Leftist Dormice

At Pass the Garum, the author is waxing eloquent about Roman culinary history.  I'm seeing a disturbing parallel here concerning those who wish to vote themselves Free Stuff...

5) Glirarium - The Dormouse Jar

©SANP

You have this great house at the bottom of a jar. Even better, once a day a hand appears from the heavens and drops some acorns in at the top! You roll out of your cosy straw nest, stretch a bit, and then scamper up to the top of the jar to get some treats. Scampering is getting quite tough, as you're putting on a lot of weight, but that doesn't matter too much - you're living the dormouse dream. That kind, gift-giving hand starts to reach into the jar again. More treats already? Not this time - before you can say 'squeak' you've been scooped up, thrown into a pan, covered in honey, peppered with poppy seeds, and gobbled up by some wealthy senator. Your house, it turns out, was a glirarium, used solely to fatten up dormice for eating.

Welcome to the Glirarium, Proglodytes.  Enjoy your Free Stuff for the moment...

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.

NO amnesty without security!!

No.  Not just no but HELL NO.  Not just HELL NO but F*CK THAT.  We're not falling for this crap again.

The Border Patrol caught 1,874 people in a 150 square miles of border. In the Sonora Desert from October 1, 2012 – January 17, 2013 the system also identified an additional 1,962 who evaded arrest. The Border Control calls them “gotaways”.

Millions of illegal aliens will receive amnesty once DHS submits a plan to Congress dictating how secure the border is. They only have to submit a plan. They don’t have to follow the plan. This is 1986 all over again. They promised in 1986 that the border would be secure. Nothing happened, and that is why we are offering amnesty again.

Sheriff Paul Babeu writes:

“As you have seen all over the news, Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) employees in Arizona, California, Georgia and Texas were ordered by their administration to release 2,228 criminal illegals from custody. These criminal illegals are now living in neighborhoods throughout the United States. President Obama and Secretary Janet Napolitano denied any prior knowledge of their release but both have said all of those released were “low risk” and “non-violent detainees”. Does a criminal illegal detainee who is accused of committing a murder or those who have been charged and/or convicted with molesting young children, drug smuggling, cartel members, narcotics traffickers, those who commit forgery, weapons offenses, aggravated robbery, aggravated DUI or aggravated assault against peace officers sound like somebody who is “low risk” and “non-violent” to you. The answer is NO!!! This was yet another lie and cover up committed by the White House and Secretary Napolitano.”

RTWT.  Once you secure the damn border, and I mean actually secure it, using whatever means necessary to keep invaders out of our country, THEN we can talk about what to do regarding those who are already here.  If they've committed no crimes--other than crossing illegally--and wish to become Americans in full, I've got no problem with us hammering out a compromise which tempers the rule of law with compassion and mercy.

But the first priority, before anything else, must be a secure border.  We were promised that last time, and got nothing.  We have seen that we cannot trust our opponents to keep to their word.  Anyone who votes for amnesty without border securement being an iron-clad, you-first, guaranteed condition, is a traitor to the United States of America, and deserves to be treated as such.

I leave you with the wise words of Teddy Roosevelt:

We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birth-place or origin.

But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn't doing his part as an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. . . We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding-house; and we have room for but one soul loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.

Amen.

The rejection of false sympathy

We have come to a point in our society where we aren't supposed to learn from our mistakes.  When I was coming up, if I did something stupid and got hurt, I was grilled as to why I did that, what the hell I was thinking, and what did I learn from the consequences?  That's how human beings learn.  Now, whenever a kid does something stupid, helicopter parents do everything possible to deflect the consequences and place the blame on everyone else in the world.

And the resulting kids turn out with the attitudes of these people.  But Karl Denninger's having none of it.

Listen up, you incompetent and defective sack of meat -- your son is dead because you are unfit to be parents.

You sat silently by while your state and our nation erected signs telling people who are criminally insane where they can find the maximum number of defenseless people to murder.

You are personally, jointly and severably responsible for the consequences.

You are unfit to possess a uterus and your husband is unfit to possess testicles.

You, Mrs. Wheeler, having willingly and intentionally refused to take responsibility for your acts of omission and commission that led to your son being murdered by a madman now have the audacity to stand in front of the nation and demand that everyone else give up their children to murderous goons as well.

Go to Hell Mr. and Mrs. Wheeler, and take your state and its alleged laws with you.

RTWT.  It may seem cold and callous, but it's a sorely-needed bitch-slap of truth.  And don't call it 'blaming the victim,' either.  These people aren't the victims; they are the perpetrators of an evil and stupid policy that allowed a bunch of innocent children to be murdered with impunity by a bitter, disturbed hateful man who was told--in black and white--that he would face no resistance.

Gun-grabbers, grow the hell up, put your precious feeeelings aside and engage your brain.  Mr. Denninger's absolutely correct in his assessment, and I'll back him to the hilt on it.  If you'd learned the concept of personal responsibility when you were younger, maybe those kids would still be alive.

I said it in an earlier post, and I now reiterate:  The blood is on your hands.  Not ours.

Nonconformity: The more you try...

...the more you fail.

On with the story of the Most Punk Rock Dude I Ever Knew.

Take a trip back in time to the 1980's, when the punk subculture was growing across the land like a noxious weed, offending the sensibilities of pretty much everybody.  Punk, like Metal, like the Hippie movement before it and Rock & Roll before that and Jazz before that, was about pushing the boundaries.  It was free-form:  do what you want, look how you like, just do something different.

And, like all the other movements, it got co-opted, sanitized and turned into a popularity contest.

The spirit of individualism was shoved aside in favor of the herd mentality.  If you dared to like music other than 3-chord hardcore, if you didn't dress in the appropriate style, if you didn't subscribe to a strange and contradictory mix of anarchism and communism in your political views, if you didn't hate capitalism and America, if you didn't bow down at the altar of Political Correctness and constantly bemoan one "-ism" after another, then you were a "poser," not a Real Punk.

I call bullshit, just like I did then.  A real punk does what s/he wants, and doesn't give one rat's ass who thinks they're punk or not.  Which brings me to my friend Ray.

A general description of punk rockers would illustrate how truly indistinguishable most of them were.  Weird hair, jacket with anti-government/pro-communism sayings and symbols, T-shirt, torn jeans and black footwear.  So one guy would have blue spikes and one a green mohawk.  One guy would have SMASH THE STATE on his jacket, another would have the circle-A.  One had high-tops, one had combat boots.  One wore a Rancid shirt, another favored the Exploited.  Without specific details, you couldn't tell them apart. 

But you couldn't miss Ray.

Ray had normal hair, carried a briefcase and wore slacks and a pinstripe shirt with the sleeves ripped off.  He was all about business and capitalism.  Yep--a capitalist punk.  And that made him more punk than anyone else in the scene.  Ray was truly doing his own thing, and didn't care who thought it was cool.  Compare that to the mindless lockstep mentality found in any liberal enclave, anywhere in America.

I took a lesson from him, and learned to think for myself, do what I wanted, and form my own opinions regardless of who liked it.  So I've become a redneck in an import truck, a first-generation American who wants secure borders, a conservative who favors drug legalization, and a beer-swilling, tattooed biker and truck driver who loves his cats and collects stuffed penguins.  No, I don't fit a stereotype, nor do I care to...and if you're worried about whether a "real" lib/con/whatever would do this or that before you do it?  You're trying too hard. 

Think for yourself, pursue the truth, and do whatever the hell you want that doesn't violate the rights of another.  It's called liberty.  Take advantage of the little we have left.

Why they lie right in your face

(Sorry, the Most Punk Rock Dude Ever post is pushed back one.  This is too important to let slide, and I'm going to steal it in full from Blue.)

Dear Blue,

Did you see Obama's speech yesterday, calling for more gun control?

Did it make your blood boil?

It made a lot of people's blood boil because Gun Control is a BIG LIE and Obama is a master at the BIG LIE.

Responsible, sane Americans are being mentally abused.

Have you ever heard the term gaslighting?

Check it out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse in which false information is presented with the intent of making a victim doubt his or her own memory, perception, and sanity.

Instances may range simply from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred, up to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim (Dorpat, 1994).

You are being told repeatedly by anti-gun advocates, politicians, and the media that they support the Second Amendment and that no one really wants to take your guns, yet the President is pushing Congress for more restrictive gun control legislation that will substantially impact your gun rights.

You're being told that the gun control measures they want to take are "reasonable" and reflective of "common sense," yet your own common sense makes it clear not a single measure being suggested would have prevented any of the mass shootings we've seen.

You are being told that law enforcement supports gun control when in fact law enforcement officers surveyed reject gun control.

You're being told that civilians have no need for an AR-15 or 30-round magazines, yet the people who seek to ban them are routinely protected by the same weapons with the same high-capacity magazines, along with their families.

You are being told that gun registration can help reduce violent crime; yet we know criminals are not going to register their guns, and every modern despot who came to power used gun registration to ultimately disarm the public before invoking tyrannical policies.

You will soon be told that the actions being taken are necessary to stop the senseless violence and murder of innocent children. Yet, effective solutions like armed security in schools or the elimination of gun-free zones where mass murders tend to occur, are dismissed outright, all while armed security protects the halls and residences of those in power.

To the weak minded these reforms will seem acceptable. Rest assured, however, that when the next mass murders occur, directly as a result of more gun control shifting the balance of power further into the hands of criminals by disarming the law abiding, the government will insist the changes did not go far enough and they will come after the remaining guns.

You are told gun confiscation will never happen, that gun registration is simply to prevent criminals from having guns, yet gun confiscation occurred after Hurricane Katrina and is happening now in the state of New York and in the state of California.

The Nazis understood the effectiveness of using authority to manage average people who were reluctant to believe that the regime would ultimately harm them. The Warsaw Ghetto, where the Nazis segregated Polish Jews before sending most of them to die in Treblinka during WWII is a good example. Initially the Jews vastly outnumbered their Nazi overlords yet these people complied with the edicts imposed upon them, thinking it wise to do so - until it was too late. The same was true of the Russians who were murdered under Stalin, the Cambodians under Pol Pot, the Rwandan Tutsis under the Hutus, and every other example of the imposition of tyranny.

Don't think it could happen here?

You are being Gaslighted. You are being told lies about the true intentions of those who seek to take your gun rights by attrition and they have much history to show them how to do it. 170 million people have fallen for this tactic and were eventually killed by their own governments.

Those who suggest this is happening are branded as paranoid conspiracy nuts, a tactic of the gaslighting process. The approach is as clever and effective as it is diabolical and many in America are falling prey to it.

Those who recognize it for what it is will face difficult choices -- comply or resist both of which carry adverse consequences.

We study history to understand where the future is likely to carry us and now you are living it. Either you are going to be a part of deciding your own destiny or you will allow others to determine it for you. I choose the former.

Make no mistake. ANY politician who introduces, supports, or votes for ANY gun control is either uninformed and uneducated on the subject or is knowingly violating our Second Amendment rights.

Either way, whether an idiot or a traitor, THEY NEED TO BE VOTED OUT OF OFFICE. Make sure they know, each and every day through an e-mail, a call or a letter that YOU ARE WATCHING THEIR EVERY MOVE on the gun issue.

Here is a link to find your representatives. http://capwiz.com/gunowners/dbq/officials/

And remember, if all else fails, the only thing they can't take from you is your ability and willingness to use the guns you have to defend yourself against all enemies, foreign and domestic so make sure YOU ARE TRAINED.

Sincerely,

Dr. Ignatius Piazza
Founder and Director
Front Sight Firearms Training Institute
7975 Cameron Drive, #900
Windsor, CA 95492
http://www.frontsight.com
info@frontsight.com
1.800.987.7719

That's what they're doing to us.  And when evil people are intent on making you mistrust your sanity, you gotta have an anchor in reality.  So, yes...I AM 'bitterly clinging' to my Bible, my Constitution and my sacred honor.  Nothing else matters.  And, in respectful disagreement with Dr. Piazza, I'm not voting any more.  My God-given human rights are not up for a vote, and if the last few years haven't proven the utter and complete corruption of the entire political process, then you're beyond all hope of anything approaching an IQ.

I'm going to live my life as I will, and aggress against no one, but I will defend my rights, life and property to the end.  Win or lose.  What 'laws' this gang of thugs and criminals pass, mean just as much as Fat Tony's decree that I owe him 'protection' money.

Suck on that, you arrogant, self-important Proglodytes.

Tragicomic irony

So many of the Left's useful idiots still think of themselves as "nonconformists."

Bullshit.

Gun grabbers: Read if you dare.

"Why are you gun nuts so rabid about Common Sense Gun Control?  You're just a bunch of Bambi-killing, little-dicked honkies!  Why do you have such a problem with our proposals?"

Because THIS.

Today, as I write this, I realize how crucial the ability to defend oneself truly is. It’s not about having to justify myself to anyone in power anytime I want to purchase a certain weapon. It’s not about being registered like a common criminal simply because I want to own a gun. It’s not even about being called a “gun nut” or an “NRA freak.”

It’s about the slow, systematic destruction of dignity and strength. It’s about the methodical erosion of our personal defenses. And all of the above are definitive symptoms of that erosion.

For once you’ve taken away a person’s self-respect – once you’ve taken away a person’s dignity – it becomes all the easier to take away his or her means of self-defense. And once that’s gone – that’s the precise moment you know you’ve been completely defeated.

RTWT.  If you still don't get it, then there's simply no hope for you.

Not that I give a damn if you get it or not.  My God-given human rights are not up for debate, and woe betide those who would seek to violate them.

"Law-Abiding?"

And what happens when injustice becomes law? 

Here's one that many Law & Order types cling to when discussing 2A: All law-abiding Americans are entitled to 2A.

Most of us immediately red-flag that law-abiding part of the statement.

What laws must we abide to remain in good graces for retaining 2A? Does it mean that anyone who has commited "crimes" in the past, or served time, is no longer entitled to 2A? Does the guy smoking pot, or dealing pot or heroin surrender his 2A because dealing in pot or heroin is against the law? What about the poor slobs who have done 20 years for dealing pot, only to be released into a new America where it is now legalized? Is he still a criminal to be debarred 2A?

Good questions. 

It is said, "When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty."  And, as I've been saying for a while, when the government ignores the rule of law, then there is no law.  We live in a state of anarchy, folks...time to wake up and realize that.

So, having made that clear, what does the law have to do with our God-given human rights?

Wise words

Chained in a Gilded Cage.

It seems as though our local, state and federal governments are not as inclined as their citizens to tighten their proverbial belts. Stockton, California is the latest (and largest) of our cities to declare bankruptcy in the face of rising expenditures and lower tax revenues. Rather than make hard decisions, live within their means and feel the pain now, they continue to increases taxes, borrow money and rob Peter to pay Paul until the inevitable happens - insolvency. And then, they scream, cry foul and demand - you guessed it - more tax money, because, heaven forbid, if the people don't pay up children will go hungry, poor, helpless single mothers will be forced to live in poverty and the wealthy elite (who should have been paying their "fair share" from the beginning) will take over the world, re-introduce work houses and trample on the human rights of the under-trodden. Oh, the inhumanities!

But, in all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth, you will never hear a confession of guilt. Not once will the government officials stand before the taxpayers and humbly admit that their overspending, poor stewardship and wanton excess was, in fact, the greatest contributing factor to the fall of the civilized world. They will never beg forgiveness, right their wrongs and move forward with honesty and integrity. Our leaders, in fact, are not the least bit repentant for the part they have played in the dismantling of our nation.

Budgeting is not a matter of politics and rhetoric, but rather a matter of not spending more than you make. Many a Professor of Economics can lecture We the People on the complexities of federal budgets, tell us that we "can't possibly understand", however, we know the truth. The truth is that you pay what you owe, you don't spend more than you bring in and you always have at least six months in reserve for a rainy day. Plain and simple. When your income decreases, you expenditures must decrease. And yes, it can be painful. It can hurt. But it has to be done.

Yep, but it won't be.  It won't even be considered until it's far too late.