Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Community Log In
1
Quote# 120165

Let me explain, gun grabbers, how your confiscatory fantasy plays out. Let us imagine for a moment that a sweeping gun control bill similar to the one currently suggested is passed by the House and Senate, and signed into law by a contemptuous President.

Perhaps 50-100 million firearms currently owned by law-abiding citizens will become contraband with the stroke of a pen. Citizens will either register their firearms, or turn them in to agents of the federal government, or risk becoming criminals themselves. Faced with this choice, millions will indeed register their arms. Perhaps as many will claim they’ve sold their arms, or had them stolen. Suppose that as many as 200-250 million weapons of other types will go unregistered.

Tens of millions of Americans will refuse to comply with an order that is clearly a violation of the explicit intent of the Second Amendment. Among the most ardent opposing these measures will be military veterans, active duty servicemen, and local law enforcement officers. Many of these individuals will refuse to carry out what they view as Constitutionally illegal orders. Perhaps 40-50 million citizens will view such a law as treason. Perhaps ten percent of those, 4-5 million, would support a rebellion in some way, and maybe 40,000-100,000 Americans will form small independently-functioning active resistance cells, or become lone-wolves.

They will be leaderless, stateless, difficult to track, and considering the number of military veterans that would likely be among their number, extremely skilled at sabotage, assassination, and ambush.

After a number of carefully-planned, highly-publicized, and successful raids by the government, one or more will invariably end “badly.” Whether innocents are gunned down, a city block is burned to ash, or especially fierce resistance leads to a disastrously failed raid doesn’t particularly matter. What matters is that when illusion of the government’s invincibility and infallibility is broken, the hunters will become the hunted.

Unnamed citizens and federal agents will be the first to die, and they will die by the dozens and maybe hundreds, but famous politicians will soon join them in a spate of revenge killings, many of which will go unsolved.

Ironically, while the gun grab was intended to keep citizens from preserving their liberties with medium-powered weapons, it completely ignored the longer-ranged rifles perfect for shooting at ranges far beyond what a security detail can protect, and suppressed .22LR weapons proven deadly in urban sniping in Europe and Asia.

While the Secret Service will be able to protect the President in the White House, he will not dare leave his gilded cage except in carefully controlled circumstances. Even then he will be forced to move like a criminal. He will never be seen outdoors in public again. Not in this country.

The 535 members of the House and Senate in both parties that allowed such a law to pass would largely be on their own; the Secret Service is too small to protect all of them and their families, the Capitol Police too unskilled, and competent private security not particularly interested in working against their own best interests at any price. The elites will be steadily whittled down, and if they can not be reached directly, the targets will become their staffers, spouses, children, and grandchildren. Grandstanding media figures loyal to the regime would die in droves, executed as enemies of the Republic.

You can expect congressional staffs to disintegrate with just a few shootings, and expect elected officials themselves to resign well before a quarter of their number are eliminated, leaving us with a boxed-in executive, his cabinet loyalists trapped in the same win, die, or flee the country circumstance, military regime loyalists, and whatever State Governors who desire to risk their necks as well.

Here, the President will doubtlessly order the activation of National Guard units and the regular military to impose martial law, setting the largest and most powerful military in the world against its own people. Unfortunately, the tighter the President clinches his tyrannical fist, the more rebels he makes.

Military commands and federal agencies will be whittled down as servicemen and agents will desert or defect. Some may leave as individuals, others may join the Rebellion in squad and larger-sized units with all their weapons, tactics, skills, and insider intelligence. The regime will be unable to trust its own people, and because they cannot trust them, they will lose more in a vicious cycle of collapse.

Some of these defectors will be true “operators,” with the skills and background to turn ragtag militia cells into the kind of forces that decimate loyalist troops, allowing them no rest and no respite, striking them when they are away from their most potent weapons. Military vehicles are formidable, but they are thirsty beasts, in terms of fuel, ammo, time, and maintenance. Tanks and bombers are formidable only when they have gas, guns, and can be maintained. In a war without a front, logistics are incredibly easy to destroy, and mechanics and supply clerks are not particularly adept at defending themselves.

Eventually, the government will turn upon itself. The President will be captured or perhaps killed by his own protectors. A dictatorship will form in the vacuum.

If we’re lucky, the United States of America, or whatever amalgam results, will again try to rebuild. If we’re very lucky, the victors will reinstate the Constitution as the law of the land. Just as likely though, we’ll face fractious civil wars fought over issues we’ve not begun to fathom, and a much diminished state or states will result, perhaps guided by foreign interests.

It will not be pretty. There will be no “winners,” and perhaps hundreds of thousands to millions of dead.

Yet, this is the future we face if the power-mad among us are not soundly defeated at the ballot box before they affect more “change” than we, the People, are willing to surrender to would-be tyrants.

Bob, Bob Owens 40 Comments [7/1/2016 3:06:45 AM]
Fundie Index: 9
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 120164

Rupert Murdoch is my hero. You whiney losers can badmouth him all you want, but he represents self-actualization and will to power. I want to install a statue of him on the town square of Galtsville. Reading about him reminds me of when I was 14 and discovered Rand and Nietzsche in the same month. What an intellectual high point. Ever since, I’ve been full of passionate conviction.

He’s possibly surpassed by the guys who run the NYT. Murdoch only upset a dead girl’s family. And he got in trouble for it. But the Times sponsored a trillion dollar war with something like a million casualties and displaced persons. They also threw a Presidential election by sitting on a major story. As one of my favorite characters said “The purity! The puuuuuurity of that!”

But they are human, with human flaws. Sometimes you want something more impersonal and generalized. Luckily the universe has provided us with a source of immutable truth we can always have faith in: the unregulated Free Market. The market’s verdict is clear that one upset family is negligible compared to the gains from peddling their misery.

Roger Bigod, Naked Capitalism 12 Comments [7/1/2016 3:06:15 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 120163

As democracy winds down in the West, many of us are facing an ugly truth that first reared its head in the 1800s: that democracy itself impedes conservatism.

Mainstream conservatives will not publicly approach this realization, but the core tenet of democracy is leadership by desire, not by reality. People vote for what they wish were true.

While the ashes cool in Baltimore and the latest news frenzy keeps us distracted so we can avoid noticing the systemic problems of Western civilization, many are wondering how the situation got so bad without anyone figuring it out.

The answer is simple: we voted for it.

By “we” I mean the largest plurality which could work itself into a frenzy over an issue. This is how democracy works: the simplest and most emotional concept unites a mob, they rage and expound and demand it, and then it gets passed. Everyone assumes the situation is decided and moves on.

In any sane democracy, every single law would be voted on every year with a simple question: Is this law achieving its aims?

When you speak to the average voter, it becomes clear that they focus on anything but this question. They talk about moral categories, such as how well-intentioned the law is, or how essential it is, or how it cannot be changed because people depend on it. Never do they look at it as a cause-effect principle that intends to achieve a goal.

The conservatives you see on the television earned the name “the stupid party” because their ideas are fundamentally paradoxical. They want a reality/accountability/responsibility-based (consequentialist) society with a transcendent focus, since if you understand reality, you have no need for the emotional distractions of ideology and go right to the need for meaning. The voters do not want this because distraction is always simpler and more emotionally comforting.

The situation can be revealed in this comical law of politics from Robert Conquest:

2. Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.

This law succumbs to an easy attack, called (sensibly) “entryism” by neoreactionaries, which is that it is easy to dress up a liberal idea as a conservative one and declare it explicitly right-wing, then use it to subvert the rest of a right-wing movement.

The left wing will forever be more popular because it offers ideas that are easier to understand, since they require no knowledge of reality and its workings, and more emotionally satisfying, since they are both distraction and “social,” or consist of gift-giving to those who identify with victimhood. Every person in their under-confident, weak and uncontrolled moments succumbs to self-pity and in remembering those, they yield to this force.

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote about this process because he saw it first-hand. In the 1800s, he drove an ambulance in one of the early wars of the forces of democracy versus the rest of us. In it, he saw the process: liberalism appeals to the best of us first because they are reacting emotionally to problems in our society, and only later do they recognize it for what it is, which is a cynical power grab by those least competent to rule.

Conservatives have balked at this dividing line so far. They hope to ride the train of liberal popularity by endorsing the great illusion that desire can decide our problems. They also fear alienating the Christian segment of the right which sees Nietzsche as an atheist and blasphemer, since they have confused the name of what is holy with what is actually holy.

Like other dividing lines — nationalism, rejection of all socialism and need for social hierarchy — this decision separates the men from the boys. Boys still want to please their mother and their friends, maybe hope one of the girls in the class will let them kiss her if they do what she wants. Men realize that original sin was correct, and that without the intervention of discipline and focus the human being is nothing more than a monkey which can talk.

As mainstream conservatism is forced to confront issues like the ongoing failure of diversity, the corruption rising from the liberal state and its institutions, and the accelerating decline of Western Civilization, more conservatives will join the “underground” fringe of conservatism and take the path that Nietzsche did. Until that point, nothing said by conservatives in public will make any sense.

Brett Stevens, Amerika.org 13 Comments [7/1/2016 3:05:56 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 120161

Seems many are more concerned with whatever financial loss Britain will suffer in exchange for it's sovereignty from the EU.

Sad, to see so many willing to sell their nationalist birthright for a mess of collectivist pottage doled out by elitist bureaucrats.

Freedom costs much, but pays off for generations to come.



Why would any sane population shackle themselves to a polyglot of nations with diverse cultures and liabilities? To have leaders who have no understanding in the local affairs or concerns of a people dictate and prescribe regulations on how to run their lives and economy? The American colonists suffered this same long distance ruling by King George, and it became so onerous that they revolted against him.

One could make the same argument how much they lost financially and economically from cutting themselves off the most prosperous and powerful empire of the world. But history proved America not only survived but thrived. And I am confident the British people can not only recover, but are capable of also prospering without the EU's red tape and bureaucrats telling it what to do from their desks in Brussels.
And most economists are full of baloney. if they were so smart, how come they are not billionaires betting on the market trends they foresee? Krugman and Greenspan's adherence to outdated Keynesian fiscal theory that advocates spending one's way to prosperity is fatal to the health of the US economy. Mises had it right.


So easy to say that, and then you leave us bereft of any facts from you.

But here's an fact based on both experience and history---Large groups of people thrown together by government edict and not by choice creates friction and resentment. People are the happiest when on their own volition can how to run decide when to join and leave associations. People also don't like being told by others who share no common blood, bond, or language telling them from long distance how to run their lives. The EU is not a democracy. It is social planning by unelected technocrats.

Ireland is an case example of EU dissatisfaction. The people held a referendum leave the EU decades back. They voted as a majority to leave. But their own government refused to honor their vote. That is not demcracy. But go ahead, tell me that is a fantasy story without a telling moral to why people don't like to be forced into unions.
I concede my error on the Irish referendum, but still hold to my other position that supports why the the majority of Brits voted to leave the EU, as well as understanding why several other nations are considering to also follow suit.
I don't understand what the fuss is about. A so-called "Free market" that the EU totes as a hallmark should mean any nation should be able to trade with other nations freely. Instead, I get this vibe that the EU requires a cover charge and membership subscription to do so, which amounts to nothing less that a legalized gangster protection racket where Brussels and their favorite corporations get a cut of the action to profit themselves for permitting said "Free Trade" to go on.

Exit Only, NPR 9 Comments [7/1/2016 3:04:11 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 120159

[Comment on article about 50 Cent being arrested in St. Kitts for violating nation's law on public profanity]

The minor expletive "cRap" describes most of this antisocial, crime-perpetuating music. St. Kitts seems to understand that some "free speech" has moral consequences. I wish America had similar restrictions to discourage chronic ghetto attitudes.

Kids who grow up listening to foulness end up foul in most cases, or with just a veneer of adapting to moral society. They invariably tangle wit da PO-lice and blame everyone but themselves for the consequences. Gangsta rap claims to "reflect society" but it creates and exacerbates people's worst traits. Which came first, the rap or the crap?

Geo T, Rolling Stone 9 Comments [7/1/2016 3:03:59 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: TimeToTurn
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 120156

Beware of the monks.?

It’s an odd sounding statement. After all, Buddhist monks are popularly known for kindness, peacefulness and generosity. But the advice comes straight from New York City Buddhist leaders, who say that panhandlers have been dressing like monks — right down to the shaved head and orange robes — as a means to con tourists out of money.?

The men reportedly hand passersby golden medallions or simply peaceful tidings before asking for donations to help build a temple in Thailand. Only, there is no temple in Thailand, and the “monks” reportedly become irate, are unrelenting in their demands and occasionally aggressive.

Fake Monk Panhandlers, Washington Post 12 Comments [7/1/2016 3:02:23 AM]
Fundie Index: -1
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 120155

No, the Bible does not give two differing accounts of Judas’s death.The Bible critics say the following: “The Bible has mistakes. For
instance, one passage says that Judas hanged himself, and another
passage says that he fell and his guts burst out!” Bless their hearts,
there is nothing illogical about the narrative those
passages put forth. Is it not strange that Bible scoffers can speak the
truth and, blinded by Satan (2 Corinthians 4:3-4), still miss it
entirely? What they think is an error is actually truth in plain sight! Peter in Acts chapter 1, six weeks after Judas' death describes Judas, “falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.” If
we simply conflate Matthew’s account and Peter’s account, it makes
perfect sense. Judas hanged himself and then died. Later, the noose
broke and his body violently fell headfirst, spilling all of his guts on
the ground. There is no contradiction concerning Judas’ death. Judas died once, and
then, after death, his corpse was mangled. Judas died by hanging and
then his lifeless body fell from the noose (probably because of an
earthquake).

Joe, Christian News Network 13 Comments [7/1/2016 3:01:57 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
WTF?! || meh
1