Thought For The Day

Newspeak has become the dominant dialect of the academic and media establishment.

In Newspeak those who uphold, defend and spread economic and political liberty are called Conservatives while those who seek to lock humanity down under their total control are called Progressives. In the political context the practical meanings of the political labels are reversed.
 
For example in Newspeak the belief that all lives matter regardless of race is held as being racist.

A function of language is to serve as the operating system of human thought. But the function of Newspeak is to prevent correct identification of the facts of reality. Thus blood soaked tyrants are called liberators and actual liberators are called oppressors. Since clarity of thought which is the correct identification of the facts of reality is necessary for humans to survive and prosper a language form that obscures facts and disconnects thought from reality has the effect of being toxic to human life. Each subsequent revision of Newspeak, with its increasing disconnection from reality, is increasingly toxic to human life. An ultimate version of Newspeak in which any thought is impossible would be completely lethal.

Thus if we are to survive and prosper as individuals and as a society we must remove the practitioners of Newspeak  from the educational and media establishments and if necessary isolate them from society altogether.

A Poem

This was posted on the Traveller Mailing List by Jeffery Schwartz under the title Apologies To Papa Heinlein:
 
Like barb wire ties around me
tightening and cutting all my girth
are all the stupid laws
Of the nanny state of Earth.

The arching sky is calling
Spacemen  to their trade.
ALL HANDS! STAND BY! FREE FALLING!
But the call is allowed to fade

A third or more of what I made
goes to EBT and things
that insure that I'll never fly
near Saturn's rainbow rings

We're denied each spinning space mote
As they steal all that's worth:
Taken from us the homes of men
and locked us to the Earth.

No longer ride the sons of Terra,
silent the thundering jet,
a shackled race of Earthmen,
whipped dogs, once the lone wolf's get.

We rot in the molds of Vegas,
We retch at New York's tainted breath.
Foul are her urban jungles,
Crawling with unclean death

My heart breaks in longing
As I stare at the voids between
To out along the spaceways
Until what my soul hears is seen

Across the seas of darkness
looking up from Earth's blight
wishing another Star was my homeland
Praying it shine down on me tonight.

Cursed with life in prison
since the moment of my birth
Damned to ever hear the lies
of the morons that rule the Earth

I pray for just one launching
On the globe that gave us birth
to escape to the fleecy skies
And from the cold dark streets of Earth.

The Problem of Islam

Is there a solution to the problem of Islam short of a Final Solution?

The doctrine of Islam denies all of the Rights of Man including the Right of Life.  Given that Muslims are required to act as the mortal enemies of Mankind there are no middle grounds under which a peace can be negotiated with any of them.  In the end the practice of Islam must be removed from existence altogether.

Even if Muslims are not exterminated altogether they must be removed from rationally functioning human societies.  Those who deny the Rights of Man cannot live in a rational Human Society based on those rights.  Therefore Muslims have no place in a rational Human Society in and must be expelled from it.

Under no circumstances will any attempt be made to comply with any part of the Islamic code of law, including the dietary code.  If for example the least expensive food available to feed the Muslims in temporary detention before deportation is pork then it will be used.  If Muslims insist on complying with the false dietary laws and starve to death as a result then it’s their fault alone.

Can any of the children be saved?

Good question.  Certainly those children who haven’t experienced full indoctrination to Islam could be separated and assigned to voluntary foster parents.  As to other children who have been indoctrinated I have no information to come up with a sound theory of action.

The Myth Of Gay Rights

This was previously posted on my primary blog.

What is a right?

In Objectivism a right is a moral principle that defines and sanctions an individual’s freedom of action in a social context.  There’s only one basic right, a person’s right to their own life.[1]

So what is a Gay Right?

The so-called Gay Right is a political privilege, a law enacted for the private benefit of homosexuals, which negates the freedom of non-homosexuals.  In most of the cases on record it’s the freedom to not associate with homosexuals.

Why disassociate from homosexuals?

In the cases that have come up for judicial action individuals are being punished for complying with the Christian moral code.  In Christianity homosexuality is identified as a sin and as a result they are to be shunned.  In reality the act of shunning a homosexual does not violate his real rights because in a free society all personal interactions are voluntary.

In a case that came up for judicial action a homosexual couple entering into a pretend marriage sought to buy a wedding cake for their ceremony.  When they were refused on Christian moral grounds they sued the baker for the act of discrimination.  Instead of choosing a different baker to voluntarily provide the cake as is proper in a free society they chose to reject the principle of freedom and to judicially inflict their will upon the baker.[2]

Are there grounds to disassociate from homosexuals and thus a rational basis to do so?

In reality homosexuality is a mental dysfunction.  The homosexual act runs counter to the normal biological functions of human life.  And homosexuals have been disruptive to the normal interactions in civil and military groups. [3]  

Given that there are both religious and rational grounds for disassociating from homosexuals it’s no surprise that the adherents of tyranny, those that seek to establish the Primacy of the State with themselves fully in control, have quickly and firmly moved to exploit the homosexual voting block.  In exchange for the privilege of negating the rights of non-homosexuals this collective is consistently supporting the complete effort of the tyrants to impose their rule upon our nation.  This should result in a negative outcome for the homosexual collective.  When the present cold civil struggle becomes an open war the victims of the homosexual collective will seek an end to their problem.

A permanent end.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?   
    

Footnotes

1.  Ayn Rand, “Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness.

2.  In finding for the homosexual couple the judge acted in the opposite manner of a judicial officer in a free society.  For this he should be taken out and shot.

3.  The ancient Greek city state of Thebes had a dedicated all homosexual military formation.  It was wiped out in action.

Anniversary

Twenty one years ago today an atrocity was carried out.  The so-called hostage rescue team of the FBI murdered most of the people in the Branch Davidian residence outside of Waco, Texas.  To this day none of the actual perpetrators have been held accountable in any way for this crime.

As is my habit I will once again repost the links to an independent report published on the Libernet mailing list after the incident.

Part One.

Part Two.

Part Three.

Part Four.

Part Five.

References. 

At this time another massacre may have been avoided out in Nevada.  But Senator Harry Reid of the party of death has dehumanized the potential victims as being domestic terrorists.  But the fact is that he is the terrorist and murderer.

Old Stuff

I'm going through some old files in search of an article on the subject of moral boundaries. Specifically when is an armed uprising morally necessary.

So far I found the following piece. I submitted it to editor Steven M. Barry (a.k.a. J.F.A. Davidson) for publication in The Resister. But SMB always had something better to publish. And the assumption at the time I wrote it was that Big Bubba was going to be the chief enemy. This still applies to The Big Zero.

LET'S MAKE A DEAL?

After months (or more likely years) of fighting, the beltway brigands declare that they are seeking a negotiated settlement to the Second Civil War.

After they make the usual noises about "power sharing" arrangements, etc., etc., the head of our delegation answers thus:

What we want from you Bill is this; You and your underlings will formally resign from office , you will surrender all claims of authority over the citizens and territory of the United States, you will go into exile, and under no circumstances will you establish or support the establishment of a quote, government in exile, close quote. You and your followers will take your offshore bank ATM cards and go. And please take the First Bitch with you.

In effect, the enemy is offered conditional amnesty.

The point in favor of such a deal is that we cut our own losses in blood and treasure.

The points against are, firstly, while the deal is expedient, it is fundamentally unjust. The individuals responsible for the subjugation and slaughter of American citizens (the Waco massacre, etc.) are basically getting away scot-free.

The second point against it is that it is contrary to the nature of the beast we are facing. Although the deal allows the enemy to take their loot with them, plunder (on the part of the leadership) was not their primary goal, unrestrained power over us is. The apparent governing principle of (to name an example) Clinton's behavior in public office is L'Etat cest Moi, literally; "The State, that's Me". The leader is held to be synonymous with the state, opposition to malfeasance on the part of the leader is treated as anti-government hatred, in effect as nothing less than treason. Clinton's consistent answer to criticism of his actions has been to defame his victim's

The fundamental problem with the enemy is that they value power. Loot has always been a secondary issue for them. It is their lust for power that is currently driving their efforts to silence and disarm the People. And it is these efforts that will ultimately bring about the revolution that will destroy them.

The Life Program

I now have a clear platform.  I wrote this response to Green activists being what they are in England.

The Life Program is easy to understand.  The Human Life is where persons with active rational minds are by right are free to use their knowledge to create real things of value for themselves in the real world.  Real Governments are established to protect people on the Life Program.

Any questions