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?
_

Question

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?
+

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?
_

So Anyway

I do a lot of posting over at Little Green Footballs as The Other Les.

Charles Johnson, the owner of the site, exercising his rightful control of the contents of his site, has just deleted a comment I made concerning the nature of Islam and the false prophet who created it.

Charles went as far as to make a suggestion:

I suggest you give yourself a timeout before I do.

If he doesn't want me to make a statement of fact on his site then I won't.

But reality is what it is and I will simply repost what I said right here.

I was responding to an adherent of Islam, who like most self appointed superior beings wrote a load of falsehoods and outright antihuman nonsense.

The last sentence of that vile rant was:



Insh'allah one day there will be no more kufr.

"Kufr", meaning "bugs" is one of their terms for those who refuse to submit to the depraved whims of the False Prophet Mohammad and those who persist in enforcing the doctrine of Islam.

I replied:



On that day the Human Race will be for all practical purposes, extinct.

All that will be left are the hominid livestock of a false god.

Humanity is not merely a physical condition, it is a state of mind. To be human is to be essentially rational and productive. The human mentality (or soul) looks upon the world, the land, the animals and plants, the natural forces, as things to be mastered for the benefit of himself and his posterity. On the other hand, the False Prophet Mohammad did not seek to master the world, but to be the master of men. The False Prophet Mohammad sought not to sustain himself by his own effort, but to seize and consume the lives and property of others for material and spiritual sustenance. To False Prophet Mohammad, justice consisted of "getting away with it" --
those who rightfully tried to resist the False Prophet Mohammad were enslaved or murdered.

I happen to completely agree with Robert A. Heinlein when he wrote that those who make slaves of other men were less than human. I also agree with Ayn Rand when she said that those who make slaves of other men should be extinct.

There is simply no excuse for such behavior.

And then I quoted Ayn Rand from Galt's Speech in Atlas Shrugged:

"Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites: morality ends where the gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason--as no advocates of contradictions can claim it. There can be no "right" to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind."

-- Ayn Rand, Galt's Speech, Atlas Shrugged

Now I'm not going to speculate as to why Mr. Johnson does not want a statement of fact on his website. I would suggest, here and now, that he perform what Ayn Rand used to call a Premise Check. Or what my drill sergeants at Fort Benning used to describe as the removal of his head from his fifth point of contact.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?
_

Sigh...

I probably should have gathered more material to do a proper Horror Quote article, but I felt compelled to do an immediate refutation of this particular piece of nonsense:

Pinochet’s regime went on to become one of the most oppressive and brutal organizations of the 20th Century.

-- "Gringo Joe", 10 Cases of American Intervention in Latin America, The List Universe

The first thing that immediately came to mind was the fact that the Administration of General Pinochet killed fewer than 3000 Marxists in the sixteen years of its existence. Whereas the minimum estimated death toll of Marxist regimes since Lenin's coup d'etat in November of 1917 is 110 million.* That runs to a bit over 3200 deaths a day on average. Do the math.

One may argue that the Pinochet administration didn't kill enough Marxists. One may also argue that killing a Marxist is not an inherently brutal act, but is an action which has the practical effect of preventing brutality.

(Of course one may also ask if it could EVER be possible to kill "enough" Marxists.)

What are your questions on this block of instruction?


* "In sum the communist probably have murdered something like 110,000,000, or near two-thirds of all those killed by all governments, quasi-governments, and guerrillas from 1900 to 1987."

-- Professor R.J. Rummel, HOW MANY DID COMMUNIST REGIMES MURDER?
_

Rant of the Day

David Kahane on National Review Online wrote:

In other words, stop thinking of the Democratic Party as merely a political party, because it’s much more than that. We’re not just the party of slavery, segregation, secularism, and sedition. Not just the party of Aaron Burr, Boss Tweed, Richard J. Croker, Bull Connor, Chris Dodd, Richard Daley, Bill Ayers, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and Emperor Barack Hussein Obama II. Not just the party of Kendall “Agent 202” Myers, the State Department official recruited as a Cuban spy along with his wife during the Carter administration. Rather, think of the Democratic Party as what it really is: a criminal organization masquerading as a political party.

Let me repeat with emphasis on the fundamental point:

...stop thinking of the Democratic Party as merely a political party... think of the Democratic Party as what it really is: a criminal organization masquerading as a political party.

I've been saying this for years, and for my trouble I've been called all sorts of names and subjected to calls for violence against my own person by the apologists and outright adherents of statism.

The first violent crime was committed before the recording of history when some now nameless thug turned his spear, a tool created to feed and protect human beings, against another human being to take by violence something from that now nameless victim.

The fundamental crime of the Democratic Party is to turn the apparatus of government -- at all levels, local, state, and federal -- against the people that governments were created to protect, the productive citizens of a free and civilized nation.

The Democrats have rejected the principle of consent as the basis of the social and political order and have sought to materially and spiritually benefit from the coercion of the productive population. Their preferred method of obtaining power, the simple majority vote (or the claim of same) with no constitutional restraints on power obtained, is simply the exercise of brute force given a happy face.

They have appointed themselves a class of masters and condemned us, the citizens of the United States, to servitude to them. This is morally intolerable.

If our families and our nation is to have a future then the Democratic Party, and their bipartisan country club collaborators, must be permanently removed from office and rendered permanently impotent in the political sphere of action. And if this means that some of their dead bodies have to be dropped into the nearest convenient landfill with the rest of the garbage, then let us do it.

Yes, I know that cancer surgery and chemotherapy is rough, but the alternative is simply unacceptable. I believe that we should be no less ruthless in the effort to destroy the tyranny of the looters and to create a new rational political order for ourselves and our own children.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?
_

Blast From The Past

"Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites: morality ends where the gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason--as no advocates of contradictions can claim it. There can be no "right" to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind."

-- Ayn Rand, Galt's Speech, Atlas Shrugged

Of course when I advocate literally returning fire at the practitioners of force I get called all sorts of names, like "the embodiment of all evil on Earth."
_