Tab Content
  • osan's Avatar
    Today, 09:12 AM
    H. Verlan Andersen was here: When the people commence to look to the federal government for their support, and if they don’t receive what they feel they are entitled to, they will strike against the power which is withholding that to which they consider themselves entitled. Just as in times past, men have struck against the companies who gave them jobs and provided them with a livelihood when they felt they were entitled to higher wages or shorter hours. In both cases the recipients are not grateful for what they are receiving. They are angry because it isn’t more. The difference lies in this: When the strike is against a private company there is an independent unbiased police force to maintain peace and arbitrate the case in court, but where the government is one of the parties to the dispute there is no appeal to anything except force. The employees can come to hate the government and its officers just as they come to hate the company and its officers when the law is not based upon moral principle. When the law can no longer appeal to either reason or justice, and where it is nothing more than a power which takes what is available and dispenses it with an arbitrary hand, with no fundamental principle to guide it in saying how much is to be given to which group, people lose respect for such a law and the police power which enforces it. No appeal to justice, reason, or compassion will prove effective. The people who are the backbone of civilized nations—the thrifty, hardworking self-respecting independent honest class—cannot respect such a law. Where the right of private property is protected man is encouraged to look to himself to supply his wants. He is even forced to this just as nature and nature’s God decreed: Thou shalt eat thy bread by the sweat of the face. But when government announces that it will now see to it that his wants are supplied, he no longer feels the need to rely upon his own brains and body. That man loses respect for the rights of others. He looks to the use of force to provide for his needs. He looks to force which takes from others what they have created, and the more he is pampered the more he demands. He comes to believe what the government tells him: That there are no property rights which may not be invaded to provide for his wants. He no longer regards it as necessary to conserve and limit his desires or to save and provide for the future. In our complex economy this is the worst possible attitude, for when it breaks down the suffering will be most intense.
    0 replies | 16 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    Today, 07:42 AM
    Too bad they don't feel the same way about the gene pool. Or maybe they do...
    11 replies | 183 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:12 PM
    Sure it's free speech. Bump into me on a city street at 0-dark:30 and say you are going to kill me and you will get yourself shot. Just as you are free to say such a thing, those at whom you hurl such stupidly ill-considered utterances are free to respond appropriately to the apparent threat. Same here - doesn't mean it is smart; doesn't mean saying it to the wrong person could not get you hurt, or worse. I am afraid you are mistaken. To wit, from Bouvier's Law Dictionary of 1856:
    15 replies | 532 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    08-19-2017, 06:09 PM
    Oh yeah, this shit is rich. The attempt at brownie points is just too funny... in a sadly sick and impossibly twisted way. Seriously, those white people who feel this way should man up and kill themselves. Anything less tells me they are just attention-whoring. Oh, and I have to admit my curiosity as to where, exactly, they are trudging. What's the upshot here? Slave auction? Dunno if Manray is still in business in Boston, but they used to have slave auctions there weekly.
    15 replies | 532 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    08-19-2017, 06:04 PM
    Dufuque? You know what... never mind. I don't need to know.
    15 replies | 532 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    08-18-2017, 02:21 PM
    There is no issue with "hate speech". ANYTHING could be labeled "hate speech", including "good morning!" The moment you start partitioning speech in this manner and accept the tacit authority of others to limit and even punish it, you embark down a very dark road that leads nowhere good. We now have several relatively recent examples of what happens when "governments" do this sort of thing, and a mountain of ca. 200 million corpses that stand in mostly anonymous testament to the truth of how badly it goes. We should note the difference between speech and verbal threats. "I hate crackers" is not the same as "I'm going to kill you". The so-called "left" are doing everything they can to conflate the two. It seems to be succeeding*.
    15 replies | 532 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    08-18-2017, 09:14 AM
    It can become that, yes, but it is not necessarily so. The truth is the truth. That so-called "neocons" pervert it, either by design or though ineptitude, does not alter the facts. What you point out further underscores the need to be smart, as well as to have good personal integrity. The fact that these qualities are so rare, speaks no optimistic word for the future. It makes all the difference in the world. Firstly, if you re-read what I wrote, you will see that I pretty clearly posited that the lines between "intervention" and proper defensive action have become very blurred in some cases. If I'm walking the street at 3 AM and a man begins fiddling to draw a firearm, all else equal I am well justified in taking measures to forestall with a preemptive strike. It is no different between nations; if I have truthful intelligence that NK is about to launch a nuke at me, I reserve every right to strike first. Yes, this carries its own risks and potentially problematic consequences, but them's the breaks. It is sometimes a shitty, risk-laden world and we often run the chance of getting something terribly wrong. This is one of the results to be expected in a world where people refuse or otherwise fail to mind their own. In a Golden Rule world, things are very different, but none of us live there, even if we practice as if we did. I am, in fact, against intervention in the current sense of the word. But what yesterday might have clearly stood as intervention, today may well qualify as a defensive measure.
    10 replies | 315 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    08-18-2017, 06:53 AM
    I serves to point out that the notion of intervening, in the usual contemporary sense, is no longer clear. What would have in an age past unequivocally qualified as "intervention", might today clearly be seen as a defensive measure. Our technologies, coupled with our apparent determination to cleave to world-views that appear not to serve well in the context of said technologies, have complicated human relations immeasurably. What was once black and white is now washed-out grey. My normative ideals tell me to mind my own business. My practice of those ideals say the same. What has changed in time is the definition of "my business". Two hundred years ago, there was comparatively little one nation could foist upon another beyond things such as invading with troops. Today, the technological capabilities of men allow them to develop means for foisting devastation upon their neighbors without stepping a single boot across borders. Computer attacks, long range missiles, bioweapons, and so on down that list. Consider Iran or North Korea. If we accept that they are developing nuclear capabilities for the sake of, say, hurting America (just to be self-centered), then from the purely practical standpoint, traditional "non-interventionism" becomes by degrees with time more and more untenable if one's goal is not to be, say, blown to nuclear smithereens. For me, among the true practical problems today is telling when a positive action against a global neighbor is rightly defensive, vis-ŕ-vis "intervention". The nature of the problem seems not so much one's ability to tell whether a threat is real, but whether those entrusted to make such determinations can be trusted for both capacity, as well as integrity. Consider our lovely little Gulf War, Part Deux. "Oh my GOD... weapons of mass destruction..." Well, that didn't turn out to be true. Is CIA inept? Doubtful, but that's irrelevant because it's either that or they were selling a very lousy bill of goods, which means they cannot be trusted. Then the question of how extensive the rot, arises. Personally, I am not in any way inclined to lend credence to the notion that these apparent failures are the result of mistakes, accidents, ineptitude, etc. The methods of waging war are well known and that which we see today fits the patterns perfectly. Modern warfare is become more about keeping people off their mental balance more than it is about bombs and bullets.
    10 replies | 315 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    08-18-2017, 06:11 AM
    One can but wonder whether this more recent wave of insanity, including the "trans-<X>" phenomena, the out-of-nowhere rise of "Antifa", etc., is just another poke pursuant to massaging the wad of humanity in a new perceptual direction, or are we witnessing initiation of some end-game?.
    31 replies | 1469 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    08-17-2017, 09:01 PM
    And yet...
    31 replies | 1469 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    08-17-2017, 02:49 PM
    Looks like the whole world is about to blow. Thank God. The status quo is threadbare.
    31 replies | 1469 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    08-16-2017, 09:04 AM
    That Gödel would find such a flaw in no way surprises me. Gödel had eyes few others could even imagine. As for flaws in the Constitution, it requires no Gödel to find them.
    10 replies | 1195 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    08-16-2017, 08:31 AM
    The answer is that it isn't, in sé. Standard macro economic theories tend to ignore politics and assume some populations are not dangerous to others. This, of course, is an impossibly flawed assumption proven wholly false every single day that anyone has ever lived on this planet since at least the beginning of our recorded history. Because of bad actors who fail to play nicely with others, there are those circumstances where measures must be taken to neutralize actions that would otherwise result in harm to one's interests. Example: Nation A decides to produce fundamental widgets at a loss in order to drive competition from nations B, C, and D out of business, They make widgets of equal quality at 1/5 the price. The widget makers in B,C,and D would eventually go out of business because they simply could not compete with a taxpayer-funded loss-leader. The "government" of B institutes a tariff of 400% to bring the real cost of purchasing A's widgets within, say, 15-20% of what domestically produced units would cost. Some call this dirty pool, but in truth it is a defensive measure against what in this case is a clear act of economic warfare against your domestic widget industry.
    61 replies | 4376 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    08-16-2017, 08:09 AM
    Little sympathy for the judge, given the hundreds and even thousands of examples of this happening all over the land. That said, it is a fine pass to which we have arrived where a man cannot express his opinion publicly without hazard of losing his job. Land of the free... yeah, right.
    41 replies | 772 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    08-16-2017, 08:03 AM
    The Consti... WHAT?
    22 replies | 1117 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    08-15-2017, 11:04 AM
    Sadly, this may explain a lot.
    124 replies | 2650 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    08-15-2017, 06:39 AM
    I've only skimmed the memo, but judging by what I've read, I'd not have fired this man but given him a promotion where he could do some good. This memo has a feel as if I'd written it, so it must be good. ;) That they indeed fired him because of his memo only serves to reinforce with great strength what was written therein. Google strikes me as a dangerous entity - far greater a threat than Microsoft ever imposed, so far as I can see. Yet, M$ faced antitrust threats from "government" that included "divestiture" and a settlement stipulation that barred them from going into the hardware business... which appears to have perhaps expired? It is interesting to note how there seems to have been little to no talk of going after Google on similar bases as were the pretexts for doing so with M$. I am not saying anyone should go after them; it is the apparent hypocrisy that I find worthy of note. I would add that Google is a suspicious player in the first place. Never in the known history of the world has a company gone from zero to king of the hill in nearly so short an interval as has Google. Perhaps this is all well known, but I am not aware of whence Google came, where the money came for them to develop their technologies, and how it is that they managed to fly so high so quickly. It could be what it superficially appears to be, but I am doubtful that it is so.
    124 replies | 2650 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    08-14-2017, 01:36 PM
    This presupposes Theye erred in a manner and to a degree I find nearly impossible to accept. That makes sense. What doesn't is that they would re-empower those whom Theye have worked so diligently to de-ball. This also implies a sort and degree of error that would require much demonstration before I could accept that Theye made it. I suppose it is possible - I just don't think it very likely. But if it is, that is actually very good news in that it demonstrates that Theye are not quite as smart as they, or we, think.
    19 replies | 343 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    08-14-2017, 08:42 AM
    If what we are seeing is not complete theater, then they want a whole lot more than mere equal standing. They want dominion. Big difference. I do not think that it has, but I agree that they want more. It's what humans do. This makes no strategic sense. Had the globalists held the Muslims in any concern, they would have ensured they never emerged from the deserts. As it stands they let the sand fleas out because they perceive no threat. I would also not be surprised to find that the rise of fundamentalist Islam has as much to do with globalist muck-raking as it does with the Wahhabis. Bear "useful idiots" in your thoughts. That is what ISIS, etc., are.
    19 replies | 343 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    08-13-2017, 07:56 PM
    This might make a good book, but I do not see it as being real anywhere else. What you describe would undo at least three generations of progressive pussification of the European. There are a few large holes in this that you would need to credibly fill before this theory becomes plausible. What you describe flies in the face of good sense, unless Islam poses a real threat to Theire positions. I doubt it. There appears Theye may even be behind the rise of these head-sawing Muslim lunatics. I don't know - world is so odd, I honestly don't know what to think anymore. I say lets get the war going and settle all these outstanding issues once and for all.
    19 replies | 343 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    08-13-2017, 03:49 PM
    Not likely, at least at first blush. As someone pointed out in the thread to which you referred, there are far easier and less hazardous ways of precipitating a superficially valid pretext for going to war with "Islam". Letting multiple millions of potentially dangerous foreign agents is a lot of work and poses tremendous hazards to one's political station, not to mention the very future of one's land. I will point out that the assumption that those in true power in, say, Germany are pro-German is deeply flimsy on its best day. If we accept the existence of so-called "globalists" and that they occupy positions of deep and abiding power, then the assumption that Germany is being governed by Germans with nationalist inclinations becomes plainly absurd. The globalists openly admit their goal of eliminating all nations, the first step toward which is the elimination of nationalism in all its forms. If we go only slightly out on a limb and accept that these globalists occupy key seats of governmental power and influence across the face of the planet, then we can rest fairly well assured that there are not entrenched nationalists in key positions such that they are readily able to mount effective actions against "Islam". They cannot do it openly if they are not occupying key positions of power, if for no other reason than that an army must be fed. Within three to four days of having run out of provisions, soldiers begin to face very real hazards. No food = no fight in pretty short order. This fact alone pretty well assassinates the idea of a cabal seeking to secure a pretext with which to go to war against Muslims so much as nationally, much less globally. Besides, the pretext already stands. 9/11 has plenty of life left in it. Any nation could credibly wage war on any Muslim nation or population based on the events of 9/11/2001. Let us remember that this is "government" of which we speak - they require no valid basis for action anymore. They simply decide and then act and the people can go suck it. That is the world in which we now reside as virtual prisoners.
    19 replies | 343 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    08-12-2017, 07:20 AM
    Which is why his credibility is just this side of the negative integers.
    14 replies | 324 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    08-12-2017, 07:15 AM
    Let us hope not. I want to see a REAL shooting war... preferably with others doing the shooting. Dammit, we the people are long overdue for a good old-fashioned genocide. But clearly Chinese nationalism is quite OK.
    20 replies | 663 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    08-12-2017, 07:09 AM
    Git yer easy chair greased up 'n ready. Git yer popcorn 'n 'shine... this'n might git REEL good. What a beautiful thing it would be to see China and India go whole-hog in all-out no-holds-barred warfare. If they each lost 50% of their people... oh the free spaces... I'm only being 1/2 sarcastic.
    20 replies | 663 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    08-12-2017, 07:04 AM
    Please explain this purported plan in detail.
    19 replies | 343 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    08-12-2017, 07:04 AM
    Disingenuous bullshit, probably designed to help her remain in power. Feh... Germans are now so completely stupid, it might just work. I would add that Merkel has a perfect solution: mass deportation. I would begin today. Sadly, she will not.
    19 replies | 343 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    08-05-2017, 09:53 PM
    Always will be? How do you know this? But I think it does, because you are (at least implicitly) redefining "freedom". Perhaps it means something different to you than it does to me. There is no comparison between the two senses of "freedom". Fundamental is the difference between physical constraint and that which is possible as a matter of human prerogative.
    47 replies | 1365 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    07-30-2017, 07:52 PM
    Oh if I could only get some sleep...
    4363 replies | 209977 view(s)
More Activity

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
13,787
Posts Per Day
4.93
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
10
Most Recent Message
08-04-2016 07:33 AM
General Information
Last Activity
Today 09:13 AM
Join Date
12-26-2009
Referrals
1
View osan's Blog

Recent Entries

Global War On Terrorism: Are We Winning?

by osan on 03-25-2017 at 07:19 AM
Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
Short answer: If you are still fighting it you are losing it.
After 26 years, I'd have to agree.
Categories
Uncategorized

Global War On Terrorism: Are We Winning?

by osan on 03-25-2017 at 07:19 AM
Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
Short answer: If you are still fighting it you are losing it.
After 26 years, I'd have to agree.
Categories
Uncategorized

Guns and Marijuana in Missouri

by osan on 01-02-2017 at 08:51 AM
Quote Originally Posted by Mach View Post
"castle doctrine," which permits homeowners to use deadly force against intruders. The revised law will allow invited guests, such as babysitters, to use lethal force.
I find it amazing to consider just how hopelessly corrupt a land we are, and have been for so very long a time when I read things like this. To think not only that some people would dare usurp the authority to remove those which are the most obvious prerogatives of free men, but also that we as a people would

Read More

Categories
Uncategorized

RP: Who Brought the World to the Brink of World War III?

by osan on 10-17-2016 at 11:14 PM
Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
We did.
and

Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
Uhm, no. Not all of us. Only most of the countries involved. We few radicals and rebels do what we can to prevent it. Whether that works or not still doesn't change whether it is our fault or not.
To which I responded thusly:


The number of people out there who are putting their asses on the line is vanishingly small. My statistical assessment therefore stands. To wit...

The fact is this: we failed from the earliest days.

Read More

Categories
Uncategorized

How to defend liberty and property in a stateless social construct?

by osan on 04-15-2016 at 07:22 AM
Quote Originally Posted by Bryan View Post
How would you defend liberty and property in a stateless social construct? The use of private security firms is a stock answer, but let’s consider some more detail. Consider the following situations…
And it has its problems. It is a partial answer at best.


1) A band of thugs is going around robbing people, how do you defend your home from invasion?
By killing them to eliminate them from the book of immediate and potential future threats to others, including

Read More

Categories
Uncategorized

06-13-2017


05-08-2017


05-03-2017


04-13-2017


03-27-2017


03-04-2017


02-19-2017


01-11-2017


09-29-2016


08-01-2016


07-28-2016


06-02-2016


04-16-2016


No results to display...
Page 1 of 71 1231151 ... LastLast

08-21-2017


08-19-2017


08-18-2017


08-17-2017


08-16-2017


08-15-2017


08-14-2017


08-13-2017


08-12-2017


08-06-2017


08-02-2017


07-28-2017


07-27-2017



Page 1 of 71 1231151 ... LastLast