Tagged: politics

“Let him take your garment also.”

A tip for the communists: your favorite verse for the current scene in Minnesota is “And if anyone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your garment also.”

That’s much more difficult teaching for the White Christian Nationalists to deal with than the temple cleansing incident.

You’re welcome.

What Fascism Looks Like When Carried Out By Mankind

Faithful readers and new readers alike: The point of sharing lists of how many deportations past presidents and administrations carried out is not the illustration that both political parties have done what Trump is doing. Neither are the lists particularly indicative of the character of past politicians. In other words, it isn’t news that politicians change their policies or blatantly lie at times.

The point of the lists is to definitively give absolutely conclusive and damning evidence that Trump and his administration are not behaving like fascists while they enforce the nation’s—every nation’s—established Laws.

For a glimpse of fascism, read this blurb from back in October of 1938. Pay careful attention to the twin facts regarding there being (a) a new agreement and (b) no protection.

To be sure: Trump et al are not enforcing some new law. And there is no law (being enforced or left unenforced) in which protection is withheld or unconsidered.

Current events across the land are not evidence of fascism. Not even close.

Self-Imposed Curfew

Just jotting a few thoughts on topic of Minnesota.

  1. For people acclimated to the cold, IE Minnesotans, Dakotans, Montanans, etc, standing outside in the cold is not an indicator of anything. (For Somalis, on the other hand, standing outside in the cold reveals them to be stupid.)
  2. I happen to have watched videos of officer involved shootings before the last couple weeks. They are never “clear cut” or have some obvious flow or escalate linearly. Hollywood et al should not be relied on for how an officer-involved shooting should look or feel. Go look up other videos and see for yourself. They are all utter chaos. That’s why law enforcement exists in the first place.
  3. My visceral reaction to this morning’s shooting is “These dumb motherfuckers (meaning the lefty whites) just normalized ICE-involved shootings. It now feels just like school shootings. ‘Another one? When will people learn?’”
  4. I want the Law (meaning all people who act as our Law, legislature, executives, and enforcement) to know I support them, not the protesters. I think the best way I can do this is stay inside, not counter-protest etc. Let the morons and rabble who only want destruction self-identify and be the only ones out on the streets. That will make it easier for the Law to do their job.

They Do Not Conceal Like I Would

It is surprising to me, and seems to surprise most of us, that the bad guys self-identify so strongly.

I am currently reading GW’s biography. There have been parallels to today which are difficult to ignore, even as they aren’t 1:1. For example, I have to admit that had I been British back then, I would probably have been surprised that the colonists were so blatantly identifying as enemies. I would have thought, “Don’t they understand who they are up against? Maintaining neutrality, even as a feint, seems the stronger play.”

But no. When a fight is brewing, the two sides declare themselves.

I think the matter can be put plainly: When you’re on the side of those with the guns, it is surprising that the people without the guns would fight you—but it shouldn’t be.

These contemporary secessionists in Portland, Minnesota, and elsewhere have not yet declared independence. I would say, on most levels, they are miles away from being organized in any sense like those who declared independence back on July 4, 1776. But I will not be teaching my kids that it is surprising that stupid people unabashedly announce the side they’re on.

On the Whole “Effin’ B’” Comment

I would be stunned if my dad has ever uttered that phrase—stunned. Is this because he has never been around “effin b’s”? Or is this because he doesn’t get rattled?

I don’t recall ever saying that phrase, certainly not earnestly. I prefer the “c-word” if I am grump about the fairer sex AKA “ex-wives who steal from me”.

I doubt many of you have ever walked away from a female and audibly declared, “Fuckin’ Bitch.”

But I say that learning that our LEO kills the woman and then utters, “Fuckin’ Bitch” changes the tenor of the scene.

New question: does it change it to “more complete” or “less complete”?

From early high school I grew up in gym locker rooms and loved the honesty I witnessed. For whatever reason, I never quite joined the cursing crowd. And I didn’t really harbor hate towards anyone or any group. But the colorful stories were enchanting.

Nowadays, I spend tons of time around beloved “First Responders”. I don’t exactly consider myself one—pilots like me, to me, are a class above. But these people see things. And what they see is far more “locker room” than “civilization”.

And time is of the essence. So inappropriate jokes still bubble up from time to time—though, unfortunately, professionalism rues the day these days.

Back to the killer LEO. He kills a woman and walks away declaring, “Fuckin’ Bitch.”

Out of the two options I have laid out, the phrase seems to change the tenor to “more complete” in the sense of “more accurate” by my thinking.

These women are out there, folks. My suggestion is try not to be one.

“The Law Must Win”

The law must win.

This is timeless wisdom. This is the proper perspective. This shouldn’t be controversial.

If someone you know, or if you, find this controversial, that does not surprise me. It just means that their (or your) position is anarchy.

Those of us who believe the law must win do not owe the anarchist a Covey-esque attempt to understand or empathize, anymore than we owe thieves or murderers the same.

It should not surprise that criminal behavior and criminal minds exist. It should not be surprising that people disagree that the law must win.

There is no world where we all exist to follow the law. That is the point.

So, the law must win.

The CIA Asset Theory is Betarded!

This post is for those who can picture “Desh”. Do you know which “Desh” I mean, after only reading the title and opening line of this post? That’s right. I knew you did.

Now picture Jason Bourne. Got them? How about Clive Owen? And the asset turned Horse-guy from Rohan? Can you picture James Bond? How about Ethan Hunt? Jack Ryan? Jack Bauer?

Seriously, all you conspiracy theory wackos. You want me to believe that the CIA has fat assets dressed like DJ Kaled? Give me a break.

Before ‘Nam, the assets were exclusively white. After ‘Nam, they course-corrected to Desh as the archetype for obvious reasons. Hollywood over Talking Heads, any day.

We All Know “You can take the lady out the hood, but you can’t take the hood out of the lady”, But We Think The CIA Is Involved?

How stupid are you?

This isn’t an invitation to prove yourself. I am just making the point that there is a perfectly reasonable answer to the interweb’s (darkweb’s) latest accusation. The answer being: the dude had a terrible childhood, without love, light, or education of any kind. We (USA) used him as the forever-pawn that he only could be, when we needed forever-pawns, and he couldn’t handle the transition to civilization and peace when we were done with him.

They all still need to leave America.

Or they can assimilate. There are many options for “first step” of assimilation. A renewed effort in nationally saying Pledge of Allegiance to start the day is one.

But at this point, I say, “Please leave”.

In Idea Form, Even As an Ideal, Communism is Not Good

This post is in response to “reality.” The sober reality being communism and Islam just won’t go away. On some level, by my thinking, either (a) people do not want them to go away or (b) people’s actions and efforts aren’t aligned with their desires. Put another way (b) could be stated as people who desire communism and Islam to go away aren’t actually fighting communism and Islam. It’s like there is some kind of terrific straw man that is terribly bruised, bloodied and down for the count after all the attacks, but, whatever is lying there lifeless, it ain’t communism and it ain’t Islam.

With Islam, the faithful reader knows my idea. To recap, Christian apologetics or Christians who desire to prove “there is a god” are, in fact, feeding Islam—because this “god exists” is Mooohamed’s coranic argument. In their well-intentioned act, they are not helping spread Christianity. So I say, “Good Christian Men, Stop! Stop defending ‘god’ and instead stick to the Gospel. Hone your speaking skills to mirror the NT writers as much as possible. Or be quiet. But either way, stop arguing for Mooohamed!”

My new realization or tactic regarding communism, the fatal flaw I see that leads to (b) above, is when we say, “Sure, it’s good in idea-” Stop! Stop right there! The mistake has appeared. It is early. No need to continue to “but it doesn’t work in practice.”

By giving the “idea” of communism the appellation “good”, all things considered, I think we are actually and unwittingly feeding the beast, as it were. If communism (or any idea) is really a good idea, then, by all means, let’s make it a reality, right? But communism is not a good idea. I mean this as literally as it can be meant. Communism is not a good idea.

Practice saying it with me.

“Communism is not a good idea.”

Good.

Now spend a moment to develop whatever you’re comfortable with using to defend our declaration, which need be our response to the subsequent, “You don’t think feeding the hungry and clothing the naked is a good idea?”

My own response will be, “Now we’re talking! See, I always imagined communists like yourself couldn’t make their ideas concrete. Like, I thought you guys were robots with great deficiencies, including the inability to get specific. As odd as it sounds, you just made my day. I am very happy to learn I was wrong. So communists are interested in feeding the hungry and clothing the naked? I don’t see why we can’t do it together right now. Let’s go! How much food, clothes, and money do we have between us?”

This illustrates the communist lacks integrity (is not good), because they don’t want to actually feed and clothe. (And if, on some off chance they are willing to pound the pavement, there literally are no negatives apart from daily risks which accompany life on earth.)

I concede that it is entirely possible that you or I will run into a more academically-minded communist. Upon hearing us declare or correct, “Communism is not a good idea,” they might not go concrete and instead they might stay idealogical and say, “You think planning is wrong?”

To them my response is, “By no means, sir! And what’s more, I am very glad to learn you and I agree that planning is a core, if not the core, tenant of communism. What a day this has turned out to be. There is no time to waste. Let’s get down to business. I say first up is, it should be small and reasonable, where to go for lunch. Oh, I should have asked, have you eaten? I am starving. What’ll it be. My favorite is Little Caesar’s. Of course they don’t have seating, but we can find some other place to sit.”

This illustrates the communist is selfish (is not good), because they will not agree to Little Caesar’s. (And if, on the off chance, they do agree to go, you just keep planning everything. How to get there. Who drives. Which side of the street to walk on. Who goes in first. Who orders. Who pays. How to split the bill. And on and on and on. The key is reading the room. You’re not trying to be an arse-hole. You’re trying to reveal that you and him/her are not the same person.)

Have fun with it, and feel free to comment below with your own post-“Communism is not a good idea”-declaration scenarios.

In any case, seriously, in the old sense, I beseech you, please stop saying “Communism is a good idea”. It isn’t.

On Our National Foundation

It’s not quite the season for weather-induced late starts or snow-days, but it’s close. This morning I received the text alert that a power outage in the neighborhood resulted in the kids’ school deciding to run their delayed start schedule on the hope that power will be restored by then. Immediately my mind went to, “How do other parents deal with this?”

My life is such that either mom or dad is 100% available, entirely stay-at-home every single day of the kids’ lives. But from what I understand, this home scenario is more and more rare, if not the literal exception that proves the rule. So what are the other moms and dads doing when their entire day gets disrupted by a random power-outage? Are they taking PTO for a couple hours? Are they bringing their kids to work and then taking an early lunch to take them to school? Do families have plans with other families for these days, ie, drop the kids at some stay-at-homer’s house and this stay-at-home friend loads all the kids up at the appropriate time?

I have no idea.

But I do know that this is probably the strongest example of why being a stay-at-home mom (extreme cases it can be the dad) matters. The kids, the future-citizens of America, need to understand the concept of stability.

Civilizational stability, national stability, community stability is not intuitive like “water is wet” is intuitive. We humans need to witness the example of stability. It is entirely possible, see all the places of the planet that you couldn’t be paid to visit, for humans to never understand that there is a better way to live, that there is a stable way to live. Of course it involves rule of law, literacy, guns, and effort etc. But at its foundation, it involves stability. The stay-at-home mom provides this. And the exemplar experience is the completely thought-free way in which a late start or cancelled school day is handled.