It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Entertainment => Topic started by: Pandora on February 06, 2013, 06:04:07 PM
-
I'm late bringing y'all's attention to this; it's up to #17 already, and I don't know if anyone else has been following the series. The author is Mark Butterworth and he's been posting the chapters at Fran Porretto's place; a new chapter every Tuesday.
http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2013/02/tales-of-new-america-17.html (http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2013/02/tales-of-new-america-17.html)
You can catch up on 1-16 at the link, but I'll include a taste of #1 here:
"Be Careful What You Wish For
The couple looked to be in their mid-thirties, the woman, perhaps, a little younger, with a three year old boy. It wasn’t their non-descript sedan, nor their ordinary clothes that gave them away to Ryan, the border guard. It was the tell tale nervousness of them both as he took a little longer than usual scrutinizing their papers.
“Please, pull over there to that parking spot,” the young man told the driver, a Mr. Jon Jones. Mr. Jones compressed his lips momentarily, another tell, and did as ordered.
The North Jackpot Highway Inspection Station had a number of large metal warehouses to store winter equipment and highway repair vehicles. There were drive-through buildings for semi trucks, and a small office complex for the inspectors’ lounge, the dispatchers’ rooms, and management offices. There was a militia barracks close by, and a place for interrogation rooms and holding cells.
All of this was in the flat, nearly barren, sagebrush high desert; although North Jackpot, just above Jackpot on the Nevada side, was growing into an actual town.
The parking spot the Jones’ pulled into was in front of the interrogation building. Ryan had himself temporarily relieved so that he could escort the Jones’ into interrogation, and hand them over to the militia captain in charge.
Ryan was twenty, and knew there was something frightening about a young man in uniform taking command of older people. People want to negotiate their way out. How can they bargain with a youth who looks like he can only follow orders and nothing else?
He felt sorry for these people. That horrible sense of “Caught!” while trying not to show it in the hope that it’s all just a minor bureaucratic glitch and they’ll soon be back on the road heaving great sighs of relief.
Not a chance, though. They’re dirty and their life is going to change dramatically in a short while.
“Follow me,” Ryan told them and they apprehensively complied. Then he told them to sit in the waiting room: a sterile, harshly lit place with plastic chairs, dingy, yellow linoleum floor, gray walls, acoustic tile ceiling, a tall metal counter with computer stations for officers to process, ahem, customers.
The Jones’ were good-looking people. Caucasian, both brown haired, relatively trim, but not athletic. Their toddler, a boy, was well behaved. Maybe he was tired, or maybe they’d given him a little cough syrup to make him somnolent. Everybody hates a fussy child, and they draw unwanted attention.
Capt. Walters (it said so on his uniform) came in through another door. He conferred with Ryan, accepted the papers, looked at the Jones’, nodded to Ryan, patted him on the shoulder, and released him back to service at the road station.
“Please come with me,” Walters told the couple. He ushered them through the door he’d come in back to a hallway, and led them into an interrogation room. There was a table bolted to the floor, a glass mirror on one wall, a camera in the corner of the ceiling and chairs for them to sit in. There was a computer for Walters at his end of the table.
Walters picked up a phone from the wall and said, “Sherry, would you come into room three. We have a small child for you.”
He turned to the couple and spoke to the woman. “One of our staff will accompany you to our nursery. There you will leave your son, and we will proceed to discuss your situation.”
They were alarmed with the news of immanent separation from the child. But what could they do?"
-
They were alarmed with the news of immanent separation from the child. But what could they do?"
Man, I think I am too depressed already to keep reading.
I am to the point where I will start shooting if I realize separation from a child will even be a possibility.
I am not going to an "interrogation room" "just to talk" under any pretense. At that point I consider my life and the lives of my family in danger - and I will have no remorse at all killing the officers trying to make me comply. Young boys or not.
-
They were alarmed with the news of immanent separation from the child. But what could they do?"
Man, I think I am too depressed already to keep reading.
I am to the point where I will start shooting if I realize separation from a child will even be a possibility.
I am not going to an "interrogation room" "just to talk" under any pretense. At that point I consider my life and the lives of my family in danger - and I will have no remorse at all killing the officers trying to make me comply. Young boys or not.
NONO! Read on! You'll thank me, and wish it was real. With every new installment, I think of us, YOU in particular. These NAR are our kind of people.
-
Yeah, that's the feeling I got, projecting they illegals
trying to slip into "New America". Thanks for bringing it here it looks like a winner.
-
I have to find time to read the whole thing. Sounds interesting.
-
NONO! Read on! You'll thank me, and wish it was real. With every new installment, I think of us, YOU in particular. These NAR are our kind of people.
Yeah, that is pretty good. I will keep reading. However it shouldn't remind you of me. If such a place ever comes to pass, I am pretty damn sure I will be neither as fair or as nice as Captain Walters. I want to know how conscious they are of of the evil they do and advocate. I want "to meet the real person", as Shan Yu would have said. Were they not paying attention, or were they cognizant that they they were lying, thieving, slaving, right-denying frauds? If you were the latter, you would not want to find yourself at my checkpoint. Hell, even if you were the former, you sure as heck better be able to explain why you are coming- and if "individual liberty" isn't on the list, we don't need your genes in the gene pool - no matter how many of your kids we can send to war.
Actually, this reminds me a lot of Orson Scott Card's "Folk of the Fringe (http://www.amazon.com/The-Folk-Fringe-ebook/dp/B003GWX8DK/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1360210551&sr=8-2&keywords=folk+of+the+fringe) - short stories about how the Mormons in Utah would deal with life after a fall.
-
I will keep reading.
Good. Do.
-
I will keep reading.
Good. Do.
A couple of links that I found in the comments led me to some more interesting (if disturbing) reading. "The Oculus Report" was (apparently now defunct) a blog by a guy who was tired of silently observing the death of White America. His posts take on a more urgent tone - and one that rings all too familiar.
http://theoculusreport.blogspot.com/2012/07/scenes-from-race-war-1-crash-and-burn.html (http://theoculusreport.blogspot.com/2012/07/scenes-from-race-war-1-crash-and-burn.html)
http://theoculusreport.blogspot.com/2012/08/scenes-from-race-war-2-juneteenth.html (http://theoculusreport.blogspot.com/2012/08/scenes-from-race-war-2-juneteenth.html)
I just spent two hours pouring over his posts...
-
I'm going to check that out, 'Soup, thank you.
-
I gotta make time this weekend to go over NAR & 'Soup's links. Been a while since I read NAR stuff, I might have to start at the beginning!
-
I gotta make time this weekend to go over NAR & 'Soup's links. Been a while since I read NAR stuff, I might have to start at the beginning!
Yep. Me, too.
-
I was up to 3AM reading 'Soup's link. I got sucked in.
Thanks a lot, man.
;)
-
I was up to 3AM reading 'Soup's link. I got sucked in.
Thanks a lot, man.
;)
Talk about tone....now there was some frank talk about race in current-day America. I did sense a fair amount of resentment from him regarding our collective straits and that's unfortunate - The facts are that we are where we are, it is what it is, and we will have to do whatever we have to do.
When I was a kid, living in suburbia, there weren't many blacks in my environment. But there were a few and I remember regarding them as people - not black people (my sister - at age 4 - did point to a porter on a train and asked my mom, "Did he get burned in a fire?"). We had no race problems where I lived.
When I was still young my dad took advantage of a golden opportunity to be part of the space race and we moved to New Orleans. It was there that I first encountered racism. I remember riding a bus to school and pulling up next to a "black bus" (the schools were still partially segregated) and having the black kids cuss, spit, and literally fling sh!t at us. I was chased home by roving gangs of black kids on more than one occasion, and my older brother was beaten by one of the gangs. Fortunately we were in New Orleans for only about a year before we moved to Huntsville and escaped the jungle.
In the years that followed I remembered hearing stories about black~on~white violence and how exaggerated they (the left) felt it was, and recalled how dead-on most of the descriptions were. All that happened before Selma or Watts.
In spite of my early experiences I didn't hold any rancor against Black People. We moved back to lily-white Washington (yea-right!) and I entered high school just in time for the black panthers to conduct an armed takeover of my school. My mom got us the hell out of there and into a different school district but the writing was on the wall - blacks were asserting themselves into the continuum and, if there was any "back of the bus" to be had then honky had best be planning on taking the seat.
With the advent of electing the HNIC all remaining bets are off. It's almost a daily occurrence to encounter openly hostile black thugs - no matter where I travel. They are provocative and belligerent. It is one of the few things that I thank the stars about - that my mom is no longer out on the road and subject to their foolishness. I genuinely fear for females in public these days. Mostly because so few seem to have a functioning brain that would alert them to the hazards that surround and envelope them.
We are destined for open and violent confrontation. I don't know when but I believe very soon. Some of the scenarios outlined in the NAR vignettes and The Oculus Report look entirely reasonable (or should I say "plausible"?). Every morning when I leave the house it is in the back of my mind that "this could be the day". I don't say much because I know the average response is that I must be an alarmist. So be it.
I'd much rather be a live alarmist than a dead idealist.
-
With the advent of electing the HNIC all remaining bets are off. It's almost a daily occurrence to encounter openly hostile black thugs - no matter where I travel. They are provocative and belligerent.
If you don't want to be confused with a gang of apes, best not to beat your chest and act like one. The Left wants to keep people from pointing out the obvious- these people act like savages, have no respect for anyone outside the tribe, and are obviously too damn stupid to see they way they are played by the rich white Marxist-fascist liberals. But that is what Hitler did. It worked well.
Don't Be a Sucker - 1947 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23X14HS4gLk#)
I just hope I am around when these White Liberal Eugenicists spring it on them they now that they have served their purpose , they are no longer needed.
I am sure there are areas where there will be race wars - especially in the big liberal cities where the liberals encourage self-segregation and group politics. But you are dealing with savages. People without morals or ambition. Soon as the obvious (white) victims are gone, they will start preying upon each other. They will riot, and burn down the stores in their own neighborhoods and then complain how the White man is keeping them down because new stores don't replace them. But I still believe its not about race - its about culture. These people have been told its okay to behave as savages from day one. They are told its society's fault they are utterly worthless. Or the White person's fault. Or the Jews'. It doesn't matter. Certainly not them. And they are justified in committing any crime because the system is rigged against them. And now Obongo is in charge they are emboldened - they see Holder refusing to prosecute. They see the writing is on the wall. And tonight is "get Whitey" night. Because it is they that are the hate filled, racist KKK now. All still 100% democrat.
-
Yes, they are making certain it will be get whitey. I don't worry about that because each of the two groups will be in "uniform", it's the one's bearing colors in common that I worry about.
-
Ahh, let them keep pushing it. It seems they're determined to experience those traits that enabled our ancestors to conquer theirs.
-
I genuinely fear for females in public these days. Mostly because so few seem to have a functioning brain that would alert them to the hazards that surround and envelope them.
Soup, Lawrence Auster has been singing just this song for a long time. It's not so much they're missing a functioning brain, it's that they've been brainwashed into being Eloi.
The first thing they're told is they "have the right to feel safe". As in, "yes, I should be able to stumble-drunk around an unknown/bad neighborhood, scantily-clad, at o-dark-thirty and emerge unmolested". This teaches them to not ask themselves if they *are* indeed safe, and leads into the second part, whereby the alarm bells go off -- yes, many times their instincts fire properly -- but then the knee-jerk secondary impulse, implanted and nurtured by the Left, tells them that avoiding the Black man in the parking lot is racist.
-
Tales of New America #18 (http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2013/02/tales-of-new-america-18.html)
"I never knew any black people in Bellingham. There weren't any. All I knew of black people was from sports, TV, movies, music, and Black History Month. In sports, blacks were the best athletes. On TV and in movies, blacks were cool and smarter than white guys who were usually dumb, dorky, or jerks. In music, blacks were all about sex. They had a lot of it, and black guys got the hottest girls, white ones, Asians, super models, too; and in history, blacks were a cruelly mistreated people who we owed a lot to because they had done all the work of making America rich, and got nothing but racism and poverty for their trouble.
But when the buses rolled into camp filled with over two hundred blacks, a hundred men and women each and maybe fifty children, the faces of the adults around me fell flat. They all looked stunned.
Someone murmured, "Dear God almighty, what're we gonna do?"
Because the people getting off the buses weren't dressed in suits and ties or wearing nice dresses or blouses and slacks. The men wore dirty white Tee shirts or grey sweatshirts with hoods and dark baggy pants falling down and the fattest sneakers on their feet I ever saw. The women were generally hefty from chubby to jumbo and dressed in an assortment of garish colors impossibly tight with tops that had to be stretched beyond what nylon and elastic was capable of, and short skirts or shorts that looked to be stuffed with a dozen smoked hams.
There were some girls my age in the camp, one of whom I thought quite a lot about when I lay on my bunk in our quarters. She was lithe and small and sweetly bulged in places I longed to put my hands on, but these black women with boobs the size of small watermelons and rear ends the size of a pair of giant watermelons were the greatest anti-sex image I will ever see. They made the idea of sex terrifying; not to mention their ratty hair, broad fat faces, broad noses and big lips from which such ugly noises came from, and dark eyes from which dark, mean looks came from.
I noticed that they didn't have wristbands but ankle bracelets with a thick pack on it.
Their small children were wild and dressed raggedly and dirty, while older ones were either loud in speech or sullen in attitude.
Most of the men, though, were not like the women. They looked trim and athletic. Some were fat, but most looked mean and fit.
For the moment, they stood as a group in an open part of the camp among newer piles of lumber and building materials, and stood staring at us as if wondering what planet they'd been dropped onto, but then I could hear one say, "Lookit dem white folks lookin' at us. Whassa mattah? Ain' we good enuff foh ya's?" And she and the people around her laughed.
"Foh sho! Ya white folks gonna show me ta mah new house," another called out having looked around at the buildings behind where we were standing."
-
Not exactly the ending I was anticipating (but then isn't true more often than not these days?).
-
Dang it. Now I am all caught up and I have to wait for the next one. WARNING: Spoilers Below.
Its a good story. I don't see a real-world NAR having such advanced weapons however. The old US, if allowed to decay, might be in a state too poor to oppose them, but the high tech gear the NAR deploys needs a lot of money to fund and develop- and in a nearly taxless situation, I don't see how the NAR would pay for it.
The Black/White conflicts are interesting, but I would expect turncoats. White kids who thought the "devil may care" attitude of the inner city blacks was "cool" - and Black kids that were smart enough to see they could make a better life for themselves. In this sort of situation things may degenerate into gang colors, but even then I won't be able to forget that a man like Thomas Sowell, from the poorest of the poor, found a way out on his own, and then found a way to set MY mind free. The story hints at that - saying there was a "better class" of black's elsewhere to take care of the girl, and perhaps that girl was such a person.
Likewise with the stories Soup posted. Lock up the one black in the neighborhood because you couldn't use him? Who better to infiltrate the enemy? Don't trust him? Where are his wife and kids? He doesn't need to be privy to everything else, and should understand why. A love of freedom knows no color, and the last thing we would want is smart and successful blacks defecting to the enemy - which they will have to do if we reject them. I do like the idea of showing the liberals slavery, showing them communism, and then forcing them to become capitalists, and then giving them the barbarian horde to contend with. Except, I might be really, really tempted to say " hey you wanted diversity - you deal with it without my help" and let that situation progress to its natural conclusion.
-
I fully understand your point about the Thomas Sowells and Walter Williamses, but, Weisshaupt, if you don't know that's what you're dealing with, then you just don't know. The author, Butterworth, demonstrated that with having the Black man in his example revert to type -- "you all Whities jest ain't to be trusted; racists, RACISTS". He'd have done better to have us think about it by showing the man as keeping his dignity, and his racism in check, but he had a bigger point, don't you think?
What the author is also demonstrating is that forced integration is a bad thing, so we ought to let them have their areas, we'll have ours, and there could be an area where it doesn't matter -- come as you are -- in the interest of seeing how well that works out in the end. You should have caught that part in one of the chapters.
-
In TEOWAWKI why should I expect a fair shake from a white person?
-
I fully understand your point about the Thomas Sowells and Walter Williamses, but, Weisshaupt, if you don't know that's what you're dealing with, then you just don't know. The author, Butterworth, demonstrated that with having the Black man in his example revert to type -- "you all Whities jest ain't to be trusted; racists, RACISTS". He'd have done better to have us think about it by showing the man as keeping his dignity, and his racism in check, but he had a bigger point, don't you think?
The man was a well known friend, and he DID KNOW. You might treat him like that in front of the crowd, but you had to sure as hell visit him in his home and tell him you said it to give him cover - because you DO have need of him after all. Of course after reverting to type, maybe you couldn't trust him after all. The point here seems to be "you can't trust them, ever" because the blood is going to be thicker between those of the same skin color and I think that is a bad point to take away. I lived in Harlem. I saw it all, the good and the bad, and I assure both are there.
Any time you use force to substitute your opinions for another's, be it on race or large sodas its a bad thing. I am probably border-line aspergers, I don't read facial expressions well, and I am often a bad judge of character and motives because of it, but even I can identify the problem-child entitled racist/elitist lefty mindset within a few minutes of being with them. I don't think identification of real threats will be difficult. Leftists just don't understand liberty, or individuality- the concepts literally are outside their ability to comprehend. They can't fake it. Their need for self righteous affirmation and group acceptance is too strong. They NEED to be the "cool kids" and they will identify themselves that way every time.
This may end up looking like a race war, but it really isn't. I could go find a bus of white folks that would require those ankle collars and chemical castration too. This is a battle between a primitive, barbaric and communistic tribal culture against a modern, individualistic one. Blacks predominate in one culture because the left exploited the history to give them an alibi for failure as Eric Hoffer asserted , and a group to hate for it. Or as Richard Bach said "Argue your limitations and they are yours"
The final bit is the real thing - you can't live with those who refuse to live and let live. They are the enemy. Be they White, Black, Brown, red, yellow or blue.
-
In TEOWAWKI why should I expect a fair shake from
a white any person?
There. fixed it for you. Honest men deal honestly. Dishonest men don't. Liberals and liberalism are fundamentally dishonest. When times are tough - dishonesty will abound in all races and creeds, even ours. The people you place your trust in will be far and few, and given their scarcity, I don't think discarding honest men on trivial criteria will serve you well. The cost of Knowledge, as Sowell put it, will be high. Prior knowledge and dealings with an individual will be invaluable in deciding trustworthiness - even if that individual happens to be a minority.
-
I fully understand your point about the Thomas Sowells and Walter Williamses, but, Weisshaupt, if you don't know that's what you're dealing with, then you just don't know. The author, Butterworth, demonstrated that with having the Black man in his example revert to type -- "you all Whities jest ain't to be trusted; racists, RACISTS". He'd have done better to have us think about it by showing the man as keeping his dignity, and his racism in check, but he had a bigger point, don't you think?
The man was a well known friend, and he DID KNOW. You might treat him like that in front of the crowd, but you had to sure as hell visit him in his home and tell him you said it to give him cover - because you DO have need of him after all. Of course after reverting to type, maybe you couldn't trust him after all. The point here seems to be "you can't trust them, ever" because the blood is going to be thicker between those of the same skin color and I think that is a bad point to take away. I lived in Harlem. I saw it all, the good and the bad, and I assure both are there.
I'm going to give over to you on this because I haven't had your experience with it; mine has been a confirmation of stereotypes, unfortunately.
Any time you use force to substitute your opinions for another's, be it on race or large sodas its a bad thing. I am probably border-line aspergers, I don't read facial expressions well, and I am often a bad judge of character and motives because of it, but even I can identify the problem-child entitled racist/elitist lefty mindset within a few minutes of being with them. I don't think identification of real threats will be difficult. Leftists just don't understand liberty, or individuality- the concepts literally are outside their ability to comprehend. They can't fake it. Their need for self righteous affirmation and group acceptance is too strong. They NEED to be the "cool kids" and they will identify themselves that way every time.
This may end up looking like a race war, but it really isn't. I could go find a bus of white folks that would require those ankle collars and chemical castration too. This is a battle between a primitive, barbaric and communistic tribal culture against a modern, individualistic one. Blacks predominate in one culture because the left exploited the history to give them an alibi for failure as Eric Hoffer asserted , and a group to hate for it. Or as Richard Bach said "Argue your limitations and they are yours"
The final bit is the real thing - you can't live with those who refuse to live and let live. They are the enemy. Be they White, Black, Brown, red, yellow or blue.
Bill Whittle preaches it the same way; the tribe is your people, whatever their race or color. It's the mindset that matters.
The jury is still out for me.
-
In TEOWAWKI why should I expect a fair shake from a white person?
Oh, exCUSE me?! I hope this is facetiousness here.
-
I followed a link at the Oculus sight. This story should quell any questions about whose side the police are on. (Hint: It ain't on the side of the people who pay their bloated pensions.)
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/to_serve_but_not_protect_Qr3ume5gEhMhtg8LvHgzAI?utm_campaign=OutbrainA&utm_source=OutbrainArticlepages&obref=obinsource (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/to_serve_but_not_protect_Qr3ume5gEhMhtg8LvHgzAI?utm_campaign=OutbrainA&utm_source=OutbrainArticlepages&obref=obinsource)
City says cops had no duty to protect subway hero who subdued killer
He says he put his life on the line to stop a killer — and claims cops sat back and watched.
But city lawyers are arguing that the police had no legal duty to protect Joseph Lozito, the Long Island dad stabbed seven times trying to subdue madman Maksim Gelman — a courtroom maneuver the subway hero calls “disgraceful.”
A judge is currently deciding whether Lozito, who sued the city last year for failing to prevent the attack, will get his day in court.
The drug-fueled Gelman had fatally stabbed three people in Brooklyn and killed another with a car during a 28-hour rampage when he entered an uptown No. 3 train on Feb. 12, 2011.
Police officers Terrance Howell and Tamara Taylor were part of a massive NYPD manhunt. They were in the operator’s cab, watching the tracks between Penn Station and 42nd Street for any sign of the fugitive. Lozito was seated next to the cab.
In the official NYPD account and Howell’s own affidavit, Howell heroically tackled and subdued the killer. But Lozito tells a different story.
The 42-year-old mixed-martial-arts fan says he watched Gelman approach the cab window, barking: “Let me in!” Gelman even claimed to be a cop, but a dismissive Howell turned away, he says.
Gelman walked off. A straphanger recognizing Gelman tried to alert the cops, but was also rebuffed. A minute later, Gelman returned and set his sights on the 6-foot-2, 270-pound Lozito.
“You’re going to die,” Gelman announced — then stabbed him in the face.
Lozito leapt from his seat and lunged at the 23-year-old Gelman as the psycho sliced at him.
“Most of my wounds are in the back of my head,” Lozito said. “He got to the back of my head because my left shoulder [was] in his waist.”
In his account, Lozito pinned Gelman to the floor, disarming him. Howell then emerged from the booth, tapping Lozito’s shoulder: “You can get up now,” he said.
“By the time he got there, the dirty work was already done,” Lozito said.
Gelman was convicted in the spree — which left his girlfriend, her mother, his stepfather and a pedestrian dead, and five others injured.
Lozito says a grand-jury member later told him Howell admitted on the stand that he hid during the attack because he thought Gelman had a gun.
An angry Lozito decided to sue the city for negligence, arguing the cops should have recognized Gelman and prevented, or reacted more quickly to, the assault.
The city routinely settles such litigation but is playing hardball with Lozito, insisting his demand for unspecified money damages be tossed because the police had no “special duty” to protect him or any individual on the train that day.
“Under well-established law, the police are not liable for such incidents,” said city lawyer David Santoro. “That doesn't detract from the Police Department's public safety mission -- or the fact that New York is the safest big city in America."
Experts say it’s a long-standing legal precedent requiring police to put the public safety of all ahead of any one individual’s rights.
Lozito says his case is different.
“If the cop is on the train, and I get robbed by a stranger, of course, the cop can’t be clairvoyant,” Lozito told The Post. “But when they’re looking for Maksim Gelman, and Maksim Gelman bangs on the door and says, ‘Let me in, I’m a cop’ and all you say is: ‘No, you’re not?’”
1. Joseph Lozito enters the uptown No. 3 train, sitting behind the train operator. Officers Terrance Howell and Tamara Taylor enter the operator’s booth; a few minutes later, the train slowly pulls out of Penn Station.
2. Maksim Gelman walks up to the booth and says: “Let me in!” Howell allegedly dismisses him and Gelman walks away.
3. Minutes later, Gelman walks back up to the booth, looks at Lozito, says “You’re going to die,” and stabs him.
4. Lozito fights back, getting seven stab wounds during the 60-second struggle with Gelman, eventually pinning him and knocking the knife away.
5. Howell allegedly emerges from the booth, taps Lozito on the shoulder and says: “You can get up now.”
Now someone should ask Nanny Bloomingidiot if we can all have guns now, as the supposed protection that the armed police are to provide is nonexistent -- in the City's own words.
Oh, and somebody should shoot that City lawyer David Santoro for crimes against Logic.
-
In TEOWAWKI why should I expect a fair shake from a white person?
Oh, exCUSE me?! I hope this is facetiousness here.
Not the least bit, disregarding the story line on the Asians or Jews as the author benignly put it (paraphrasing) they would rather be with their own and focusing on the black white aspect, I made a simple declarative; Weisshaupt quite accurately corrected and elaborated my point.
"In TEOWAWKI why should I expect a fair shake from a white any person?"
"There. fixed it for you. Honest men deal honestly. Dishonest men don't. Liberals and liberalism are fundamentally dishonest. When times are tough - dishonesty will abound in all races and creeds, even ours. The people you place your trust in will be far and few, and given their scarcity, I don't think discarding honest men on trivial criteria will serve you well. The cost of Knowledge, as Sowell put it, will be high. Prior knowledge and dealings with an individual will be invaluable in deciding trustworthiness - even if that individual happens to be a minority."
-
In TEOWAWKI why should I expect a fair shake from a white person?
Oh, exCUSE me?! I hope this is facetiousness here.
Not the least bit, disregarding the story line on the Asians or Jews as the author benignly put it (paraphrasing) they would rather be with their own and focusing on the black white aspect, I made a simple declarative;
I guess I'm just not understanding; why would YOU not expect a fair shake from a white person?
... Weisshaupt quite accurately corrected and elaborated my point.
"In TEOWAWKI why should I expect a fair shake from a white any person?"
"There. fixed it for you. Honest men deal honestly. Dishonest men don't. Liberals and liberalism are fundamentally dishonest. When times are tough - dishonesty will abound in all races and creeds, even ours. The people you place your trust in will be far and few, and given their scarcity, I don't think discarding honest men on trivial criteria will serve you well. The cost of Knowledge, as Sowell put it, will be high. Prior knowledge and dealings with an individual will be invaluable in deciding trustworthiness - even if that individual happens to be a minority."
Yes, I got Weisshaupt's point, just not yours.
-
"... Honest men deal honestly. Dishonest men don't. Liberals and liberalism are fundamentally dishonest. When times are tough - dishonesty will abound in all races and creeds, even ours. The people you place your trust in will be far and few, and given their scarcity, I don't think discarding honest men on trivial criteria will serve you well. The cost of Knowledge, as Sowell put it, will be high. Prior knowledge and dealings with an individual will be invaluable in deciding trustworthiness - even if that individual happens to be a minority."
Bolded part = true. Some criteria, however, will be necessary to separate the maybe-trustworthy from the just-keep-moving-along, and Blacks have amply demonstrated by dint of their collective behavior that any member of their race is strict-scrutiny worthy, and I'm not referring to those we know through prior knowledge and dealings ... mostly.
I can better assess as possibly trustworthy *any* individual who doesn't come shambling up to me, pants hangin' down, hat on sideways, doing the hand-jive, and barely speaking English that I readily understand. Does that go for an individual of any race? Yes, as an initial assessment. But in a SHTF scenario, everybody but Blacks are going to be picking up their pants, tucking in their shirts and putting their hats on straight if they know -- and they will -- that they'll get short shrift unless they do; Blacks mostly won't get it because = pick a reason: they're arrogant/they'll call it "racist"/they'll call it being "dissed"/ _________ .
I'd rather have a decent Black person at my side, working with me to survive, than a trashy White or a trashy anybody, but I haven't had the experience nor pleasure of finding/dealing with many of them, very few actually. Call me a bigot or a racist, I don't care; my personal experience, abetted by what I see going around me today, tells me better be safe than "open-minded".
-
I'd rather have a decent Black person at my side, working with me to survive, than a trashy White or a trashy anybody, but I haven't had the experience nor pleasure of finding/dealing with many of them, very few actually. Call me a bigot or a racist, I don't care; my personal experience, abetted by what I see going around me today, tells me better be safe than "open-minded".
I don't look at skin color, dosen't matter to me. As Dr. King said it's the "content of the character". Must be trustworthy or actual blood. Most family will be trusted but again character will still matter in the level of trust. I havn't had any issues in my family, but my wife has 2 brothers that I don't trust as far as I can throw them.
-
I'd rather have a decent Black person at my side, working with me to survive, than a trashy White or a trashy anybody, but I haven't had the experience nor pleasure of finding/dealing with many of them, very few actually. Call me a bigot or a racist, I don't care; my personal experience, abetted by what I see going around me today, tells me better be safe than "open-minded".
I don't look at skin color, dosen't matter to me. As Dr. King said it's the "content of the character". Must be trustworthy or actual blood. Most family will be trusted but again character will still matter in the level of trust. I havn't had any issues in my family, but my wife has 2 brothers that I don't trust as far as I can throw them.
Well, that's you and that's okay, but signs from the other skin-colors indicate otherwise thinking.
There's members of my blood I don't trust either, at all, except I can trust them not to be after me just because I'm White.
-
There is a definite racial component to the whole "social justice" frenzy. I recognize in the Left a rabid quality, they have a bloodlust just like the Bolsheviks of 1917-1922, and the terrors of revolutionary France under Robespierre and the "Committee of Public Safety". Since the post-WW2 era they have added anti-colonialism, critical race theory, what have you, to their laundry list of ways to identify the kulak. If you are a white person, then it is at your peril to not at least be cognizant of it. You don't have to like it, just be aware that it's one of the unfortunate realities of the New Normal. They are agitating in blatantly racial terms. "Polar bear hunting" and "the knock out game" is just a sample of a mindset that already exists, and that was without the gasoline currently being thrown onto the fire.
To paraphrase an old saying, "you may not be interested in racial identity politics, but racial identity politics is definitely interested in you".
-
Part 19 is up; "The Fighting Whities Redux, Part One" (http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2013/02/tales-of-new-america-19.html)
-
Part 20 (http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2013/03/tales-of-new-america-20.html)
Not getting much feedback lately, folks. Unless anybody's interested, I'll just stop dragging 'em over here.
-
Don't stop, I need to catch up!
-
Part 20 (http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2013/03/tales-of-new-america-20.html)
Not getting much feedback lately, folks. Unless anybody's interested, I'll just stop dragging 'em over here.
I am loving it! Please keep posting this.
-
Agreed. Keep posting.
I went over there the week he was late, and then of course forgot to check back..
-
Part 20 (http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2013/03/tales-of-new-america-20.html)
Not getting much feedback lately, folks. Unless anybody's interested, I'll just stop dragging 'em over here.
Those two were interesting.
A woman's greatest desire is for security, and for this reason, is emotionally incapable as a sex, in general, from evaluating the necessity of small government. If her children were going hungry, what mother would not beg, borrow, or steal to feed them? But then she applies this logic to the overall society when she hears of men out of work, children going hungry, people not receiving medical care. Whereas previously, she would have formed civic charities to aid the needy, with the vote, politicians persuaded women that government should do the job, and so women and the needy, who also were able to vote, robbed their husbands, brothers, and even their children to feed the government huge sums of money that was almost entirely wasted. Today we see the result."
I do (as an evil male) agree with the Author's premise that women are going to make emotional, care based decisions, and are basically incapable- as a group, of recognizing the idea of small govt. Of course, with the left's war on Boys and Men, much the same can now be said of that group as well - that is why we are at the tipping point now. I do not believe that patriarchy is part of Natural Law.. at least not where limited government is concerned, or even within a family. As the author states: Men and Women are different. And INDIVIDUAL men and women even more so. The Bible certainly teaches that the father is the leader of the family, and lays down more duties for him than powers, but every Christian family <should> have within it the bonds of love that restrict the abuse of that power. A government? No so much. Disfranchisement of women (or any group) will only result in abuse and persecution of that group. Even if those in the Government are Christian. Or Hindu. Or Atheist. Its human nature.
Universal Suffrage did carry with it the seeds of destruction, but only because it removed a protection of Limited Govt, and released the statistical truth of female voting patterns so well stated by the author. The answer isn't denying women the right to vote, but instead formulating a new rule of participation. Suffrage should be decided simply by your ability to take care of yourself, and option we have already discussed here. If you take handouts you have proven yourself incapable of making the correct decisions for your own life, and therefore must be prevented from making decisions that will affect the lives of others. This could probably be further improved by further requiring voters to have a real stake in the future of the nation - like a performing military service that required your life to be on the line for the country, or perhaps simply having a child. ( I know before I had one, I did have a "devil may care" attitude about such things, because in the end only I paid for failure. The end of the line for me, was the end of the line for everything. ) Voters should have an appropriately adjusted time horizon that extends beyond their own death.
The Wanna-be tyrants would of course still be there, and still voting, but without the ability to get votes by bribing or rewarding the non-contributing zeros with a box of free condoms and taxpayer funded baby killings, they would have a much harder time finding their way into power. Outlaw Unions and the job is done. No liberal would ever get elected- and women could still vote.
-
Weisshaupt, that was impressive. Thank you.
Part 20 (http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2013/03/tales-of-new-america-20.html)
Not getting much feedback lately, folks. Unless anybody's interested, I'll just stop dragging 'em over here.
Those two were interesting.
A woman's greatest desire is for security, and for this reason, is emotionally incapable as a sex, in general, from evaluating the necessity of small government. If her children were going hungry, what mother would not beg, borrow, or steal to feed them? But then she applies this logic to the overall society when she hears of men out of work, children going hungry, people not receiving medical care. Whereas previously, she would have formed civic charities to aid the needy, with the vote, politicians persuaded women that government should do the job, and so women and the needy, who also were able to vote, robbed their husbands, brothers, and even their children to feed the government huge sums of money that was almost entirely wasted. Today we see the result."
I do (as an evil male) agree with the Author's premise that women are going to make emotional, care based decisions, and are basically incapable- as a group, of recognizing the idea of small govt. Of course, with the left's war on Boys and Men, much the same can now be said of that group as well - that is why we are at the tipping point now. I do not believe that patriarchy is part of Natural Law.. at least not where limited government is concerned, or even within a family. As the author states: Men and Women are different. And INDIVIDUAL men and women even more so. The Bible certainly teaches that the father is the leader of the family, and lays down more duties for him than powers, but every Christian family <should> have within it the bonds of love that restrict the abuse of that power. A government? No so much. Disfranchisement of women (or any group) will only result in abuse and persecution of that group. Even if those in the Government are Christian. Or Hindu. Or Atheist. Its human nature.
Universal Suffrage did carry with it the seeds of destruction, but only because it removed a protection of Limited Govt, and released the statistical truth of female voting patterns so well stated by the author. The answer isn't denying women the right to vote, but instead formulating a new rule of participation. Suffrage should be decided simply by your ability to take care of yourself, and option we have already discussed here. If you take handouts you have proven yourself incapable of making the correct decisions for your own life, and therefore must be prevented from making decisions that will affect the lives of others. This could probably be further improved by further requiring voters to have a real stake in the future of the nation - like a performing military service that required your life to be on the line for the country, or perhaps simply having a child. ( I know before I had one, I did have a "devil may care" attitude about such things, because in the end only I paid for failure. The end of the line for me, was the end of the line for everything. ) Voters should have an appropriately adjusted time horizon that extends beyond their own death.
The Wanna-be tyrants would of course still be there, and still voting, but without the ability to get votes by bribing or rewarding the non-contributing zeros with a box of free condoms and taxpayer funded baby killings, they would have a much harder time finding their way into power. Outlaw Unions and the job is done. No liberal would ever get elected- and women could still vote.
-
Universal Suffrage did carry with it the seeds of destruction, but only because it removed a protection of Limited Govt, and released the statistical truth of female voting patterns so well stated by the author. The answer isn't denying women the right to vote, but instead formulating a new rule of participation. Suffrage should be decided simply by your ability to take care of yourself, and option we have already discussed here.
Universal Suffrage created a situation where wives are cancelling out their husbands votes, and not in favor of limited government, the presence of a child or children notwithstanding. There are scores of childed liberal women, who can and do possess the ability to take care of themselves, voting out of their husband's pockets as well as their own. Stick in their faces a picture of a starving child of whatever color and their reactions, for the most part, are based on feeeeeelings, not logic.
The Bible certainly teaches that the father is the leader of the family, and lays down more duties for him than powers, but every Christian family <should> have within it the bonds of love that restrict the abuse of that power.
It's not just the bonds of love; it's a Biblical prescription for the respect of a man toward his wife and a proscription against the abuse whether or not love is present.
Disfranchisement of women (or any group) will only result in abuse and persecution of that group.
Not necessarily -- teens and children as a group are "disenfranchised" in this context and suffer no abuse and persecution -- and we have right now abuse and persecution of groups that DO vote via Affirmative Action. "Minorities" enjoy its benefits but are largely not responsible for its enactment and continuation.
-
Porretto's take also rebuts Butterworth's (http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-franchise.html)
-
Universal Suffrage created a situation where wives are cancelling out their husbands votes, and not in favor of limited government, the presence of a child or children notwithstanding. There are scores of childed liberal women, who can and do possess the ability to take care of themselves, voting out of their husband's pockets as well as their own. Stick in their faces a picture of a starving child of whatever color and their reactions, for the most part, are based on feeeeeelings, not logic......
Not necessarily -- teens and children as a group are "disenfranchised" in this context and suffer no abuse and persecution -- and we have right now abuse and persecution of groups that DO vote via Affirmative Action. "Minorities" enjoy its benefits but are largely not responsible for its enactment and continuation.
You do bring up an interesting question - is a Married woman sitting at home going to be considered "capable of taking care of herself"? After all she is a dependent of her husband. I wouldn't want to create a situation where Marriage or stay-at-home child-rearing would be discouraged. Perhaps only functional families should get a vote.. i.e. Two parents, with children? Or Does one need to stay at home? Problem is, I don't want encourage people who should never get married and have kids to get married and have kids either. I guess I would prefer that individuals were allowed to vote vs. opening this tangled can of worms.
You can also have a liberal metro-sexual man's vote cancelling out a rational woman's vote because of the War on Manliness. I will grant that the number of times that occurs is less, but preventing women from voting isn't going to solve it. The effeminate man's vote will cancel out the manly mans vote. We are playing statistical games with individual rights- and those statistics may change over time. Men may no longer even be a "safe" constituency.
Affirmative action is the same sort of game- where statistics are used to "prove" discrimination- its just rigged to benefit them instead of us. The minority in that case is "White conservative Male" and the Majority is "entitled asshats". The liberals invented the "have not" as their faction- the fact they they "have not" because they provide little or no value to others for which they are voluntarily paid being dismissed as unimportant. What we need to ensure is that "entitled Asshats" never have a majority, because the first thing they will do is use political power to abuse the rights of those who "have" because they do provide value. They will never be able to achieve power if they can't bribe people to vote with tax dollars, and you are disenfranchised because you choose to be a non-contributing zero.
As for children, one could argue ( and you know a liberal would) that children were not protected by law until the "progressives" came along and implemented child labor laws, mandatory education laws, etc, and they would have some color for it. But what is the "entitled asshat" party if it isn't the party of infantile adults trying to shirk adult responsibilities? They are the party of children- who, almost by definition, cannot care for themselves. But yes, Children are disenfranchised, and they have in years past suffered abuse, enslavement, and worse at the hands of govt- particularly if there was no loving, hard working set of parents around them to protect them. And it will happen again.
Disenfranchising those who cannot take care of themselves means that those who can't or won't be responsible adults will suffer. Why do you think the "entitled Asshats" are in lala land talking about infinite money supply? Support systems under what we propose will be "inadequate" and will not offer such people "security" nor "dignity"-- and that is by design, because they should have neither- at least not if obtained at gunpoint. . Sadly that also means the children of such people will probably also suffer. That is why before the ascension of the "entitled asshat" party children were forced to work dangerous jobs in factories - they were made to by their entitled asshat parents. Crime will also go up, because the barbarian horde who have a tendency to disregard the rights of others ( all liberals) will no longer be receiving the tribute required to keep them quiet and non-aggressive. Like Jefferson we can chose to pay off the Barbary Pirates or go to war with them. There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.
Butterworth's NAR has the advantage of using a tried and true system that we know worked for a long time. However, its also the same system that eventually failed. It was men who voted to give Women Suffrage. It was men who were convinced of the justice of it. Its was men who loved and respected the judgement of their own wives and daughters that approved of it.
It's not just the bonds of love; it's a Biblical prescription for the respect of a man toward his wife and a proscription against the abuse whether or not love is present.
I think is it a mistake to accept the (very Liberal) idea that the Government (or the Nation) is like a family. The govt is our servant. Not our Mother. Not our Father. Not our Nanny. Any viewpoint that assigns a parental role to govt functions is liberal invention ( ala George Lakeoff and his model) - The Bible speaks to the role of a Christian Father- it is not a good model for the role of a govt.
Porretto's take also rebuts Butterworth's
I understand Porretto's point about the Civil War vets ( and the same happened again under FDR with WWI vets) becoming their own special interest group, but those who have served and placed their life on the line for the nation, should never have their right to vote revoked. If they volunteered ( weren't drafted) and put themselves in harms way for the nation, it should be presumed that they have enough interest in the nation to want to to the right thing. The same should be assumed of their spouse, who let them put the nation before even the well being of their own family. That of course doesn't mean that every vet is a saint that won't abuse such power, but if there is anyone whom our society owes an unpayable debt, it is to those who make such sacrifices. I would love for our nation's largest problem to be how to pay the unreasonably large pensions of (war) veterans. If you served but didn't see combat, then I think Porretto's restrictions are reasonable.
I don't much like Porretto's landed requirement either. We have seen that abused too many times. Being "landed" in this country still requires many to get a loan, and those loans are only available because "entitled asshat" FDR forced banks to provide them. The whole thing is far too easily manipulated - and you would end up with a very small and select number of people being able to vote. Again, this is a return to "tried and true" - and it was also eventually rejected by the same people who set it up as unjust.
Suffrage should be as widespread as it possibly can be while still protecting the inalienable rights of the individual. The second Mob Rule Democracy is used as justification to use the government as a weapon to violate the rights of any individual and sacrifice his interests to the common good, is the second where suffrage has been extended too far.
-
I can't imagine any scenario whereby civil society says to any citizen "you don't have a say", except those who infringe upon the rights of others: criminals, and non-taxpayers.
If you are on the dole in a system into which you've never contributed, you shouldn't have a voice beyond your constitutional right to redress your grievances, period. Children don't. The mentally incompetent don't. Felons don't.
The Leftists have systematically created an entire constituency of people who can be counted on to consistently vote for their own largesse. That should be illegal.
-
I think, at this point, gender-based voting arguments are, maybe not quite moot, but tougher to make.
Too many women earn too much money and have a vested interest in the gov to be denied. My wife is a solid, clear-headed thinker and can see the issues, for lack of a better way of putting it, rationally. I don't want my daughters to be denied the right to vote, but limiting the things on which we all can vote on should be put back into our Constitution.
This is not a Social Democracy, and no citizen should be allowed, no politician should be able to propose, and no election should be held, if the issue is how much of one citizen's property is up for grabs. I agree with IDP on that.
The 19th Amendment, as stated by others, was quite possibly the beginning of the end. It was proposed in order to capitalize on the emotional arguments made, and women ate it up. I have a cousin-in-law that I've argued with and can see the way she swallowed the premise that only gov can tend to those in need. Forgetting that charities were pushed out of existence b/c gov wanted to be the sugar-daddy and buy votes.
Today, coincidentally, Monica Crowley was on FOX w/ Jenna Lee, and after the whole "girl-power" and "We're better than men" sh*t, they talked about how the R's can re-claim the elctorate by presneting the arguments in a more emotional, and less "facts-based" way, b/c facts are"cold" Crowley said!
She wants to appeal to Moms by talking about how we can preserve entitlement programs for their kids!
f**k her! The dim-wit can't fathom that she's using the same tactic to achieve the same ends as the domestic enemies by pushing un-Constitutional, un-sustainable programs to buy votes w/ other peoples money.
If she thinks she's a Conservative thinker, and too many think like her, we're screwed.
-
It's not just the bonds of love; it's a Biblical prescription for the respect of a man toward his wife and a proscription against the abuse whether or not love is present.
I think is it a mistake to accept the (very Liberal) idea that the Government (or the Nation) is like a family. The govt is our servant. Not our Mother. Not our Father. Not our Nanny. Any viewpoint that assigns a parental role to govt functions is liberal invention ( ala George Lakeoff and his model) - The Bible speaks to the role of a Christian Father- it is not a good model for the role of a govt.
And that is not what I wrote, nor what I implied. I quoted the Biblical precept back at you in order to affirm the idea that it is not just bonds of love that determines the order in marriage, it's written order whether love is present or not.
-
And that is not what I wrote, nor what I implied. I quoted the Biblical precept back at you in order to affirm the idea that it is not just bonds of love that determines the order in marriage, it's written order whether love is present or not.
Looking at it as a system, the checks and balances won't work without love, no more than our written constitution protects us against the devices of those who feel the agreement isn't binding and the rules don't apply to them. God may command it. God may punish for disobeying. But A godless man who loves neither his family nor God isn't going to be following what is written in the bible - or following it in such a twisted way that he rules as a despot, and cares little if his prescribed obligations to his family are met. Evil men twist the meaning of words to suit their purposes, and care very little for the original intent.
-
And that is not what I wrote, nor what I implied. I quoted the Biblical precept back at you in order to affirm the idea that it is not just bonds of love that determines the order in marriage, it's written order whether love is present or not.
Looking at it as a system, the checks and balances won't work without love, no more than our written constitution protects us against the devices of those who feel the agreement isn't binding and the rules don't apply to them. God may command it. God may punish for disobeying. But A godless man who loves neither his family nor God isn't going to be following what is written in the bible - or following it in such a twisted way that he rules as a despot, and cares little if his prescribed obligations to his family are met. Evil men twist the meaning of words to suit their purposes, and care very little for the original intent.
And, thus, pointless to talk Bible as relates to the Godless family man, which is where you came in to make your point -- and sang to the choir here -- that the family is far different from government:
"The Bible certainly teaches that the father is the leader of the family, and lays down more duties for him than powers, but every Christian family <should> have within it the bonds of love that restrict the abuse of that power. A government? No so much."
-
After time and familiarity make lovers into family members, it is commitment more than love that will hold two people together. The love can wax, wane and evolve in intensity with events. If the commitment holds, so too will the marriage. Contrast that with someone who really does love their spouse, but cannot keep a commitment.
Commitment is the prime requisite, not love.
-
I quoted the Biblical precept back at you in order to affirm the idea that it is not just bonds of love that determines the order in marriage, it's written order whether love is present or not.
Okay, point taken. I guess I am doing my usual Autistic Obtuseness.. I am just not understanding why that is relevant to the point I was making ...that a family unit requires something ( be it love, commitment, a combination, or other factors) in its governance that we will not have between individual citizens in the formation of a government. The Author's assertion seemed to be that since God established a patriarchy for the family, it follows that only males should be allowed to vote or participate in government - and that is as God intended. I disagree that is a logical conclusion.
-
...The Author's assertion seemed to be that since God established a patriarchy for the family, it follows that only males should be allowed to vote or participate in government - and that is as God intended. I disagree that is a logical conclusion.
I disagree also. Patriarchy begins and ends in the family, and carrying it into government has nothing to do with logic, unless the logic you follow is intended to addict women and children to largesse. All kinds of Mohammeds and Ahmeds agree though. That should send up the flag right there.
Although the female vote certainly has been turned against liberty for the reasons cited, gender should not be the litmus test.
Of course we speak entirely of hypothetical faeries and unicorns. The trajectory for now is the enfranchisement of every mammal with a pulse. Discussing a litmus test for who should and shouldn't be allowed to vote is useless as long as enfranchisement for all is assumed to be the default good, and infringing on that narrative is assumed to be as evil as Satan himself.
We can't even fix fraud without interference. How can we possibly force a decision on who should/shouldn't; can/cannot vote?
-
Personally, what you describe as commitment, is what I call love. I reject the modern idea of love as an emotion which waxes and wanes and no one has any choice. We are not animals driven by passion. No, love is how you treat others. It is by choice and we choose to be committed to that treatment of another person, even when we might be angry with them, even when they may fail to be what we want them to be, even if they are sick or injured, we have made the commitment about how we will treat them.
-
...It is by choice and we choose to be committed to that treatment of another person, even when we might be angry with them, even when they may fail to be what we want them to be, even if they are sick or injured, we have made the commitment about how we will treat them.
I don't disagree with that at all. Perhaps the difference is a semantic one. By prioritizing commitment over love in the marriage relationship, what I mean is that when you don't "feel it" - in those moments or seasons over a long life when you temporarily view your spouse as less than lovable, it is the commitment that will carry through.
You equate that kind of commitment with love, and I have no objection to that. One can love without commitment, but one will have little motivation to commit without love, so your point is good.
-
IIRC, the word "love" is not in the Bible.
-
IIRC, the word "love" is not in the Bible.
You may want to take a closer look at that.
-
in those moments or seasons over a long life when you temporarily view your spouse as less than lovable, it is the commitment that will carry through.
Speaking strictly from the male point of view, menopause can be a real test of love and commitment. I managed to get through it but I would be less than truthful if I were to say it was not a struggle.
And, of course, there are countless things that men do which makes them less than lovable from time to time.
-
in those moments or seasons over a long life when you temporarily view your spouse as less than lovable, it is the commitment that will carry through.
Speaking strictly from the male point of view, menopause can be a real test of love and commitment. I managed to get through it but I would be less than truthful if I were to say it was not a struggle.
Speaking for myself, from the bird's eye point of view, ditto.
And, of course, there are countless things that men do which makes them less than lovable from time to time.
Ibid.
-
IIRC, the word "love" is not in the Bible.
You may want to take a closer look at that.
Well, yeah, but after the first gazillion times...
-
Tales ... #21 is up (http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2013/03/tales-of-new-america-21.html)
On a side note, Fran has thrown in the blogging towel, (http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-end-self-liberation.html) much to my dismay.
The "Tales of New America" author, Mark Butterworth, a fellow blogger at Liberty's Torch, has assured his readers he will continue the series to the end.
-
I hate to see that we are one fewer than we were. I feel like a man upon the wall at the Alamo. The end I fear is inevitable. They will kill us all. The only questions that remain are, how long shall we last, how valiantly shall we fight, and how shall we be remembered? And the greatest question still, is will there be any to remember us? I fear there will not. As the Roman Empire was gone a thousand years before the return of the lost greatness, so might we also be? Does any remember the weak little tyrants who finished off the Empire? No. None. It was the Empire that killed itself in their own decadence and frivolity. . As has our civilization. None will recall our once great society, nor the depths of our fall, for a thousand years, if then. And then only in a theoretical sense. None will really understand what theoretical words like "freedom" and "liberty" really mean. And even the memories will be lost. God help us all.
-
I wonder if living in the Peoples Paradise of NY hasn't contributed in some way.
I know in Minnie, especially the way things are going now, feeling to urge to bolt is growing.
Being surrounded by more and more libiots does take its toll, it's not just the high-profile ones we like to disparage, it's the day-to-day dealings with asshats of everyday life that can really suck the life out of us. Fran mentions health but also mentions jackasses, the latter is probably not helping the former.
Stay well Fran, and good luck. Your always welcome to stop in here anytime! ::thumbsup::
-
http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2013/03/tales-will-be-late.html (http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2013/03/tales-will-be-late.html)
-
Hopefully we see through to the completion.
-
Thanks for the reminder, somehow I missed your #21, now I shall have the pleasure of it. I do notice there are no comments.
-
Thanks for the reminder, somehow I missed your #21, now I shall have the pleasure of it. I do notice there are no comments.
Fran closed the comments before he decamped. 'S okay, we here usually have plenty to say. ;)
-
#21 moves the story along, not. There is no development between citizens being run out of town to Trash Land, the labor camp in #20, and the Big Ten football functioning society. He focused on the labor camp in #20 then #21 leaps to Big Ten football. It's awkward, the quick and easy transition no transition from chaos to a functioning, dynamic industrial America. And he needs to get over his midnight fantasy of a lily white America. I'll take a big giant leap and speculate he's not spent much time in flyover country.
-
#21 moves the story along, not. There is no development between citizens being run out of town to Trash Land, the labor camp in #20, and the Big Ten football functioning society. He focused on the labor camp in #20 then #21 leaps to Big Ten football. It's awkward, the quick and easy transition no transition from chaos to a functioning, dynamic industrial America. And he needs to get over his midnight fantasy of a lily white America. I'll take a big giant leap and speculate he's not spent much time in flyover country.
I think what we are witnessing is just First Draft. He writes the segments as the fancy takes him, and at some point they will get polished into a book. Or maybe two books.
I live in Colorado. I grew up in Littleton. I was 16 before I actually spoke to a black person, one of 2 in my High School of 2000 students. (No his name wasn't Token, but it might as well have been, as he was one of the richest kids in school too -- and yes Matt Stone went to my High School. )
Flyover country ( or at least my little bit of it) was lily white, and for the most part still is 30 years later. Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, South and North Dakota -are pretty much the same. What black populations there are self-segregate - Yes, I know where I can find almost exclusively black people. I also know where I can find almost exclusively white people, and I can tell you which neighborhood I would feel more comfortable in at night. Its not about skin color- its about culture, but the cultures are strongly correlated with race. (And that shouldn't be surprising, culture is passed on by your parents and neighbors. )
I think Butterworth's longing for Lily White is more about wanting to be with people "acting white" (for the lack of a better term) Americans tend to accept Asians, because for the most part, their ethics are more strict (puritan?) than those of the White culture. In Colorado, Mexicans are seen to come in two stripes: the hardworking, and the lazy. Guess which ones are readily accepted as neighbors and which rejected by whites? And granted - not all white people "act white" and we can certainly find all white areas I don't want to be at night either.
Butterworth's portrayal of the NAR is hardly what I would consider Ideal or white-washed ( I am such a racist using that term!) -In the NAR you could run a racist establishment and keep blacks out. You could discriminate against lesbians and gays. Why? Because you have a right to your own opinion in the NAR. You have the right to censure those you disagree with ( Ben Franklin wrote a wonderful article on the value of censure and gossip) which really, is how the liberals disarmed us and prevented us from defending our culture. They took away our right to censure those we did not like ( for good reasons or for bad) and replaced it with the govt making those decisions for us. I believe living in the NAR would be difficult for minorities. I am sure they would get by, and most would at least tolerate them, but you are always going to have a few who will go overboard - drunk with the perceived power of the majority. The Founders argued about the issue of Blacks and slavery in the first congress before the Declaration was even signed. It was widely believed then that Blacks and Whites just simply couldn't live together - it was almost axiomatic that freeing the slaves would require deporting them back to Africa or would require the founding of a Black territory/State where they could (would be foreced to?) go.
And in the end, that is pretty much exactly what happened - through the choices they made and the culture they adopted, they became separate from us, and that resulted in disparities in wealth and ethics that produced a geographical separation
I think, Butterworth, like me, probably grew up in Lily White America and perhaps has a bit of nostalgia for it - because it was safe, people weren't entitled, and even the Rich White Liberals were of the JFK variety, not the super commie Marxist hack variety so common now - which you might note, are no more welcome in the NAR than the openly gay
But Lily White America does exist- and pretty much always has :
1850-1990
African-American population by County, 1850-1990 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW3c_c7Ypmw#)
1990:
(http://www.census.gov/geo/www/mapGallery/images/black.jpg)
2000:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZkS-zCJoAmg/TP_tKBuJl9I/AAAAAAAAAC0/MHCxzxq22zE/s1600/BlackPop.jpg)
2010:
(http://www.raconline.org/racmaps/mapfiles/blackafram.png)
-
"Flyover country ( or at least my little bit of it) was lily white, and for the most part still is 30 years later."
My bit of flyover country was segregated but interactive, blacks had their own entrpenure culture of shoe stores, tailor shops, filling stations, a virtual city within a city. but they could patronize most stores albeit they had their own restrooms, counter areas, and water fountains. My first interaction was about age 3, we had a maid. The first time I worked with a black was age 10 up in the country.
"I think Butterworth's longing for Lily White is more about wanting to be with people "acting white" (for the lack of a better term) Americans tend to accept Asians, because for the most part, their ethics are more strict (puritan?) than those of the White culture. "
It would be much more realistic if that were so but by his hand *Asians are out and so are **Jews, I think he lumped it as they would rather be with their own kind. (I went back and pulled some quotes)
"In Colorado, Mexicans are seen to come in two stripes: the hardworking, and the lazy."
That's the way it is here. Before the first amnesty and rulings that hospitals could not turn away etc. etc. a common saying was they come here to work - they go to California for welfare, no more of that thank you Uncle Sam.
"Butterworth's portrayal of the NAR is hardly what I would consider Ideal or white-washed ( I am such a racist using that term!) -In the NAR you could run a racist establishment and keep blacks out. "
My reading is that all blacks are out, all lesbians are out; all persons not white are out. White practicing Christian as he believes it (example: you must tithe and donate to the church) are the only persons allowed in NAR so far except at the black labor camp experiment (what ever that was). The general has a bit of Jim Jones in him. And Butterworth's caricature of all blacks as stupid and lazy along with the juvenile Fat Albert phonetics ia stilted to say the least.
His writing is interesting and thought provoking but it is not Christian, not practical and highly improbable. He's writing himself into a corner assuming that California is going to sit and wallow. There are many very smart, disciplined folks there. When those hot Asians from Stanford, those professionals who contract to the military, and the oil companies gain political control NAR will suffer political and economic backlash.
He has written off and out the South, which is also a mistake.
He teeters between a white utopia (sounds eerily familiar) and a very good story line. I'm anxious to read his next installment. He should re=enable the comments, they were interesting.
...
WOW! I just scrolled down and saw your maps. I'm shocked. I never knew. My big giant guess, of course he hasn't a clue, few do. Everybody thinks blacks are Atlanta, California Crips, and Detroit. They do have the market cornered but, so far, those are caricatures.
* "Are you also aware of the number of your fellow citizens who've been robbed, molested, raped, murdered, crashed into by the illegal aliens, Mexican and Asian, that you've harbored through the years?"
Chinatown and various Asian enclaves of Vietnamese, Filipino, Japanese. Korean, Thai, and Laotian were scheduled for a week later. It was complicated with language problems. Many Asians never bothered to learn much English at all, although their children generally did. Although considered to be generally docile and highly conforming as people, Asians often proved stubborn, intransigent, and combative when pushed farther than they felt was acceptable
...
If too many Latinos and Asians refused to relocate, they would shut power, water, and food off in their areas, give it some time as people gave up and gave in, and then clear out the dead enders
**"What about racism? And intolerance? I hear stories that you don't welcome all Christians or people if they're black or Hispanic or even Jewish. What about that?"
Rather than launch into a long, tedious defense of the culture of New America, he readily admitted guilt before his accuser.
"That's right. I don't deny that we discriminate, and even our constitution respects freedom of association so strongly that anyone or any private business is free to discriminate against anyone however they please. As far as race and religion goes, if you decide to become a Buddhist or Hindu, you won't find any intolerance, per se, but if you want to adhere to a satanic anti-religion like Islam, yes, you'll have a problem. You'll be asked to leave. As for Jews, they are the ones who prefer not to join us for the most part."
"What about race?"
"Nobody objects to the Japanese not welcoming people outside their race or culture as citizens and immigrants."
"But this is America. It's different."
"That was America, and all those differences were a large part of what destroyed it. Identity politics ruined the idea of the melting pot for good. Even for Christians. I love all my brothers and sisters in Christ. In Christ Jesus there is no Jew or gentile, male or female, slave or free. But the sad truth is that black Christians and white ones go to different churches; same for Orientals and Hispanics. Why? We're all saved; washed in the blood of the Lamb, children of the Living God, and kindly disposed to each other when we meet and share our faith . . . but when we leave the church or retreat or fellowship meeting, we find ourselves bound to those closest to us in color, culture, and likeness. That's human nature, and we should overcome it, but as ministers, we know that most of us, most people don't. We have to accept reality if we want our people, our children to thrive. And they are thriving in New America. While there is absolutely nothing, I repeat, absolutely nothing to prevent other people, blacks, Hispanics or Orientals from creating their own thriving communities or States."
-
It would be much more realistic if that were so but by his hand *Asians are out and so are **Jews, I think he lumped it as they would rather be with their own kind. (I went back and pulled some quotes)
After living in Lily White Colorado, I headed to University; Columbia U. in Harlem. I was appalled how the Koreans only associated with the Koreans. The Japaneses with the Japanese. The Orthodox Jews only with other Orthodox Jews. The Blacks I met were actually the group most open to associating with others (maybe because we were on their home turf?)
These were the "brightest and best" - the Ivy League, and in New York, one of the most vibrant and diverse places in the world! --and racism and slurs and segregation were far more rampant in New York City than they were in my lily-white hometown. Asian girls would have an Asian boyfriend "just for show" - The cute Jewish girl in the room next door dated a Korean until her parents refused to pay for medical school if she continued to see him. I was told outright by a gang of Indians (the Asian kind) that I must cease and desist my attentions toward a pretty young lady named Ami,currently under "their protection."
I think Butterworth's point is that "being with your own kind" is human nature, and being forced to live together causes the conflict. From what I saw in New York, I have a hard time disagreeing with him. I don't want to believe it, but left to their own devices, different races self-segregate. (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2010/09/color_map_of_new_york_city_by.html)
My reading is that all blacks are out, all lesbians are out; all persons not white are out. White practicing Christian as he believes it (example: you must tithe and donate to the church) are the only persons allowed in NAR so far except at the black labor camp experiment (what ever that was). The general has a bit of Jim Jones in him. And Butterworth's caricature of all blacks as stupid and lazy along with the juvenile Fat Albert phonetics is stilted to say the least.
I don't get that they are "out" - one of the first episodes is about letting two lesbians in. What I do think is that those not "White Christian", are not going to be allowed to disrupt the "White Christian" culture. Really, if you think about it, Utah is very much that way. In my trips there I have discovered that if you aren't Mormon, they are civil and polite, but not overly friendly. They definitely leave the impression "you don't belong, but if you insist, we will tolerate it, as long as you don't try to change things"- If Colorado had done similar to our California immigrants, maybe we wouldn't be where we are now. Likewise, in my Lily-white hometown, the minorities ( being VERY MUCH a minority) "acted white" and participated in the dominant culture - you had to go to the ghetto to find the "lazy" blacks Butterworth portrayed the camps. I think that is what Butterworth's immigration quote is about - these are people who broke the law, and in so doing, demonstrated an unwillingness to assimilate into,and accept the rules of, the dominant culture. Butterworth was perfectly willing to put White, Rich, Suburban liberals into a camp to teach them a lesson about diversity, so it not like being "white" protected them from the NAR in any way. There is simply a difference between letting a tribe of invading foreigners live in the same place as you (Europe and Islam!) , and welcoming foreigners into your own group because those foreigners WANT to be part of it ( American Immigration using the already established path to citizenship)
Butterworth also specifically said the blacks bused to the camp were from the worse set, clooected in the last weeks, from the Ghetto. They had been pre-filtered to have only the very worst present. He said the black girl who was attacked was relocated to live with a "better class" of blacks, so he acknowledged there was such a thing. He indicated the lesbians would be okay if they just didn't make a spectacle of themselves, and so on. I just don't think Butterworth is portraying a "racially pure" society, but a culturally pure one, based on what he sees as Christian teachings. If such a society were to form, I do not think we would be wrong to assume that it would be predominantly white- especially when it begins in States that are predominantly white to begin with.
His writing is interesting and thought provoking but it is not Christian, not practical and highly improbable.
Its certainly Teotwawki porn, and I am not a "real" Christian by most people's standards, so I don't know if his writing is Christian or not. However I am not sure what is so impractical or improbable about it. Utah has basically been running itself like the NAR for the last 40 years. The First settlers were Puritans ( who ironically decided religious persecution of their own members was cool) and lived in that sort of society a long time. The Amish still do it. Never perfectly. Never justly. They are after all, people. The takeover of Liberal territory is a bit too much of a cake walk, but the premise is that the Liberals cut defense spending and the NAR concentrated on it, - eventually giving them a vast edge over the Old United States. If Obama weren't deliberately intending to Attack Americans you can bet that the police would not be getting tanks, drone research would end, and the Military budget would be cut to less than a 1/5 of what it is now. That is the United States the NAR is fighting. Well meaning pacifist morons, who let the NAR leave the US because they were to weak to force them back in , not Dedicated Marxists hell bent on "transformation"
He's writing himself into a corner assuming that California is going to sit and wallow. There are many very smart, disciplined folks there. When those hot Asians from Stanford, those professionals who contract to the military, and the oil companies gain political control NAR will suffer political and economic backlash.
But they won't - they have already reached the point of economic collapse as we speak. California is already hostile to Oil exploration - to the point where they won't let drilling occur where naturally occurring oil just washes up on the beaches. I went to an Ivy... . I know a whole bunch of people way smarter and more disciplined than me, and they are, almost to a person, die-hard liberals. Intelligence does not beget common sense. They, like most liberals, are happy to vote bullies into office to enforce their will, but they would never lift a finger personally to engage in violence. With no money to pay police or soldiers, you can't wage a war. With no principles to call your own, they is nothing to "fight for" - that is why the left plays identity politics - "War on Women!", "Discrimination against Blacks!", "Class warfare!" - translation: your tribe is being attacked! Because "Pigs get to eat apples in the farmhouse while the rest of you work!" just won't work as a rallying battle cry.
The South has such a large percentage of the "lazy" black, that I don't see anything but a massive race war there if these circumstances came about. I am not writing it off, but there would be a huge period of turmoil before anything resembling civilization emerged.
-
I forgot that scene with the lesbians and was thinking of the selection process in Washington. And yes we all prefer to be with our own kind I just think in a real SHTF our kind may be many colors (I know some Koreans, I don't like them but I trust them. They are tough little bastards. They would be an asset to the community). Butterworth puts a disproportionate value on race, it's as if he has some personal issues he hasn't worked out. Then again the scenario wavers between an orderly war and SHTF. I guess that's the way it will be, unstable.
California is already hostile to Oil exploration - to the point where they won't let drilling occur where naturally occurring oil just washes up on the beaches. I went to an Ivy... . I know a whole bunch of people way smarter and more disciplined than me, and they are, almost to a person, die-hard liberals. Intelligence does not beget common sense. They, like most liberals, are happy to vote bullies into office to enforce their will, but they would never lift a finger personally to engage in violence.
A California overfilled with the dregs of Washington and Oregon will be over the tipping point. In the natural, I speculate those uber liberals shed their "sensitive" veneer, join with others grounded in reality and rule California with a vengeance. With CAs natural resources, intelligentsia and wounded ego, it could become a technocratic Russia.
And, one more time, those graphs are awesome.
-
Butterworth puts a disproportionate value on race, it's as if he has some personal issues he hasn't worked out.
Yeah, I can probably agree with that. Really, I think I have gotten good enough at "spot the selfish, narcissistic, liberal" that I don't think I will be relying on race as a determining factor. Nor do I have the illusion that living in an "all white" or "Christian" community is any sort of protection of liberty in and of itself. The original colonial population was white and arguably more Christian, and still lived with slavery for 100's of years, persecuted those with different beliefs and generally acted like you would expect humans to act. What made America unique was it was the first place where humans ever tried to be better than that. Maybe someday we can try it again, but apparently it takes a special group of people to accomplish it.
-
It may be that he is placing an inordinate amount of value to the racial component of the blowback that is certain to come in an economic meltdown. I'm not so sure. It is clear (to me at least) that the parasite class will be the least prepared or capable to cope with civil disorder. At one time I was schooled that there were more whites on welfare than blacks. That was so long ago - and deliberately neglectful of the fact that blacks comprised only about 12% of the population at the time - that I do not know how true it is. Or how much of the black population as a whole welfare recipients represent.
The way I prefer to read his stories is not as a subscriber or endorser of the narrative per se, but rather as an interested bystander watching to see where he takes it. I may be pleasantly surprised or bitterly disappointed. But right now I'm definitely intrigued!
-
I've mentioned The Last Centurion (http://www.amazon.com/Last-Centurion-John-Ringo/dp/1439132917/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1363811863&sr=1-1&keywords=last+centurion+john+ringo) here before with reference to societal trust -- high level trust does better, even today -- and how race and culture determines the trust level.
Butterworth's "Tales" echo some of what Ringo posited in his tale. One thing that stuck with me is Ringo's description of the small communities which cobbled themselves together here in the US, and that, in them, the main "problem children" were usually the Black females. They were bossy, disruptive, disrespectful of Whites, particularly White men, and were held in contempt by "hispanic" men.
Now, anyone with has dealt with this type of loudly-filibustering, head-thrusting, finger-pointing woman knows exactly the type. Stereotypes exist for a reason.
On the other hand, we've been dealing with our insurance agent for twenty years now; a smart, very nice, Black woman who has never steered us wrong. But ... we've never had a confrontation either, so ...... who knows.
-
Tale #22 is up. (http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2013/03/tales-of-new-america-22.html)
-
#23 and Last (http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2013/04/tales-of-new-america-23.html)
-
Loved the series. Not the ending. Disappointing to me, personally. I do not think it lived up to its potential.
-
Loved the series. Not the ending. Disappointing to me, personally. I do not think it lived up to its potential.
Agree. I stopped for a moment when I realized that I was silently adding up the typos. It was like he was rushed, ran out of steam, or lost interest.
Or perhaps it was like mental gymnastics - not really meaning to put out a finished product but rather getting some troublesome notions off his chest (I've never done that).
-
I agree it kinda fizzled out, but there is time to fix that if he has a mind to. I have some issues with his narrative but like 'Soup said earlier the interest was in seeing where this all went to.
-
The general was going full Jim Jones, internal dissatisfaction with the NAR were surfacing, Mexican cartels give up without a fight, life in the Chihuahua desert is wonderful. Many possibilities for development withered on the vine.