ray Hawkins
Where’s your input my friend on my questions?
I need input, need input Ray.
Chris Devine
Are you lurking?
Time to get in on the philosophy at the base level.
Hard to know what to say…..very depressing to see the reality of what the entitlement policies have actually done there. And with this administration we will get more of this.
But thanks for posting…..quite an eye opener.
Murf
Ronnie James Dio (July 10, 1942 – May 16, 2010) R.I.P.
Dio – Rainbow In The Dark
Cary Coleman (February 8, 1968 – May 28, 2010) R.I.P.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/TV/05/28/obit.gary.coleman/index.html?section=cnn_latest
oops – “Gary” Coleman
Watchoo Talkin’ Bout, Willis!?
Well…
I just left the trends research institutes website reviewing Gerald Celentes’ trend predictions and am in a depressed mood.
I have an overwhelming feeling of dread based upon my understanding of what the human animal is capable of invoking against his fellow man.I know very well the heinous acts that are capable of happening.If we do not get organized, groundbreaking leaders that have the moral fortitude and intelligence to direct our country out of the hole we have dug for ourselves; all I can say is God help us.
I’ll add to that post that God has given me the intelligence, to use for myself and my family to be prepared for any worst case scenario.That has been and will continue to be my goal.Vigilant preparedness.
He also left you with his peace-so do what you can and leave the rest up to him.
Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
Matthew 6:33-34
I’m not scared.
I have nothing to lose but my freedom.
I’ll die before I lose that.
Amen BL. I die free as well.
you boys might just get your wish…
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4425
Can We Coexist With The Left?
From the desk of Fjordman on Sun, 2010-05-09 08:59
The American writer Lawrence Auster had a debate with his readers regarding the possibility of splitting the USA along ideological lines. According to reader Tim W, modern Left liberalism is a universal totalitarian ideology, not a “live and let live” concept. The goal of its adherents is a world government from which no one can escape. Leftists “need conservatives but conservatives don’t need leftists. To be blunt, they can’t let us go. We’d be happy to be rid of them, because to us they’re nothing but parasites and/or oppressors. But they can’t get rid of us because we do most of the work, pay most of the taxes, provide the stability and morality that allow their depravity to thrive with less damaging results. Furthermore, the white conservative population is the buffer protecting white liberals from the minorities.”
A number of commentators questioned the viability of such a political division. Muslims believe not only that Islam is the best religion, but that it is the only true religion and that all people must be brought into its fold. Likewise, Leftists sincerely believe that Leftism is the only valid ideology, and that the whole world must be brought under its heel. Just like the very existence of self-governed communities outside of Islamic rule is considered an intolerable act of aggression by devout Muslims, so the existence of self-governed non-Leftist communities anywhere, at least if they happen to be white, is unacceptable to Leftist True Believers. They don’t just want to rule themselves; they want to rule everybody else as well.
Good arguments were presented in favor of secession, but opponents point out that attempted partition would likely trigger coercion and force when the ruling oligarchs fear losing control. If the Left sees everything it has promoted for generations about to be overturned it might resort to violence. Above all, opponents questioned whether the whole idea of “just wanting to be left alone” is defeatist and leaves the opponents with the initiative. Perhaps the battle cannot be won until we go on the offensive and take the ideological war to the enemy.
As reality is now, whites are considered potential extremists merely for existing, whereas the most revolting non-white organizations imaginable go free. For example, groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, which has the stated goal of destroying Western civilization, are labeled “moderates,” whereas whites who want an immigration policy that prevents such people from settling in their countries are demonized as “racist extremists” by the media.
As Lawrence Auster says, white Leftists show “absolute moral disgust and horror against white non-liberals for their (almost always falsely imagined) discriminatory attitudes toward nonwhites. The only two moral actors in this script are the white liberals, who are good, and the white non-liberals, who are evil. The nonwhites are not moral actors in the script. They are the passive, sacred objects around whom the moral drama between good whites and evil whites is played out.”
In April 2010, the former left-wing US President Bill Clinton warned commentators to tone down their anti-government rhetoric for fear of inflaming hate groups, as polls suggested that public trust in the US government was at its lowest point for half a century. Clinton tried to conflate the anti-tax Tea Party movement with the 1995 Oklahoma City terrorist bombing, and implicitly voiced support for limiting certain forms of speech that might challenge the left-wing ruling regime. In an interview with The New York Times newspaper, Mr. Clinton was worried about the fact that “Because of the Internet, there is this vast echo chamber and our advocacy reaches into corners that never would have been possible before.” He warned against those who were too negative regarding the policies of Leftist politicians.
In 2009, the same Bill Clinton said that Americans should be mindful of their nation’s changing demographics, which led to the 2008 election of Obama as president. He told an Arab-American audience that by 2050 the U.S. will no longer have a majority of people with a European heritage and stated that “this is a very positive thing.” This was merely eight years after Arab Muslim terrorists staged the deadliest attack against the US mainland in peacetime, killing thousands of US citizens. Yet a dramatic increase in the number of Arab Muslims in his country does not worry Mr. Clinton at all. The only “terrorism” he is concerned about might be protests from people of European origins who oppose their own dispossession.
Bertha Lewis, the chief executive officer of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now or ACORN, spoke in March 2010 before the Young Democratic Socialists conference. There she predicted a USA headed toward violence that will “dwarf the internments during World War II.” Curiously, this statement was hardly reported in the mass media. She said that immigration is a big battle. “And the reason this is so important is, you know, here’s the secret: (whispering) We’re getting ready to be a majority, minority country. Shhhh. We’ll be like South Africa. More black people than white people. Don’t tell anybody.”
Lewis encouraged people, based solely on the color of their skin, to “get yourselves together, get strong, get big, and get into this battle,” the battle here just defined as the dispossession of whites. She’s the head of an organization that’s been a good friend of the current President Barack Hussein Obama. ACORN was a political issue in the 2008 United States Presidential Election over allegations of voter registration fraud. As President, Obama has repeatedly insulted staunch friends and allies of his country while openly siding with its Islamic enemies.
In April 2010 US President Obama, with unusual frankness regarding his anti-white coalition, appealed to “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again” for continued “change,” essentially the manifestation of an intifada on European Americans. Notice that his message was essentially the same as that of the radical Bertha Lewis of ACORN, only slightly less openly militant. A few days later, the same Mr. Obama with astounding hypocrisy in an address urged both sides in the political debate to tone down their rhetoric. This because using phrases like “Socialists” in his view “closes the door to the possibility of compromise” and “can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response.”
The problem is that extremist left-wing elements have received tacit approval for carrying out violence and intimidation for years. This trend is escalating because of thugs such as the Antifa groups in Western Europe. These Leftist vandals get away with what they do because they know they have the quiet backing of the media and the political elites. Also in 2010, the University of Ottawa in Canada cancelled a speech by the U.S. conservative writer Ann Coulter because organizers feared left-wing protesters would turn violent. The American Renaissance conference that same year met with extreme harassment, including death threats. Yet as AR leader Jared Taylor lamented, the story received virtually no coverage from the mainstream Western media, nor from Democratic Presidents Obama or Clinton. The question here is not whether you agree with the people at American Renaissance, the question is why a legal, white political organization cannot meet peacefully when Communists or organizations affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood can do so.
In her book A God Who Hates, the Syrian-born ex-Muslim Wafa Sultan comments on the Islamic “culture of shouting and raiding.” She states that “My experience has been that two Muslims cannot talk together without their conversation turning into shouts within minutes, especially when they disagree with each other, and no good can come of that. When you talk to a Muslim, rationally, in a low calm voice, he has trouble understanding your point of view. He thinks you have lost the argument. A Muslim conversing with anyone else – Muslim or non-Muslim – cannot remember a single word the other person has said, any more than my mother could remember a single word of what the preacher in our local mosque said.”
Former Muslim Ali Sina notes that “there is very little difference between the Left and Islam. What is lacking in both these creeds is the adherence to the Golden Rule. Just as for Muslims, everything Islamic is a priori right and good and everything un-Islamic is a priori wrong and evil, for the Left, everything leftist is a priori oppressed and good.” Facts don’t matter. Lying about opponents and their intentions is so widespread “that it is considered to be normal.”
After it was revealed that much of the data regarding alleged man-made global warming was deliberately fabricated, which constitutes one of the largest and most expensive anti-scientific frauds in history, most of its Leftist backers continued as if nothing had happened. The fact that they had promoted outright lies and slimed their opponents based on these lies mattered little. They believe they had the right to do so, as long as their intentions were right. Muslims, too, are allowed to lie to further the spread of their ideology. This strategy is called taqiyya.
Just like Muslims, both national Socialists and international Socialists totally lack respect for Socratic Dialogue, the reasoned search for truth which has been a hallmark of Western culture at its best. This is why such a large percentage of Western converts to Islam are either neo-Nazis or Marxists: These groups already think a great deal like Muslims. Their creed is the Absolute Truth, which should rule the world and must be imposed on others by brute force if necessary. They consequently have no need for reasoned debate. Others should submit to their rule or be violently squashed. End of story. People of European origins who stick to their cultural heritage constitute the embodiment of evil for Leftists, just like the infidels do for Muslims. Since white Westerners invented capitalism, some radical Socialists apparently believe that a “Final Solution” to the Capitalist Problem involves the annihilation of whites.
Terms such as “ethnic cleansing” should not be used lightly, but the writer Paul Weston is unfortunately correct here: What is happening with the native population throughout Western Europe is a state-sponsored campaign of ethnic cleansing. The only thing that’s unique about Britain is that Andrew Neather from the ruling Labour Party admitted this openly, in writing.
NATO, led by the USA, bombed the Serbs for “ethnic cleansing” back in 1999, thereby facilitating the Islamic ethnic cleansing of Christians in the Balkans. So, if the Western Multicultural oligarchs are against ethnic cleansing, I guess they must now bomb Britain, where the authorities have publicly admitted that they are deliberately displacing the native white population of their country. So why isn’t that happening? Could it be because very similar anti-white policies are currently followed in all Western nations without exception?
Let me add that I don’t think all Leftists have a well-thought-out plan to destroy the West. I have some in my immediate family, and they don’t think like this at all. They sincerely believe that what they are doing is the right thing. The hardcore ones who deliberately want to kill the West might be a minority, but at the end of the day this distinction matters little.
In many cases you can compromise, but in others you cannot. If somebody tries to poison you then you have to resist. It doesn’t matter in the long run whether those who do this do so because they deliberately want to kill you or because they are fools who accidentally kill you while intending to do something noble. The bottom line is: You die. You cannot be slightly dead, just like you cannot be slightly pregnant. If the Leftists and the Globalists have their way then our civilization will die, plain and simple. That’s why this ongoing struggle is likely to get ugly, because no compromise is possible. Since similar ideological struggles are taking place throughout the Western world, this situation could trigger a pan-Western Civil War.
I won’t go easy.
I second that.
Bring it!
Never said I was scared BL!
Dread does not equal fear.
It pains my very soul to understand and face the fact that society is capable of destroying itself in the manner that has been revealed as a possibility with the complete and utter meltdown of world economics.The loss of life and criminal acts of barbarism will be almost unbearable.
While the so called average citizen has become numb and accustomed to the atrocities of this world, I have not.Every day exposure to societies violence has reverse engineered an acceptant response in todays society.It still pains and revulses me each and every time.Is this acceptance what it means to those that say we are a civilized society today?
If acceptance of the violence attributed to mans lack of righteous morals in accordance with his free will is what deems a man “civilized” then you can consider me a savage!
TC,
I didn’t mean to imply that you were scared. I’m sorry you took it that way.
I know what you meant. – God help us. It’s gonna get ugly because people are savages.
I agree.
over here BL!
Check this out! I found the comments VERY interesting. I think the idea’s time is coming if not already here.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/016158.html
A proposal to divide the United States into two countries
This was attempted in 1861 when the Federal Government implemented its second oppressive tax upon the south.The first was the Tariff of Abominations in 1832.The federal government was bankrupt and were worried about the loss of tariff revenue from the Deep South states.
The Republicans (Lincoln) favored a high federal tariff and protectionism, as did many influential Northern businessmen. They proved this by passing the Morrill Tariff in the House of Representatives.This was the true reason behind the civil war.Not slavery as history books have portrayed.
Most people aren’t aware that, even as president, Lincoln supported a proposed constitutional amendment that would have made it permanently impossible for the federal government to abolish slavery. If the amendment had been adopted, only individual states could have abolished slavery. Lincoln mentioned his support for this amendment in his first inaugural address. Indeed, the majority of the men in Lincoln’s cabinet did not support disturbing slavery where it already existed.
At the time the bill was passed, American tariff rates stood at around 17% overall and 21% on dutiable items. The Morrill Tariff increased those rates to about 26% overall and to 36% on dutiable items. Nevertheless, despite their support for protectionist policies, even many Republicans favored allowing the South to go in peace during the first few months following the secession of the Deep South states.
This support quickly began to disappear when the Confederacy announced its low tariff rate in March 1861. Once the Confederacy’s free-trade, low-tariff policy was announced, powerful Northern financial interests began to strongly oppose peaceful coexistence with the Confederacy. Leading Northern moneymen started sending public letters to Lincoln demanding that he take action to protect Northern commerce. Prominent Northern newspapers suddenly started to reject the idea of peaceful separation.
Without the strong support from the Wall Street class and the merchants and men of commerce, especially in New York City, Lincoln could not have gone to war against the South. . . .
Most of the merchants were not for provoking war, and many admitted that the government had no right to coerce a state to remain in the Union. Either the Union should be preserved peacefully or the Southern states should be permitted to go in peace. . . . War was to be avoided at all cost, or so they believed until early March 1861.
By the end of March, the whole Northern world had changed, with the businessmen and newspapers leading the way. Whenever the historian reads Northern newspapers and articles that favor secession, or just tolerate it as a constitutional right, it is important to look at the date on the article. For by late March the business circles saw clearly that slavery was a nonissue for them—the tariff was the issue. . . .
In early March, even before Lincoln took office, Congress passed the Morrill Tariff. . . . It was not a revenue tariff but a prohibition tariff, according to the British and foreign newspapers. On March 11, the Confederate Congress was adopted and a low tariff was instituted immediately, essentially creating a free trade zone in the South. . . . Prior to the two tariffs, most Northern newspapers had called for peace through conciliation, but many now called for war.
On 18 March 1861, the Philadelphia Press demanded war: “Blockade Southern Ports,” said the Press. If not, “a series of custom houses will be required on the vast inland border from the Atlantic to West Texas. Worse still, with no protective tariff, European goods will under-price Northern goods in Southern markets. . . .”
The economic editor of the New York Times changed his tune in late March.For months he had written that secession would not injure Northern commerce and prosperity. . . . But on 22-23 March 1861, he reversed himself with a vengeance: “At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States”. . . .
Perhaps the most intriguing development occurred in late March when the two tariffs stood side by side. Over a hundred leading commercial importers in New York, as well as a similar group in Boston, informed the collector of customs they would not pay duties on imported goods unless those same duties were also collected at Southern ports. This threat forced the Lincoln administration, and certainly Lincoln himself, to abandon his initial plan to turn over Fort Sumter to the Confederates. Only a month before, these merchants had favored giving up the forts [federal forts in the South], especially Sumter, but by early April they were all for reinforcing both Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens. . . .
At the very end of March, at the very time Lincoln told his cabinet he was going to reinforce Fort Sumter, a committee of these New York merchants visited Lincoln. We have no record of what was said, but a Washington newspaperman learned that at the meeting the merchants had placed great emphasis on the tariff issue. . . . (Charles Adams, When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession, Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2000, pp. 61, 63-66, original emphasis)
Rather than lower the high federal tariff and embrace free trade, most Republican leaders decided they could not allow the South to go in peace. It seems apparent that economic concerns played a major role, if not the decisive role, in their decision to violently oppose secession.
In their early years the Republicans nationalized money and banking, a policy that helped big-city banks at the expense of the common citizen, particularly in the South and West. As the National Banking System took shape after the war, it was apparent that human ingenuity would have had difficulty contriving a more perfect engine for class and sectional exploitation: Creditors finally obtaining the upper hand as opposed to debtors, and the developed East holding the whip over the undeveloped West and South.
There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a state from peacefully and democratically separating from the Union. The Constitution doesn’t say that ratification is irrevocable. Nor does it give the citizens of a majority of states any right to prevent the citizens of a minority of states from withdrawing their states from the Union. Nor does it say that the Union itself is permanent.
If the founding fathers had intended ratification to be irrevocable, surely they would have said so at least once in the Constitution. If they had intended the federal government to have the power to use force to compel a state to remain in the Union, surely they would have specified such monumental authority somewhere in the Constitution.Instead they said the following:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Enjoy this read to learn more of the times during the Civil War:
http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/southernside.htm
For those of you that never understood why the majority of oldtimers in the South vote Democratic, (or at least did until the last few years) I hope I have shown you the reason.
The remarkable thing is how the parties have swapped ideals over time and our now in complete opposites of their original ideals.(Supposedly)Perhaps this was by design I do not know.
TC,
Great post! I was aware of some of this, but not the details and timelines. Thanks, will have to share.
NRA praises Harry Reid!!!
In the June issue of America’s 1st Freedom, Chris Cox thanks Reid for helping get the land and funding for the Clark County Shooting Park. 2,900 acres of federal land was given for the park, along with $61 million through the Southern Public Lands Management Act. Equipped, or being developed are 24 trap and skeet fields, 50, 100, 500 and 1,200 yd rifle ranges, four tactical ranges, rifle and pistol silhouette ranges, archery, and even an area for horseback mounted shooting.
There are grants available for public range construction and maintenance. S.1702
has been introduced to amend the Pittman-Robertson Act, which allows the fed. gov. to contribute 75%, by raising that amount to 90%. S. 1702 also provides immunity to the federal gov. from civil lawsuits.
I understand the NRA is a single issue organization, although the cover story in this months issue is on the recent campaign finance law ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS, which the NRA actively fought(can’t defend 2nd amendment without the 1st). I do not think Harry Reid did this to help the 2nd amendment cause. I think he did this to gain popularity with NRA voters, and with those who get part of that $61 million. Harry Reid is a “pimp”, and my NRA is now playing his “prostitute”(hey, it’s legal in Nevada).
Hahaha
Best headline ever!
Clinton blows job offer
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/05/29/those-folks-at-the-daily-caller-sure-have-a-good-sense-of-humor/
Government speak at its finest.
http://www.thefoxnation.com/business/2010/05/28/hillary-rich-arent-paying-their-full-share
Now, here’s one thing I’m wondering. Some time back there was a big list of assistants that Michie O had to help her do her first lady thing. Could Hillary please have one of those staffers? She really is looking tough these days.