Bad Commie!

helping commies get to know knives

My favorite stabbings:
God, Mother Earth, W, Prayer, Poetry, Uptight Nervous Canadian Frostbacks, Debating,
Self Stabbing, Ann Coulter, The Ketchup Prince, Gay Marriage, Fantasy

Thursday, January 15, 2004
Why is the commie Bush causing Aliens to desert the United States in droves?

Pravda says:
China appeals to aliens the most, due to the country's recent breakthroughs and its aspiration to become the world's leader. Aliens used to be interested in the US up until recently.

This is a damnable outrage. W has singlehandedly dramatically reduced the instances of alien anal probes in the United States. That fucker. How will the democrats get their anal probes now? I demand immediate and unconditional alien anal probes for all democrats, or I burn all the democrats in a bonfire in order to cause global warming, right this very second! This demand is non negotiable.

Speaking of people desperately needing anal probes, Dean + Iowans = entertainment:

It's not a wonderful day in the Iowa neighborhood, as LGF reports. Dale Ungerer of Hawkeye, Iowa addressed Dean with this comment:

"Please tone down the garbage, the mean mouthing, the tearing down of your neighbor and being so pompous," Ungerer told the former Vermont governor and Democratic front-runner. "You should help your neighbor and not tear him down."

Mister Dean replied, "George Bush is not my neighbor." Ungerer said, "Yes, he is." Reuters records Dean's retort:

"You sit down. You had your say. Now I'm going to have my say."

The crowd cheered and Ungerer sat.

"George Bush has done more to harm this county right here with unfunded mandates, standing up for corporations who take over the farmers' land, making it impossible for middle class people to make a real living, sending our kids to Iraq without telling us the truth first about why they went," Dean said.

"It's not the time to put up any of this 'love thy neighbor' stuff ... I love my neighbor, but I'll tell you I want THAT neighbor back in Crawford, Texas where he belongs."


Hey, you know what else I found on the internet? Check it out:

When M.J. Bonn stated that tomorrow's world will be neither socialist or capitalist, he was simply confirming the Wells' statement that his New World Order would be comprised of "Socialist Democracies". This concept becomes even more enlightening when one comes to the realization that statements made by the likes of Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Bush I, Bush II, et al ad nauseum, which speak of "making the world safe for democracy", developing Iraq into a "democracy", etc. makes no implication that these new "democracies" will be governed in the same manner as is the United States. In the first place, one needs to understand the definition of a democracy:

"A democracy is when 2 wolves and a sheep decide what is for dinner" (16)

The United States of America is not a Democracy - it is a Representative Republic. In a Representative Republic the majority rules via its representatives, but the rights of the minority are protected by the Rule of Law. (The Rule of Law values Justice - not postmodern tolerance as the basis of moral standards.) The Representative Republic is based on the economic system of Capitalism.

At the other end of the spectrum is Communism, the system that stems from Marxist socialism. When one utilizes the Hegelian Dialectic to synthesize democracy and socialism, the resulting synthesis is exactly that which M.J. Bonn and HG Wells visualized - a Socialist Democracy. A Socialist Democracy then is a system whereby the majority rules for the equal distribution of the wealth of the nation. Why would the majority rule for socialism? Simple - in a Socialist Democracy the majority is on the government dole, and will vote to keep such a government intact. Such a government would be tyrannical, and individual liberties would be willingly sacrificed by the voting majority in order to keep the government gravy train rolling to their front door. These are the new democracies of Clinton, Gore, and Bush.


By the 1970s, things had grown progressively worse. Richard Gardner wrote in Foreign Affairs, the official publication of the Council on Foreign Relations:

"In short, the house of world order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault" (11)

In 1975, the US Legislature: 32 Senators and 92 Representatives signed the "Declaration of Interdependence." This document stated:

"we must join with others to bring forth a new world order.... Narrow notions of national sovereignty must not be permitted to curtail that obligation." (12)

In 1991, President George H. Bush made the following statement in his State of the Union speech:

"...the crisis in the Persian Gulf offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times... a new world order can emerge" (13)

Once the Clinton Administration controlled the Washington bureaucracy, the deteriorating situation became even more blatant. Under Secretary of State, Strobe Talbot, a member if the World Federalists, made this alarming statement:

"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. Maybe national sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all." (14)

At this point the reader needs to go back and take note of the phrases highlighted in red. First, the phrase "new world order" is generally construed by the average American as a term used by right wing fanatics who live in a constant and overwhelming fog of incurable, and ultimately fatal paranoia. However, the facts prove quite to the contrary: The use of this terminology by the afore-mentioned particular individuals (in their own words) verifies that there does exist an occultist hierarchy that is, in fact, endeavoring to build a utopian socialist society based on the antediluvian mysteries of Luciferic origin. To accuse these individuals of practicing the religion of Satanism may well be somewhat extreme, but to identify their motivations as Luciferian inspiration is certainly anything but extreme.

Pretty cool, huh? And all too true. One can only wonder if this Lucifer is also a drooling mongoloid, just like God is. Almost certainly, Almost certainly....

At this point, you may be in awe from Bad Commie's shock and awe campaign of truth. Well, I'm about to carpet bomb you, dear reader. Reading the article below will make you run crying home to mommy while sucking your thumb:

BuzzFlash: Many Democrats, many Progressives, Independents, Greens -- whatever differences there are among them -- pride themselves on being committed to ideas, and are, as you point out, contemptuous of the notion that people would vote on an image and an identity -- even, in the case of Schwarzenegger, outweighing the value of voting on specific ideas. Is there a basic conundrum for Democrats because they believe ideas should trump identity? And, therefore, since they think you should win on the issues, they're in a sort of cul de sac because they're so contemptuous of putting people out there who can win on identity and character?

George Lakoff: The issues are not the ideas. Democrats and liberals in general don't support their intellectuals, for example. They assume that the issues are about self-interest, and that there can be group self-interest. There are interest groups -- ethnic groups and so on. But that's not how people vote. People vote on their morality and their identity. Occasionally they vote on their self-interest when it's important, but mostly they vote for what they believe in and who they are. That's something that Democrats don't understand. And they haven't been attentive enough to ideas and to understanding how the mind works. They focus instead on self-interest and issues, issue by issue. As long as they go issue by issue, they're going to lose.

Man, there's some serious communism on that page. I was so disturbed, that I needed this Lakoff propagandist stabbed immediately. As usual, the best place to find a drive by stabbing is in amazon reader reviews of books. Here is a doozy:

Anatomy of political pathology, November 25, 2003

Reviewer: A reader from Galt's Gulch

Lakoff is a well-known cognitive scientist who has made some important contributions to that field. He has extended the linguistic research of Noam Chomsky beyond where even Chomsky thought it could go. Lakoff has shown how our neurological structure determines how we think and use language.

And like Chomsky, Lakoff thinks that he has something worth saying when it comes to politics. Again, like Chomsky, Lakoff is a man of the moonbat left, who thinks that politics is a grand Manichaean struggle, or perhaps a battle between the "more evolved" and the "less evolved": Cro Magnon vs. Neanderthal. There is a ring of truth and historical inevitability behind every conclusion. Religiosity without religion.

But, this isn't even the worst part of the book. Lakoff frames the difference between the left and the right as a choice between a feminine, "nurturant", well-meaning totalitarianism and that of a masculine, "strict", uncaring totalitarianism. Sounds like an unattractive choice, eh? I'd say that most people would choose the former, if these were the only choices.

But, the very idea of government-as-parent, known as paternalism or maternalism, is a pathology. As adults capable of governing ourselves, why should we need parents or minders?

The fatherly totalitarianism Lakoff imagines as "conservative" bears no relation to conservative philosophy. Modern American conservatism is classical liberalism with a dash of Edmund Burke.

Burke said that we should "conserve the forms", meaning that we should honor and conserve the institutions (community, church, family, etc) that make us a society. This is meant as a hedge against the radicalism of classical liberalism, which seeks to free all people from the shackles of feudalism and feudalistic thinking. Conservatism is a philosophy of liberty within a moral framework. Burke said, "when we forget the laws of the heart, the laws go on the books". Unfortunately, this is true, just look at our history for confirmation.

Lakoff's description of motherly totalitarianism paints hardcore socialism in a very favorable light. I do not doubt for a moment that Lakoff, like others on the left, is earnest and honorable. But the excesses of that philosophy resulted in the slaughter of 80-100 million people in the 20th century. The motherly face put on socialist totalitarianism, whether the Year Zero of Pol Pot or the enforced famines of Stalin, does not excuse its vices or its unintended consequences.

Conservatives explicitly reject the idea of utopia, no matter how attractive it is. They spend a lot of time worrying about unintended consequences. They aren't in search of a mommy or a daddy. They want government to help them as citizens. And they believe that the way a government helps a free people is by staying small.

If people want government to be their parent, they are in dire need of help, and would do us all a favor by staying away from the voting booth.

Since you've read this far, I assume you have an open mind. I don't wish to "convert" anyone to conservatism. But do yourself a favor and move beyond the rhetoric that we hear on political talk shows, blogs, newspapers, etc. Think about the source of your ideas: what is the pedigree of your ideas? What do you stand for, and why?

If you are really interested in answering these questions, then you will avoid the bestseller list tripe, whether Franken or Moore, Coulter or Hannity. Read the classics. Know what Burke and Nietzsche and Marx and Locke and Montesquieu really said. Don't let anyone interpret them for you.

Try "Confessions of a Bohemian Tory", by Russell Kirk, or "Anarchy, State, Utopia" by Robert Nozick, or "Modernity on Endless Trial", by Leszek Kolakowski. You'll be glad you did. You don't have to agree with them.

The above Lakoff crap was courtesy of leftiefilter, btw.

Wheew. After reading the above articles, you can be sure I'm not going to be asking myself penetrating questions about why commies need stabbing. NO QUESTIONS. JUST THE KNIFE. STAB STAB STAB.

Remember readers, when respect and compassion are lost, and revenge is required, an eye for eye is never enough.

Comments: Post a Comment

Powered by Blogger