August 15, 2014

August 15, 2014
The Purpose of Celebrity is Subservience.

For a while I decided to give up writing.

Various rules are imposed upon writers, by the publishers that collect and hold the money. O sure we’ll give you an amount our peers deem fair, just like the blue book price for a car; now put out for me, bitch, and this is how I want it.

You gonna slap me around a little, to show me who’s boss, or would you rather I just do that to myself.

Hey it’s fucking show biz, hun … an’ if you want the bucks …

So that one was easy - no need to snort snort glug glug - because I don’t write for the bucks.

I write to keep myself from going crazy.

But then the Liberals have their

Wage and Price spirals. And if you don’t get your ass out there and scrounge like a rat, they will bury you.

The Liberal-conservative solution: the Liberals say, wait, don’t kill them yet (see structural violence) give them money to consume; the conservatives say, kill them now and have the remainders make more (ban birth control and abortions) the fittest will consume better and on their own, it’s cheaper. Two sides of the same coin.

So how do you write about that to relate to “Americans”? $5 Big Macs? A Chicken in a Cup for everyone ?

Be like Henry Ford and pay those Liberal economy, assembly line, foot soldiers of food, enough money so they can buy what they slap together. This is the conventional wisdom and perpetual proposition of The Liberals, that way, “we” can cut breakfast, lunch and supper time even more. Not only will our slaves, erm workers, be more productive, they’ll have more time and money to consume !!

Does this seem familiar yet? Do they actually even think of US as human; or for that matter:

Are they even conscious of what humanity is?

Drive thru in the suburban, with wife and kids, drop in the Big Macs like this lQQk give um the money bitch and then similarly poop them out at home. Don’t forget to wash your hands and Hey kids, guess what, tommorow? We get to do the same thing !!

O yea !!

$5 Big Macs cf last years’ prices and by trend line analysis from Acme Econometrics and “staying the course” with the Liberal-conservatives, this could quadruple over the next several decades !! Maybe sooner !!

All we need do is appoint more City managers to turn off the drinking water from these annoying "citizens" so that The Worthy meat milk and eggs "producers" could put it to a good Christian use:

‘If there was ever a chosen people it is the White Christian Farmer because He does with the land what the Good Lord intended, he cultivates it’

Paraphrasing Thomas Hart Benton in his “Manifest Destiny” speech.

So Robert Reich says pay fast food workers more money !!

And if that’s the case then you’d better get to Fracking too because the chief value added input of the Meat Milk and Eggs diet, via the Koch Bros requires lots and lots of Natural Gas to make Nitrogen Fertilizer

Because it’s the only way to grow enough grain to feed enough animals to produce enough Meat Milk and Eggs to go around or be thrown away; and don’t forget Monsanto:

You didn’t think Thomas Hart Benton’s chosen people were actually going to pay immigrants enough money to weed by hand, did you?

And then, the Liberal

Full Growth Economy This is how ‘they’ keep the taxes low, keep the prices high and still have enough transactions to tax to pay weapons suppliers for the means to start offensive wars on the other side of the earth.

Maximize price, minimize cost and dupe the masses with “religious beliefs”

So the next time you hear or read about the Fed - eg. it’s the gotdam Jews !! They control the Federal Reserve Board !! this is what these Thomas Hart Benton people - ie, Liberals and Libertarians - are bitching about - i.e., the legend is, that The Fed turns off the money supply spigot and thereby willfully and intentionally deprives the Liberals of their irrefutable proof that their Full Growth Economy theory is actually the panacea to Life on Earth as well as the very existence of the planet itself. Talk about misers; so to distract you, they blame it on “the Jews” and then ‘even it out’ with the unconditional support of Israel.

But now, awaiting in the wings, the Celebrity Return, of

'The Clintons of The Hamptons'.

Surely Hallmark has a made for TV miniseries already in the works. O the life of luxury. We were once bourgeois hicks, but Liberal grants sent us to some foreign land, qualified us for the White House, and now, here we are. Yeah, here they are, another couple of Liberal cog widgets from the RayGun parvenu. I do declare. The perfect celebrity pair, for the White House.

The whole Country is subservient, Right? (aside it certainly isn’t Left).

What a thing to expend your celebrity on especially when all you aim to do is just occupy and “stay the course”.

So what’s the damage from all this? How bad has all of this Liberal propaganda and imposed insanity affected The Citizenry, or is it just the MSM that creates that impression? Here’s one example of me attempting to be reasonable and patient with one of these cult members:

1st off - they don’t know the difference between Left and Right, because they don’t know what Left is

“@MDSebach well I don’t know what “Left” you are referring to but it certainly isn’t the one I come from. I agree with your gist but not your application of the appellations.

If you want to talk about Inalienable rights then we’re talking about water, food, fuel and shelter; the essence of totalitarianism would be to deprive people of those things, it’s irrelevant whether you do it by a majority, which is relative anyway eg, the majority of the US Supreme Court is 5 people but that majority is certainly a minority in other comparisons.

Generally Left and right (also relative) are distinguished by property e.g., in terms of capitalism vs feudalism the Landed Gentry were the Conservatives, the Merchants and capitalists were the revolutionaries or some would argue the lumpen proletariat.

So for example, the Landed Gentry had limited ownership of the land (In England the Monarch was/is Lord of the Land) and certain privileges (property rights) were granted to them by the Sovereign power eg, Blackstone remarks that property like money are the inventions of mankind.

The basis of Communism is Natural Law, the human entitlement to those inalienable rights, which is Left of what is established, which is an arrangement between the sovereign power and propertied individuals which allows the latter to assume ownership of these things as well as the means by which these things are made available. The last remaining vestige in this regard is water which has generally in recent times been provided for publicly with the remainders such as food fuel and shelter held in private hands that may only be acquired on terms dictated by the owner

When people don’t know what something is it’s easier for “the powers that be” to just brush it off. Leave it to the experts. And then when they persist, hey wait a minute we keep seeing this referred to, so what is it? That situation makes it easier for “the power that be” to de facto redefine it. And that is what has happened. The Liberals did it.

The Discussion continues

“The following assertion was made by @MDSebach:

“Inalienable rights are all philosophically negative, @blazintommyd, they are rights to ACTION(s), not to positive goods of any kind”.

The following was/is my partial response in re “positive goods”

“Water, earth, wood and fuel naturally occur as products of earth not of humanity”.

The idea that anyone does not have the right to these aforesaid products of earth implies that some other individual does, which at the very least implies the right to possess to the exclusion of others, which is the basis of private property, which is clearly the invention of people

(you were saying something about majorities and minorities?)

If you wanted to be technically correct in re inalienable rights what Jefferson &co referred to is stated as follows - viz., Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness; the latter is substituted for property in the 3 categories of rights protected under the common law - viz., the recognition of rights by evidence of court decisions

Keeping your comments within the gist of what we’ve been discussing there is nothing you’ve offered to distinguish between the person as an individual or the person as a corporate body - e.g., a municipality - owning these things, as I already noted, the example of water.

Obviously, the products of earth which all humans require in order to subsist are not the same as things like Ferraris, wall crawlers or google glasses and there is nothing of this earth that requires them to be considered as the same, particularly since you can’t subsist on these so called “positive” products.

What you seem to be struggling with is how to go about convincing enough people to comprise a majority that some past majority got it all wrong; and if that’s the case you’re not doing a very good job because you can’t Do a good job with an impossible task.

On the other hand all that I’ve been doing, thus far, is simply pointing out that the ultimate arbiter of the basic proposition of whether

(1) a government shall determine who has the right to own the earthly necessities of life to the exclusion of others or

(2) that a government shall own these things for the general welfare of the citizenry - can only be secured by force or popular approbation

And people get tired of war

These people are disconnected from earthly reality by all of this Liberal Eco 101 bullshit

I watched this documentary on Netflix called “Particle Fever” about these young adults that look and act like High School sophomores, eating Cherios and junk food attempting to apply observations regarding physical principles within earth (air, earth, water &c) and apply them to events in outer space to discover what they think might be the origins of the fucking Universe. Why not hire them to count a billion dollars or a billion stars. Same thing. But someone paid billions of dollars to build a super collider that is supposed to somehow satisfy or disatisfy their personal curiosities.

What could be a more perfect example of “American” elitism?

Meanwhile people are selling themselves for subsistence and rather than The Party doing something about that? This is the sort of shit they allocate resources to and for, instead, that is, whatever is left over after some Internationalist war somewhere on the other side of earth and they’re done eating.

But what the fuck do I know? I’m not a celebrity.

August 15, 2014

Still from "Cristo Rey"

August 15, 2014
The Paradox of Violence

america-wakiewakie said: Negative peace versus positive justice, makes me think of that. I read your piece you sent me. I kind of responded but it got so long I posted it to my page, about intersectionality.


I take it you are referring to this

You’re Always welcome. As a Progressive Communist I have no need to continue prejudices regarding the lumpen proletariat, which at best, I am; the same applies to apologies for Patriarchy (see my discussion here in re Betty Millard ff excerpt). Doing otherwise would be like imposing the Roman Law after it’s considered dead.

But I am also a Nationalist and believe in a strong National government.

In that regard there are things that government can do practically - ie, provide clean drinking water, good subsistence food, adequate shelter and fuel, free, to every citizen, because every human being needs those things to subsist. So it is therefore a matter of The General Welfare as opposed to particular welfare.

On the other hand people don’t need chicken in a cup, Big Macs, the meat milk and eggs diet in general, iPhones &c, so if they want those things they’d have to get them themselves. You have to start somewhere and not allow yourself to become overwhelmed by particulars. I believe that the basic purpose of government for the citizenry is sound as long as it’s used in a general manner rather than for the furtherment of particulars.

As far as your Critique of communism, goes, there is no honest denial that the basic observations of Marx are irrefutable - viz., under the present “Liberal” arrangement, people that have no production property have only the sale of their labor to maintain their survival. Everything springs from that fact. While a lack of resources available to the government may have been a valid excuse in 1789, it no longer is; neither are International Wars

What I really liked tho is your recent piece on peace which I take this opportunity to address in an improved (edited) form:

“…. I see it as an analogy between ‘now’ and 1 step forward, which is ‘the future’.

USA Police are generally violent even when they are “at peace”; their peace is relative: it is potential violence and it is expressed as such in their uniforms, gear, implements and stance; and then when they take 1 step forward, into the future, potential violence becomes violence in action.

Their violence is what keeps “the others” peaceful. They “enforce” the peace.

But that mere confrontation itself should never happen and it is in it’s simplest form the overt expression of dis-unity because COPs are citizens too. This confrontation of citizen against citizen indicates a failure of those in power to unite the people

Because the role of The People in this Liberal arrangement is to be ruthlessly exploited by the profit class.

So instead of unity, they resort to violence. Disunity is perpetuated by violence, paradoxically, peace perpetuates this violence and this disunity.

So when someone says that violence achieves nothing they’re either stupid or else they’re being a hypocrite.


August 15, 2014

ArtofDan - Scotch


ArtofDan - Scotch

July 31, 2014
From “Women Against Myth” by Betty Millard (1948) p 13 

“Even many otherwise progressive men cling to their vested interest in male superiority, and many women are so committed to the seeming security of their inferior yet ‘protected’ position that they echo the voteless, property less, completely dependent women of a century ago who declared to Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony that they already had ‘all the rights they wanted”.

This is the key to the solution, which Liberals are gutless to face let alone address: so they will pander to these women and men, to preserve, protect as they, dare not ‘disturb’, this ‘social static’.

8:20am  |   URL:
(View comments
Filed under: gutless 
July 24, 2014


Origami Love

(Source: thesearepeoplefucking)

July 21, 2014
The Woman’s Movement: does one really exist?

It’s either a canard or if such thing is organized then my several criticisms regard the symptoms of it co-opting or the propagandist invitation to co-opt with Hillary the Liberal for USA President

In other words, the smoldering Liberal, cloven hoof prints, are all over it.

There they go again - The various posts I see regarding “The Women’s Movement” via Twitter and Tumblr indicate to me that the same Liberal template used for Blacks - i.e., Black men - in the so called Civil Rights movement - is now being used as the template for women

And this is why that’s bad:

(I) Plugging Symptoms to Obfuscate the Cause

The Liberal template, as alluded to above was willfully and intentionally designed to obfuscate the fact that many if not most of the symptoms, which Liberal propaganda attributes to discrimination and/or disparagement allegedly based on hate - e.g., racism and misogyny are actually based on class; and is generally a symptom of the Liberal slave monger Hierarchy and their consumer inflationist “economy” - e.g.,

Hitler exterminated Jews because they were the least formidable group. The less people there are the more there is for, “the worthy”.

Consider the fact that as soon as MLK began to address these issues he was assassinated because this fact is inimical to the Liberal cause and their Modus Operandi:

(1) Make everything in life dependent on money and price, which enables the Liberal-conservatives to control everything via the money supply viz., easing, tightening, raising taxes, lowering taxes; and

(2) Duping people into believing that there is some hope or salvation in voting for these fraudulent assholes.

(II) If the socio-economic arrangement in which women purportedly want equal opportunity, was created by men, why would you want to keep it?

Why would you want to be involved in a system that was designed to exclude you?

The same is equally true in regards to Black men.

Obama was made President to drag you - the Black man with the Black woman obediently following behind - into the Liberal status-quo socio-economic arrangement, created by White men and willfully and intentionally designed to exclude you.

The Liberal Handbook for colonizing and re-subjugating the Black Man

And now they’re going to do the same or at least try with women. All that this does is create the impression with men (both white and black) that you are in an inferior position and want to be them. That you’re envious; that you want to assume their role, their gender.

(1) Even if you wanted to create a matriarchy, why would you want to create it, in the image of men?

What this tact is designed to do is trick you into supporting the Biblical/Jewish gender arrangement from whence arose the Spermists - viz., The Earth in Genesis is lifeless, like a female egg, until god shoots his jizz on it. Or that a woman was created out of a man

Awww Tracy and Hepburn, how McLiberal can you get !! you have to go along with it now, “Right”? Sure why not have some bacon and a glass of milk too.

In other words, women are soulless creatures designed to be used by men and you are or would therefore be confessing, conceding knuckling under and submitting to the idea that women are incapable of creating anything, but most especially incapable of creating a social arrangement in which you at least share an equal role with people that happen to have a penis, testicles a rather shapeless uninteresting body unless it is strenuously worked (if so looking monstrous if it makes old age) and covered with more hair.

This Liberal economy, society or whatever some technocrat has tagged it, has created sexual gender roles, which have assigned to them particular characteristics:

(a) Men use weed eaters around appurtenances to create a military like nit cut look to everything;

(b) women plant flowers.

Does Hillary seem like the sort of woman that would plant flowers?

Keep your eyes peeled.

July 20, 2014

(Source: wolf-66, via togsfree)

July 20, 2014

(Source: nudist-paradise, via nudewithfriends)

Liked posts on Tumblr: More liked posts »