Skip to main content

Posts

Lay the Laws Flat

Too many people believe that history has a Direction and as long as they're on the right side of it that what they propose will never turn around and come back on them, it can't. It can't come back at them because they are the good guys. And governing by whim and moral outrage is all about the bad guys. In the passage with Moore they're really not talking about the devil, they're talking about worldly human opponents. And the argument is that they are bad. No one actually thought that they were going to take Satan into a court of law and do something about it. It was just a way of saying, but what if we are talking about truly bad ideas and truly bad politics? And I'd say that absolutely every dictatorship and totalitarian horror began as a call for righteousness and the need to protect the people from a dire threat. What that threat was changes from place to place and time to time. But it always comes down to needing the power to do something about those bad pe
Recent posts

Courageous Female Voices

It's shocking how collectivist ideologies claim to speak for your entire identity.  Though, maybe it shouldn't be shocking since it's more or less right in the description, isn't it.

Goals

  Somehow I never got this colored and posted.  Anyhow, everyone should be honest about what their goals are and what they have as intended results.   ADDENDUM: When I added Popper's Paradox to the "labels" on this, I did a quick check that I had his name right and saw the fast and dirty definition on wikipedia, that unfettered tolerance simply means that the intolerant will always win.  This is baloney, of course, because we can *contend* without being intolerant.  We can still advocate for tolerance among everyone.  But even so, it struck me just how Popper's Paradox plays into the Progressive/SJW ethos. Intolerance isn't wrong. Racism isn't wrong. "Punching" isn't wrong. Political violence isn't wrong. Hate isn't wrong. Not even fascism is wrong. The Progressive/SJW ethos is that none of these things are wrong, they only become wrong based on who is targeted by those things. Those who like to quote Popper believe intolerance a moral ne

For My Own Good

 

The Sci-Fi Purge Continues

 I don't have a huge amount of time or desire to rail against the goose stepping cowards, but I thought I'd bring this comic to the front again.  I had another sci-fi convention comic, one of the very first ones that I drew.  I couldn't find it in archives here while I was on my lunch hour, but dug it up now that I'm home.

Tossing Hitler Around Like Candy

  We're told, these last few days, that a person should lose their job for making a comparison between current events and the Holocaust. That doing so is anti-Semitic.  That it's hateful. Multitudes of people have pointed to what Ben Shapiro calls "overwrought holocaust memes" that were posted by multitudes of people on the left political spectrum without any consequences all all.  Worst, they might be told that it makes light of the horror of the holocaust.  But that's the worst of it.  You don't lose your job or get accused of hate or racism. So lately when Gina Carano shared a post about how regular folks, even children, were encouraged to go after Jews, to hate, harass and beat them, and that without encouraging and accepting this the conditions where soldiers could come around and round up people would have never happened, it's suddenly oh so far beyond acceptable. Why? Because she was perceived to have been pointing out the acceptance and encourageme

Our highest values.

I’m particularly done with people who explain  that our rights and our values only apply to government and t hat it’s okay when it’s private citizens who try to punish their neighbors and family members for exercising those rights. I’m legitimately libertarian-ish and yes, I believe that all relationships should be voluntary. BUT! Free speech and liberty are an *ethos* that is not limited to government. Our rights can’t be limited to government and still exist as protections or even concepts. People are openly calling for the government to make laws against all sorts of speech they don’t like or opinions they view as bad for society. (I read my Dem Senator’s facebook.) Why do they think it’s okay for government to have laws to silence the bad people? Because they don’t *personally* value free speech or liberty AT ALL. The private and public on this can’t be divided because all that’s necessary to violate what ought to be our principles is for government to look the other way while the

They wrote "ANTI" on it.

 I wanted to play with my new tablet a little bit because I won't get a chance for a while, so this is rough.  Still, it's something that I've been thinking about a lot and trying to figure out how to say in a way that is the most clear. Creating a label of "ANTI" and applying it to something is meaningless.  How often does someone say, "Antifa can't be fascist, it's right in the name?" So? And? I can call myself the Queen and it won't make me Harry's grandmother now will it. Along with the ridiculousness of "antifa" is the notion of "anti-racism", which if you examine it differs from "equality" in that it requires and demands a retaliatory racism.  There's nothing "anti" about it in any sense other than a mirror image. Which would work too,  I suppose.  Anti-fa is a mirror image of fascism.  Anti-racism is a mirror image of racism. In any case, here's my messy drawing of something that is c

Get your stamina up!