Friday, August 30, 2019


Same as it Ever Was

Hong Kong. A free and open prosperous dynamic society.

The Chinese communist party. A stifling authoritarian institution that exists solely for its own aggrandizement of power.


...Same as it ever was.


Honesty vs. B.S.

Most telling in the current lead-up to civil war (ok...maybe) is the way each side appraises their opposition. It’s occurred to me as I’ve watch the perpetual sparing between left and right in the Trump era that most conservative appraisals of the left are basically grounded in practical and objective understanding of what the left has actually outlined and stated. On the flip side, most appraisals of conservative policy and goals by the left are riddled with assumptions and often fabrications that have nothing to do with actual conservative belief and policy objectives, stated or otherwise.

The left says they want to see “walls come down.” They want a country where “everyone is welcome,” where convicts, teenagers, and non-citizens can vote and non-citizens receive “free” (taxpayer-funded) health care, education, and government “services.” They say this...often. Conservatives make no conjecture regarding these goals. There is no need to read between the lines. They are taken at face value. Conservatives believe that the left’s stated agendas are what they actually want to do.

The right says it wants a country where the rule of law and established standards are applied to America’s border and immigration policy, where practical vetting occurs to determine exactly who is coming into the country and how they hope to sustain themselves and vicariously contribute to fellow citizens standard of living and quality of life. The left’s interpretation? ...”Racist!” “Conservatives want concentration camps so they can eventually exterminate non-white people.”

The left views America and its history as uniquely evil, it’s defining characteristics exemplified by “slavery, racism, and oppression” by a ruling class of greedy capitalists. They state clearly that for America to atone for its perceived sins, it must radically alter its style of government and invest authority into the hands of...leftists (a state run solely by leftists). When conservatives regularly hear variations on this theme, they objectively assume that the left doesn’t really like America very much and is striving to radically change it.

The right is patriotic in the most traditional sense. They are proud of their country’s history of dramatic advancements, financial success, and dynamic creativity. While they may or may not be aware of the many warts that exist in America’s history, they see no need to dwell exclusively on past sins in a world full of far worse. The left’s interpretation? ...Conservatives support a nation of “racist Nazis and fascists” who believe in “white supremacy.” Patriotism is a “dog whistle” to fellow Klansmen. The left’s image of America is slavery. The right’s is a fellow citizen walking on the moon...and Disney cartoons on screens throughout the world.

The left views America’s unique constitution as a flawed document that is no longer relevant to the goals of an elite caste of intellectuals who wish to impose the whims of a moment. They see court justices as entitled to override the established standards of governance outlined by the constitution. The right objectively interprets the lefts’s perpetual desire to alter the constitution as a threat to the freedoms that the constitution guarantees.

Conservatives honor the constitution as the product of brilliant minds who had codified timeless principles to restrain the scheming ploys of power-seekers and tyrants. They see America’s constitution as guaranteeing maximum self-government and freedom so citizens may pursue happiness and success as they see fit. The left’s interpretation? ...Conservatives who admire the American system of limited government are, again, “racists” who “cling to their guns and religion” as a means of oppressing fellow citizens.

Leftist believe in the sanctity of the collective, that resources and policy be directed to state projects and that citizens should be compelled to obey government edicts and forfeit substantial amounts of personal wealth and freedom to bureaucratic decrees. Conservatives see this as a abridgment of personal liberty.

Conservatives believe in maximum freedom for the individual to decide who or if they wish to ally with groups of their choosing. To conservatives, the family and the individual are the bedrock of a stable and moral society. The left’s interpretation?...Conservatives hold a selfish disregard for the standards deemed best for society by the state and its well-meaning insistence that one affiliate with and sacrifice to abstract groups on demand.

The list can go on and on. In virtually every instance of worldview and policy the right and left are at odds. When they appraise each other’s sentiments, conservatives are fairly honest, objective, and accurate in taking what leftists say at face value. The left, on the other hand, is adamant about injecting their own fantasies as to what conservatives believe and what the motivations are for their beliefs.

The left believes in a powerful central authority to compel adherence to collectivist principles. The right interprets this as ...a leftist belief in a powerful central authority to compel adherence to collectivist principles.

The right believes in limited constitutional government and a proud defense of individual liberty and pursuit of personal progress. The left interprets this as ...”Racism...Nazism,...fascism,...selfishness, and greed!”

In the end, the entire conflict between right and left is one of pragmatism and objectivity vs. idealism, illusion, and emotional whim. The former has led to unprecedented progress for the United States and its citizens. The latter, to the collapse of progress, moral decline, and societal instability.

Conservatism wins for a moral stance of pragmatism and honesty. Leftism loses for an immoral crusade of deception and delusion for the sole end goal of imposing its will upon others.

Saturday, August 24, 2019


The Real Implications of “Free Stuff”

Almost all policy platforms of Democrats - and all leftists in general - boils down to coercing and punishing fellow citizens.

Wednesday, August 21, 2019


Donating Your Fair Share of Blood

Here we go again. Election season. A mock crusade for people who pay little or no taxes (the bottom half of the population) and complaints regarding those who pay for most government revenue.

The rich are “not paying their fair share.” On the whole, they’re paying more than most of us — a lot more. “Fair share” seems to be a pretty subjective criterion and no doubt upon receiving 70% of government tax revenue from “the rich,” the drones of envy would then want 80% and upward. I don’t put “the rich” in quotes because they aren’t rich. They are. I do so because the moniker is used more as a label of badness than a simple statement on level of wealth. The typical next step after railing on “the rich” is then to demand that the middle class “pay their fair share.” After that, the great communal command center spirals everyone down to equally “fair-shared” economic destitution. The state’s insatiable appetite for power and the life-blood of a nation’s economic energy has nothing to do with a desire to be “fair.” The same clowns that weave tails about lack of fairness in federal income taxes seem to care little about continually adding to the tax burden levied on everyone through “invisible” taxes” like those on gasoline and public utilities. Even the food you eat is taxed somewhere in its chain of production. There are no taxes that are not eventually passed on in one way or another to virtually everyone. Then there is the biggest tax of all, the lifestyle and success that is diminished on an entire society as the state pig squanders for every conceivable scam imaginable.

When Donald Trump rails on unfair trade practices and how they have affected common American citizens, the people who criticize his trade policies the most are the same clowns who claim concern for “fairness.” It’s not fair that millionaires who pay the biggest percent of the federal tax burden aren’t paying more but if China screws the American middle class over...that’s just fine. After all, they’re a communist dictatorship and the left in general is always okay with that.

The taxation issue is one of the most significant sparks of the revolution that set America on its course as a society suspicious of government and dedicated to keeping it appropriately restrained. For many conservatives and libertarians today, the tax issue remains a major symbol of how slow incremental tyranny begins and advances. What could be worse than the double burden of a nations economic energy being drained from it and using the spoils to feed the agencies that further oppress and deplete freedoms?

I’m no fan of the taxation concept. I fully understand the sentiments of those who despise the tax man. On the other hand, it’s not one of the big issues that drive my hatred for the state and the fools who adore it. It is however hard to ignore it as a recurring talking point during every election season — the conjured boogeyman out there who isn’t contributing their fair share to Maxine Water’s pension and the latest study on bi-lesbian global warming and the mating habits of extinct amphibians.

Anytime I have noted the injustice of an overbearing state in regard to the fiat whims that direct it’s policies of raising revenue, there is always some clown to respond with the pathetic debate point that “we need fire departments and police.” As if that’s where major funding now goes. (Ironically the people who say this are typically not very supportive of police).

I’m not rich — not even close — but if I would ever become so, I’d want the state and its boot-lickers to keep their greedy minions from stealing my economic status. Envy is just another type of greed. There’s nothing wise or insightful about the ancient character flaw of jealousy.

And, just what is all this ”needed” money for anyway, so the state can further enhance its power and authority over it can then command more theft? Money is never enough. Once they’ve successfully attacked your wallet, your soul is next on the list.

Death and taxes aren’t going to disappear from the human experience. Apparently, neither is envy and the anger directed at those who have more.

When subjected to genuine critical analysis, wealth envy, in the guise of “fair” taxation just isn’t that impressive.

I’ve got an idea, raise taxes on the rich (start with Obama’s pal at Amazon) under the condition that such revenue will always be directed to local governments and not the central mega-state. of course, that wouldn’t fly because this isn’t about fairness, its about feeding an insatiable political beast that wants nothing more than power over the wealth and souls of all.

Monday, August 19, 2019


The Usual “Debate”...

Simple and concise. The protesters of Hong Kong want freedom. The Communists want power and control over citizens’ lives.

It IS that simple.

Wednesday, August 14, 2019


Hong Kong Communist Flu

What’s happening in Hong Kong is what eventually happens in all countries ruled over by the disgusting and evil communist party. Collectivist ideologues, whether called “communists” or “fascists” demand total obedience. If anyone in the population — even if EVERYone in the population — desires freedom, they will be crushed.

Pay attention. What’s happening in Hong Kong is exactly what would occur in America if the “progressive” Democrats and their Antifa shock troops gained unopposed power.

As usual, it’s about telling other people how to act, how to live, and how to think.

Saturday, August 10, 2019


Creation and Carnage

For anyone interested in the artistic environment at the time of the First World War, including the period preceding the war, I’ve published a new e-book on Amazon-Kindle that covers the topic. The premise of the book is that the sensitivity of movements in the arts are such that they actually often precede the more tangible markers of change one finds in war and political disruption. The book is short — just a little over thirty pages — and is lightly illustrated. Thanks for looking...and even greater thanks if you purchase it.

Wednesday, August 07, 2019


New Lows in “Journalism"

This has got to be the biggest scoop of steaming shit I’ve ever seen establishment media try to pull off — beyond hilarious!

Check out the eyes of the guy being interviewed and tell me he didn’t micro-dose for this show. That gaze used to be associated with madness.


Ah Hah!

After spending considerable time trying to post the comments below regarding the recent mass-shootings in ElPaso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio, I am finally able to post my thoughts.

After innumerable attempts to post this simple appraisal of events, I can finally exercise my free speech...somewhat.

In the article, I had a link to a very intelligent Youtube channel’s appraisal of events. I tried several round-about methods to get my post up successfully including posting it as a series of separate paragraphs and even posting it on another blog of mine and linking to that. Finally, what worked was removing a link I had included to a Youtube channel that I find very insightful. It’s not some rabid “right-wing” extremist channel. It’s just a really smart guy stating many of the arguments I make in the post below regarding mass-shootings and the recent ones specifically.

So, to be able to post my thoughts, I have to NOT include a link to someone else’s thoughts...because some leftist punk in Silicon Valley doesn’t approve of conservative perspectives.

Aside from some casual use of swear words there was nothing in the linked Youtube video that was remotely terrifying. It was all just Google’s typical attempts to squash free speech.

Google sucks.


World on Fire

...No contrived hashtags here. More appropriately, disgust. Mass-aggression events — as you know — are disgusting, regardless of the motivations or views of the evil minds behind them. People should be mad. It’s totally understandable that many, in a sincere desire to see it stop, would call for the elimination of firearms among the population so that their use is restricted to the military, police, and criminals. And, of course, one needn’t only blame weapons when all the woes of humanity can inevitably be directed to the current President. After all, he’s the one who wants to enforce immigration policy to be in line with — until recently — virtually ever other nation on the planet. Add to that the nebulous villain, “hate.” Yep, the recent murderers were bonafide “haters” as well (as opposed to those who don’t “hate” the person they kill). The victims of the first tragedy in ElPaso no doubt were a greater loss to loved one’s because the shooter had a gripe with hispanic migrants and immigrants. If we outlaw that line of thinking, surely the problem will end. The second shooter, in Ohio, was a fervent socialist so, free pass. No hate to see here.

Back in lefty-land the Democrats, in addition to their usual support for taking guns away from people who don’t use them for wanton aggression, have again proclaimed their opposition to the boogeyman du jour, “white nationalism.” Well duh. That’s pretty much on par with saying one is opposed to mass-killings. Between the lines is the usual implication that someone who doesn’t publicly note an opposition to white nationalism is clearly for white nationalism. If you publically state your opposition to white nationalism and racism, your credentials may still be questionable if you also believe in limited constitutional government. Recall when Trump had announced that he considered himself a “nationalist” and elaborated that he loved his country (presidents probably should love their country). The next day, several establishment media propaganda organs, among them CNN and MSNBC were saying that Trump had proclaimed himself a “white” nationalist — something with a significant difference in meaning and something he had never even implied support for.

“The Rhetoric has become too hot” Really? That’s it? When talking heads (minus brains) say, the “rhetoric, ” of course they don’t mean the left’s rhetoric. It’s only those “buffoons” like Trump who actually think America has a national border and its citizens should be defended against intrusion by unknown people. The honest appraisal is that the issue itself has become “too hot.” Another result of the political class having done nothing to address a legitimate problem. A nut case is motivated by the same sympathies as many sane people and takes it to the extreme and our response is supposed to be, “this terrible thing happened over the the migration issue so obviously we should let as many unknown people in as possible...and give them free health care and college.” I’ve noted before a rather profound quote I heard in college, “extremist behavior often represents widely held beliefs in an exaggerated form.” The Unabomber blew hands off of innocent people to express his hatred for modernity — and technology specifically. The fact that his actions were terrible doesn’t mean there aren’t decent stable persons greatly concerned about the state of technology and modernity. To say so doesn’t excuse or defend the Unabomber’s actions. As I’ve often noted, “Hitler liked dogs.” Dog lovers everywhere have no cause to hang their heads in shame or or change their view of dogs.

The El Paso gunman was, by all definitions, a “White Nationalist” and accordingly a racist. Now the media propaganda arms have their exhibit A that no one should support sane border / immigration policy. The Ohio gunman was....oh no! An Elizabeth Warren-supporting socialist. What can the media do with that? They’ll no doubt have to tuck it away with the Bernie supporter who shot up a Republican congressional baseball practice. Of course the arguments against socialism don’t include the fact that some mass-shooters were for socialism, any more than a White Nationalist shooter proves we should have open borders. In this regard, my biased observation would be that conservatives generally don’t use the beliefs of a murderer as an excuse to silence their opposition. The left....always does this.

What’s my solution? I have no solution. I’m sorry but, this is the honest answer. There are little legislative tweaks addressing related issues like mental illness. I don’t know the circumstances surrounding the recent shooters but almost all mass shooters have a history of using psychiatric drugs.

I’m not going to go on a rant about the second amendment. That would be about as appropriate as demanding laws against “hate” (thought crimes) and the confiscation of firearms from model citizens seeking to protect themselves.

The real verdict here is that, out of millions of people, some are nuts, cruel, ...evil. Some will be violent toward others. Even England and Japan have their share of brutal knifings or vehicular homicides. It’s hard to gloss over the drama of a mass-shooting (and you shouldn’t anyway). No...gun crimes will continue. Mass-shootings will occur on some scale. And, it has already reached the point where logical analysis won’t be enough to placate a valid sense of helplessness. I fully support the second amendment of the U.S. constitution but its days are numbered. Just as the very idea of limited government is drawing further to a close, not because that’s a wise course of action but, it’s the unfortunate direction that history inevitably steers.

Sane minds will also never be completely able to prevent the actions of insane minds. A few rational adjustments here and there may reduce the carnage but there will always be traffic accidents, flu epidemics, shootings, and mass shootings. ‘Not to say, “accept it.” Solutions are worth a try but stupid and ineffective solutions aren’t worth...anything. Debates over immigration policy, socialism, or racism are irrelevant regarding the few people who are violent, and hold political beliefs as well.

Tragedy In the “gun debate,” where for now, everyone loses.

Thursday, August 01, 2019


The Morally Vacuous Stance of Open Borders

An incredibly succinct, convincing, and fact-laden argument for maintaining sane and secure borders.

Anyone who watches this very brief video and still argues for open borders is clearly lacking the moral superiority they claim to represent. Unfortunately, that would include most on the “progressive” left today.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?