We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859
The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion. ~Henry Steele Commager
The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen. ~Tommy Smothers
Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart
We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard. ~Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764
The dirtiest book of all is the expurgated book. ~Walt Whitman
Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too. ~Voltaire
I am thankful for all the complaining I hear about our government because it means we have freedom of speech. ~Nancie J. Carmody
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859
Books won't stay banned. They won't burn. Ideas won't go to jail. In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only weapon against bad ideas is better ideas. ~Alfred Whitney Griswold, New York Times, 24 February 1959
Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one. ~Abbott Joseph Liebling, "Do You Belong in Journalism?" New Yorker, 4 May 1960
A free press can be good or bad, but, most certainly, without freedom a press will never be anything but bad. ~Albert Camus
To reject the word is to reject the human search. ~Max Lerner, 1953, on book purging
Nature knows no indecencies; man invents them. ~Mark Twain, Notebook, 1935
What progress we are making. In the Middle Ages they would have burned me. Now they are content with burning my books. ~Sigmund Freud, 1933
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
Every burned book enlightens the world. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson
The paper burns, but the words fly away. ~Akiba ben Joseph
Did you ever hear anyone say, "That work had better be banned because I might read it and it might be very damaging to me?" ~Joseph Henry Jackson
If you don't have this freedom of the press, then all these little fellows are weaseling around and doing their monkey business and they never get caught. ~Harold R. Medina
Obscenity is not a quality inherent in a book or picture, but is solely and exclusively a contribution of the reading mind, and hence cannot be defined in terms of the qualities of a book or picture. ~Theodore Schroeder
Assassination is the extreme form of censorship. ~George Bernard Shaw, "The Rejected Statement, Part I," The Shewing-Up of Blanco Posnet, 1911
I believe in censorship. I made a fortune out of it. ~Mae West
Censorship feeds the dirty mind more than the four-letter word itself. ~Dick Cavett
The test of democracy is freedom of criticism. ~David Ben-Gurion
If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859
To choose a good book, look in an inquisitor▓s prohibited list. ~John Aikin
To limit the press is to insult a nation; to prohibit reading of certain books is to declare the inhabitants to be either fools or slaves. ~Claude-Adrien Helvétius
Censorship offends me. ~Author Unknown
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. ~John F. Kennedy
God forbid that any book should be banned. The practice is as indefensible as infanticide. ~Rebecca West
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. ~Noam Chomsky
Take away the right to say "fuck" and you take away the right to say "fuck the government." ~Lenny Bruce
Every human being has a right to hear what other wise human beings have spoken to him. It is one of the Rights of Men; a very cruel injustice if you deny it to a man! ~Thomas Carlyle
Books won't stay banned -
Ideas won't go to jail.
~Alfred Whitney Griswold
You can cage the singer but not the song. ~Harry Belafonte, in International Herald Tribune, 3 October 1988
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ~Voltaire
The populist authoritarianism that is the downside of political correctness means that anyone, sometimes it seems like everyone, can proclaim their grief and have it acknowledged. The victim culture, every sufferer grasping for their own Holocaust, ensures that anyone who feels offended can call for moderation, for dilution, and in the end, as is all too often the case, for censorship. And censorship, that by-product of fear - stemming as it does not from some positive agenda, but from the desire to escape our own terrors and superstitions by imposing them on others - must surely be resisted. ~Jonathon Green, "Did You Say 'Offensive?'," as posted on wordwizard.com
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Watch the most dangerous movie...
Watch this movie about Islam. It is the most dangerous movie today. One may agree or disagree with the criticism towards Islam, and we all know that Judaism and Christianity had their ugly days, as well as pretty ugly ideas. Personally, I don't have much faith in religions. But today, there is one religion which you cannot discuss honestly - and that religion is Islam. Today, there is one religion, which you dare not insult, under fear or death - and that religion is Islam. Every progressive man should now do his best to slow down and reverse this trend. Freedom of speech means that - freedom of speech. In a free country, we cannot have "blasphemy laws". In a free country, we cannot allow the threat of violence to silence us. Today, the great battle for personal liberty and freedom of speech, is the battle against islamo-fascism. Come and join.
There are no pacts between lions and men
Hector:
I've seen this moment in my dreams, I'll make a pact with you,
with the gods as our witnesses, let us pledge that the winner will allow the loser all the proper funeral rituals.
Achilles:
There are no pacts between lions and men...
Now you know who you are fighting.
Hector:
I thought it was you I was fighting yesterday
And I wish it had been you, but I gave the dead boy the honor he deserved.
Achilles:
You gave him the honor of your sword...
You won't have eyes tonight, you won't have ears or a tongue,
you will wander the underworld blind deaf and dumb,
and all the dead will know,
this is Hector, the fool who thought he killed Achilles.
I've seen this moment in my dreams, I'll make a pact with you,
with the gods as our witnesses, let us pledge that the winner will allow the loser all the proper funeral rituals.
Achilles:
There are no pacts between lions and men...
Now you know who you are fighting.
Hector:
I thought it was you I was fighting yesterday
And I wish it had been you, but I gave the dead boy the honor he deserved.
Achilles:
You gave him the honor of your sword...
You won't have eyes tonight, you won't have ears or a tongue,
you will wander the underworld blind deaf and dumb,
and all the dead will know,
this is Hector, the fool who thought he killed Achilles.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Howard Roark's Courtroom Speech
It rarely gets any better than this. A prequel to Atlas Shrugged perhaps, but incisively to its very last drop.
From The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand
“Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light. He was considered an evildoer who had dealt with a demon mankind dreaded. But thereafter men had fire to keep them warm, to cook their food, to light their caves. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had lifted dardness off the earth. Centuries later, the first man invented the wheel. He was probably torn on the rack he had taught his brothers to build. He was considered a transgressor who ventured into forbidden terrritory. But thereafter, men could travel past any horizon. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had opened the roads of the world.
“That man, the unsubmissive and first, stands in the opening chapter of every legend mankind has recorded about its beginning. Prometheus was chained to a rock and torn by vultures—because he had stolen the fire of the gods. Adam was condemned to suffer—because he had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Whatever the legend, somewhere in the shadows of its memory mankind knew that its glory began with one and that that one paid for his courage.
“Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the response they received—hatred. The great creators—the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors—stood alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won.
“No creator was prompted by a desire to serve his brothers, for his brothers rejected the gift he offered and that gift destroyed the slothful routine of their lives. His truth was his only motive. His own truth, and his own work to achieve it in his own way. A symphony, a book, an engine, a philosophy, an airplane or a building—that was his goal and his life. Not those who heard, read, operated, believed, flew or inhabited the thing he had created. The creation, not its users. The creation, not the benefits others derived from it. The creation which gave form to his truth. He held his truth above all things and against all men.
“His vision, his strength, his courage came from his own spirit. A man's spirit, however, is his self. That entity which is his consciousness. To think, to feel, to judge, to act are functions of the ego.
“The creators were not selfless. It is the whole secret of their power—that it was self-sufficient, self-motivated, self-generated. A first cause, a fount of energy, a life force, a Prime Mover. The creator served nothing and no one. He lived for himself.
“And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement.
“Man cannot survive except through his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his only weapon. Animals obtain food by force. Man has no claws, no fangs, no horns, no great strength of muscle. He must plant his food or hunt it. To plant, he needs a process of thought. To hunt, he needs weapons, and to make weapons—a process of thought. From this simplest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from a single attribute of man—the function of his reasoning mind.
“But the mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. There is no such thing as a collective thought. An agreement reached by a group of men is only a compromise or an average drawn upon many individual thoughts. It is a secondary consequence. The primary act—the process of reason—must be performed by each man alone. We can divide a meal among many men. We cannot digest it in a collective stomach. No man can use his lungs to breathe for another man. No man can use his brain to think for another. All the functions of body and spirit are private. They cannot be shared or transferred.
“We inherit the products of the thought of other men. We inherit the wheel. We make a cart. The cart becomes an automobile. The automobile becomes an airplane. But all through the process what we receive from others is only the end product of their thinking. The moving force is the creative faculty which takes this product as material, uses it and originates the next step. This creative faculty cannot be given or received, shared or borrowed. It belongs to single, individual men. That which it creates is the property of the creator. Men learn from one another. But all learning is only the exchange of material. No man can give another the capacity to think. Yet that capacity is our only means of survival.
“Nothing is given to man on earth. Everything he needs has to be produced. And here man faces his basic alternative: he can survive in only one of two ways—by the independent work of his own mind or as a parasite fed by the minds of others. The creator originates. The parasite borrows. The creator faces nature alone. The parasite faces nature through an intermediary.
“The creator’s concern is the conquest of nature. The parasite’s concern is the conquest of men.
“The creator lives for his work. He needs no other men. His primary goal is within himself. The parasite lives second-hand. He needs others. Others become his prime motive.
“The basic need of the creator is independence. The reasoning mind cannot work under any form of compulsion. It cannot be curbed, sacrificed or subordinated to any consideration whatsoever. It demands total independence in function and in motive. To a creator, all relations with men are secondary.
“The basic need of the second-hander is to secure his ties with men in order to be fed. He places relations first. He declares that man exists in order to serve others. He preaches altruism.
“Altruism is the doctrine which demands that man live for others and place others above self.
“No man can live for another. He cannot share his spirit just as he cannot share his body. But the second-hander has used altruism as a weapon of expoloitation and reversed the base of mankind’s moral principles. Men have been taught every precept that destroys the creator. Men have been taught dependence as a virtue.
“The man who attemps to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites of those he serves. The relationship produces nothing but mutual corruption. It is impossible in concept. The nearest approach to it in reality—the man who lives to serve others—is the slave. If physical slavery is repulsive, how much more repulsive is the concept of servility of the spirit? The conquered slave has a vestige of honor. He has the merit of having resisted and of considering his condition evil. But the man who enslaves himself voluntarily in the name of love is the basest of creatures. He degrades the dignity of man and he degrades the conception of love. But this is the essence of altruism.
“Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give. Yet one cannot give that which has not been created. Creation comes before distribution—or there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the need of any possible beneficiary. Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible. We praise an act of charity. We shrug at an act of achievement.
“Men have been taught that their first concern is to relieve the sufferings of others. But suffering is a disease. Should one come upon it, one tries to give relief and assistance. To make that the highest test of virtue is to make suffering the most important part of life. Then man must wish to see others suffer—in order that he may be virtuous. Such is the nature of altruism. The creator is not concerned with disease, but with life. Yet the work of the creators has eliminated one form of disease after another, in man’s body and spirit, and brought more relief from suffering than any altruist could ever conceive.
“Men have been taught that it is a virtue to agree with others. But the creator is the man who disagrees. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to swim with the current. But the creator is the man who goes against the current. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to stand together. But the creator is the man who stands alone.
“Men have been taught that the ego is the synonym of evil, and selflessness the ideal of virtue. But the creator is the egotist in the absolute sense, and the selfless man is the one who does not think, feel, judge or act. These are functions of the self.
“Here the basic reversal is most deadly. The issue has been perverted and man has been left no alternative—and no freedom. As poles of good and evil, he was offered two conceptions: egotism and altruism. Egotism was held to mean the sacrifice of others to self. Altruism—the sacrifice of self to others. This tied man irrevocably to other men and left him nothing but a choice of pain: his own pain borne for the sake of others or pain inflicted upon others for the sake of self. When it was added that man must find joy in self-immolation, the trap was closed. Man was forced to accept masochism as his ideal—under the threat that sadism was his only alternative. This was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind.
“This was the device by which dependence and suffering were perpetuated as fundamentals of life.
“The choice is not self-sacrifice or domination. The choice is independence or dependence. The code of the creator or the code of the second-hander. This is the basic issue. It rests upon the alternative of life or death. The code of the creator is built on the needs of the reasoning mind which allows man to survive. The code of the second-hander is built on the needs of a mind incapable of survival. All that which proceeds from man’s independent ego is good. All that which proceeds from man’s dependence upon men is evil.
“The egotist is the absolute sense is not the man who sacrifices others. He is the man who stands above the need of using others in any manner. He does not function through them. He is not concerned with them in any primary matter. Not in his aim, not in his motive, not in his thinking, not in his desires, not in the source of his energy. He does not exist for any other man—and he asks no other man to exist for him. This is the only form of brotherhood and mutual respect possible between men.
“Degrees of ability vary, but the basic principle remains the same: the degree of a man’s independence, initiative and personal love for his work determines his talent as a worker and his worth as a man. Independence is the only gauge of human virtue and value. What a man is and makes of himself; not what he has or hasn’t done for others. There is no substitute for personal dignity. There is no standard of personal dignity except independence.
“In all proper relationships there is no sacrifice of anyone to anyone. An architect needs clients, but he does not subordinate his work to their wishes. They need him, but they do not order a house just to give him a commission. Men exchange their work by free, mutual consent to mutual advantage when their personal interests agree and they both desire the exchange. If they do not desire it, they are not forced to deal with each other. They seek further. This is the only possible form of relationship between equals. Anything else is a relation of slave to master, or victim to executioner.
“No work is ever done collectively, by a majority decision. Every creative job is achieved under the guidance of a single individual thought. An architect requires a great many men to erect his building. But he does not ask them to vote on his design. They work together by free agreement and each is free in his proper function. An architect uses steel, glass, concrete, produced by others. But the materials remain just so much steel, glass and concrete until he touches them. What he does with them is his individual product and his individual property. This is the only pattern for proper co-operation among men.
“The first right on earth is the right of the ego. Man’s first duty is to himself. His moral law is never to place his prime goal within the persons of others. His moral obligation is to do what he wishes, provided his wish does not depend primarily upon other men. This includes the whole sphere of his creative faculty, his thinking, his work. But it does not include the sphere of the gangster, the altruist and the dictator.
“A man thinks and works alone. A man cannot rob, exploit or rule—alone. Robbery, exploitation and ruling presuppose victims. They imply dependence. They are the province of the second-hander.
“Rulers of men are not egotists. They create nothing. They exist entirely through the persons of others. Their goal is in their subjects, in the activity of enslaving. They are as dependent as the beggar, the social worker and the bandit. The form of dependence does not matter.
“But men were taught to regard second-handers—tyrants, emperors, dictators—as exponents of egotism. By this fraud they were made to destroy the ego, themselves and others. The purpose of the fraud was to destroy the creators. Or to harness them. Which is a synonym.
“From the beginning of history, the two antagonists have stood face to face: the creator and the second-hander. When the first creator invented the wheel, the first second-hander responded. He invented altruism.
“The creator—denied, opposed, persecuted, exploited—went on, moved forward and carried all humanity along on his energy. The second-hander contributed nothing to the process except the impediments. The contest has another name: the individual against the collective.
“The ‘common good’ of a collective—a race, a class, a state—was the claim and justification of every tyranny ever established over men. Every major horror of history was committed in the name of an altruistic motive. Has any act of selfishness ever equaled the carnage perpetrated by disciples of altruism? Does the fault lie in men’s hypocrisy or in the nature of the principle? The most dreadful butchers were the most sincere. They believed in the perfect society reached through the guillotine and the firing squad. Nobody questioned their right to murder since they were murdering for an altruistic purpose. It was accepted that man must be sacrificed for other men. Actors change, but the course of the tragedy remains the same. A humanitarian who starts with declarations of love for mankind and ends with a sea of blood. It goes on and will go on so long as men believe that an action is good if it is unselfish. That permits the altruist to act and forces his victims to bear it. The leaders of collectivist movements ask nothing for themselves. But observe the results.
“The only good which men can do to one another and the only statement of their proper relationship is—Hands off!
“Now observe the results of a society built on the principle of individualism. This, our country. The noblest country in the history of men. The country of greatest achievement, greatest prosperity, greatest freedom. This country was not based on selfless service, sacrifice, renunciation or any precept of altruism. It was based on a man’s right to the pursuit of happiness. His own happiness. Not anyone else’s. A private, personal, selfish motive. Look at the results. Look into your own conscience.
“It is an ancient conflict. Men have come close to the truth, but it was destroyed each time and one civilization fell after another. Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.
“Now, in our age, collectivism, the rule of the second-hander and second-rater, the ancient monster, has broken loose and is running amuck. It has brought men to a level of intellectual indecency never equaled on earth. It has reached a scale of horror without precedent. It has poisoned every mind. It has swallowed most of Europe. It is engulfing our country. “I am an architect. I know what is to come by the principle on which it is built. We are approaching a world in which I cannot permit myself to live.
“Now you know why I dynamited Cortlandt.
“I designed Cortlandt. I gave it to you. I destroyed it.
“I destroyed it because I did not choose to let it exist. It was a double monster. In form and in implication. I had to blast both. The form was mutilated by two second-handers who assumed the right to improve upon that which they had not made and could not equal. They were permitted to do it by the general implication that the altruistic purpose of the building superseded all rights and that I had no claim to stand against it.
“I agreed to design Cortlandt for the purpose of seeing it erected as I dedigned it and for no other reason. That was the price I set for my work. I was not paid.
“I do not blame Peter Keating. He was helpless. He had a contract with his employers. It was ignored. He had a promise that the structure he offered would be built as designed. The promise was broken. The love of a man for the integrity of his work and his right to preserve it are now considered a vague intangible and an inessential. You have heard the prosecutor say that. Why was the building disfigured? For no reason. Such acts never have any reason, unless it’s the vanity of some second-handers who feel they have a right to anyone’s property, spiritual or material. Who permitted them to do it? No particular man among the dozens in authority. No one cared to permit it or to stop it. No one was responsible. No one can be held to account. Such is the nature of all collective action.
“I did not receive the payment I asked. But the owners of Cortlandt got what they needed from me. They wanted a scheme devised to build a structure as cheaply as possible. They found no one else who could do it to their satisfaction. I could and did. They took the benefit of my work and made me contribute it as a gift. But I am not an altruist. I do not contribute gifts of this nature.
“It is said that I have destroyed the home of the destitute. It is forgotten that but for me the destitute could not have had this particular home. Those who were concerned with the poor had to come to me, who have never been concerned, in order to help the poor. It is believed that the poverty of the future tenants gave them the right to my work. That their need constituted a claim on my life. That it was my duty to contribute anything demanded of me. This is the second-hander’s credo now swallowing the world.
“I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life. Nor to any part of my energy. Nor to any achievement of mine. No matter who makes the claim, how large their number or how great their need.
“I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others.
“It had to be said. The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing.
“I wished to come here and say that the integrity of a man’s creative work is of greater importance than any charitable endeavor. Those of you who do not understand this are the men who’re destroying the world.
“I wished to come here and state my terms. I do not care to exist on any others.
“I recognize no obligations toward men except one: to respect their freedom and to take no part in a slave society. To my country, I wish to give the ten years which I will spend in jail if my country exists no longer. I will spend them in memory and in gratitude for what my country has been. It will be my act of loyalty, my refusal to live or work in what has taken its place.
“My act of loyalty to every creator who ever lived and was made to suffer by the force responsible for the Cortlandt I dynamited. To every tortured hour of loneliness, denial, frustration, abuse he was made to spend—and to the battles he won. To every creator whose name is known—and to every creator who lived, struggled and perished unrecognized before he could achieve. To every creator who was destroyed in body or in spirit. To Henry Cameron. To Steven Mallory. To a man who doesn’t want to be named, but who is sitting in this courtroom and knows that I am speaking of him.”
From The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand
“Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light. He was considered an evildoer who had dealt with a demon mankind dreaded. But thereafter men had fire to keep them warm, to cook their food, to light their caves. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had lifted dardness off the earth. Centuries later, the first man invented the wheel. He was probably torn on the rack he had taught his brothers to build. He was considered a transgressor who ventured into forbidden terrritory. But thereafter, men could travel past any horizon. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had opened the roads of the world.
“That man, the unsubmissive and first, stands in the opening chapter of every legend mankind has recorded about its beginning. Prometheus was chained to a rock and torn by vultures—because he had stolen the fire of the gods. Adam was condemned to suffer—because he had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Whatever the legend, somewhere in the shadows of its memory mankind knew that its glory began with one and that that one paid for his courage.
“Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the response they received—hatred. The great creators—the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors—stood alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won.
“No creator was prompted by a desire to serve his brothers, for his brothers rejected the gift he offered and that gift destroyed the slothful routine of their lives. His truth was his only motive. His own truth, and his own work to achieve it in his own way. A symphony, a book, an engine, a philosophy, an airplane or a building—that was his goal and his life. Not those who heard, read, operated, believed, flew or inhabited the thing he had created. The creation, not its users. The creation, not the benefits others derived from it. The creation which gave form to his truth. He held his truth above all things and against all men.
“His vision, his strength, his courage came from his own spirit. A man's spirit, however, is his self. That entity which is his consciousness. To think, to feel, to judge, to act are functions of the ego.
“The creators were not selfless. It is the whole secret of their power—that it was self-sufficient, self-motivated, self-generated. A first cause, a fount of energy, a life force, a Prime Mover. The creator served nothing and no one. He lived for himself.
“And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement.
“Man cannot survive except through his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his only weapon. Animals obtain food by force. Man has no claws, no fangs, no horns, no great strength of muscle. He must plant his food or hunt it. To plant, he needs a process of thought. To hunt, he needs weapons, and to make weapons—a process of thought. From this simplest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from a single attribute of man—the function of his reasoning mind.
“But the mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. There is no such thing as a collective thought. An agreement reached by a group of men is only a compromise or an average drawn upon many individual thoughts. It is a secondary consequence. The primary act—the process of reason—must be performed by each man alone. We can divide a meal among many men. We cannot digest it in a collective stomach. No man can use his lungs to breathe for another man. No man can use his brain to think for another. All the functions of body and spirit are private. They cannot be shared or transferred.
“We inherit the products of the thought of other men. We inherit the wheel. We make a cart. The cart becomes an automobile. The automobile becomes an airplane. But all through the process what we receive from others is only the end product of their thinking. The moving force is the creative faculty which takes this product as material, uses it and originates the next step. This creative faculty cannot be given or received, shared or borrowed. It belongs to single, individual men. That which it creates is the property of the creator. Men learn from one another. But all learning is only the exchange of material. No man can give another the capacity to think. Yet that capacity is our only means of survival.
“Nothing is given to man on earth. Everything he needs has to be produced. And here man faces his basic alternative: he can survive in only one of two ways—by the independent work of his own mind or as a parasite fed by the minds of others. The creator originates. The parasite borrows. The creator faces nature alone. The parasite faces nature through an intermediary.
“The creator’s concern is the conquest of nature. The parasite’s concern is the conquest of men.
“The creator lives for his work. He needs no other men. His primary goal is within himself. The parasite lives second-hand. He needs others. Others become his prime motive.
“The basic need of the creator is independence. The reasoning mind cannot work under any form of compulsion. It cannot be curbed, sacrificed or subordinated to any consideration whatsoever. It demands total independence in function and in motive. To a creator, all relations with men are secondary.
“The basic need of the second-hander is to secure his ties with men in order to be fed. He places relations first. He declares that man exists in order to serve others. He preaches altruism.
“Altruism is the doctrine which demands that man live for others and place others above self.
“No man can live for another. He cannot share his spirit just as he cannot share his body. But the second-hander has used altruism as a weapon of expoloitation and reversed the base of mankind’s moral principles. Men have been taught every precept that destroys the creator. Men have been taught dependence as a virtue.
“The man who attemps to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites of those he serves. The relationship produces nothing but mutual corruption. It is impossible in concept. The nearest approach to it in reality—the man who lives to serve others—is the slave. If physical slavery is repulsive, how much more repulsive is the concept of servility of the spirit? The conquered slave has a vestige of honor. He has the merit of having resisted and of considering his condition evil. But the man who enslaves himself voluntarily in the name of love is the basest of creatures. He degrades the dignity of man and he degrades the conception of love. But this is the essence of altruism.
“Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give. Yet one cannot give that which has not been created. Creation comes before distribution—or there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the need of any possible beneficiary. Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible. We praise an act of charity. We shrug at an act of achievement.
“Men have been taught that their first concern is to relieve the sufferings of others. But suffering is a disease. Should one come upon it, one tries to give relief and assistance. To make that the highest test of virtue is to make suffering the most important part of life. Then man must wish to see others suffer—in order that he may be virtuous. Such is the nature of altruism. The creator is not concerned with disease, but with life. Yet the work of the creators has eliminated one form of disease after another, in man’s body and spirit, and brought more relief from suffering than any altruist could ever conceive.
“Men have been taught that it is a virtue to agree with others. But the creator is the man who disagrees. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to swim with the current. But the creator is the man who goes against the current. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to stand together. But the creator is the man who stands alone.
“Men have been taught that the ego is the synonym of evil, and selflessness the ideal of virtue. But the creator is the egotist in the absolute sense, and the selfless man is the one who does not think, feel, judge or act. These are functions of the self.
“Here the basic reversal is most deadly. The issue has been perverted and man has been left no alternative—and no freedom. As poles of good and evil, he was offered two conceptions: egotism and altruism. Egotism was held to mean the sacrifice of others to self. Altruism—the sacrifice of self to others. This tied man irrevocably to other men and left him nothing but a choice of pain: his own pain borne for the sake of others or pain inflicted upon others for the sake of self. When it was added that man must find joy in self-immolation, the trap was closed. Man was forced to accept masochism as his ideal—under the threat that sadism was his only alternative. This was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind.
“This was the device by which dependence and suffering were perpetuated as fundamentals of life.
“The choice is not self-sacrifice or domination. The choice is independence or dependence. The code of the creator or the code of the second-hander. This is the basic issue. It rests upon the alternative of life or death. The code of the creator is built on the needs of the reasoning mind which allows man to survive. The code of the second-hander is built on the needs of a mind incapable of survival. All that which proceeds from man’s independent ego is good. All that which proceeds from man’s dependence upon men is evil.
“The egotist is the absolute sense is not the man who sacrifices others. He is the man who stands above the need of using others in any manner. He does not function through them. He is not concerned with them in any primary matter. Not in his aim, not in his motive, not in his thinking, not in his desires, not in the source of his energy. He does not exist for any other man—and he asks no other man to exist for him. This is the only form of brotherhood and mutual respect possible between men.
“Degrees of ability vary, but the basic principle remains the same: the degree of a man’s independence, initiative and personal love for his work determines his talent as a worker and his worth as a man. Independence is the only gauge of human virtue and value. What a man is and makes of himself; not what he has or hasn’t done for others. There is no substitute for personal dignity. There is no standard of personal dignity except independence.
“In all proper relationships there is no sacrifice of anyone to anyone. An architect needs clients, but he does not subordinate his work to their wishes. They need him, but they do not order a house just to give him a commission. Men exchange their work by free, mutual consent to mutual advantage when their personal interests agree and they both desire the exchange. If they do not desire it, they are not forced to deal with each other. They seek further. This is the only possible form of relationship between equals. Anything else is a relation of slave to master, or victim to executioner.
“No work is ever done collectively, by a majority decision. Every creative job is achieved under the guidance of a single individual thought. An architect requires a great many men to erect his building. But he does not ask them to vote on his design. They work together by free agreement and each is free in his proper function. An architect uses steel, glass, concrete, produced by others. But the materials remain just so much steel, glass and concrete until he touches them. What he does with them is his individual product and his individual property. This is the only pattern for proper co-operation among men.
“The first right on earth is the right of the ego. Man’s first duty is to himself. His moral law is never to place his prime goal within the persons of others. His moral obligation is to do what he wishes, provided his wish does not depend primarily upon other men. This includes the whole sphere of his creative faculty, his thinking, his work. But it does not include the sphere of the gangster, the altruist and the dictator.
“A man thinks and works alone. A man cannot rob, exploit or rule—alone. Robbery, exploitation and ruling presuppose victims. They imply dependence. They are the province of the second-hander.
“Rulers of men are not egotists. They create nothing. They exist entirely through the persons of others. Their goal is in their subjects, in the activity of enslaving. They are as dependent as the beggar, the social worker and the bandit. The form of dependence does not matter.
“But men were taught to regard second-handers—tyrants, emperors, dictators—as exponents of egotism. By this fraud they were made to destroy the ego, themselves and others. The purpose of the fraud was to destroy the creators. Or to harness them. Which is a synonym.
“From the beginning of history, the two antagonists have stood face to face: the creator and the second-hander. When the first creator invented the wheel, the first second-hander responded. He invented altruism.
“The creator—denied, opposed, persecuted, exploited—went on, moved forward and carried all humanity along on his energy. The second-hander contributed nothing to the process except the impediments. The contest has another name: the individual against the collective.
“The ‘common good’ of a collective—a race, a class, a state—was the claim and justification of every tyranny ever established over men. Every major horror of history was committed in the name of an altruistic motive. Has any act of selfishness ever equaled the carnage perpetrated by disciples of altruism? Does the fault lie in men’s hypocrisy or in the nature of the principle? The most dreadful butchers were the most sincere. They believed in the perfect society reached through the guillotine and the firing squad. Nobody questioned their right to murder since they were murdering for an altruistic purpose. It was accepted that man must be sacrificed for other men. Actors change, but the course of the tragedy remains the same. A humanitarian who starts with declarations of love for mankind and ends with a sea of blood. It goes on and will go on so long as men believe that an action is good if it is unselfish. That permits the altruist to act and forces his victims to bear it. The leaders of collectivist movements ask nothing for themselves. But observe the results.
“The only good which men can do to one another and the only statement of their proper relationship is—Hands off!
“Now observe the results of a society built on the principle of individualism. This, our country. The noblest country in the history of men. The country of greatest achievement, greatest prosperity, greatest freedom. This country was not based on selfless service, sacrifice, renunciation or any precept of altruism. It was based on a man’s right to the pursuit of happiness. His own happiness. Not anyone else’s. A private, personal, selfish motive. Look at the results. Look into your own conscience.
“It is an ancient conflict. Men have come close to the truth, but it was destroyed each time and one civilization fell after another. Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.
“Now, in our age, collectivism, the rule of the second-hander and second-rater, the ancient monster, has broken loose and is running amuck. It has brought men to a level of intellectual indecency never equaled on earth. It has reached a scale of horror without precedent. It has poisoned every mind. It has swallowed most of Europe. It is engulfing our country. “I am an architect. I know what is to come by the principle on which it is built. We are approaching a world in which I cannot permit myself to live.
“Now you know why I dynamited Cortlandt.
“I designed Cortlandt. I gave it to you. I destroyed it.
“I destroyed it because I did not choose to let it exist. It was a double monster. In form and in implication. I had to blast both. The form was mutilated by two second-handers who assumed the right to improve upon that which they had not made and could not equal. They were permitted to do it by the general implication that the altruistic purpose of the building superseded all rights and that I had no claim to stand against it.
“I agreed to design Cortlandt for the purpose of seeing it erected as I dedigned it and for no other reason. That was the price I set for my work. I was not paid.
“I do not blame Peter Keating. He was helpless. He had a contract with his employers. It was ignored. He had a promise that the structure he offered would be built as designed. The promise was broken. The love of a man for the integrity of his work and his right to preserve it are now considered a vague intangible and an inessential. You have heard the prosecutor say that. Why was the building disfigured? For no reason. Such acts never have any reason, unless it’s the vanity of some second-handers who feel they have a right to anyone’s property, spiritual or material. Who permitted them to do it? No particular man among the dozens in authority. No one cared to permit it or to stop it. No one was responsible. No one can be held to account. Such is the nature of all collective action.
“I did not receive the payment I asked. But the owners of Cortlandt got what they needed from me. They wanted a scheme devised to build a structure as cheaply as possible. They found no one else who could do it to their satisfaction. I could and did. They took the benefit of my work and made me contribute it as a gift. But I am not an altruist. I do not contribute gifts of this nature.
“It is said that I have destroyed the home of the destitute. It is forgotten that but for me the destitute could not have had this particular home. Those who were concerned with the poor had to come to me, who have never been concerned, in order to help the poor. It is believed that the poverty of the future tenants gave them the right to my work. That their need constituted a claim on my life. That it was my duty to contribute anything demanded of me. This is the second-hander’s credo now swallowing the world.
“I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life. Nor to any part of my energy. Nor to any achievement of mine. No matter who makes the claim, how large their number or how great their need.
“I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others.
“It had to be said. The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing.
“I wished to come here and say that the integrity of a man’s creative work is of greater importance than any charitable endeavor. Those of you who do not understand this are the men who’re destroying the world.
“I wished to come here and state my terms. I do not care to exist on any others.
“I recognize no obligations toward men except one: to respect their freedom and to take no part in a slave society. To my country, I wish to give the ten years which I will spend in jail if my country exists no longer. I will spend them in memory and in gratitude for what my country has been. It will be my act of loyalty, my refusal to live or work in what has taken its place.
“My act of loyalty to every creator who ever lived and was made to suffer by the force responsible for the Cortlandt I dynamited. To every tortured hour of loneliness, denial, frustration, abuse he was made to spend—and to the battles he won. To every creator whose name is known—and to every creator who lived, struggled and perished unrecognized before he could achieve. To every creator who was destroyed in body or in spirit. To Henry Cameron. To Steven Mallory. To a man who doesn’t want to be named, but who is sitting in this courtroom and knows that I am speaking of him.”
Friday, March 21, 2008
This is hillarious.
"According to witnesses, a loud black man approached a crowd of some 4,000 strangers in downtown Chicago Tuesday and made repeated demands for change. 'The time for change is now,' said the black guy, yelling at everyone within earshot for 20 straight minutes, practically begging America for change. 'The need for change is stronger and more urgent than ever before. And only you—the people standing here today, and indeed all the people of this great nation—only you can deliver this change.' "--Onion, March 19, 2008
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Obama-mania, just as the doctor predicted
I don’t know about you, but it is fun to watch the unraveling Obama-drama. What was known to only the most attentive observers became painfully obvious to all. Obama ain’t no racial healer – but rather a slick snake oil salesman. He is very, very slick, I grant you that, but poor Obama had to square the circle – and this is burdensome for even the smartest of the smart.
As you have heard, it was recently discovered by the astonished crowds that a presidential candidate with an untreatable messianic complex was and is an active member of a radical anti-American bigoted cult, which goes by the name of “Trinity United Church”. If I have to guess, the word “Trinity” refers to the group's anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism and demand for the government handouts. At least, they did not say it was a Holy Trinity. So now, the over-exposed Messiah is trying to reconcile his public image of a moderate high principled figure and the obvious truth. How exactly is he supposed to do so? Personally, I don’t exactly see any way for him to bamboozle the American electorate – because the issue is too clear-cut. For people who don’t get this simple truth I can only say that it’s amazing they can breath on their own, let alone why they are allowed to decide who will be the next president of the United States of America. This article is written for the rest of the public – and more specifically, the right-wing progressives who never had any illusions about Obambi.
I will start by stating the obvious – for 20 years Obama was an active member of an extremist group. Throughout the years he became very close with the pastor of the church - the very same guy who was screaming at the top of his lungs – “God Damn America”. I don’t know if the pastor was high on drugs or he was suffering from an acute case of indigestion – but his parishioners seemed to agree with his message. Moreover, Obama used this pastor as his political, spiritual, and no doubt sexual advisor. I suppose it is also necessary to add that Obama was not 5 years old when he joined this cult – he was a graduate of the Harvard Law School, a former editor of prestigious Harvard Law Review. In other words, he was a highly educated successful adult. Clearly, he made his decision willingly, and consciously. He knew exactly what he was doing, and he knew the guys he was befriending. There are two possible explanations for this – either he joined and stayed in the cult because he believed in all the garbage that was spewed there, or he did it to advance his political career. Either of these explanations makes him unelectable. Why did he join this church and continued attending it for 20 years? When did he find out that his soul mate and advisor for 20 years was an anti-American fascist? When did he find out that his pastor was a supporter of the infamous terrorist and bloody dictator of Libya Muamar Kaddafi? When did he find out the church that he attended for 20 years proclaims that blacks should not join the middle class? When did he find out that his buddy considered Israel to be a terror nation? What could be a good answer to these questions? The guy is either a complete imbecile, or a liar.
Recently, Obama decided to deal with the issue head on. Long gone were the “I never heard him say any nasty things” denials. They did not ring true to anyone who had an IQ higher than the room temperature. So, the Messiah decided to talk to the nation, explain his position, clear up the air. Amazingly, Obama chose an interesting way of explaining his associations with the unseemly character – he lectured the American people on the race relationships. Which is equivalent to a robber, who stands up in court and explains the bewildered public that they need to earn their living and that stealing is immoral. Well, it’s all nice, but who the fuck are you to talk to us in this manner? Shouldn’t you clean up your act first? In the immortal words of Hippocrates, “heal yourself first, bitch”.
The speech was cleverly designed, and it clearly aimed to impress the people of lower intelligence. As one may have expected, Obama threw some white folks under the bus. What was not anticipated was that he would choose his own grandmother to sacrifice. According to Obama, she is a “typical white person” who is a racist and a bigot. I don’t exactly know why he did it – I suppose for one, he wanted to remind the white electors that he was also half white, so they should not take all the racist demagoguery from his pastor close to their hearts. Moreover, he obviously did not mind his grand-mother’s bigotry very seriously – which meant to say that racism is okay from all sides. In other words, Obama was ready to unite all racists and bigots in one big tent and then commandeer this crowd to bring the racial reconciliation to America. This is somewhat counter-intuitive to me, if you know what I mean. In the meantime, he also threw the blacks under the bus – according to Obama most blacks are racist, who hide their feelings from the white folks – but when they feel comfortable among their people – hell, they say really nasty things about those white devilish motherfuckers. Notice a pathetic parade of black “leaders” on television asserting exactly the same thing – yes, we are all like reverend Wright, he is one of us, we all talk like that, we all think like him. Well, if it is true (and I sure hope it is not), then how exactly are we supposed to get the racial reconciliation?! It takes two to tango, doesn’t it? Heck, how can any reasonable voter trust any black politician? He may say nice things to us in public, but as you know that when he is with other blacks, you can see him wearing his black robe and burning the cross (or should it a crescent?).
Of course, Obama did not intend us to make all these conclusions – but he was in a tight spot. Firstly, he could not completely disavow the Trinity Church Fuhrer because this would have raised even more questions on his authenticity. How can anyone trust him? For twenty years Obama is close buddies with bigots, Wright becomes his closest advisor, Obama regularly goes to his church – but when the shit hits the fan, Obama treats Wright as if he is radioactive. No doubt Obama looked at this perspective and decided to dance around the issue - but it’s not easy. In chess this situation is called “Zugzwang” – every move makes you weaker. In short, Obama was fucked from the start and no fancy talking could get him out of the hole.
One of Obama's excuse is that he could not really leave community of the church of holy anti-semitism. Those hate-mongers got him closer to Christ, and they helped the poor, and they were his dear friends, who held his hand when he needed. One can find an interesting angle on the situation by recalling the infamous “I have a scream” presidential candidate and the current (ass) head of the Democrat Party, Howard Dean. As you may remember, Howard left his church because he disagreed with its decision on the bike path. And just to drive the point even further, Howard is not a godless atheist – he is a self-professed biblical scholar, who takes religion very seriously. It would be very educational to watch his response when he is tracked by the ruthless journalists and asked about his view on Obambi’s enthusiastic participation in an anti-American cult. Is anti-American propaganda more damaging to a pastor than a refusal to build a bike path? Howard, tell us what you think…
In short, the response to his speech was not surprising. The usual suspects thought that his speech was courageous, inspiring, and a huge risk to his political career as well as a revolutionary expose on race in America. Reasonable people see that Obama carefully constructed a “cover your ass” speech, which had been designed solely to save his political career. Can someone tell me – if the speech was so courageous – who exactly did Obama risk to alienate with this speech? How would any liberal change the speech and make it less “courageous” and more politically beneficial to Obama? To ask these questions is to answer them. It’s all a game, nothing more. Obama is playing the public, playing the liberals, playing the media. I hope, only the last two are stupid enough to be caught in the game, and that the public is smart enough to know the truth. And the polls show that this is indeed the case. You can deceive liberals all the time, but it won’t work on the silent majority. After all, there is a good reason why America is the greatest country on Earth. If Americans were as stupid as some people think – it would not be so rich.
As you have heard, it was recently discovered by the astonished crowds that a presidential candidate with an untreatable messianic complex was and is an active member of a radical anti-American bigoted cult, which goes by the name of “Trinity United Church”. If I have to guess, the word “Trinity” refers to the group's anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism and demand for the government handouts. At least, they did not say it was a Holy Trinity. So now, the over-exposed Messiah is trying to reconcile his public image of a moderate high principled figure and the obvious truth. How exactly is he supposed to do so? Personally, I don’t exactly see any way for him to bamboozle the American electorate – because the issue is too clear-cut. For people who don’t get this simple truth I can only say that it’s amazing they can breath on their own, let alone why they are allowed to decide who will be the next president of the United States of America. This article is written for the rest of the public – and more specifically, the right-wing progressives who never had any illusions about Obambi.
I will start by stating the obvious – for 20 years Obama was an active member of an extremist group. Throughout the years he became very close with the pastor of the church - the very same guy who was screaming at the top of his lungs – “God Damn America”. I don’t know if the pastor was high on drugs or he was suffering from an acute case of indigestion – but his parishioners seemed to agree with his message. Moreover, Obama used this pastor as his political, spiritual, and no doubt sexual advisor. I suppose it is also necessary to add that Obama was not 5 years old when he joined this cult – he was a graduate of the Harvard Law School, a former editor of prestigious Harvard Law Review. In other words, he was a highly educated successful adult. Clearly, he made his decision willingly, and consciously. He knew exactly what he was doing, and he knew the guys he was befriending. There are two possible explanations for this – either he joined and stayed in the cult because he believed in all the garbage that was spewed there, or he did it to advance his political career. Either of these explanations makes him unelectable. Why did he join this church and continued attending it for 20 years? When did he find out that his soul mate and advisor for 20 years was an anti-American fascist? When did he find out that his pastor was a supporter of the infamous terrorist and bloody dictator of Libya Muamar Kaddafi? When did he find out the church that he attended for 20 years proclaims that blacks should not join the middle class? When did he find out that his buddy considered Israel to be a terror nation? What could be a good answer to these questions? The guy is either a complete imbecile, or a liar.
Recently, Obama decided to deal with the issue head on. Long gone were the “I never heard him say any nasty things” denials. They did not ring true to anyone who had an IQ higher than the room temperature. So, the Messiah decided to talk to the nation, explain his position, clear up the air. Amazingly, Obama chose an interesting way of explaining his associations with the unseemly character – he lectured the American people on the race relationships. Which is equivalent to a robber, who stands up in court and explains the bewildered public that they need to earn their living and that stealing is immoral. Well, it’s all nice, but who the fuck are you to talk to us in this manner? Shouldn’t you clean up your act first? In the immortal words of Hippocrates, “heal yourself first, bitch”.
The speech was cleverly designed, and it clearly aimed to impress the people of lower intelligence. As one may have expected, Obama threw some white folks under the bus. What was not anticipated was that he would choose his own grandmother to sacrifice. According to Obama, she is a “typical white person” who is a racist and a bigot. I don’t exactly know why he did it – I suppose for one, he wanted to remind the white electors that he was also half white, so they should not take all the racist demagoguery from his pastor close to their hearts. Moreover, he obviously did not mind his grand-mother’s bigotry very seriously – which meant to say that racism is okay from all sides. In other words, Obama was ready to unite all racists and bigots in one big tent and then commandeer this crowd to bring the racial reconciliation to America. This is somewhat counter-intuitive to me, if you know what I mean. In the meantime, he also threw the blacks under the bus – according to Obama most blacks are racist, who hide their feelings from the white folks – but when they feel comfortable among their people – hell, they say really nasty things about those white devilish motherfuckers. Notice a pathetic parade of black “leaders” on television asserting exactly the same thing – yes, we are all like reverend Wright, he is one of us, we all talk like that, we all think like him. Well, if it is true (and I sure hope it is not), then how exactly are we supposed to get the racial reconciliation?! It takes two to tango, doesn’t it? Heck, how can any reasonable voter trust any black politician? He may say nice things to us in public, but as you know that when he is with other blacks, you can see him wearing his black robe and burning the cross (or should it a crescent?).
Of course, Obama did not intend us to make all these conclusions – but he was in a tight spot. Firstly, he could not completely disavow the Trinity Church Fuhrer because this would have raised even more questions on his authenticity. How can anyone trust him? For twenty years Obama is close buddies with bigots, Wright becomes his closest advisor, Obama regularly goes to his church – but when the shit hits the fan, Obama treats Wright as if he is radioactive. No doubt Obama looked at this perspective and decided to dance around the issue - but it’s not easy. In chess this situation is called “Zugzwang” – every move makes you weaker. In short, Obama was fucked from the start and no fancy talking could get him out of the hole.
One of Obama's excuse is that he could not really leave community of the church of holy anti-semitism. Those hate-mongers got him closer to Christ, and they helped the poor, and they were his dear friends, who held his hand when he needed. One can find an interesting angle on the situation by recalling the infamous “I have a scream” presidential candidate and the current (ass) head of the Democrat Party, Howard Dean. As you may remember, Howard left his church because he disagreed with its decision on the bike path. And just to drive the point even further, Howard is not a godless atheist – he is a self-professed biblical scholar, who takes religion very seriously. It would be very educational to watch his response when he is tracked by the ruthless journalists and asked about his view on Obambi’s enthusiastic participation in an anti-American cult. Is anti-American propaganda more damaging to a pastor than a refusal to build a bike path? Howard, tell us what you think…
In short, the response to his speech was not surprising. The usual suspects thought that his speech was courageous, inspiring, and a huge risk to his political career as well as a revolutionary expose on race in America. Reasonable people see that Obama carefully constructed a “cover your ass” speech, which had been designed solely to save his political career. Can someone tell me – if the speech was so courageous – who exactly did Obama risk to alienate with this speech? How would any liberal change the speech and make it less “courageous” and more politically beneficial to Obama? To ask these questions is to answer them. It’s all a game, nothing more. Obama is playing the public, playing the liberals, playing the media. I hope, only the last two are stupid enough to be caught in the game, and that the public is smart enough to know the truth. And the polls show that this is indeed the case. You can deceive liberals all the time, but it won’t work on the silent majority. After all, there is a good reason why America is the greatest country on Earth. If Americans were as stupid as some people think – it would not be so rich.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Worrisome prediction...
What to expect from the newest revelations about Obambi’s ties with a radical black supremacy church? Should we assume that the 2008 presidential elections are in the bag for the GOP? I don’t think so. The one thing that goes for America and the GOP is that while Obambi is mortally wounded, he is far ahead in the popular vote and in the number of delegates. Only super-delegates, the democrat party bosses can now stop him. Will they do so? There is one troubling scenario, which goes as follows. Hillary strongly wins the rest of elections, party bosses turn against Obambi, and Hillary persuades him to be his VP candidate. In this case, either Hillary becomes a much stronger candidate, with a popular support from the DNC base, or Obambi waits 4 years, and enters the elections a much stronger candidate. Moreover, the elections 4 years from now will be wide open – since McLame is 300 years old, it’s unlikely he can go for a second term. Is this a realistic scenario? We will see. So far, all the predictions went to dust at every stage.
Here is my prediction – and I consider it to be right on the money. Here is the deal. Dick Morris, former Clinton advisor is known for his political acumen. Interestingly enough, my wife noticed one quite peculiar thing about him – usually most of his predictions turn out wrong. Just a few days ago he wrote an article, which told Hillary that her chances to win the nomination were nil. That was, I repeat, a few days ago. Does anyone think now that her candidacy is dead? By no means, of course. So, according to Dick Morris’ law discovered by my wife – Hillary is almost certain to win the nomination of the Democrat Party. You heard it here first, don’t forget about it.
Here is my prediction – and I consider it to be right on the money. Here is the deal. Dick Morris, former Clinton advisor is known for his political acumen. Interestingly enough, my wife noticed one quite peculiar thing about him – usually most of his predictions turn out wrong. Just a few days ago he wrote an article, which told Hillary that her chances to win the nomination were nil. That was, I repeat, a few days ago. Does anyone think now that her candidacy is dead? By no means, of course. So, according to Dick Morris’ law discovered by my wife – Hillary is almost certain to win the nomination of the Democrat Party. You heard it here first, don’t forget about it.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Obama as a modern day Lenin...
During the nomination process of Supreme Court judges, Obama said that he could not support Roberts and Alito, because they would not give distinguish between "weak" and "strong" parties in the dispute.
What Obama is saying was already said long time ago. During the communist revolution in Russia, Lenin or some guy of that caliber thus explained the revolutionary justice (the quote is 90% accurate):
"When considering innocence or guilt of the accused, we have only one question to ask of him - what class do you belong to? Do you belong to the class of the bourgeois or to the class of proletariat? If the person belongs to the bourgeois, then the verdict is clear - up against the wall."
Or, as they were saying, "persecution is not punishment for a particular guilt." Perfect Obama.
What Obama is saying was already said long time ago. During the communist revolution in Russia, Lenin or some guy of that caliber thus explained the revolutionary justice (the quote is 90% accurate):
"When considering innocence or guilt of the accused, we have only one question to ask of him - what class do you belong to? Do you belong to the class of the bourgeois or to the class of proletariat? If the person belongs to the bourgeois, then the verdict is clear - up against the wall."
Or, as they were saying, "persecution is not punishment for a particular guilt." Perfect Obama.
O-ba-ma! O-ba-Ma! O-ba-ma! Zeig Heil! Zeih Heil! Zeig Heil!
Watch this dreadful video. It's really disgusting for any self-respecting individual capable of critical thinking.
Neo-neo-con thinks this video is how this phenomenon was described before.
Sally on the same page responded with a much more brutal
analogy from a somewhat earlier period. The similarity is uncanny.
Neo-neo-con thinks this video is how this phenomenon was described before.
Sally on the same page responded with a much more brutal
analogy from a somewhat earlier period. The similarity is uncanny.
Obama is really scary. I mean it.
Read the quotes from Ms. Obama. This is scary shit. She is saying that the federal government and specifically the president of the United States has to "fundamentally different kind of leadership," one that challenges people to be different, and better to one another. And that, she said to critics who say it is not his time, cannot wait." Obviously, she believes it is Obama who can take such a task on his shoulders - and he alone. Who does she think Obama is - Jesus? Is he a God, a prophet, a man of such moral values that he tops all the American people? Seriously, this is moral elitism and snobism unprecedented - or more precisely, this girl is stupidly arrogant and cannot hide it. Or, what is even more scary, she is saying exactly what the liberal idiots need to hear. Any self-respecting American should be very afraid of anyone who believes in his absolute moral superiority to be put in the position of awesome power over hundreds of millions of people. If you think Obama will be lecturing us to become better, you are very mistaken. The man will use government powers - the use or the threat of use of violence against those who are not good enough for him, let alone openly disagree with him. Is liberal fascism coming to America? It may well be so.
Blasphemy...
So now, evidently, it's a complete taboo to use Obama's middle name. If you say it - you are immediately sentenced to an eternal damnation. Why? Well, as we all know, liberals can't take a joke, that's why. Imagine for a second that Reagan's middle name was "Hitler". Heck, imagine that his middle name was Adolph. Now, do you think the liberals would shy away from saying time and time again "Ronald ADOLPH Reagan"? Hell no. It would be considered to be the funniest joke in the world that his middle name is the same as the one of the worst dictator in the world.
And yet, when it comes to their own kind - Barack HUSSEIN Obama, they become outraged. They say it's racist to say his middle name. They claim that it's an obvious slander to pronounce it. It's obvious that anyone who says "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" is doing that to promote islamophobia, racism and the like. It's a dark conspiracy to insinuate that Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a moslem. Well, guys, it's not like he is "John HUSSEIN Smith", you know. The "Barack Obama" part ain't all that WASP either - and no one has a problem with it.
The only real issue with his middle name, is that it is the same as the last name of a nazi dictator that US recently deposed in Iraq, that's all. And, unless you missed it - Barack HUSSEIN Obama was trying to keep this nasty dictator in power. But all jokes aside, seriously, folks, the real issue here is that liberals cannot take a joke. They love denigrating their opponents, smearing, innuendo, slander - but God forbid republicans make a passing comment on them - they react as Victorian women who heard the word "fuck". They either faint or they spew hatred.
Coming to think of it, I think Victorian women probably behaved much better even when someone used the word "f*ck" in front of them. After all, liberals are liberals, don't forget that. They are cursed individuals.
And yet, when it comes to their own kind - Barack HUSSEIN Obama, they become outraged. They say it's racist to say his middle name. They claim that it's an obvious slander to pronounce it. It's obvious that anyone who says "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" is doing that to promote islamophobia, racism and the like. It's a dark conspiracy to insinuate that Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a moslem. Well, guys, it's not like he is "John HUSSEIN Smith", you know. The "Barack Obama" part ain't all that WASP either - and no one has a problem with it.
The only real issue with his middle name, is that it is the same as the last name of a nazi dictator that US recently deposed in Iraq, that's all. And, unless you missed it - Barack HUSSEIN Obama was trying to keep this nasty dictator in power. But all jokes aside, seriously, folks, the real issue here is that liberals cannot take a joke. They love denigrating their opponents, smearing, innuendo, slander - but God forbid republicans make a passing comment on them - they react as Victorian women who heard the word "fuck". They either faint or they spew hatred.
Coming to think of it, I think Victorian women probably behaved much better even when someone used the word "f*ck" in front of them. After all, liberals are liberals, don't forget that. They are cursed individuals.
Hey, you think "universal health care" is a good thing? Think again before it's too late.
Well, go ahead and read the article on the government run medical care in the good old United Kingdom. After you are done, don't forget to read the comments from the British folks talking about the issue. In short, yes, the government run medical care can be cheap - but you get what you pay for - if not even worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)