Friday, December 6, 2013

Death of a Murderer

People of good will everywhere mourn the passing of the communist murderer, Nelson Mandela, not because they are sad to see him die, but because they have to listen to all the claptrap about how wonderful he was.


Tuesday, September 24, 2013

A Lesson on Ideological Incontinence

It was, arguably, ideological paralysis that foredoomed the Soviet Union to economic collapse.  Had the Soviet leaders the pragmatic duplicity of their Chinese brethren, perhaps they might have saved their empire entire through the equivocal tolerance of natural commerce under the leaden auspices of the proletarian dictatorship.

More recently, the Washington parvenus entrusted with the apparatus of State embarked on an ideological gambit to install by force a new client in Damascus (for reasons unclear but most likely related to the potential delivery of gas from Arabia to Europe).  A series of assertions bald, lame and transparent followed a release of poison gas in Syria, ascribing that release to the ruling entity without first having heard evidence, so confident were these naifs in their capacity to impose their will.

So Mr. Kerry, as confident in his own prescience as in his (public) assessment of Mr. Assad as an avatar of Evil, glibly answered a question as to how an attack on Syria could be avoided:
“He could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week — turn it over, all of it, without delay and allow the full and total accounting.” 
His handlers claimed that this was a "rhetorical argument." Perhaps, but rhetoric is an expression of intent. It is most dangerous to make rhetorical assertions in relation to principles not directly related to self interest. A sovereign can ill afford abstract principles.

It was the assiduous adherence to ideological (not to say "red", though that color is most apt) lines in regard to the Syrian conflict that placed these Washingtonians squarely in a corner the control of egress from which Mr. Putin seized eagerly.  Though the proposed attack on Mr. Assad was advanced in response to the use of chemical weapons, it is scarcely plausible that this attack was advanced because of the use of chemical weapons: rather, it was in support of some interest not articulated to which Russian interest is opposed.  It was a simple matter for Mr. Lavrov to call Mr. Kerry's bluff and spoil his missile party.

Tuesday, June 4, 2013

Nothing to do with...

Sexual assault in the U.S. military increased 35% from 2010 to 2012.  This increase has nothing to do with the increasing presence of women in the military.

Friday, May 3, 2013

A suggestion

For those who take interest in the names of teams in the National Football League, a brief suggestion of a new name for the "Washington Redskins:"

"Washington Redskins."

Simple, no?

Thursday, September 13, 2012

The Hand that Feeds

Murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens was a victim of his own efforts.

In his own words, he "was thrilled to watch the Libyan people stand up and demand their rights" in 2011, and personally took part in the effort to overthrow Colonel Khadafy:
Stevens, whose diplomatic foothold were a couple of battered tables, was on literally on the rebels' side while the revolution was at its most vulnerable and in danger of being crushed by Gadhafi's troops who were moving on the city. The threat was pushed back at the last minute by the intervention of NATO planes which began bombing Gadhafi's tanks and troops.
And now, the wild dogs have bitten the hand that fed them.

Perhaps the murderers themselves were not amongst the glorious and noble opposition in 2011.  Indeed, perhaps they were friends of the Colonel.

No matter.  In the Colonel's time, there were zero United States Ambassadors killed.

Change has come to Libya.

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Bones, not votes

In Libya, the new, wonderfully liberated Libya, the United States ambassador can be murdered by thugs.  "How can this be?" ask the perplexed liberating classes, who know that the Libyan people are (as are all common people) faultless practitioners of Anglo-Parliamentary order.

This would never have happened under the late Colonel Khadafy.

This is what happens when you put the dogs in charge of the kennel.

Khadafy was a dog himself, but he was a trained dog.

If you give a dog a bone, he will chew the bone.

If you  give a dog a vote, he will still be looking for his bone.  If you don't give him his bone, he will be taking it.  He knows his vote doesn't count, which is more than can be said for his purported liberators.

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

An unnatural affectation


So it is now the height of fashion for two men to marry one another.  Fashions change.  The embrace of deviance today lends it the acceptance of waverers and wanderers, but not the character of integrity, which cannot be lent or bestowed, but must be earned or inborn.

Still, acceptance is of some effect.  What effect such acceptance accords is a matter of some confusion.

Marriage is the natural union of a man and a woman, through which children are born and reared, property and status conferred.  This ancient form long ago became a matter of law through the offices of church and crown, who were concerned with matters of family, property, propriety and status.

Enter the self-referent corporate state, decapitator of kings, usurper of authority.  This entity inherits by default (as its founders evicted the holder) custody of the legal matter of marriage.

To this entity, however, persons are indistinct one from another.  While it recognises roles and relations, persons relate from birth directly with the state itself, which issues each person a certificate of birth, and, though generally unobtrusive in its dicta, reserves to itself custody of any minor person the conduct of whose parents is deemed transgressive.

This state entity has by long tradition (of which it is no observer, but which it observes as convenient or necessary) sanctioned marriage in its natural form. However, natural marriage is not identical to marriage in legal terms.  Marriage, to the self-referent corporate state, is a legal conjunction between two persons, conferring upon them a status for purposes of conveyance, tax and other liability, and entitlement.  The family aspect is incidental, and, in extremis, notional.  Two atomic persons, whoever they be, can, therefore, in the unseeing eyes of this entity neuter, join in a relation called marriage.  Oblivious, this neuter entity, to its own organic foundation in family, requisite code changes may be duly applied in accord with procedure, whether long established or specially crafted for purpose: to be sure, should fashion decree, procedure is tailored to suit.

Is this the end of marriage and family?  As if an entity crafted of ink and paper could efface nature, despairing folk fear so: fear not, it is not so.  It is yet another absurd stance adopted by the self-referent state in deference to its animating force: sentiment.  Rather, the self-referent state follows its relentless path to self-abnegation through irrelevance, particularly so in its deprecation of the invigorating constraints of natural order, in its embrace of licence and self-indulgence.   Mighty though its arms be, its gut is flabby, it nerves numb, its mind confounded.  Alas, though, its teeth, still sharp, will yet tear much flesh in its death-dance.