Archive for the ‘freedom’ Category
1. In the company of females, intercourse should be referred to as:
C. Taking the pigskin bus to tuna town.
2. You should make love to a woman for the first time only after you have both shared:
A. Your views about what you expect from a sexual relationship.
B. Your blood-test results.
C. Five tequila slammers.
3. You time your orgasm so that:
A. Your partner climaxes first.
B. You both climax simultaneously.
C. You don’t miss ESPN Sports Center.
4. Passionate, spontaneous sex on the kitchen floor is:
A. Healthy, creative love-play..
B. Not the sort of thing your wife would agree to.
C. Not the sort of thing your wife needs to ever find out about.
5. Spending the whole night cuddling a woman you have just had sex with is:
A. The best part of the experience.
B. The second best part of the experience.
C. $100 extra.
6. Your wife/girlfriend says she’s gained five pounds in the last month. You tell her that it is:
A. Of no influence on your affectionate feelings for her.
B. Not a problem, she can join your gym.
C. A conservative estimate.
7. You think today’s sensitive, caring man is:
A. A myth.
B. An oxymoron.
C. A moron.
8. Foreplay is to sex as:
A. An appetizer is to entree.
B. Primer is to paint.
C. A long line is to an amusement park ride.
9. Which of the following are you most likely to find yourself saying at the end of a relationship?A. I hope we can still be friends.
B. I’m not in right now, please leave a message at the beep.
C. Welcome to Dumpsville. Population, YOU.
10. A woman who is uncomfortable watching you masturbate:
A. Probably needs a little more time before she can cope with that sort of intimacy.
B. Is uptight and a waste of time.
C. Shouldn’t have sat next to you on the bus in the first place.
There has been a video circulating around about a fellow arguing for gay marriage. Why it has suddenly emerged now is beyond me (Probably because it appeared on The Huffington Post yesterday. What a crack team of researchers they have over there!) Maybe as it went “viral” or some such nonsense. The gentleman in question is making a last-minute plea to the Maine Judiciary Committee about the legalization of same-sex marriage. Spooner has a gay son, one of four sons and apparently they all served in the military. He’s a noble fellow, a true patriot, and I happen to agree with him.
It’s too bad who he had to get surrounded by when he made his plea.
And on the twelfth of July, 2009, what could be best to celebrate than the victory of social reformer and activist William of Orange over forces sympathetic to absolute monarchy, state religion, and oppression of bourgeois property rights?
I first was introduced to William of Orange by my public school science teacher, the one who constantly told us that the Harp seal was going to become extinct that year if the evil seal hunt occured. That was back in 1972. You remember 1972? That was the year the harp seal became extinct. Actually, not. The seals have been going extinct every year since then, but actually never have. And each year, people fork over money to save the seals that are not going extinct, to save them from extinction. I learnt about those sorts of gimmicks when I started telemarketing; but at the time, William of Orange was an interesting guy, and the gimmicks used to smear him, his beliefs, his followers, and his faith, were just so much new kindling for the power plant of my mind.
My bolshevik science teacher was filled with facts that were untrue about William of Orange. But as a young, inquisitive mind, the use of history as disinformation was something exciting to have exposure too. I soon demolished the spiders web of falsehoods that were the tales of my bolshevik science teacher, and with it, can shine some light on the murky, spineless creature, that is the modern left, that lives in darkness and prefers its food dead and rotten.
The protestants of Ireland were in revolt against an oppressive aristocracy. The issues were property rights, so Marx would classify this as a bourgeois revolution. And Marx liked bourgeois revolutions, as they preceeded proletarian revolutions. So Marx, unlike his science teacher disciple who was just wearing his skin like a wolf wears a sheep skin to hunt, was pro-Orange. Real Marxists sympathize with the Orange revolution. I will deal with the fake Marxists in a bit.
The aristocrats in Ireland adopted the forms and structures of the Catholic church as a state religion to make themselves more powerful. The utility of state religions was quite apparent in these times; the aristocrats had no illusions about being faithful to the spiritual teachings of the Catholic church of the time; it was a useful means to the end. Much as Che mouthed socialist theory, but trampled on this theory with his mass murders, tortures, and insults to the intellegent; so too the Irish aristocratic class merely used the trappings of the church to advance the defence of their overweening property rights, avoidance of taxation, and oppression of free speech.
And this ties us back to the present age, this meme of corrupt forces clothing themselves in convenient cameoflage. And this brings us back to my bolshevik school teacher, and to progressives and modern activists in general. The average reader soon observes that modern bolshevik has very little in common with the teachings and beliefs of bolshevik theory. We have feminists who champion prostitutes, where feminism abhors this profession. We have gay rights parades which feature homophobic anti-israeli prancers. We have journalists that cannot spell even when they copy over press releases. We have a workers party that agitates for policies that exploit the taxpayers, who are … workers. Indeed, the leftists are not ideological leftists, not consistant, not logical. No, leftists are a front organization for a resurgent aristocracy. Like the Anglo-Norman aristocracy of Ireland used the Catholic church for their own greedy oppressive purposes, so too does the modern aristocracy use the veneer of bolshevism to adorn their works. The skin this wolf is wearing is not sheep, but Karl Marx’s hide.
So when I watch the Orange Day parade on youtube, when I listen to those wonderful drums and fifes, I see the successful overthrow of a corrupt aristocracy at the hands of the bourgeois. Same as Marx saw. But not the vision that the predators in Marx’s hide wish you to see. But I do see that the very aristocracy that William of Orange set out to destroy has reformed: the little dead bits of aristocrat have crawled out of whatever hole they have been rotting in, and gathered back together. Aristocrats have a number of attributes, and one of them is aversion to ability. Aristocrats like to pass on their wealth and power to their family, not to those most able to wield it. They are ideologically opposed to hiring and promotions based on ability, and you can see this manifest here in the present time.
Pierre Burtons son. Let us say that your father was a gifted writer and journalist. An aristocrat would wish to use this attribute to gain a high paying, high pensioned, low effort job. Why have ability, when you can rest on Dad’s laurels? Of course, no such example exists (and in our current free speech environment, I could not talk about it anyway; aristocrats infest the upper levels of our society like rabies infects the brain), but you might be able to find other examples of sons, daughters, and whatever gender they choose to be, progeny of progressives, handed elite jobs, and being incompetent at it. Watch for these aristocrats, watch for them being incompetent, and for dressing themselves in the zombie skin of bolshevist thought. And when I see the Orange parade, which celebrates the defeat of these aristocrats in the past, it gives me hope that the modern aristocrats will go the same way, in the same way.
As the aristocrats go about enlarging their plantations in Toronto, be it the Jane-Finch estate, the Flemingdon Park, the Ossington and Dundas, or the whatever third world stink hole they are building this season, do look for those high paying, high pensioned, low effort jobs. When you pass through Jane and Finch, look for the six figure salaried ‘community workers’; look around for the street nurses not on the street, the teaching assistants who never produce a literate student, the food bankers with their restaurants. The aristocrats in the media ignore their kin and instead prattle about issues to delude the stupid, ignorant, nieve, and simple; they lie, avoid, manipulate, and deceive. Nothing we haven’t seen before. And if you talked to the soldiers of William of Orange’s army, they would nod and understand your story.
The Battle of the Boyne is a celebration of freedom, the overthrow of a corrupt aristocracy, and a victory for law abiding people. It happened in the past, and will happen again. Our current crop of aristocrats are every bit as dumb, incompetent, and lazy as the Fenians who shuffled to their graves on the Boyne. Perhaps they should consider surrendering now, before it is too late. As for the awakening bourgeois here in Ontario and the West, faced with the extortions of taxation, oppressions of ‘human rights’, and the lying accusations of ‘racism’ at every turn, No Surrender is no longer not an option.
I, Fenris Badwulf, wrote this
As Keyser’s loyal readers are no doubt already aware, Keyser made a passing comment about the dopey song “Tie a Yellow Ribbon” that riled someone belonging to an organization that had heretofore escaped Keyser’s attention, namely Tony’s Storm Troopers. Keyser made a somewhat derisive post about this, but being a man of peace (runner up for the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize, but as a humble man Keyser doesn’t make too much of this) Keyser decided to try to make nice to the Yellow Shirts by stating:
So, to all you Tony Troopers who have wandered over to the Lair, welcome! TONY ORLANDO is undoubtedly a fine human being, even if Keyser does adhere to the characterization of his Megahit “Tie a Yellow Ribbon” as dopey. It is a sign of international tolerance and liberty that we can disagree about fundamental issues like this and still remain friends.
[G]reen thinking — with its shrill intolerance of dissenting views, its deep distaste for free movement and free choice, and its view of individuals, not as history-makers, but as filthy polluters — poses a more profound threat to liberty even than the government’s paranoid anti-terrorist agenda.
Environmentalists are innately hostile to freedom of speech. Last month James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate change scientists, said the CEOs of oil companies should be tried for crimes against humanity and nature. They have been “putting out misinformation”, he said, and “I think that’s a crime”. This follows green writer Mark Lynas’s insistence that there should be “international criminal tribunals” for climate change deniers, who will be “partially but directly responsible for millions of deaths”. They will “have to answer for their crimes”, he says. The American eco-magazine Grist recently published an article on deniers that called for “war crimes trials for these bastards… some sort of climate Nuremberg.”
It is the mark of shrieking authoritarianism to look upon dissenting views not simply as wrong or foolish, but as criminal. Throughout history inquisitors and censors have sought to silence sections of society by labelling their words as “dangerous” and a threat to safety and stability; now environmentalists are doing the same. Their demonisation of sceptics as “deniers” has had a chilling effect on public debate. .
But perhaps the main way that environmentalism undermines the culture of freedom is by its ceaseless promotion of guilt. In the environmentalist era, we are no longer really free citizens, so much as potential polluters. We are continually told — by government, by commentators, by radical activists – that everything we do, from wearing disposable nappies to using deodorant to allowing ourselves to be cremated, is harmful to our surroundings.
Liberty –- true liberty -– requires that people see themselves as self-respecting, self-determining subjects, capable of making free choices and pursuing the “good life” as they see fit. Today, by contrast, we are warned that we are toxic, loaded, dangerous specimens, who must always restrain our instincts and aspire to austerity. This is not conducive to a culture of liberty; indeed, it represents a dangerous historic shift. . .
~ Sisyphus, cross-posted at The Sisyphus Files.