Captain Hook With a 12-Gauge

Repost.

In Ayn Rand's most (in)famous work, Atlas Shrugged, an unlikely hero by the name of Ragnar Danneskjold explains his mission in life:

"I'm after a man whom I want to destroy. "

"What man?"

"Robin Hood. ...He was the man who robbed the rich and gave to the poor. Well, I'm the man who robs the poor and gives to the rich – or, to be exact, the man who robs the thieving poor and gives back to the productive rich." (2.7.2.93-97)

I know exactly how Mr. Danneskjold feels. While I wish him luck on his quest, I have a target of my own to take down. I've been after this punk for years, and I won't stop until justice has been done. If it's the last thing I do...

...I'm going to kill Peter Pan.

Yep. Green tights. Flies. Hangs out with a pixie. That Peter Pan.

At first glance, you might be forgiven for thinking I've finally blown a critical synapse. Why the hell is the Wraith declaring war, not only on a fictional character, but on a cute, mischievous, puckish young man? "What," you may wonder, "did Peter Pan ever do to you?"

It's not what Peter Pan did, it's what he represents. Anyone who's ever heard of Peter Pan knows him as the Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up. Now, this is a cute basis for a children's story, but far too many people in the Western world seem to have taken the message to heart--with disastrous consquences.

Back in the dim and distant past, children were children and adults were adults. There was a fairly clear demarcation between the two, and children couldn't wait to grow up. Rites of passage, like wearing makeup or the gift of a first knife, were eagerly anticipated. Children looked to the responsibilities of adulthood as a great gift to be worthy of, and parents did their best to make sure their children were equipped to deal with adult life independently. In short, childhood was considered a transitory stage, not a lifestyle.

Such does not seem to be the case today. We are now being overrun with Theoretical Adults; people who have reached the 'age of majority,' but who still dress, act, and worst of all think like children.

There is a vast difference between how a child thinks as opposed to how an adult thinks. An adult knows that life is not fair. That he is responsible for his own actions, his own successes or failures. That the only person obliged to take care of him is himself. A child lives in a fantasy world, where everyone gets exactly what they deserve and nothing they don't. Where there's always someone else to blame for his failures. Where he's simply taken care of, with no thought as to how and why. This is normal for children. They have not yet had the time to learn enough so that they can comprehend the bigger picture.

I shall illustrate with an example: Let us say our hypothetical child goes to the refrigerator and grabs a Mountain Dew. He has no idea how that frosty green can of flourescent yellow caffeinated goodness got there. His parents know that the 12-pack of Dew cost $4.69 with the Super Saver Card Club Member Special at the local Safeway. They know that the refrigerator runs on electricity, which is something they have to pay for and is indirectly related to the price of oil. They know that the refrigerator resides in a house which must be paid for, and that it's making that weird noise, so they budget for unexpected expenses, because they know that if the fridge dies or the roof springs a leak when they have no money to fix the situation, they're hosed. They know that the money for all this comes from the time and effort they expend in working at their chosen profession, and that every penny they earn represents a moment of their life that is gone forever.

The child knows none of this. He wants a Mountain Dew, so he goes to the fridge and gets one, and it's going to be there because he expects it to. That's it. Nothing beyond the immediate moment is of any concern. And this is how too many 'adults' continue to think today. There is no past to learn from. There is no future to extrapolate to. Stuff just happens, without any sort of cause or context. Welcome to the prevailing thought processes of our aforementioned Theoretical Adults--the disciples of Peter Pan. They won't grow up. They refuse to take on the mindset and responsibilities of real adults. They aren't going to think, and you can't make them!! Reality isn't the boss of them!!

Well, actually, it is.

A is A. Reality is real. Facts exist.

Too many people in the formerly-intelligent Western world have chosen to ignore these simple concepts, and in doing so, have repudiated their humanity. The one thing that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom is our capacity for rational and coherent thought. When we give that up, we throw away what makes us human. We become voluntary, perpetual children.

Let's look at the totality of recorded human history, which stretches back 8-10,000 years or so, depending on which method of 'recording' you start with. That's a lot of time, however you slice it. Then, let's compare it to the history of the United States, which has been around for going on a quarter millennium. Why is it that America went from just another rebellious colony of Britain, to the dominant power on Earth in less than 250 years, while every other nation on Earth continued to wallow in the mire of statism? Why is it that this upstart country, with its personal automobiles, personal computers and audacity to leave footprints on the surface of the moon, has rocketed past every other socioeconomic system ever devised by man?

Free Men. Free Minds. Free Markets.

That's it. That's how we did it. Our personal liberties were upheld. Our opinions, no matter how unpopular, were defended. Our right to voluntary economic interaction with our fellow man was considered sacrosanct. In the days of our Founders, this was considered an experiment, and a risky one at that. But it worked. The hypothesis has been proven correct, both by America's success and by the fact that the further we stray from the original Constitutional principles, the worse things become in our Republic.

Fact 1: A combination of limited government and free markets is the recipe for success.

Now, let's take a look at the statist, Marxist/Leninist philosophies--socialism, and its big brother communism. Notice that, where communism has held sway, it has led to oppression, suffering, loss, misery, mass murder and devastation. Every time. While socialism's consequences are usually not as obviously horrific as communism's, I would argue that they are even more dire, simply because the poison spreads so slowly as to escape notice by most. This is often aided by ignoring, excusing or underreporting the prevailing trends of poverty and violent crime. Often, the trends are concealed until conditions reach the boiling point. But inevitably, sooner or later, the whole system starts to crumble. Even Fidel Castro, after six decades of ruthless oppression of the Cuban people, admitted defeat recently.

Fact 2: A combination of unrestrained government and market interference is an unsustainable failure.

These two statements are just what I have called them: FACTS. They are based on the laws of economics, which are, arguably, just as real as the laws of physics. You may or may not like the fact that gravity exists, but it does anyway, and you step off that ledge at your own peril.

Remember my comparison a few paragraphs ago? Adults recognize reality. The facts are what they are, and it is the adult's job to adjust to them, because it's never going to be the other way around. Children simply cannot comprehend this. They think that anything--including the retraction of all the basic principles of existence as we know it--is possible if you hope for it, wish for it...Tinkerbell will come back to life if you just believe enough.

This is a mindset fit for children, who cannot vote, enter into contracts, or be held responsible in any meaningful way for their actions. When this attitude continues past the legal 'age of majority,' it is very dangerous indeed, for this leads to the eventual rule of rational, civilized people by the irrational.

My fellow Americans, we are being ruled by a mob of mentally unbalanced children, and this has to end now. We, as a people, need to grow up. We can no longer afford the luxury of living in Never-Never Land. There is no Santa Claus. There is no Easter Bunny. There is no Tooth Fairy. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no such thing as sustainable socialism. That politician who promises to take care of you? Haven't you noticed he smells funny, and that van he's driving has no windows in the back? Turn down his candy, scream your head off and run like hell. Despite his carefully crafted smile and promises, what he has planned for you--for all of us--is something you don't even want to imagine.

That's why I'm gunning for Peter Pan. Because the fantasy that we can all be eternal children is ageless, and it has destroyed one great nation after another. One by one, some of the most advanced civilizations the world had ever seen succumbed to that siren song of dependence; of ignoring responsibility in favor of the distractions of the moment, of believing that one could simultaneously be a free man while entrusting his fate to others. Peter Pan is simply that poisonous mentality personified, and America ain't big enough for the both of us.

Discuss.

A Blast From The Past

A repost regarding exactly why I started this collection of ramblings:

The 'Productive Class' and why we're revolted.

I am, as some might have deduced, an admirer of the works of Ayn Rand.

Note that I am not necessarily an admirer of the woman herself. By most accounts, Rand got high on her own supply of publicity and ended up acting like much like the intellectuals she despised. The woman who laid out the philosophy and principles of Objectivism("To put nothing--nothing! above the verdict of my own mind.")wound up shutting her own mind to anything but her own theories, blacklisting anyone who disagreed with her even slightly, and was generally a hateful bitch. So, I'm not a 'Randian' by any stretch of the imagination.

But it's hard to fault the basic premises of her work. And lately, the USA is starting to resemble more and more the dystopian horrors contained--predicted?--in her magnum opus Atlas Shrugged. Besides, it's been said that

It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of son of a bitch or another. --Malcolm Reynolds

I'll admit that Atlas Shrugged is, frankly, a pretty horrendous book to slog through. There's two ways highly intelligent people deal with the rest of the world. When you don't have an ego, you think everyone is as intelligent as you are, and have no idea why your tangent on theoretical quantum laser astrophysics is resulting in deer-in-headlights-stares from the entire room.

When your ego spans entire galaxies, however, you believe no one is as smart as you are, and therefore, you have to bring every single point home with a pile driver. If you want to read Atlas Shrugged, and I really think you should make the effort, I recommend you start here, with Francisco d'Anconia's "Money Speech." Then follow with the radio address at the beginning of Part III. This is the mysterious main character John Galt letting the world know that he has destroyed it, and the reasons why. It's the whole basic premise of the book, and will give you an idea of what you're in for. Then start from the beginning. That's how I ended up having to do it.

Many people either just read the Cliff Notes, or had someone read the book to them and fell asleep in the middle, or are outright misrepresenting the truth for their own questionable purposes. These people believe, or at least maintain, that John Galt's strike was a strike of the 'rich against the poor.' Anyone who has read and comprehended this book finds this description laughable.

Plenty of poor folks wound up on Galt's side, and plenty of rich folks didn't. The strike was that of the Productive Class against the looters.

The Productive Class doesn't just include company owners, industrialists, inventors and the like. It includes waitresses, truck drivers, construction workers...it includes anyone who pays their own way in the world. It includes anyone who produces more than they consume. It is we, the Productive Class, who make possible the lives of those who live off of us.

Read that last sentence again. If it were not for those of us who work for a living, ie; produce a good or service and exchange it in an atmosphere of voluntary mutual consent, the looters would not survive. Lest anyone become confused, the exchange doesn't necessarily have to be monetary--a traditional housewife, for example, isn't earning a paycheck per se, but by keeping house, raising children and the like, she is exchanging her effort for support. (Hopefully, the intangible benefits inherent in a loving relationship are part of the exchange. They should be, anyway.)

When I speak of the looters, I am describing those who contribute nothing, yet expect everything. Who take large portions of our earnings, under threat of violence, in the name of some nebulous 'greater good.' Who believe that they are entitled to the results of the effort of others, simply because they cannot obtain these results on their own.
In the not-too-distant past, people were expected to do for themselves. To not earn your way in the world, and to live off the largesse of others, was considered shameful. This ensured that the minimum amount of people would attempt to make a lifestyle out of parasitism, and those who had fallen on hard times through no fault of their own, would make every effort to get back on their feet as soon as they possibly could. But this was

Before the dark times. Before the Empire. --Obi-Wan Kenobi
 

Once private charities began to be replaced by government handouts, it wasn't long before an entitlement mentality developed. No longer were people considered losers for not supporting themselves. They were now considered helpless victims. They didn't have to show up, hat in hand, at a church or charity...'society' owed them a living. Nothing was their fault, and they couldn't possibly do for themselves anyway. When you tell people that they're victims, and condition them to expect that any effort they put forth is doomed to failure, is it any wonder that this is the result?

But the programmed-to-be-unmotivated welfare/WIC/EIC/etc. recipients are a drop in the bucket compared to the real looters. Any 'businessmen' who seek government regulations to stifle competition, or who want grants, handouts or subsidies because they can't compete in a free market with free choice? Looters. Federal government agencies not specifically authorized by the Constitution? Looters. Any company or organization of any kind that could not survive without government funding or support? Looters.

The looters need us. We do not need them. This is why they believe, and espouse, that 'need' evokes some kind of claim on those who aren't in 'need.' Wrong. If you think you 'need' something, you can work for it, you can trade for it, or you can attempt to persuade someone why they should provide it to you. But if you think it's acceptable in the slightest to take something from me by force(or threat thereof), simply because you claim you 'need' it...well, so does a rapist.

I have no problem with true charity. I've been both the donor and the recipient of it. But 'charity' collected at gunpoint is simply theft, and--as you're now no doubt aware--I call it as I see it. So now, when I refer to the 'Productive Class' and the 'looters,' you'll know what I'm talking about. And call me whatever names you want, but please at least try to come up with something original.

It's not a four-letter word.

For those of you Oppressives who use the term "individualist" as an insult:

1)  Bite my crank.

2)  Read this, or have someone translate it into monosyllabic terminology punctuated with generous amounts of profanity so you can understand it.

3)  Try to come up with a rebuttal.  I'll likely find your pathetic, illogical rantings a source of tragicomic amusement.

There may be no "i" in "team," but neither is there a "we" in "achievement." Just as "we" did not vote ourselves into this mess we're in, "we" did not invent the light bulb, develop mass production of motorcars, devise the protocols of the Internet, or put a man on the moon.

All of those things were done by individuals, and -- to the extent that public monies were appropriated to pay for those things -- the vast majority of those forced to pay did not willingly give up the money, nor did even a plurality of them favor the projects. They were forced into supporting them -- unjustly -- by government which had no brief, no right, and no lawful authority to engage in the activity.

And, although the accomplishments are noteworthy, it is also worth noting that, to date, the government has done nothing worth mentioning with these wonderful initiatives. It took a British programmer working at a UN project in Switzerland to develop the mechanism that made the Internet a viable mass medium. It took an entrepreneur in Seattle to make it a viable commercial marketplace. And, now, all government can think to do with it is kill the golden goose with taxes.

 Yep, I'm an Individual, an Individualist, an independent, autonomous, self-aware, self-governing sentient being.  You should try the whole thing out sometime...once you get used to it, it's pretty cool.

Rand on Christianity

Not what you might think.  Observe, below the fold, this letter written by Rand to a Reverend back in 1943...

A new ticket for 2012

Whaddya think?

Interest: Why it's necessary...and good.

No matter your faith, or lack thereof, you really need to read Ann's latest missive, posted in full below.  Oppressives, go find a Conservative to explain the big words to you...I'm pretty sure your Bitter Wymmynz Studies degree didn't cover any of this.

Going Galt

It's spreading.  Ayn Rand appears to have been an atheist prophet(is that possible?).

My dad closed his business after 30 years of operation because of the environmental theocracy. He wasn’t huge-just employed 6 uneducated, otherwise-unskilled workers. He wasn’t polluting – in fact, he was awarded a U.S. patent for a waste-free plating system. But the government bureaucrats need someone to pursue to justify their own existence, and slapped him with a lawsuit demanding mounds of paperwork, fines for not previously keeping paperwork they way they liked (fines: $25k/day by statute), environmental impact statements, etc. He shut down. He now owns nothing. He spends his days plays golf, with his model trains, and with his grandchildren. His only income is now Social Security. His quote: “These government parasites spent years hounding and harassing me. I’ll parasite off them for awhile and see how they like it.”

My parents have owned a small business for 18 years. They have six employees and in that time have always provided health insurance. Until two years ago, they paid 100% of the premium. Then they asked them to contribute 10% of the premium — all but one employee acted like this was hugely unfair. This year, because of the new requirements of the Obamacare bill, premiums went up 600 percent. That’s not a typo — many others in the franchise saw their rates go up even more. My parents could not sustain this and so they dropped coverage and instead contribute $500/month toward the individual health care plan or savings account of the employee’s choice. Then they go home and see themselves villified by politicians who themselves have never had to meet a payroll.

Consider us shrugging. We are closing a 20 year medical practice. Go to the lawyers when you are sick. Have fun. The hardest part is leaving our loyal employees high and dry, but we can’t work anymore in Obama’s medical climate.

And it goes on...and on.  RTWT.  All you Leftists ask yourselves a question:  What will you do when the folks who provide the things you need...all quit?  How will you survive when you've strangled the last doctor, dentist and power company? 

I know the answer, even if you've never considered the question.  You don't care.  You hate humanity, and you hate yourselves for being human.  You'd rather die than see mankind prosper.  That's why you embrace the suicidal insanity of Leftist policies.  Your subconcious has followed them to their logical conclusion, and you know, deep down, that what I'm saying is true.

Stop being selfish, bitter little brats and join the rest of us in the world of thinking, reasoning adults.  It beats the alternative your psychotic class envy and lust for power is going to lead us to.

Quotation-heavy.

First, go read this great article by Lloyd Marcus, a sterling Patriot whom I hope someday to meet.


Once again, the liberal media is telling us who is "too Tea Party" to win and why we should pick a moderate to run against Obama in 2012. The title of the liberal media’s sequel is, "Sucker the Conservatives Two: This Time We Really Think You’re Stupid".

Let me tell you what I think about moderates. Even Jesus had a problem with moderates. He said, "You are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold, I will spew you out of my mouth". In other words, for crying out loud, have the backbone, character and conviction to take a stand for something.

The 2012 presidential election is going to be all about Obama, mmm, mmm, mmm! Thus, we need a candidate who understands this reality and will boldly go after Obama politically; someone with all American John Wayne true grit committed to tea party principles. So far, our John Wayne is a Momma Grizzly. The liberal media wants to set us up with another moderate linguine to lose AGAIN!Emphasis is mine. (The actual translation is, "I will vomit thee from my mouth." Little stronger, isn't it?) Hang tight, atheists, I'm getting to a point you may appreciate.

Let's check in with Ayn Rand, founder of Objectivism and hardcore atheist. What did she have to say about moderates?


"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil."

My emphasis again. Now, when Ayn Rand and Jesus Christ agree on something, you might want to pay attention. The point--for those of you on drugs, mentally challenged or products of the Publik Skools--is this: Pick A Side.

If you choose the side of good--liberty, free will and human dignity--I will stand with you to the end. If you choose the side of evil--tyranny, control and oppression--I will fight you to the end. But if you stand for nothing; if you try to waffle around in the middle, attempting to please everyone and offend no one, neither man nor God has any welcome for you.

One more quote from "Freewill" by Rush:

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

Pick a side. Good, Evil or Wrong. Your call.

Gordon Gekko was right!

TL In Exile explains why 'greed is good.' I've been trying to tell people this for years in a slightly less patronizing and involved way than Rand did...and then TL shows me up in one post.

Smartass. ;)

Ayn Rand vs. Mike Wallace...

...plus other commentary.  I was just going to link the video, but Brian has quite a bit to say here that's worth reading.

In 10 days, the movie, "Atlas Shrugged" will be released. It has had an awful history. A history delayed perhaps in some cosmic coincidence that mandated the arrival of "Atlas Shrugged" to a world filled with dystopians who no longer read and who are barely capable of comprehending the subject matter in the manner in which it will be presented. The dystopians who don't understand this movie- are the ones who have made it possible.

RTWT, and watch the seven-minute clip of Rand giving the young Leftist a verbal spanking.  Worth it.

Jesus Christ...Economist?

Hottie With An Evil Pink Rifle is back from the Great White North and is giving us a Biblical (and realistic) perspective on wealth redistribution you're unlikely to find anywhere else.

What does He mean? Does He mean, "Bah, forget the poor! Live it up!" Absolutely not. What He is explaining is that in all free societies wealth will always exist within a SPECTRUM. Let's compare a "poor" person in the U.S. to a "poor" person in Bangladesh. A poor person in Bangladesh literally lives in the gutter without so much as a cardboard shelter to sleep under. They are sick from malnutrition and starvation. They probably dress in literal rags, and certainly do not own a pair of shoes. Bathing only occurs when they can immerse themselves in a river, which is opaque with sewage. They own nothing except the rags that they wear. Every day is a struggle to get a bit of clean water and enough food to merely survive. That's a poor person in Bangladesh.

What constitutes a "poor" person in the U.S.? A poor person in the U.S. does not have cable. A poor person in the U.S. does not have broadband internet access, and may not even own a PC. A poor person in the U.S. may have just within the last year or two finally switched from a cathode ray tube television to a flat screen, digital model. A poor person in the U.S. receives food stamps, medicaid and a welfare check. A poor person in the U.S. is probably overweight. A poor person in the U.S. drives a car that is so old that it came with a factory cassette player. A poor person in the U.S. lives either in a trailer or a HUD apartment complex. A poor person in the U.S. probably DOES have a cell phone.
 
Understand that on a percentage level, these two descriptions are equivalent. A "poor" person in the U.S. has a standard of living that would be considered luxurious in Bangladesh and other impoversished countries. The notions of "wealth" and "poverty", by logical and mathematical definition, exist within a SPECTRUM. And no matter what we do, that spectrum will always, always exist. That is what Jesus is saying. There will always be a top-end, and there will always be a bottom-end. In some nations (like Bangladesh), that spectrum is very broad and reaches very far down into poverty, indeed. There are billionaires in Bangladesh, and there are people starving in the gutters in rags. In the U.S., we certainly have a wealth spectrum, but the low end is much higher and the spectrum is much narrower. We have many billionaires, but our lower-end is nowhere NEAR as low as Bangladesh's.
 
Someone is always going to have more money and assets than somebody else. It is impossible to have a free society wherein every person has exactly the same level of wealth. Someone has to be the business OWNER, and someone has to be the EMPLOYEE. Someone has to be the wage PAYER and someone has to be the wage EARNER. If everyone in a culture was economically equal at all times, there would be zero employment because no one would work for anyone except themselves. You can't have a company with 10,000 CEOs. Conversely, you can't have a company that is nothing but entry-level laborers. Someone has to be responsible. Someone has to sign the paychecks. Someone has to determine the course of the business. Someone has to risk their assets and wealth to start-up the company in the first place. And, at the other end, someone has to scrub the toilets. The only way to get true, complete equality of wealth would be to kill EVERYBODY.

This is simply a 3-paragraph excerpt.  Go thou forth and RTWT.

Gellar, Rand and Palin

Get ready to clean up the results of this column:  the exploding heads of anti-liberty extremists.

As for Sarah Palin not being electable — by whom? The left? So what? Who cares? They are never going to vote for her anyway (or for any decent, qualified American). We were never getting that vote. We need to communicate to our base, and to people capable of critical thinking. We need to communicate our ideas to each other outside the media and the cable networks. They have failed us, failed America. We need to be proactive, craft our message and get it out there. Responding to defamation is reactive. It eats up our time, energy, resources. Enough. We cannot throw away our best people after they have been gang-raped by our enemies. Would you do that with people you love? Would you abandon a family member who had been attacked by jealous inferiors? Of course not. You would fight back with every breath in your body. That is what is being demanded of you now. Your family is this nation, you must defend it like a …. mama grizzly.

They do not want to own your fortune, they want you to lose it; they do not want to succeed, they want you to fail; they do not want to live, they want you to die; they desire nothing, they hate existence, and they keep running, each trying not to learn that the object of his hatred is himself . . . . They are the essence of evil, they, those anti-living objects who seek, by devouring the world, to fill the selfless zero of their soul. It is not your wealth that they’re after. Theirs is a conspiracy against the mind, which means: against life and man. (Ayn Rand)

Evil is made possible by the sanction you give it. Withdraw your sanction. Now. The debased and the soulless are not our masters. They do not tell us what to think and who to follow or who we can like or dislike or who we can be friends with.

RTWT and then go get a mop.

Of logic and faith: prelude

Logic and faith, as it turns out, are not mutually exclusive.

I'm working on another Uberpost which will hopefully explain how I reconcile my newfound Christianity with that whole 'reason' thing.  In the meantime, IAmDagny aka Hottie With An Evil Pink Rifle has given a pretty solid explanation on HoneyTrail.

In a nutshell, whenever you read Rand and she is talking about “reason” or “logic”, she is actually (unwittingly) talking about Christ. John 1:1 specifically identifies Christ as “the Word”, which is “Logos” in Greek. Logos is the Greek word for “logic” and “reason”. God is, in Himself, logic and reason, and we are made in His image. The fact that humans possess the capability to reason and think logically is the attribute that makes us “made in the image of God”. Rand was so close. She knew that our ability to reason lifted us to infinite dignity, but she missed that it was Christ indwelling in our minds and giving us that “spark” of reason. She thought that human minds self-generated reason and that there was no outside Source.

Re-read Atlas making that substitution and it will knock you on the floor.

And another Christian libertarian, Don't Tread On Mike, brings us evidence that even according to the Bible, the Earth is not 6000 years old.

Whatever you choose to believe, if you don’t take anything else away from this article, understand this: The theories that some Young-Earth Creationists come up with are flat out stupid. Not only are the completely unscientific, they aren’t even grounded in the Bible. Where do the Biblical authors mention a giant ice canopy that melted and fell to earth and caused a flood?

So before you go making scientific claims, make sure you understand basic high school science…if you want to be taken seriously that is. And don’t believe Young-Earth Creationists just because they’re Christians. A lot of them have no idea what they’re talking about, even in terms of scientific theories that everyone knows are facts.

As I said, I'll be putting forth my own thoughts on the subject when I have time--things are a little busy right now.  But just as Christians need to quit dismissing science out of hand, so do secularists of all stripes need to quit slamming their minds shut at the mention of faith.  That's the only way we can ever have any form of civilized debate.

Revisiting Detroit

I touched upon this blighted place a while back.  If you can believe it, it's getting worse.

Now, remember, folks...Detroit has been down with the ProgOppressive program for quite some time.  Take a look at where it's led them--Straight.  To.  Hell.  One would think that these Leftist 'intellectuals,' these beacons of reason and enlightenment, would--I dunno--take a look at the freakin' evidence right in front of their freakin' eyes, and conclude that the whole Oppressive thing doesn't really work as well as they thought.

One would think that.  One would be wrong.

So, we see people who insist they want to create utopia on Earth, who are, in fact, acting in direct opposition to their stated goal.  This is, on the surface, a contradiction.  But contradictions are impossible.  When facing a supposed contradiction, one only needs to check one's premises and figure out which of them is wrong.*  In this case, the wrong premise should be obvious.

Oppressives say they want to create utopia.  They are lying.  They do not, in fact, wish to create anything.  Their whole mission, whether they consciously recognize it or not, is destruction.  They are nihilists.  They are disciples of emptiness, who believe that the destruction of a thing of beauty puts the destroyer on the same moral level as the creator.  Their ideal is the drab gray of nothingness, of indifference, of nonexistence.

If you wish to follow these people, it's your decision.  I'm the last person who will ever interfere with someone's free will.  But now you know the destination you're being led towards; the end result of The Master Plan.  If you would travel this road, you should at least do so with open eyes and firm purpose.  In that case, though I may fight you, I will at least respect you.

But now that you know the details, ask yourself:  Is this truly the road I wish to travel?



* You may thank the late Ayn Rand for her Gordian-knot method of solving apparent contradictions.

Captain Hook with a 12-gauge

In Ayn Rand's most (in)famous work, Atlas Shrugged, an unlikely hero by the name of Ragnar Danneskjold explains his mission in life:

"I'm after a man whom I want to destroy. "

"What man?"

"Robin Hood. ...He was the man who robbed the rich and gave to the poor. Well, I'm the man who robs the poor and gives to the rich – or, to be exact, the man who robs the thieving poor and gives back to the productive rich." (2.7.2.93-97)

I know exactly how Mr. Danneskjold feels.  While I wish him luck on his quest, I have a target of my own to take down.  I've been after this punk for years, and I won't stop until justice has been done.  If it's the last thing I do...

...I'm going to kill Peter Pan.

Stuff most of you won't care about

If you have no idea who Ayn Rand is, nor what Objectivism is, then just skip this post.  If you're at least somewhat conversant with these topics, you might want to read the linked article.  People are finally taking notice that many 'Objectivists'...ain't.

(H/t to the good people @ Sipsey Street Irregulars)

The peaceful and tolerant Left

I happened upon this story today, concerning a strange phenomenon taking place in Brazil--hundreds of dead penguins, their stomachs empty, have washed up on the beach. I'm greatly saddened, because I love penguins. Hopefully, the cause of their demise will be found soon.

Browsing through the comments, I encountered the usual expressions of dismay, smartassery and the all-too-predictable "ITS GLOBAL WARMING WERE ALL GONNA DIE!!!one11one!" Then I found one that puts the Leftist mindset into perfect perspective:

"Having worked with the general public for about 12 years now I have come to a simple conclusion. I am fine with some kind of mass extinction event in the near future. I dont mind dying as long as most of you zombies die too. Drill Baby Drill, I heard there's oil in the center of the earth let's drill baby. If I was to ever run into Palin, alone, there would be no more Palin."

First off, "Pablo" might wish to be a little more circumspect about threatening a public figure, lest some guys in black suits show up on his doorstep for a little chat. (And I believe Sarah would end up kicking his tough-talking ass up and down the block...then she'd pray for him.) But take a look at the rest of the comment. This guy hates humanity. He welcomes mass extinctions of human beings, which he terms 'zombies,' and is even willing to sacrifice his own life if lots and lots of other people die in the process.

Now, granted, one comment by one dickhead does not a movement make. But when you examine the Left--particularly the environazis--closely, in the light of this person's statements, it's pretty obvious he's far from alone.

The Left, as I've been slowly realizing for years now, is based on hate. They hate people in general. They hate themselves for existing. They really hate those of us who strive to better ourselves, who achieve great things, who believe in the exceptionalism and heroic potential of all mankind. For all their propaganda about how much they 'care,' they're consumed with rage, bitterness and self-loathing. How else do you explain their hysterical, rabid attacks against anyone who advocates freedom and liberty? Their alliance with an intolerant, murderous sociopolitical system disguised as a religion? Their elevation of the 'rights' of everything from animals to plants to dirt above the welfare of humankind?

Evil rarely announces itself openly. It wraps itself in platitudes of 'justice,' 'tolerance,' 'peace' and other feel-good terms, else it would be rejected before it could spread. But good intentions mean nothing when the end result is destruction. I will close with a quote from Ayn Rand which sums up the entire mentality of the Left in three lines.

"They do not want to have your fortune--they want you to lose it. They do not wish to succeed--they want you to fail. They do not want to live--they want you to die."

The 'Productive Class' and why we're revolted.

I am, as some might have deduced, an admirer of the works of Ayn Rand.

Note that I am not necessarily an admirer of the woman herself. By most accounts, Rand got high on her own supply of publicity and ended up acting like much like the intellectuals she despised. The woman who laid out the philosophy and principles of Objectivism("To put nothing--nothing! above the verdict of my own mind.")wound up shutting her own mind to anything but her own theories, blacklisting anyone who disagreed with her even slightly, and was generally a hateful bitch. So, I'm not a 'Randian' by any stretch of the imagination.