Not only am I not a Progressive, I am not a conservative, properly speaking, either. Progressives want to turn the clock forward, or else bash the clock and learn some new way of telling time that is incompatible with the nature of human perception or, for that matter, of time.
Conservatives want to do literally that: conserve—preserve the status quo. They prefer the devil they do know to the devil they don't. They prefer maintaining the present problems rather than creating new ones. Conservatives want to keep the clock right on time.
Me? I am a Retrogressive. I prefer things past simply because they are past. I like old things because they are ancient, I hate new things because they are new. I don't want to maintain the status quo, but to go back to an earlier status: I want the clock turned back. I prefer the evils of the past to the evils of the present, the thinking of our ancestors rather than thinking of our grandfathers. I would have architects build cathedrals, and not skyscrapers; I would have artists paint something or someone, rather than smudging shit on a canvas; I would have people go to Mass rather than to their stupid book clubs or freemason lodge or asinine fucking political meetings.
"Revolution" does not mean moving forward, it means to go back.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
On hating hobbits
As I've noted before, I tend to like a lot of things that other people like, but for completely different reasons. I find this to be true with J. R. R. Tolkien. I honestly could care less about The Lord of the Rings. I think this is largely because of the novel-esque form of the story. But also because of the characters, namely the small ones. I don't mind dwarves. And I love men and elves. But, my God, I cannot fucking stand hobbits. And surely these little bastards are considered the core of Tolkien's world in most people's minds.
Thus I hate to mention that I even like Tolkien--i.e., his nonfiction, The Silmarillion, and so forth--for fear I'll be grouped with the people who like him for all the popular reasons.
C. S. Lewis at least is a little bit more elusive. Most people know he wrote more than just the Chronicles of Narnia.
And as I go through things in my head that I like, I keep thinking of all kinds of other examples.
Thus I hate to mention that I even like Tolkien--i.e., his nonfiction, The Silmarillion, and so forth--for fear I'll be grouped with the people who like him for all the popular reasons.
C. S. Lewis at least is a little bit more elusive. Most people know he wrote more than just the Chronicles of Narnia.
And as I go through things in my head that I like, I keep thinking of all kinds of other examples.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Race is Irrelevant
It is really aggravating how the media is sheilding the President from any criticism and then, when criticism does get through (as in the case of Mr. Rush Limbaugh), the critics are called "racist." "Race" has nothing to do with someone's being an idiot. Limbaugh's problem, for one, is that we should not have to bend over backwards (or forwards) to support Obama's politics or policies for fear that if we disagree we'll be called (or will consider ourselves to be) bigots. And I think he's right on target, and I think that is precisely what people are doing.
Two men who are far "blacker" than Obama are Armstrong Williams and Thomas Sowell. Either one of them I--and no doubt Mr. Limbaugh--would support as president. They both have two things that Obama has not: they are both sharp as fucking tacks, and they're not ignoramus Left-wingers. Ask any conservative why they do not like Obama and why they do like, say, Thomas Sowell, and the answers you get may vary. But obviously the reasons for preferring Sowell will abound, and they won't be because of race. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, Sowell is more "black" than Obama, i.e., has two black parents while Obama only has one. So again it will have nothing to do with "race."
This whole issue of "race" is a liberal media tactic to attack with a genetic logical fallacy those who disagree with Obama's socialist agenda without having to provide any rational bases for those positions. That is to say, it is liberals, not conservatives, who are preoccupied with "race." Conservatives do not care about the body, but about the mind.
Two men who are far "blacker" than Obama are Armstrong Williams and Thomas Sowell. Either one of them I--and no doubt Mr. Limbaugh--would support as president. They both have two things that Obama has not: they are both sharp as fucking tacks, and they're not ignoramus Left-wingers. Ask any conservative why they do not like Obama and why they do like, say, Thomas Sowell, and the answers you get may vary. But obviously the reasons for preferring Sowell will abound, and they won't be because of race. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, Sowell is more "black" than Obama, i.e., has two black parents while Obama only has one. So again it will have nothing to do with "race."
This whole issue of "race" is a liberal media tactic to attack with a genetic logical fallacy those who disagree with Obama's socialist agenda without having to provide any rational bases for those positions. That is to say, it is liberals, not conservatives, who are preoccupied with "race." Conservatives do not care about the body, but about the mind.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Gun Control
If the President has his way, I may end up a criminal myself in the next few years.
The following information comes from Dr. Dolhenty of the Center for Applied Philosophy a.k.a. The Radical Academy:
- In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
- China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
- It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
-- Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
-- Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
-- Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
-- In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.
-- Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
-- It will never happen here? Probably the Aussies said that too!
-- While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms in Australia, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
-- There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly.
-- Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns.
-- The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
- You won't see this data on the U.S. evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
- Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
- During W.W. II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were armed!
- Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard University from 1919 to 1921 and was Naval Attaché to the U. S. from 1925 to 1928.
- Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor and our Army had been deprived of funding and was ill prepared to defend the country.
- It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. mainland, Admiral Yamamoto's reply was that he had lived in the U. S. and knew that almost all households had guns.
The following information comes from Dr. Dolhenty of the Center for Applied Philosophy a.k.a. The Radical Academy:
- In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
- China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
- It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
-- Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
-- Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
-- Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
-- In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.
-- Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
-- It will never happen here? Probably the Aussies said that too!
-- While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms in Australia, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
-- There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly.
-- Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns.
-- The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
- You won't see this data on the U.S. evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
- Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
- During W.W. II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were armed!
- Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard University from 1919 to 1921 and was Naval Attaché to the U. S. from 1925 to 1928.
- Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor and our Army had been deprived of funding and was ill prepared to defend the country.
- It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. mainland, Admiral Yamamoto's reply was that he had lived in the U. S. and knew that almost all households had guns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
