Category Archives: Morality

Boycott the Academy Awards on February 26, 2017, by Innocent Bystander

An excellent suggestion from Innocent Bystander at lewrockwell.com:

Cher Bono is a great singer/entertainer, but……..

The 89th showing of the Academy Awards is coming up on February 26th. It is important that we, their “deplorables”, show the likes of Meryl Streep, Jennifer Lawrence, Alec Baldwin, Cher Bono, Barbra Streisand, Ashley Judd, Whoopi Goldberg, Joy Behar, Bill Maher and the other arrogant hypocrites, that we, the backbone but stageless people of America, are more united than the bitter, angry, divisive people of the entertainment industry.

The entertainment industry has the highest incidence of drug use, both illegal and pharmaceutical. They have marketed and promoted so many of the ills that plague our society today and have destroyed so many young lives. On the screen and in music, they have glorified violence, drugs, body mutilation, tobacco use, envy, and big government. They have slandered the traditional values of the working man and misrepresented the character of the vast majority of entrepreneurs and businesspersons.

Yet these arrogant, pompous, pampered individuals declare that half of Americans are racist, sexist, and bigoted for voicing political choice through Donald Trump. What the electorate said was not necessarily that they subscribed to all of Mr. Trump’s stated policies nor style, but that they were given only one publicized and “electable” alternative to the despised Mrs.Clinton. And there can be no doubt that the entertainment industry does more to exploit, degrade, minimize, and stereotype women than Donald Trump allegedly ever did.

From Madonna and Miley Cyrus parading on stage with little to no clothing while grabbing their crotches and allowing fans to do the same, to movies that depict women as whores, sluts, and gold-diggers dependent on their bodies for survival, to the deplorable speeches of Madonna and Ashley Judd talking about their periods in a vile manner and talking about blowing up the White House, we must send these people a strong and distinct message that they do not speak for the women of this country and they are not the role models of our young daughters.

To continue reading: Boycott the Academy Awards on February 26, 2017

Advertisements

He Said That? 2/20/17

From Augustine of Hippo Augustine of Hippo (354-430), Christian theologian and philosopher, City of God (426):

He that becomes protector of sin shall surely become its prisoner

The Appalachian Messenger, 2/17/17

This week’s Appalachian Messenger.

He Said That? 2/11/17

From Noam Chomsky (born 1928), American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, social critic, and political activist, The Culture of Terrorism (1988):

There are few genuine conservatives within the U.S. political system, and it is a sign of the intellectual corruption of the age that the honorable term ‘conservatism’ can be appropriated to disguise the advocacy of a powerful, lawless, aggressive and violent state, a welfare state for the rich dedicated to a lunatic form of Keynesian economic intervention that enhances state and private power while mortgaging the country’s future.

“As ye sow…” by Robert Gore

Our deranged world is a product of deranged minds.

Philosophy begins with invariably difficult questions. Why am I here? What is the purpose of life? Is there a god or gods? What is right and what is wrong? How should groups of people be organized and function together? Ironically, when such questions are infrequently asked, when philosophy is generally ignored or disparaged, as it is now, is when it’s needed the most.

Political philosophy is the branch that addresses the question of how coercive power is to be distributed in a society. It’s a knotty issue, but one question provides clarification, enabling further analysis and leading to useful conclusions. Who owns a political unit’s resources? This question differentiates between governments that protect individual rights and property and those that don’t. It also highlights a key problem: on planet earth, every government falls into the latter category.

DERANGED: Prime deceit could be TAKEN FROM CURRENT HEADLINES

cropped-prime-deceit-final-cover.jpg

AMAZON PAPERBACK

KINDLE EBOOK

The United States’ founding documents pay tribute to individual rights and private properly. Some of the founders may have thought they were establishing a government subordinated to protection of individual rights, which would have been an historical first. However, none thought such a government would be easy to maintain, and their fears were borne out. The US government places prominently on the inglorious list of governments claiming ownership over everything within their dominion, defined as any place where they can exercise their coercive power.

To those who say the institution of inviolate private property still exists in the US, what asset can the US government not seize? The income tax gives it first claim on income. No real estate is exempt from eminent domain. Intellectual property claims are at the sufferance of the patent, trademark, and copyright authorities. Financial assets held within the banking system can be “bailed in,” and plans are afoot to ban cash. The already extensive range of assets subjected to civil asset forfeiture continues to expand. More ominously, assets can be seized from parties never adjudicated guilty. Conscription grants to the government the lives of the conscripted. The US government is no exception to the general rule, nothing is inviolate except perhaps a person’s thoughts, and undoubtedly it’s working on that.

Individuals who assert the right to initiate aggression against whomever they choose are philosophically unhinged, candidates for an asylum or a penitentiary. Rejecting the first principle that must guide human interaction—that no one may rightfully initiate force against another person—such individuals have no rational foundation for their thoughts or actions. The “garbage in” of their philosophical premises produces “garbage out” emotional states, mental processes, and ultimately, lives. Having abandoned reason for coercion and violence, reality becomes a chaotic, incomprehensible void.

Governments’ coercive power allow them to take: might makes right. A philosophy that recognized a right of some individuals to steal from others fails on first principles; there is no logical distinction possible between the privileged and the subjugated. Does the aggregation of individuals into a unit which calling itself a government give them a right which none of them have individually? One could say that the aggregate was for the protection of its constituents’ persons, property, and rights, but a government so limited is acting as their constituents’ subordinate agent, exercising and enhancing their right of self-defense. Efforts have been made, notably the American experiment, but no government has ever been restricted in this manner.

No matter its guiding “ism,” every government has granted itself the power to initiate violence against its citizens. Just because the ruling agglomerate asserts this privilege doesn’t render it philosophically valid. What it does is legitimate the initiation of violence for any and all causes—domestic and foreign—the government deems proper.

Having violated the first principle of nonaggression, nothing can stop that philosophical default from trickling down to the subject population. The ragged thief who holds up a liquor store lacks the polish and articulation of the politician who asserts the government’s first claim on a nation’s production, the central banker who depreciates its currency, or the general bent on global dominance who wages offensive wars, but philosophically they’re soul mates. In fact, the thief has a moral one up on the others: he doesn’t claim to be protecting the values he destroys.

Millions have decried the violence that prevented Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking at the University of California at Berkeley, just as millions on the other side decried mostly illusory violence among Trump supporters during the campaign. However, not one in a thousand of those denouncing the violence as violations of fundamental civil liberties denounce the daily violations of fundamental liberties visited upon them by their own government. America’s corruption is so complete that those who insist that they are not fodder for the government, that their lives are their own, and that the only proper government is one subordinated to the protection of their individual rights—and maintain positions consistent with those principles—could hold a convention and not fill a high-school gym.

This small group is the victim of a terrifying pincer movement from above and below. When a society abandons itself to violence, “legal” and otherwise, it abandons itself to mindless irrationality driven by hate and antipathy towards every positive value. Violence is not a means to any end other than destruction and death; violence itself is the end. Humanity has been fed the same tripe for centuries: noble ends justify evil means. Violation of the first principle—the stricture against initiated aggression—bars consideration of the purported ends. A “discussion” with a gun is no discussion. Violence exercised in self-defense protects positive values, but when violence is initiated, destruction, death, and the depraved pleasure of loathsome minds are its only ends.

An individual who claims by word or deed the right to initiate violence—and the consequent rights to subjugate, injure, and kill—is a rabid, deranged, and dangerous animal. A government that asserts that right is a pack. In self-defense, the virtuous, if they are to protect their liberty, rights, and lives, must quarantine or kill the rabid. A necessary corollary of the stricture against initiated aggression is that we have the right to use all means necessary to defend ourselves from it—with pity, perhaps, but no remorse.

The chaos, the terror, of our deteriorating world is a true and faithful reflection of souls abandoned to hate. The free mind and its methods—intrepid curiosity, truth, and logic—stand as their ultimate enemy. If those who would oppose this destruction and death abandon their souls, they become the mindless evil they opposed. Those who defend their rights, values, and lives without surrendering their morality will rebuild from the rubble the kind of world in which they deserve to live. They will do so unobstructed—hate inevitably leads to its own destruction.

WHEN THE LIGHT WAS ALLOWED TO SHINE

TGP_photo 2 FB

AMAZON

KINDLE

NOOK

The Pathetic New York Times, by the Bionic Mosquito

The mainstream media that is aghast at Trump’s “killer” rejoinder will never actually look at which country, the US under Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama, or Russia under Putin, has launched more offensive wars and killed more military personnel and civilians, but the US is the winner by a mile. From the Bionic Mosquito at lewrockwell.com:

What else can you call it?

One more time, on the “bromance” between Trump and Putin….

Moral Equivalence?

“You got a lot of killers,” Mr. Trump told Bill O’Reilly of the slavishly pro-Trump Fox News. “What, you think our country’s so innocent?”

The editors at the Times take exception to this:

…rather than endorsing American exceptionalism, Mr. Trump seemed to appreciate Mr. Putin’s brutality…

I find nothing in Trump’s comments to suggest he “appreciates” Putin’s brutality. Trump merely stated, in the form of a question, an undeniable fact.

The editors of the Times are very good at listing in some detail Putin’s transgressions – not all of which have any factual basis (but facts cannot be allowed to get in the way of these editors).

There is a Wikipedia page dedicated to all US military operations since 1775. I count 70 US military operations since 1991 and the fall of the Soviet Union. There is no such page for Russia; there are two unique pages – one for Syria and one for Ukraine. That’s it. Off of the top of my head, I would add Georgia.

The US military interventions span the globe; the Russian military interventions are either directly on the borders of Russia or to a close, long-time ally. The US military interventions have killed, wounded or displaced countless millions of people. The Russian interventions? I will guess in the tens or hundreds of thousands at most.

Do the editors of the Times dare deal with reality? No. Not on this topic.

To continue reading: The Pathetic New York Times

Why Is the New York Times Lying about Trump? by Scott McConnell

All of sudden the New York Times is worried about the truth? That’s not how it works. After the presidential campaign left the Times credibility in tatters, they have no moral standing to question anyone else’s credibility. From Scott McConnell at strategic-culture.org:

The liberal paper of record should be careful about what really constitutes lying and truth

Even amidst a cacophony of nearly nonstop media fusillades against President Trump, the New York Times’ charge has stood out. After months of stories presenting Donald Trump as a sexual predator, business fraudster, puppet of Vladimir Putin, tax dodger, walking emolument disaster and whatever else it can dream up, the New York Times called Trump a liar in a prominent headline—proclaiming “Meeting with Top Lawmakers, Trump Repeats an Election Lie.”

Speaking in a closed door meeting with congressional leaders, Trump had apparently claimed that he would have won the popular vote were it not for the votes of millions of noncitizens. After escalating this bit of semi-private braggadocio into “a lie,” the Times justified itself three days later, explaining somberly that it had not made the charge lightly, but that it “ultimately chose more muscular terminology” instead of terms as “baseless” or “bogus” because, as editor Dean Baquet stated, Trump had made a similar assertion months ago in a tweet. “We should be letting people know in no uncertain terms that it’s untrue.” Times opinion columnists, who—with the notable exception of Ross Douthat—have for a year seemed to write about little else than how despicable Trump is, followed up, rolling around passionately with the L word. “Our president is a pathological liar. Say it. Write it. Never become inured to it,” wrote Charles Blow, in one instance among many.

Of course President Trump doesn’t know how many people voted illegally, but, in a country where millions of undocumented immigrants are commonly accorded driver’s licenses, access to public benefits and other accoutrements of civic normalcy, and after President Obama gave a pre-election interview to Hispanic media in which he seemed, in lawyerly fashion, to minimize the legal consequences of voting illegally, all while urging higher turnout, it’s difficult to believe the number is nugatory.

To continue reading: Why Is the New York Times Lying about Trump?