Thursday, August 13, 2009

On Euthanasia

In the collectivist version of a social-political order founded on the Primacy of the Parasite the ordinary person is looked upon as a tool to be used, the product of their labor is treated as the property of the collective which is distributed in accordance to those needs which are identified by the leaders of the collective.

An individual who is retired from the workforce requires food, housing, and medical care, all of which is taken from the collective pool of assets without any input to the resource pool from the retiree in return. From the point of view of the collective leadership a retiree is a liability to the collective. The good of the collective requires the reduction of such liabilities as early as possible. Thus it is in the best interest of the collective to encourage self-termination by the elderly and the seriously or terminally ill. And it is also in the best interest of the collective to abort those fetuses that will not grow up to be productive workers in the collective.

And if you think that what I just wrote is outrageous, then think again. One group of collectivists, the National Socialists of Germany, actually carried out a program of euthanasia on developmentally challenged individuals of all ages.

Anyone who believes that an individual has no inherent Right to Life is capable of believing anything and, as history has demonstrated, capable of doing anything.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

Sunday, August 2, 2009


I have a question for all of the folks out there who are obsessed about the birth certificate:

Even if Barack Obama was found ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States as a result of the circumstances of his birth, DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT HE WOULD STEP DOWN FROM THAT OFFICE OR THAT THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS (WHICH IS CONTROLLED BY HIS PARTY) WOULD IN ANY WAY COMPEL HIM TO LEAVE?

I have to very seriously doubt that.

To the parasites, like the Democratic Party, power over the productive citizens of this nation is necessary for their very existence.

In short, and I simply cannot emphasize this enough: POWER IS LIFE.

Any restraint on that power -- be it the freedom of speech and press, the rights to self defense and to bear arms, or the free election of public officials (and laws regulating who may hold a specific office) -- is a danger to the parasite's continued existence.

I would expect the Democratic Party to band together and claim that the "will of the people" in some way trumps the Constitution, the terms under which the Federal Government was established.

Barack Obama and his closest supporters apparently believe that are on the "Progressive" version of a holy mission. To quit is to negate the self-concept that they have adopted for themselves. I absolutely believe that the act of surrendering power is literally unthinkable for them.

Quite frankly I really think that he would rather die than surrender power.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

Saturday, August 1, 2009

Definition of the Day

From the New Devil's Dictionary (One of my other projects):

Gun Control: The theory that the solution to the problem of firearms usage by violent criminals is to attack, imprison, and kill innocent people who own firearms.

While hardly a word has been heard from the present gang of elected looters, given their basic beliefs they will, sooner or later, have to disarm us, their victims.

There are, of course, several motivations (I won't say reasons) for the effort to disarm the lawful citizens of a nation. For those who believe in the Primacy of the Parasite, the private ownership of firearms is an obstacle to the attainment of the power that they need to live as parasites on the productive population.

Then there are the moral parasites, who are mainly moral narcissists who don't care about, or flat out deny, the actual effects of the enforcement of their whims as long as they can strut about as superior beings and feel good about themselves.

A favorite, and thoroughly reprehensible, tactic of the Gun Control Mafia is the exploitation of surviving relatives of the victims of violent crimes. For example, John Crozier of Dunblane, Scotland, who publicly said:

My daughter's right to live is more important than anybody's right to shoot a gun.

There's a reason people like this are called peasants.

Let us consider the inherent contradiction in this particular mouth dropping.

A firearm is a tool. Properly used it is a instrument of the human will. It is an instrumental means of sustaining and protecting the life of a human being. To say that a human being does not have a right to own and properly operate a firearm is in practical effect to say that a human being does not have the right to live. And because a right is a concept that is universally applicable to all persons, Goodman Crozier has just denied his own daughter's right to live.

What can I say? What an (expletive redacted) idiot!

The above quoted mouth dropping was brought to my attention about ten years ago by that stalwart partisan of the Progressive cause, Derrick Z. Jackson, a columnist for the Boston Globe. (Seriously, I would really hate to be the poor clerk-typist who has to translate Comrade Jackson's crayon scrawls into usable text.)(And no, I won't apologize to evil, so don't ask.)

What the parasites and moral narcissists who push gun control refuse to see is that to totally disarm the citizens of a free nation requires the deliberate exercise of deadly force against individuals who rightfully refuse to surrender their arms and who in no way have violated the life, liberty, or property of any other person. The end of civil disarmament cannot be brought about without the murder of people who in objective reality are innocent of any wrongful act.

Those who would disarm us are nothing less than mortal enemies of all rational human beings. As far as I am concerned such depraved persons should be dealt with as wolves are.

It would take a Progressive mentality like Comrade Jackson to believe that the total confiscation of arms, which requires lethal force against the innocent, will somehow prevent further bloodshed. In fact an attempt to carry out a program of total confiscation will create a bloody mess, and will be just cause for a civil war that will be far more costly in human lives than our first American Civil War.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?