Search This Blog

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Neo-Con Thought Experiment

Didn't we all read about those dastardly neo-cons of the George W. Bush era? They wanted to take over the entire world and remake all the Earth's manifold cultures in their own white-bread male heterosexual capitalist image. It's almost as though they thought they were God or something!

Left-thinking proud non-white trans-sexual communist anarchists promptly went to work with a passion! They immediately dubbed—as in dumbass-dubya—these traditionalist stodgy money-grubbing fools "Neo-cons." Leftists poring studiously and reverentially over the Alinsky play book wasted no time. After the endless recounts of 2000 were finally quashed at last by the Supreme Court, the left—by left I mean every American who'd voted for Al Gore—ignoring the fact that the game was over, continued campaigning and never ceased for the entire eight-year Bush Presidency. I suppose that at the very least you have to admire their tireless obstinacy. For eight long years, the national main-stream media focused unwaveringly on any and every issue that cast conservatives and especially George W. Bush in a bad light.

For about a week after 9-11 it was as though America breifly rested in the hypnotic and deceptive eye of a class-five hurricane. All was peaceful for about one week. During that one glorious week, every American both Democrat and Republican, black, white, male, female, transgender (okay maybe not them) plastered red-white-and-blue bumper stickers on their vehicles. They put red-white-and-blue ribbons around their trees. All of America was one giant angry family intent on some serious payback.

Needless to say, this unsettling period of unprecedented patriotism seriously threw left-wingers off their stride. Nothing daunted, they rebounded with a passion, continuing to repeat ad-infinitum the same lies they'd been chanting like a demonic mantra from Satan himself. Bush Stole The Election! He's not the President! The five Neo-Con Supreme Court justices overruled the American people! It was almost as though the mainstream media had taken upon itself the guise of Gandalf the Gray confronting the monstrously evil George W Bush himself.

To this day, the entire left-wing world is united in its hatred and scorn for the horrifically evil GWB. "Blame Bush" to this day has became the ubiquitous never-failing excuse for every ill in the universe. "Why didn't you do your homework?" asks the teacher. To which you might reply: "I couldn't because when I saw how President Bush was destroying the entire world and nobody could stop him, I couldn't stop crying. I tried to do my homework but the pages kept getting wet, and my furious pencil kept ripping the paper, and at last I went outside and fell to my knees and I prayed to Darwin: 'Oh magical Darwin,' I prayed, 'Please let George W. Bush die of cancer or a heart attack or a stoke. In Darwin's name I prayed, amen.' I said, and then without doing my homework I fell into an exhausted and heartbroken sleep. And that's why I don't have my homework, because of George W. Bush."

Imagine—as John Lennon would say—imagine a world at peace. Imagine no more hunger. Imagine no more war. Imagine no more killing over religion, no more war over scarce resources, no more war over political dogma. No more war ever. I wonder if you can?

Ask yourself this one simple question: What if your neighbor was horribly abusing their wife and children? Would you still be friends? What if every day you were left wondering: Will he lose it and finally kill them tonight? Will that drunken vicious evil bastard finally beat them to death tonight? Will they be carried out of my neighbor's house in broken little pieces in the morning?

WHAT WOULD YOU DO!!!
Police and paramedics were called to Danieal’s West Philadelphia home and when they opened her bedroom door, the stench of decay hit them. Danieal, who had been dead for several hours, was on a dirty mattress surrounded by feces. Maggot-infested bedsores covered her back. She had been on the mattress for such a long time, the shape of her body was imprinted into the mattress. A grand jury report was released this week, indicting nine people and describing Danieal’s life of pain, neglect, abuse and eventual death.

The mother of a 14-year-old girl who starved to death while under city supervision will “accept responsibility” for the crime and plead guilty to third-degree murder charges, her attorney said yesterday.

Andrea Kelly, 39, will agree to serve 20 to 40 years in prison for the 2006 death of her daughter, Danieal, said lawyer Richard Quinton Hark.

The girl, who suffered from cerebral palsy, weighed just 46 pounds when she died in a sweltering apartment. Her legs looked liked bare bone and her back was full of gaping bedsores infested with maggots.
The entire world is filled up with really bad people. When governments are so poor and dysfunctional that thousands, hundred's of thousands, millions, die of malnutrition, what would you do if they were your neighbor? Would you keep taking them food even though none of it seemed to make it to the children? Would you pay their bills and watch helplessly as the violence and abuse continued unabated?

Would it really be so terrible a world if the entire world had the same laws and the same freedoms? Does it make me a bigot or a racist that I point out the vast intractable evil that continues to enslave most of the globe in spite of decades of charity? Am I really such a mean vicious evil neo-con when I say that right now, it's not working? THIS, WHAT WE'RE DOING, IT ISN'T WORKING!!! Am I crazy? Or is it the entire rest of the world?

Oh, I know, I know, I'm just drinking too much of that old Neo-con Cool-ade. It would never work would it? Famine, filth, blood and slaughter are just too enchanting, too inviting, too par for the course, to just throw away on some pipe dream or pie in the sky impossibility.

In the entire history of the world, has there ever been a country so powerful that they could really do it, if they really wanted to? The Romans couldn't do it; if not America, then who?

Monday, October 13, 2014

One More Time On Gun Control



His first point is this: "Australia in 1996 had the biggest massacre on Earth; still hasn't been beaten."
The Port Arthur massacre, of 28–29 April 1996, was a killing spree in which 35 people were killed and 23 wounded, mainly at the historic Port Arthur prison colony, a popular tourist site in south-eastern Tasmania, Australia. Martin Bryant, a 28-year-old from New Town, a suburb of Hobart, eventually was given 35 life sentences without possibility of parole. He has significant intellectual disabilities and is now imprisoned in the Wilfred Lopes Centre near Risdon Prison Complex.

The Port Arthur massacre remains one of the deadliest shootings worldwide committed by a single person and remains the deadliest in the English-speaking world.
Well, the Port Arthur Massacre was a bad one there's no doubt about that. But there's another massacre that has it beat hands down:
The Oklahoma City bombing was a domestic terrorist bomb attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995. The bombing killed 168 people and injured more than 680 others. The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a 16-block radius, destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings, causing at least an estimated $652 million worth of damage...

On April 17–18, 1995, McVeigh and Nichols removed their supplies from their storage unit in Herington, Kansas, where Nichols lived. They loaded their bomb supplies into a Ryder rental truck. The two then drove to Geary Lake State Park, where they nailed boards onto the floor of the truck to hold the 13 barrels in place and mixed the chemicals using plastic buckets and a bathroom scale. Each filled barrel weighed nearly 500 pounds (230 kg). McVeigh added more explosives to the driver's side of the cargo bay, which he could ignite (killing himself in the process) at close range with his Glock 21 pistol in case the primary fuses failed.] During McVeigh's trial, Lori Fortier (the wife of Michael Fortier) stated that McVeigh claimed to have arranged the barrels in order to form a shaped charge. This was achieved by tamping the aluminum side panel of the truck with bags of ammonium nitrate fertilizer to direct the blast laterally towards the building. Specifically, McVeigh arranged the barrels in the shape of a backwards J ...
In 1996 an Australian massacre caused lawmakers in that country to outlaw guns throughout the country. If people have guns, the argument goes, they might use them to massacre 35 people. Yet it was only a year earlier, when Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols used ammonium nitrate—fertilizer—to kill 168 people. Even though this deadly fertilizer is widely available for purchase in thousands upon thousands of stores, our congress somehow neglected to outlaw it after this horrific massacre! How did they miss this? In addition, barrels—used to hold the deadly fertilizer—also weren't outlawed, nor in fact were trucks—used to hold the deadly barrels. Not even nails were outlawed when clearly it was the nails put in the barrels which ended up killing most of the people. It's as though Congress is just begging for another Oklahoma City style massacre. You'd think they would have jumped all over these incredibly dangerous weapons just lying around at greenhouses, hardware stores and used car lots around the country, but no! Instead all Congress did was pass a law that would tighten security around Federal buildings.

Jim Jefferies' first argument is that the people cannot be trusted with the right to own guns, because one crazy person will abuse that right. You know, it occurs to me that I've heard a similar argument recently. It's called the Heckler's Veto. And this Heckler's Veto was recently used to ban the wearing of patriotic t-shirts in California. Yes, while people supposedly have the right to freedom of speech, in California public schools at least, wearing the American Flag or other symbols such as the American Bald-Eagle with talons clutching a bundle of arrows has been forbidden. No patriotism to be tolerated on Cinco De Mayo. One might even assume that in Australia if some nefarious chin-wagger could manage to slaughter 35 people simply using words, the government would promptly outlaw talking.



Jefferies' next argument is that guns are not useful to protect yourself with. He quickly brings up the assault rifle straw-man, and some statistics about suicides—which reminds me of a typical Piers Morgan Mythoid[1]. Here are some real statistics however: 70 to 80 million American adults own one or more guns. In 2011 nearly 40,000 Americans committed suicide, and half of them used a gun to do it. Guns are certainly the most popular method of suicide, but remember the other half? They used various methods: poison, prescription drugs, rope, razor blades, etc. Should we then outlaw these less popular suicide methods?

Dividing 20,000 by 80 million gives the gun-owning per capita suicide-by-gun rate of roughly 0.00025. That's less than one three-thousandth of one percent. Yet Jim Jefferies claims that you gun owners are "80% more likely to use that gun on yourself" than you are to use it to protect yourself.

It's always been a source of deep frustration to me that statistics of gun deaths are so readily accessible, yet gun saves are completely impossible to discover. How many people used a gun either to wound, kill, or just frighten away a would be rapist, murderer, burglar, etc.? That information just isn't there. When I was twenty-five years old, four young men armed with baseball bats accosted me in a parking lot. I pulled my Beretta out from under the seat and the bad guys promptly bugged out. Nobody was hurt. I called the police just because, but I doubt any of the information taken in the police report made it into statistics anywhere. If I'd lived in Australia however ... I wonder ... would I be writing this today, or would I be sipping soup through a straw with an imbecilic grin upon my face and a track of drool working its way down my chin?

His next argument is that if you have kids you can't have a gun which is readily accessible. You'd have to keep it in a gun safe and therefore couldn't get to it in an emergency. Luckily for gun owners, there are things called metal doors and deadbolts, and even biometric gun safes which only require a touch of the owners finger to open. Furthermore, being attacked is much more likely outside of your home. Thus the concealed carry permit and the quickly accessible gun in a hidden holster on your person. The point is simply this: anybody with a bare modicum of intelligence can safely and responsibly own a gun and have it quickly available when needed.

Jim Jefferies' final argument is that the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment is no longer valid. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government that needs to be overthrown. Jefferies argument is that the government has tanks and jets and drones. He argues that opposing that kind of firepower with hand guns or even assault rifles is absurd. As he says: You're bringing a gun to a drone fight. Allow me to repeat a statistic: THERE ARE 80 MILLION ADULT GUN OWNERS! In comparison, "As of 31 December 2013, 1,369,532 people were on active duty in the armed forces, with an additional 850,880 people in the seven reserve components." So, 80 million versus two million. And the military won't be able to use its tanks and jets, because all of the noncombatants live cheek-by-jowl with the rebels. It's called asymmetric warfare, and it becomes ever so much more effective when the military sympathizes with those they fight against, as in their own neighbors, their own family and friends.

While only 80 million people own guns, there are a lot more than 80 million guns. It's more like 300 million. Even more important than that, 320 million with knives, hammers, machetes, swords, nail guns, chainsaws, cars, trucks, and the list goes on and on. If the people in their hundreds of millions rise up against a tyrannical government, that government will be overthrown. If every American were all deprived of our guns however, that revolutionary process would claim vastly more innocent lives before it was over. Guns truly are the great equalizer, and believe it or not, when it gets down to brass tacks, a quality hunting rifle is probably a much more efficient and accurate weapon than an M-16. So yes we could, if necessary, bring about 300 million guns to that hypothetical drone fight.

[1] Mythoid — (my own creation) A statistical claim that seems genuine since it's so impressively numbery, but when you actually look into its veracity, it turns out that it's just not true. It was apparently just completely made up out of whole cloth, then passed around by left-wing kooks to the point where it's believed by them, simply because it's been quoted back and forth so often.

Thursday, October 9, 2014

Hands Up, I'm a Retard!

Notice: for those of you with mentally retarded friends or relatives, when I use the word 'retard' I'm specifically not referring to birth defects or tragic accidents. I will not apologize for my use of the word retard. It's a great word. It's really the best word to use for certain types of people. You see, some people are retarded, and some people ... well they're just retards.


So another black is killed in St. Louis and now I suppose we're in for yet more mob violence, looting, arson, shootings, etc. The new meme is a sandwich. Last time it was hands up, don't shoot. Before that it was Skittles. Now it's a sandwich:


Warning Profanity Ahead!




There's apparently a language barrier in the black community. When we think in terms of 'cause and effect', the black community thinks in terms of 'racism.' Blacks don't seem to understand that their own thoughtless or violent actions cause negative consequences; they also don't seem to understand that belonging to a group brings consequences when others in that group take thoughtless or violent actions. I'm speaking here of being an accomplice or an accomplice after the fact. For instance, being a member of a black flash mob.

Let's start with the fact that racism and cause and effect are two different things. Actually, I can't start with 'racism' directly, because the definitions of words mean different things to different people, depending on who they think they are. To most non-black people, racism means treating a particular person in an aggressive, hostile, or unfair way simply because of their race. Please notice that this definition doesn't pertain to any race in particular. Incredibly, the word racism means something completely different to an American black. To understand what the word 'racism' means to an American black, you must first understand that the word has for blacks become a gestalt for every ill. Think of it as the diametrical opposite of the word 'panacea.'

Black people in the USA have been taught from the cradle that everyone non-black hates them, and wants to keep them in the ghetto until they can finally be put back in the cotton fields, with 'massah crackin' de whip.' Now then, what I just wrote—some would argue—could itself be racist. Except for the inconvenient fact that every bit of it is absolutely true, even if not readily provable. It's like beating a child in the head routinely. That behavior may not be readily provable without a video, but you can nevertheless still extrapolate that apparent fact by raising your hand to the child and watching as he cowers and covers his head with his arms. You see, some things are just so obvious that demanding proof is itself, dishonest.

You wan't proof? I'll start with the recent death of Liberian visitor Thomas Duncan, the one who came to America after repeatedly lying about his contact with two victims of Ebola. Twitchy has the evidence and it's not pretty.




You want some more proof? How about voting demographics? How about proof that everything in the known universe is apparently racist to black people. Courtesy of The Daily Caller, this litany of mind-boggling stupidity will leave you breathless in astonishment! You could literally spend the rest of the day clicking links in there and still not see it all. It's like the Smithsonian Institute of retards who scream 'racism'.

So, to make it simple for everyone to understand what racism means to black people, all that was necessary was to just change Toddler's Rules and substitute the word "racist" for "mine."

An African American's Rules for Racism:
  1. If I say it's racist, it's racist
  2. If it's a criticism of me, it's racist
  3. If it's a criticism of any black person, it's racist
  4. If you're white, you're a racist
  5. If you're white and better than me at anything, in any way, it's racist
  6. If whites and blacks are doing something beneficial or heroic together, blacks did it
  7. If whites and blacks are doing something harmful or nefarious together, whites did it
  8. If it just looks like racism, it's racist
  9. If I think it's racist, it's racist
  10. If I say it's not racist and then later change my mind, it was always racist
  11. Once you're a racist, you will always be a racist no matter what
  12. If you're white and you disagree with this list, it's because you're a racist
So finally, back to the disconnect between cause and effect. When non-black people are caught in the act of breaking the law, they expect negative consequences. When black people are caught breaking the law, they expect racism. When non-black people don't get that job they applied for, they apply for another job. When black people don't land that job, they call the EEOC. The list is infinite. When anything bad happens to a non-black person, they look for the reason the bad thing happened. When anything bad happens to a black person, they know the reason, yep it's racism.