Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 60 of 60

Thread: The words of Osan

  1. #31
    Can we do a throw back thursday for rev9? the ron paul southern rebel artist and wordsmith?
    rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler

  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    And a throw back to SeekLiberty of 2007. I'm sorry man. You were right.
    rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler

  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33

    The first part of the trilogy was very fun.

    rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    Make a list please.
    "The Patriarch"

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    (/concealed jealously)

    I wish I had his eloquence. He puts my thoughts into word better than I can.
    With some exceptions, we all have a variety of skills to offer. I applaud his ability to communicate--something I become worse at by the day.
    Those who want liberty must organize as effectively as those who want tyranny. -- Iyad el Baghdadi

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by amy31416 View Post
    With some exceptions, we all have a variety of skills to offer. I applaud his ability to communicate--something I become worse at by the day.
    Kludge or children causing that?

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by amy31416 View Post
    With some exceptions, we all have a variety of skills to offer. I applaud his ability to communicate--something I become worse at by the day.
    Get out and dance.

    "The Patriarch"

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Kludge or children causing that?

    I think it's me, him and the kid. The only person I talk to all day is a 3yo, for the most part. He doesn't talk much, so all I do is teach stuff to her, cook, clean, collapse--and I'm pretty fortunate to be able to spend this time with her. I'm now in pre-collapse phase. Having 12+ people over for Christmas next weekend, and everything takes 3x as long when you're trying to involve a toddler who just wants to throw stuff around. I don't eat many carbs these days, but we took about 6 hours making tortellini and ravioli, and she can now fold tortellini like a champ and hand-roll pasta dough. Tomorrow, she gets to learn more knife skills when we start on turkey roulade. It's tedious right now, but within the year, she's going to be pretty damned competent in the kitchen. She talks so much, that I just don't want to say anything after she goes to bed--on the flip side, she has a great vocabulary for her age.
    Those who want liberty must organize as effectively as those who want tyranny. -- Iyad el Baghdadi

  11. #39
    Another good-n for those who care;

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    We've been sent warnings for 150 years or more. Few are listening because they just don't give a damn. The majority either see no problem or do not regard it as worthy of their action. If this land is to be preserved, and at this point that is a very big and tenuous "if", it appears at this time that it will once again be the 3% who are going to pull everyone's bacon out of the fire because the 97% are too cowardly, stupid, lazy, or vested to get real skin into the game.

    This once again raises a question I asked perhaps a year ago and nobody wanted to touch it: what does the 3% do about the 97%? It is a valid question and should be addressed, even if to say "nothing - leave them as they are". I can accept that, but then (and in any case I suspect) that the restoration of this land to that which it ought to be is a task looming far larger than most people even here can imagine.

    I am all for "leaving them alone", but the right context, and here "right" means "you're on your own". No more welfare state. No more taxpayer-extorted safety nets. You go make your way by whatever valid means you can manage. If you need charity and can get it, blessings be upon you. If not, tough $#@!. No more of this picking the pockets of Peter to pay Paul. Enough is far too much, already.

    That leaves the spectre of correcting "law", or more correctly put. Cleaning that up will require basically a coup d-etat because there is no way that our current system is likely to affect the necessary changes to the degrees needed any time before the sun goes nova. That almost by necessity means the (at least temporary and/or partial) dismantling of the Constitution. I see no possible way that we would be able to affect the necessary changes with the likes of the 97% peopling the Congress. I predict with high confidence that little to nothing of substance would change and that they would, in fact, become worse by a quantum.

    What I mean is this: imagine a civil war broke out and we killed the feds to the man or placed them at the bottoms of salt mines. It would make no difference because 97% of the population is comprised mostly of idiots whose brain poisons would retrieve control of "government" (a statistical certainty if we allow things to return to "normal" in a completely organic manner). That means Congress would appear and operate much as it does now. The lobbying would continue and the naive new Congress would be open to the softly spoken lies. Forget open corruption for the moment and just consider the general standards of right and wrong as they commonly exist in America today. Almost every rotten chip in the American barrel would remain. Remember the Congressional pain expressed at having to cut a mere $6B from a trillion dollar budget with the likes of Nancy Pelosi shrieking that there was nothing left to cut? That would continue.

    Now for the part where it gets worse. At first the 3%ers *might* be hailed as saviors of the republic, but I absolutely GUARANTEE you that in short time that opinion would change, at least and at first behind closed doors where men would have conversations that would go roughly like this:

    "Well yes, the 3% did in fact make possible our positions, but we've fixed everything, yet they remain armed. Can we afford to continue to have that?"

    "No! We most certainly cannot. We have a new order of things and it is a good one; one that will last a very long time, if not forever. We've rooted out the corruption and made everything better. What if the men with guns decide they don't like that? No no... that simply cannot be tolerated. We have peace and are on our way back to prosperity. Most importantly, we have ORDER and UNITY. The 3% were probably just lucky; consider how things might have turned out... far and away worse. What's to say that if they tried this again one day that they would not precipitate the destruction of everything? No, I agree that the 3% must be clipped. Let us begin by disarming them..."

    And so it would go, the piecemeal, creeping rationalization for why we must be taken to heel. This is not reasonably questionable in my mind, given the long historical precedents. I do believe it would be delivered in draconian fashion precisely because of the success. It's all now fixed, so time to stand down COMPLETELY. We've got this. And yes, I do in fact believe that the majority is precisely that insane and corrupt such that in the wake of what would be a terrifying series of events to the meaner, the average American would be sufficiently freaked out that they would be practically begging Themme to disarm one and all no matter what level of force would be needed. And the media machine would be rapid in its adaptation, turning coat on the heroes on a dime, now painting them as demons to be stamped out for the sake of security and safety... and the children.

    This is why a civil revolt of any significance necessitates the end of the republic as we have known it and necessitating a rebuild pretty well from the ground up. And how would that happen? Who would make the decisions? Whose wise men would chair that committee? In a sea of 300 million IDIOTS, what are the statistical chances that, say, 1000 of what we here would regard as at least minimally right-minded individuals would be gathered and then come to the correct solutions? I'd call that as near to zero as once can get.

    Changing this nation fundamentally in restoration of even what we had in the 1920s would take generations to achieve without warfare, if it would even be possible. I question the probability because the current system is geared to act in perfect concert with all human weakness. It is brilliantly implemented and it means that we would be like horny teens, ready to explode, yet deciding not to put hands or other body parts on the ultra-hot whore that has been laid down in our beds with us, herself dying to get her mouth properly affixed. How long does anyone thing that that will last?

    This is why I see us as being in such deep trouble and why I see nothing fundamental changing for the better, barring a global cataclysm that wipes out the immediate ability for us as a species to continue on this insane gallop into the maw of destruction. This system... this "thing" is so vast in its mental entrenchment that I see no other way to correct the horrors of the human mind that have lead to our current material circumstance. This thing is well beyond planetary in its scale precisely because it lives in mind.

    Therefore, barring such a cataclysm, we need to pretty well settle with the fact that freedom will not be forthcoming in our time, if ever. It seems, and please do offer any counter argument as I could use some cheery news, the best for which we can hope is that with endless vigilance and unbending determination we might restore the land to its 1920s political condition by the time our grandchildren are themselves grandparents. I find this the overly optimistic case, and perhaps I am not seeing clearly, so please chime in with your opinions. As I say, good news is always welcome.

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Another good-n for those who care;

  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    We really need to get rid of the State!

    How are we going to do it?

    If it can be at all achieved any longer, methinks violence will be the only route to success, barring a near-extinction reset event.

    I base this speculation on the facts I see at hand.

    Firstly, Theye want the power of command and obedience.

    Secondly, They want it perfectly, which is to say that they want it absolute and guaranteed. In order to do this, Theye must widen the gap in terms of both material and psychological power as vastly as possible in order to render to vanishing the potential for usurpation of their power into other hands.

    Thirdly, and pursuant to point the second, Theye have set into place during the past 20 years that which no king in our historical memory has ever dared dream possible, technologies that have broadened that gap to an extent that, so far as I can see, approaches a threshold of non-recoverability.

    Fourthly, and pursuant to point the second, during the past century-plus Theye have altered the perceptual landscape of the common man in ways that many of us can but barely conceive. For example, many behaviors that in 1900 would have been viewed as depraved and worthy of the lash or worse are today viewed with the blandness of the bored. A man from that day, having been transported to this time and finding his great-great grand daughter tattooed to her four corners and her pubic hairs shorn away, would undoubtedly beat her in a fit of shock-fueled fear for her very soul, her father having then to peel great-granddad off Janey that she not end up wholly separated of her hide. The point here is that the Meaner, which is to say the average and common man, has been reduced to such a retrograde state of existence that he is neither aware of his frightfully unenviable position as a Perfect Slave1, nor has he any interest in becoming so. In addition, his current and deplorable condition is such that were the truth to be revealed to him, he would have no interest whatsoever in seeing it altered in any manner or degree.

    Fifthly, Theire designs are intergenerational. Theye have been working at this many a year, have devoted those generations to the achievement of unchallengeable global hegemony, and most likely believe themselves entitled to their positions of unquestioned supremacy.

    Sixthly, and pursuant to point the fifth, Theye are not likely to assume any unnecessary risks to that position, particularly now that they are this close to sewing things up once and for all, what with the successful emplacement of so much instrumentality to that end.

    Seventhly, it should be at least considered the possibility that Theire mental landscapes, too, have been in some manner and degree compromised by the alterations they have brought into the worlds of men. I assert this because in my view it is nearly impossible to so totally alter an environment for the "benefit" of others, and separate oneself from that very climate to such a degree that he remains unaffected by it. The only question remaining, then, is to what degree and in what manner have Theire mental positions been altered. It is not implausible to suggest that Theye have bent their own vision and opinion in ways that endanger themselves as well as the rest. It is not inconceivable that Theye, unawares, have lapsed into a profound insanity that threatens the very existence of all men and perhaps even all significant life on this world.

    Eighthly and finally, given the points prior; given the great care, patience, and investment in the various efforts; given the apparently steadfast resolution with which the holy grail of tyrants has been pursued by Theire generations over the ages; and given the strong possibility that Theye have fallen unintentionally into madness, there is no reason to believe that at this late stage of the game Theye would not be willing to sacrifice the life of the entire planet if their coveted positions were to meet with imminent termination.

    Given all this, it requires no leap of reason to then directly infer that Theye are not going to go quietly and that the only way they will give up their current standing will be to have it pried from them with great violence. Do not forget that Theye will never do their own actual fighting, but rather will have their loyal stooges at their feet to do the dirty work at their behest, but in the name of "something great" in which said stooges have been cowed into believing. Consider the frightful ease with which the mob is manipulated to virtually any action demanded of them. The single example of the Lusitania's sinking should be all that one needs to satisfy himself of this. The brutishly clever British, avatars nonpareil of human depravity whose viciously presumptuous avarice for power and position needed nothing more than to hang an ocean-going passenger liner as bait for the Germans to bite upon, the resultant death toll so horrifying the isolationist American meaner at that time, that all notions of national neutrality were literally swept aside from sea to shining sea within minutes of the news' arrival.

    Consider the resources at Theire disposal - both material and psychological. Any real threat "within the system" is neatly and readily handled with the manifold tools at Theire disposal, ranging from mere propagandizing all the way up to outright terrorism (false flag events, for example) and large-scale open warfare. The combination of these well-honed weapons, comprising the most powerful stick-and-carrot show on the planet, will likely achieve whatever expedience circumstance dictates. That is why even large scale violence is unlikely to dethrone Themme at this stage of the game. But if anything is to have the least hope of success, it is likely just that: mass armed revolt. Knowing human proclivity as I do, I comfortably assert that reason and formal procedures are not going to achieve the goals that are here under consideration: the dismantling of Empire. It simply will not happen that way because the proponents of Empire are utterly implacable. Nothing will persuade Themme and therefore they must be handled in the most materially unequivocal fashion: complete destruction.

    This conclusion brings me no joy. It does, in fact, fill me with a sense of overbearing doom because I do not for a moment believe that sufficient numbers of men will see this truth, much less be moved to act as did the Minutemen, who pledged their lives and fortunes, such as they may have been, to the goals of free life for the posterity they so clearly and dearly loved. How many of us will stand before the enemy's rifle fire to that end?

    All that said, we have nothing to lose by trying on all fronts, even those that appear of utterly hopeless potential. For if we give up, we are certainly lost. I for one hold no relish for the thought of existing on my knees in bow to a raft of mad and scurrilous bastards for whom I would not insult my feces by applying them there.

    As I always repeat, likely to the rolling eyes and pain of my cohorts here, work as best you can toward the goals of reclaimed liberty, but do so with reality in mind. Know ye that if this is to be a real fight, it is likely to be very ugly, very violent, and very dangerous. If these truths frighten you with sufficiency, go home and accept what fate will serve unto thee, for all the wishful thinking in the world will not alter this truth so much as a whit.

    1. "Perfect Slave" vis--vis, for example, "chattel slave" wherein the latter requires direct expenditures by the owner to maintain the life of the asset in terms of housing, food, health, and quarter-mastery, the costs of which tend to the capricious and prohibitive, the Perfect Slave is saddled with these direct responsibilities to his own slavery, thereby freeing the master of the burden of duty, thereby dramatically lowering his costs.

    A perfect slave's closest historical analog would be the serf, the primary difference between them laying in the fact that the former enjoys a grossly circumscribed set of discernible rights in comparison with the latter. This is one of the products of a century's expended effort to rearrange the perceptual landscape such that the outrage now becomes the coveted. That which would once have driven men to bloody and murderous revolt now threatens the same if it is withheld. The slave now demands of his master his rightful demeaning at master's hand because it is familiar to him. What is familiar is comfortable and comfort is that which all men seek, no matter how strangely and incomprehensible the form for one man may appear to another.
    "The Patriarch"

  15. #42
    Tyranny Is The Very Foundation Of Empire.

    by osan , 09-23-2014 at 07:07 AM
    America was founded on the Empire model, meaning that slavery of one form or another is an inherent feature for all, including the masters, for they also live in cages, the presence of gilding making it no less a prison than the dank and dark cell. The architecture of the mindset that lead to the design of this land as a nation-state was inescapably Empire in its corner stones. How else could it have been? The men who designed the United States were marinaded in Empire, just as are we, for it was that in which they were born and it was all they knew. It was something of a small miracle they were able to think "outside the box" to the degree that they had. The very notion of supplanting the king was unthinkable for most. The king was a given in all of the known world, save for those places peopled by so-called "savages".

    Note that last bit. People of the "new world" were regarded as uncivilized, which was true for the most part, but what does that really mean? The savages had neither recognizably great cities nor great works. There was no overt evidence of "high culture" to the European eye; no architecture; no science; no Christianity; no industry; little to no evidence of sedentary life. In short, there was no evidence of most of the things that in the minds of such men as the Europeans constituted civilization, and they were largely correct. Therefore, the native people were indeed savages in the sense of being "untamed", which is to say "unbroken", "undomesticated" in the way dogs and cows are.

    The great flaw, or disconnect in the European perception laid in the depth of their fallacious presumption that the absence of such features in a society was somehow inherently abhorrent or otherwise inferior. They were unable to accept that such absences as witnessed in the savage tribes could be the hallmarks of any sort of life that was even remotely worth living. For the Europeans, and indeed the rest of the civilized world all these hallmarks such as huge public works were absolutely essential to any life worth living and the creation of such works almost invariably necessitates slavery of one form or another. Without such elements of civilization, the only existence deemed possible was hell on earth. Those men were trapped by the limitations placed upon them by the assumptions that for them were so "obviously true" that they could never be questioned. Therefore, the fundamental elements of tyranny had to be incorporated into the basic architecture of this nation. Those men had no choice precisely because not only did they not recognize those elements as such, they perceived them as essential to the preservation of an orderly society, order having been apparently ranked above the element of freedom in importance.

    Valuing order above freedom is very understandable, precisely because people fear chaos so deeply that they would prefer a predictable tyrant king to unpredictable individual caprice running amok across the land. The Gordian knot of entangled layers through which an analyst must pick in order to get to the heart of the nature of the human being is daunting. Suffice to say here that for various, often subtle, and frequently cryptic reasons, people of the Empire mindset fear chaos more than they want true freedom. This is a truth that perhaps damns the human race to perpetual slavery and misery.

    Because the Framers were the products of their age and history, they were able to wander only so far from the plantation. Because of the depth and the sheer power of their fundamental assumptions, the free lives of the savage people were beyond any possibility as considerations for America. This is all very understandable, of course. How many of us would envision a rightful nation where any man was free to apprehend small children and rape them with impunity? I will go out on a limb here and say not too many. Most of us recoil with some violence at that thought, rightly or otherwise. For most of us there is no discussion on the matter; sex with a child is something seen as so abhorrent, perceived as so fundamentally wrong and evil, that we do not give it any consideration whatsoever and that indeed to do so is to raise hackles and tempt one's fellows to consider that a beating might be in order. For the Framers, so it must have been in their minds when regarding savage life vis--vis civilized.

    Indeed the fundamental assumptions about the two modes of living, savage and civil, are so deeply ingrained in us as the latter being "right" and "good", the other "wrong" and "evil", that we have come to make use of the very words "savage" to connote the chaos and violence we generally fear and abhor, and "civil" to connote all good propriety. "At least they were civil with each other throughout the divorce", and "James beat his random victim savagely" are but two humble examples illustrating how deeply seated are our prejudices regarding the perception of what it means to be civil v. savage. They are so deeply seated as to not be even noticeable, much less questionable, and that is one of the primal failings of human beings in general. That anything exists which cannot be questioned damns us as a species either to ignominious extinction, or to a future holding no better potential for us than as inmates within the insurmountable and impregnable walls of the prisons we erect about ourselves in our minds.

    Because of this seemingly unbreakable habit, the Framers were unable to escape recreating Empire. The "clean sheet" that the Constitution purported to represent was anything but. This was not, however, perforce the result of evil intent, but of an inability to see past certain mental boundaries those men held in place as artifacts of the era and culture in which they were raised. For this they cannot be held to blame because breaking away from one's most closely held and fundamental beliefs is perhaps the single most daunting thing a human being can be called upon to do, even in the face of overwhelming evidence compelling them to do so.

    Therefore, the fundamental elements that invariably lead to tyranny were woven into the very fabric of the American Constitution, likely unbeknownst to a plurality of the architects, if not the totality. They were simply incapable of escaping their assumption precisely because they could not envision a world where there were no rulers, for that is anarchy and we all know where that leads: chaos and death. There was nowhere else for them to go because in their minds there had to be written law. Their chosen solution has been empirically tested and it has failed miserably. It has proven itself a key enabler of one of the Four Necessities: Lassitude.

    The structure of American governance fails by the simple fact that it establishes government in the first place. This fact alone holds the potential for conceptual separability, which is to say that "government" by the very nature of the notion becomes separated from those whom it governs in the mind of the individual. Conceptual separation leads directly and with some rapidity to functional separation. Practically speaking, government becomes its own entity separate and apart from non-government in the minds of people. Thought forms reality. This is precisely what has happened in America, just as it has with every other constituted Empire throughout all of humanity's written history. There are no exceptions to this because there can be none. This habit of separating, the byproduct of categorization and is something human beings do very naturally and with great force of habit.

    Therefore, when "government" becomes its own reality in the minds of people, the tendency is for people to at first begin to rely upon it, thereby relieving them of an ever increasing proportion of their individual responsibilities to themselves and their fellows to govern themselves and to act as governors when others fail in their capacities of proper self-governance. Inevitably, reliance gives way to obligation as the full-time governors seek and invariably receive ever greater latitude in their discretion to dictate and enforce. At that point, tyranny has stepped into the shoes of the king and the individual finds himself once again faced with the choice of singing the ancient tune of the whipmaster or being consumed, for at that point no other options are tolerated, much less offered.

    Most of us are hopelessly trapped in the mental prisons we erect about ourselves with the help of our fellows. So long as that truth and habit persist, we will be doomed to the repetition of the same old dance over and over again into what can only be viewed as the bleak landscape of a grim future. The advances in technology cement the guarantee of this with ever greater certainty. We are indeed at a crossroad, for before much longer technology will have clearly swept beyond a threshold where so much power will reside in so few hands that no amount of resistance will overcome the will of the tyrants.

    Tyranny is a necessary characteristic of Empire. One cannot have the latter without the former precisely because the former is part and parcel of the definition of the latter. Tyranny is the very foundation upon which Empire is built and so long as people want something for nothing and are willing to tolerate the use of violence to get it, which is the essence of Empire, tyranny will remain with us and freedom as shaped by the principles of proper human relations shall remain, at best, as a mere and curious abstraction with no evidence of manifestation of which to speak.

    Time is here.
    "The Patriarch"

  16. #43
    I do like to read osan's stuff. Definitly one of my favorite forum members and a refreshing break. I've complimented osan a few times if I recall correctly.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 01-12-2015 at 07:52 PM.

  17. #44
    Another good-n...

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Well, yes, this is also true. That's the part that really underscores and exposes the nature and degree of Theire mental illness. No matter how many times this brand of brain fart fails, Theye are always horny to give it one more try, apparently thinking "this time we will do it right..." And every time the idiot meaner takes the bait. It will be the same with the '16 elections. The nitwits will be all fired up for another dose of "hope and change", will take another HUGE penis in that place never meant to host such objects, will bitch about it, and by the time the next cycle is up, will be all worked up once more. I swear to God it just stones me to bear witness to the raging, howling insanity that gallops roughshod across the face of the globe like the Four Horsemen all rolled into a single juggernaut of dripping, wheezing lunacy.

    For those of you who hold out hope for the future of the masses living this day, you are fooling yourselves. Most of us have no chance of a life that to my eyes is even remotely worth living. We have been, the most of us, reduced to states of mere existence, the standards of which are whittled more thinly every single day.

    The saddest thing is that even if we were to rise up and butcher every tyrant on the face of the globe tomorrow morning, it would guarantee us nothing, for we are become a race of fools. Empire has destroyed us - and make no mistake about it, we ARE destroyed - and we do not see it, nor do we want to. Were we to acknowledge this on the mass scale needed, we would then be obliged by all decency to act upon it and that is just too much work. Even I suffer from the rot, as I sit here like a $#@!ing idiot pointing out the painfully obvious to people who, like myself, will never do a God damned thing to put the world right beyond talking, commiserating, and theorizing. Honestly, I'm not even sure why I bother anymore. Maybe it just makes me feel less alone.

  18. #45
    Another one

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Homeschooling is, IMNSHO, the best option. A close second, however, would be a return to the one-room schoolhouse. Such endeavors were community-based and funded by the parents whose children attended. They were not tax-funded - at least initially. Children came out of those places strongly literate and that is the single most important skill. All other skills depend upon those of language. IMO elementary education should focus on the 4-Rs and nothing else. No computers, no TV, none of that bull$#@! that makes for weak minds. Get those children so well prepped in linguistic terms that they would put the average contemporary adult into the dirt by the time they were 12 in terms of those skills and the other secondary ones that follow directly therefrom. I have little doubt that I would train a child such that by the time they reached sixth-grade they would be able to engage a typical adult in debate and leave them red in the face with shame and embarrassment for the shellacking they would take.

    Without strong foundations in the basics, a child is very unlikely to grow into anything much better than an unwitting dullard.

  19. #46
    Todays zinger....

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    That is an interesting issue. Who knows that environmental factors are at play in the lives of a given child, much less whole and vast populations of them, that might lead them to such personal values at such tender ages? I wonder how the experiment would play out with children raised in households that have no television.

    As for aversion to one's own race, that cuts both ways. "Which doll is uglier" may produce one result. "Which doll is good" or "which doll is bad" might produce other results. I have encountered a disturbingly large raft of white people who hate white people... at least outwardly. You know the type... endlessly excoriating the white race as evil mis-treaters of non-whites. They go on about genocide, slavery, conquest, and so on down the depressingly long litany of nauseatingly false assertions such as only white people choose not to live in harmony with Gaia... blabbity blah... <hack>. I can never tell whether they really believe this nonsense or if they are playing a part in order to be viewed as either cool, or at least better than his race-fellows.

    I remember someone here once posting a video in a thread where some young white male gets up before some sort of congregation of people and he starts "witnessing" how rotten and evil he is due to his "whiteness", right down to crying... boo hooty hoo and all his, AHEM... white compatriots lay on their hands, so to speak, and tell him it's all OK, now that he has confessed to the evil of his genetic heritage. Shoot, why not just call him "knygger" too, while you're at it? All I could think upon seeing this was that someone needs to be slapped around the room a couple dozen times, and not just one of them. But that's just me.

    Yes yes... white people suck, mostly; not because they are white but because they are human, and most humans suck. It is the disease of the Empire mentality that converts a human being from a miracle into a monster, and the vast majority of them have the disease, which is an affliction of perception based in the flawed conceptual underpinnings that Empire carries with it. It cannot be corrected because the diseased concepts are part and parcel with the very fabric of Empire itself. That means that one cannot have Empire without accepting, however tacitly and dimly of awareness, the rotten foundation upon which all Empire is built, which is large and of many stones.

    I don't think such white people shot from their mammies' orifices hating whites and, by extension, themselves. They were almost certainly taught this. Is it the same for children WRT "whit doll is prettier?" I'd tend to think so. What does one do? Kill the TV, would be my first suggestion. Limit internet access would be a close second. Keep your beloved issue out of public schools. Get them some serious religious training - doesn't matter which one, save a few. I'm neither big on Islam nor Satanism, though for different reasons in each case. But anything that holds to the notion of something sacred has at least the potential of providing a decent anchor for one's beliefs and behaviors. In fact, I should start my own church just for this purpose. It'd be a good one.

    I am, however, very curious to know just how the opinions of these children were established. By what wheedling did the value systems get introduced, if at all? The consistency of it is truly amazing, if we assume that it is artificial and not the product of something genetic. But that raises the very uncomfortable question of "what if is not the product of outside influence?" Some will chafe violently at this and suggest I be immediately staked, but the question is nevertheless valid. Many years ago there was an extensive study done on "beauty" - I do not offhand recall by whom - and the results were very enlightening. It seems that there are in fact several basic factors relating to beauty that are UNIVERSAL across all races. Facial symmetry is one of them, eye size, dilation of pupils, others. The swing of a woman's hips, another, as well as the shape of her breasts, legs, and so forth. As I recall, this was a VERY unexpected result in that the results crossed all racial and cultural lines.

    I specifically recall the illustrations used - all black line drawings contrived to impart as little suggestion to "race" as possible, but also to make prominent the characteristic of interest in a specific case such as facial symmetry. Men and women were shown these illustrations and were asked which is more attractive. The results were pretty well universally consistent, which in itself was very surprising, and they crossed all perceived racial boundaries. One can, therefore, hardly resist wondering whether these other issues hold at least some purchase in the same origins. It makes some very uncomfortable, but I might suggest that their distress tells us more about their personal world views than it does about the notions themselves. I, for one, feel zero discomfort about it because I know that even if there is a genetic component to the results, it matters no whit in terms of human rights. It diminishes nobody, and in fact it serves to deeply underscore the notion that perhaps it is our set of normative assumptions that are in need of revision.

    This is the problem with much of normative political culture: it chafes against human nature. Why? Because we have been taught that our nature is abhorrent in its very fabric, which is why we have customs and laws that punish non-criminal behavior. And that is precisely why such law and custom fail universally, in time. Just look at the drug war. People like getting high. How about instead of making it a hazard for everyone, we endeavor to make it as safe as possible? The threat of prison clearly fails to dissuade vast populations from "doing it". Even the threat of death fails. What does that tell you? That humans are scumbags? Not necessarily - but it DOES tell you that our social framework that couches our perceptions of such activities and the reactive operational instruments put in place to "deal" with violations of our >AHEM> sacredly held beliefs are completely wrong.

    I do believe that a good rule of thumb regarding human relations is that any time human behavior commonly conflicts with a normative standard, it is the standard that is wrong and not the human nature that drives the conflict. There are always exceptions to this, of course. Just because some people murder, it does not follow that the prohibition on it is flawed. But how many people murder, proportionally speaking? Very few. But $#@!-tons of people get high. Tens of millions of them in the United States alone, any one of them getting caught at it looking at possibly spending decades in rape-cages. That indicates to me a clear failure of the normative standard, rather than a failure in human nature.

    Look at the idiotic bull$#@! of the Christian churches regarding masturbation. You'll go blind, your palms will grow hair. Sweet Jesus must be spinning like a lathe in his grave at witnessing even the least of these crimes against one's own. And yet, we never learn the lessons. We never let go of that which so clearly damages us. Like the beaten housewife, we cling to that which is familiar because, being a known quantity, it is comfortable and therefore less frightening than the unknown, which lies on just the other side of the front door.

    It is something of depressing to watch how humanity chases its tail, generation after generation, holding on to the rot with such a white-knuckle death grip that God Himself has been unable to (uninterested in??) force our release.

    Look ma... another wild tangent! I DO wanna be president!

  20. #47
    Does this count, or should I remove it?

    Cardinal Postulate:

    0 - All men are equally endowed with life.

    Because all men are so endowed, we find the First Corollaries:

    0.1 - All men hold equal claims to life
    0.2 - No man's claim to life is superior or inferior to that of another
    0.3 - A man is born the sole owner of his life

    The equal rights of men imply the Cardinal Principle:

    1 - All men are equal in their authority with respect to one another.

    From this, the Second Corollary:

    1.1 - All men are free with respect to one another

    By virtue of the equal authority that the universally equal claim to life bestows upon and between all men, we now have basis for the Cardinal Proscription:

    -1 - No man may trespass upon or otherwise violate the rightful claims of another.

    From these, the following derive and are sustained:

    Primary Derivatives:

    Absolute Nature Of Human Rights

    2 - The fundamental nature of a Human Right is that of a claim to property.
    2.1 - The Just Rights of men are valid and absolute because there is no extant principle to deny them.
    2.2 - A man's right is just and valid IFF it does not violate the Cardinal Proscription.

    Relative Nature Of Rights Between Men:

    3 - The rights of all men have equal effect as such between them.
    3.1 - Taken in groups, the rightful validity and power of the rights of men do not exceed those of the individual man.
    3.2 - The just and valid will of a single man may countervail that of any number of others, taken individually or as a group.

    Human Rights Are Property Rights

    4 - All men are free to acquire property unto their possession to the degree that rightful acts may provide them.
    4.1 - The rightful acquisition of property establishes a rightful claim, or "right" to that property.
    4.2 - All men are free to keep, use, and dispose of their rightful property as they see fit.
    4.3 - No man may assert or exercise a property right over a Free Man without the other's free and non-coerced consent.
    4.4 - All men hold the absolute right and authority to defend their just and valid claims against violation at the hands of others
    4.5 - No man or group thereof may act against the rightful ac

    The Right to Contracts and Consensual Agreements

    6 - All Free Men retain the right to enter into contracts and other agreements with one another, singly and severally.

    Crime and Criminality:

    7 - Any Man violating the Cardinal Proscription where an articulable and demonstrable loss to another is proven is guilty of having committed a Crime.
    7.1 - Any Man having committed a crime loses his status as a Free Man and assumes that of Criminal until such time as he has made his victim whole.
    7.2 - Criminals may forfeit some or all of their rights.

    Believe it or not, I think that this is the Canon, more or less. I am certain that it will require tuning, but I do believe that what we have here has more or less captured the full essence of what it means to live properly among one's fellows.

    We have described the fundamental nature of men's rights and how they relate one to the other. We have captured the single circumscription that exists to limit men's prerogatives and what it means in the most general terms when they violate those limits.

    The rest, so far as I can tell, are matters of a secondary and perhaps changeable nature, mainly if not entirely addressing the proper formal responses to criminal acts.

    "Government" represents not an entity in s, but a mob of fellow humans with no more authority to act as bosses, than do you.

    We get what we tolerate and we deserve what we get precisely because we tolerate it.

    Weakmen are the rule, Freemen the exception.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  21. #48
    I like what you have to say here, brother Osan. The thing is, the Hitlers, Stalins, Bushes, and Clintons of the world don't care about these things. Does the existence of tyrants suggest that what you have outlined is invalid or that petty tyrants are anti-humanity...or perhaps something else? Thanks in advance, and best regards to you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    This thread has been...


  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
    Osan is definitely competing for the Patrick Henry Lifetime Achievement award.

    It is funny you mention Patrick Henry. He is my favorite of all that crew. I had a FB account under that nome de plume, which after a few years they locked me out because I apparently said something unflattering about those Muslims who butcher and maim people without just cause. I found it amusing in the way so-called "liberals" tend to amuse when they run so afoul of any reason and especially where they indulge themselves in the most rank of hypocrisies such as here, going on about "tolerance" while killing accounts that call out the murderously intolerant. Anyhow, they demanded I show them government-issued ID. I told them to get bent. One can wonder whom it is that some people think they are. Amazing.

    "Government" represents not an entity in s, but a mob of fellow humans with no more authority to act as bosses, than do you.

    We get what we tolerate and we deserve what we get precisely because we tolerate it.

    Weakmen are the rule, Freemen the exception.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    I like what you have to say here, brother Osan. The thing is, the Hitlers, Stalins, Bushes, and Clintons of the world don't care about these things. Does the existence of tyrants suggest that what you have outlined is invalid or that petty tyrants are anti-humanity...or perhaps something else? Thanks in advance, and best regards to you.
    Point taken. But if people are educated in this, the most basic aspects of human relations, which I will now contend is the actual basis of ALL human law, perhaps at least the chances rise, however minimally, that such characters as those you list will have a notably more difficult time getting to the places where they managed.

    I am not sure, but am definitely wondering whether something significant has been articulated here in a way not before made manifest. I do not think there is anything new in anything in this canon of proper human relations. And yet, I can also say that in all my philosophical and political readings I have never seen these basic notions brought to light in such simple terms. Reading the works of Locke, one finds at least the hints of these notions, but they are shrouded in too much noise. There is so much discussion going on that the ideas themselves become obscured. One of my goals here was to strip away everything not absolutely essential and see what remained. I am not sure I have achieved that goal 100%, but perhaps it is close enough. That is why I am glad Bryan started the thread on it, in the hope that as many here as possible would read and offer their observations and punch any holes in it that they think they may observe.

    The discussion has been somewhat less that that for which I'd hoped, but that may simply mean that the canon is indeed a canon and not some hokey treatise of wishful thinking. It would just have been nice to have heard a bit more in terms of specific feed back in both directions... "yes it is good" and "no it fails because..."

    I have started a new essay on it a, but it is not yet published because of all the insanity around this house of late, of which today I must consult briefly with a lawyer because we're in some very deep kimchee... that and the work I must finish on the basement. I recommend against putting a basement into a house that is already built on a crawlspace, especially when you cannot afford to pay others to do it for you and the only tools you have are a shovel, wheel barrow, and your back. I shall say no more on it.

    To answer your question: no. Does the existence of a law against murder become invalid because people still murder? There are always those who will operate in opposition to the most basic logic, reason, and the truth they bring to light. This appears to be par for the statistical course where the human animal is concerned. I do not see any way that this invalidates the principles outlined in the Canon.

    Are tyrants anti-humanity? I am not sure that can be demonstrated in a general way, but clearly they are hypocritically anti-human-rights in all the specific ways in which they violate their fellows, their presumed good intentions notwithstanding. I maintain that Hitler held nothing but the deepest affections for "his" people. However, look where all his decisions pursuant to his well intended goals brought a large portion of the world. A continent laid in ruins, tens of millions of people dead, a hundred million or more scarred, and tens of millions more fallen behind the so-called "iron curtain" for what, forty-some years? Lives ruined beyond the immediate effects of the war itself - an entire generation deprived of the basic freedoms others took for granted. It is easy to regard someone such as myself as a drama queen when I refer to the horror of it, but I submit that such people as would so label others do so from the luxury of never having suffered those outrages.

    Between places like Belsen, the allied bombings, and the predations of the Russians, post-bellum, my family took it in the neck in a very big way. Many were killed - people of whom my parents speak glowingly, making so much more bitter the pill that reminds me of those whose acquaintance and possibly love for was never given any chance to be made and to develop. My great uncle Desmond, for example, the mayor of New White Lake in Hungary at the time of the war, was executed simply because he was mayor. He hid two Jewish families in his HOUSE - not in the barn or cellar - an offense for which the firing squad would have been his reward had he been discovered. Well, the Russian bastards came in and put him to the firing squad anyway and made my two beloved cousins, Steve and Kathy, ages about 7 and 5 at that time, watch, along with their mother my equally beloved great aunt Margaret. Both children committed suicide as adults, which were losses that I had to suffer through as I loved them both dearly, not to mention that their mother got the joy of surviving both her offspring. All this some 30 and 40 years after the fact.

    I live with this inside me every day. I live with the fact that Margaret died not three months after Steve, which was no coincidence IMO. I live with the noise in my head of the endless horrors that men foist upon each other and the other innocents of this world and at times I feel as if my head is going to explode like a small nuke.

    It is because of all this sickening and endlessly boring horror that I endeavored to identify and codify the most basic tenets of normative human relations. I know I am an inferior man - my inability to deal with all the insanity of this world with any alacrity demonstrates how completely unfit I am to survive in this world that for me is a three-ring freak show. But I refuse to stand down and meekly accept that which is not acceptable. I don't care if my defiance earns me death - I've lived long enough, I suppose. I have no effect in this world as nearly nobody wants to hear what I have to say, but say it in any event, and I shall until either old age takes me or Theye put me in a cage behind thick and sound proof walls.

    I admit my disgust, horror, and anger to the world at the rank idiocy that drives the race of men and seemingly has since the first days of Empire when the hunter-gatherer became the farmer, settled upon a spot, and promptly relegated his posterity to wrack and ruin as he abandoned his fluid life for that of sedentariness and all the trouble that it has brought to us. Hate and blind stupidity run this world and much as I have tried, I cannot come to abide it in silent acceptance. So I think, and I write, and I open my big yap, which my friends advise I cease - but to what end? Will my silence make it go away? Is my silence not tacit acquiescence, nay, consent? Is silence, whether fearful or joyful, not the very thing that made possible the rise of the Stalins and Maos of the twentieth century? Do I want to be equal in my complicity to all those who cowered and bowed and scraped on bended knee to the madmen of that time? Are the men of this time any less mad? I do not think so. If anything, they are notably worse in their apparent absence of virtually all moral restraint, something that even Hitler displayed in readily observable manner and degree.

    I suppose my ego is simply that weak such that I cannot or will not accept things as they are, and that my friends, makes me an idiot unfit to survive in this world. But I no longer care because I don't want to be such a man. I'd rather be nothing.
    Last edited by osan; 04-27-2015 at 05:53 AM.

    "Government" represents not an entity in s, but a mob of fellow humans with no more authority to act as bosses, than do you.

    We get what we tolerate and we deserve what we get precisely because we tolerate it.

    Weakmen are the rule, Freemen the exception.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  26. #52
    Another epic post!

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    No, they do not. Some of us do, but unless you have been in it up close and personal, you don't know $#@!. My parents lived through it first-hand. Many of my friends have gone to war and one of my closest, my little brother of sorts, is still in it in a very big way. I managed to avoid it all... so far. I consider myself lucky, but that may not hold forever, .

    Seeing gore on a screen is nothing. If anything, it places a mind on a footing of greater tolerance for war than does being IN war. If you've never been shot or stabbed (been shot twice and stabbed in serious violence once) your "experience" of violence and war via the big screen is meaningless. It is naught but a conceptual experience via sight and sound. Absent is the knowledge that what you see is real. Absent is the FEEL of violence. Absent is the SMELL of it. I've witnessed some stoogery of epic proportions on the part of people who open their yaps about warring, kicking ass, and so forth. "I be like pow pow pow..." Bull$#@!. The smell of a dead human being is one of those things most will never forget.

    Most everyone knows $#@! about war and real killing. If they knew, they'd keep their mouths shut around veterans who DO know.

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post

    I may have few and meager talents, but one of them is as a teacher. I tend to be VERY good at getting points across. That said, my students of math still had tough times of much of it, though I helped them improve significantly in the vast majority of cases. In the rest, it would seem their brains were simply not wired for it. Whether they were born this way or it was the result of incompetents who ruined them for me... that I cannot say with any remarkable certainty.

    The rote part I agree with you on. The dog-pile teacher part... methinks this may be a circumstance of your generation. I had some truly gifted and very generous teachers. They, sadly, had a less-than-stellar student.

    Well, I am not following this thread much so I may be speaking out of my sphincter, but there is the notion that not everybody can be a CEO because there are only so many such positions available. We NEED people who mop floors, fix plumbing, repair automobiles, drive busses, cut meat, and so forth. I am thinking that we have painted ourselves, however unintentionally, into a rather tight mental corner in that we revere the true professions and disparage, perhaps obliquely, the presumably "lesser" avenues of making our livings. I think this is a terrible mistake that does nobody any good.

    Back ca. 1988 on Christmas eve one of my pipes sprang a leak. I called my old friend from high school, Barry. He is a plumber and God bless his heart, he came out that night. For a mere 24 hours I had no water. By the time he came the following day my house smelled badly and I was on the edge of willingness to offer someone buttsex to have my water back. 7/8 I learned a valuable lesson that day: all these "lesser" career paths are not lesser in any way that is important. The assessment of them being lesser is utter bull$#@!. Barry makes a fine living as a plumber and he provides a service that most people have no clue how to perform for themselves and would not want to. Few out there would ever want to clean out a grease trap. If you don't know what that entails, just trust me when I tell you that you'd probably rather die by knives shoved into your eyes than do it. It is one of the most disgusting things imaginable.

    I agree that much of what is taught and virtually all of HOW it is taught in public schools and even universities is criminally flawed. But just as importantly, the attitude of absolute uniformity in what is taught flies like an artillery shell over the line, into the realm of deep insanity and disservice to our young people. Not everybody is inclined to math. This is fact and it is NOT a sad one. It is one that leaves me with a sense of relief and happiness, for that is the brand of "diversity" that makes the world go around, unlike that tortured and mangled concept the progressives keep trying to force upon the world in the manner of a monster enema.
    "The Patriarch"

  28. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    I am responding to the title question.

    They already have. Look what it got them. "Security" in this context is a lie. The European world view is psychotic, believing in the impossible. How did those people, who centuries ago ruled most of the world, become so timid a race of milquetoasts?

    I well understand that they would have become weary of war. Their last two were soul-crushing affairs. One would have thought, or at least hoped, that those people would have learned the right lessons after even the first one, but certainly after the second. In my view, the absolute central lessons there was the demonstration of the inherently evil nature of "government" and the same for blind obedience.

    The rankly corrupt, inbred, and patently idiotic stooges of France, Great Britain, and Germany drew an entire continent to the verge of destruction. The servant-people over whom they lorded complied with their mandates, meekly doing as commanded no matter how insane and criminal, many even champing to experience the "glory" of which those "leaders" lied through their teeth. One would think that in the wake of millions dead and the land scourged, that the people of those nations would have taken a step back and put an end to it by whatever means were necessary, even if it meant slitting the throats of every government official from chancellor down to the local dog catcher.

    But no. They carried on. Why? Because they were unwilling or otherwise unable to even recognize that some of their most closely held assumptions about their places in the world should have been reexamined. That paved the way for Hitler, whose cluster-copulation precipitated and fueled by the evil Brits, Frogs, and Poles reduced the continent to the world's most vast ruin. Once again, the people of the nations in question, especially the Germans, failed to get the right hint: do not obey. So now they have the thing called "Merkel" driving them to destruction and all they can do is comply. They whine. They say "someone needs to protect us", having no conception that the ultimate responsibility lies with them and not some vaguely defined knight in shining armor.

    With the exceptions of nations such as Hungary and Poland, the great majority of Europeans have signed their own death warrants by failing to kill their leaders off, arm themselves, and force the invaders out. It is not that I relish the blood solution, but at this point is seems clear that the current raft of leaders are either incapable or unwilling to adopt the correct policies aimed at the preservation of their native cultures and populations. They consistently favor the invaders over their own, as if to prove to everyone how... erm... progressive they are... how compassionate... how evolved. It seems like some sort of circle-jerk competition as they race toward almost universal national suicide. Their intentions are irrelevant and mitigate no iota of the results they have brought upon their own people. Those people need to be murdered in their sleep in defense of entire nations against the apparent insanity or demonic possession that has an entire continent in its grip. At some point it must be clear that the avenues of peaceable redress have been exhausted and will yield no further fruit. I think Europe is well past that point, leaving as the only alternative to capitulation to an implacable for bent on your destruction to start killing those who pose such threats. The Muslims are that threat, but equally so are the governments who enable the invaders and abet them at every turn.

    I would hope that we in America would turn to this long before things got the point they have gone in Europe. Enough already.
    "The Patriarch"

  29. #55
    Osan is awesome!!!

    Definitely one of my favorite posters
    The ultimate minority is the individual. Protect the individual from Democracy and you will protect all groups of individuals
    Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. - Thomas Jefferson
    I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

    - Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear

  30. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by amy31416 View Post
    I think it's me, him and the kid. The only person I talk to all day is a 3yo, for the most part. He doesn't talk much, so all I do is teach stuff to her, cook, clean, collapse--and I'm pretty fortunate to be able to spend this time with her. I'm now in pre-collapse phase. Having 12+ people over for Christmas next weekend, and everything takes 3x as long when you're trying to involve a toddler who just wants to throw stuff around. I don't eat many carbs these days, but we took about 6 hours making tortellini and ravioli, and she can now fold tortellini like a champ and hand-roll pasta dough. Tomorrow, she gets to learn more knife skills when we start on turkey rouladei. It's tedious right now, but within the year, she's going to be pretty damned competent in the kitchen. She talks so much, that I just don't want to say anything after she goes to bed--on the flip side, she has a great vocabulary for her age.
    I wonder how her child is doing and where she ended up. Maybe I should email Kludge.
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.

    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Just posted in another thread and one of his more epic post, I might add:

    I think you're hoping against hope for something that is a virtual impossibility. If by "better" you mean he has gone from one in 50,000,000 to one in 49,999,999 then I cannot argue.

    Once again, we see here someone who has lost sight of the fact that this pony race is scripted (however loosely), rigged, and pure baloney. There is NOTHING here for which to hope, save perhaps the impossibly remote chance that the people of this nation would revolt. Don't bet the farm on that. So long as the Meaner is able to fill his pot-like belly, satisfy his naughty bits, and can maintain whatever lie it is that he closely holds as truth about "freedom" or whatever nonsense it may be that keeps his head from exploding in despair at the truth about his living circumstance, there shall be no revolt. Joey and Janey will continue to believe their own Sacred Lies in order to retain the pretext to which they cling and upon which they base the justification for doing nothing of worth in terms of improving their lots in life. As I have drawn my eyes away from the trees, the forest has come into sharp focus. The human animal has become something whose training I have understood since at least my teenage years. I had until fairly recently, held on to the painfully misguided wish to believe that I was somehow mistaken in my assessment of the presence of that spark that would set men to killing that which had lead them down the garden path into de-facto servitude to other men. Boy was I ever a dope. Just like the meaner, I wanted what I wanted and believed what I wanted in the impossible hope that one day people would way "ENOUGH!" and shake the vampires from their necks. But as I have been mentioning of late, that will not be forthcoming, short of the "reset event" to which I have also referred.

    As things now stand, nothing short of a majorly disruptive event is likely to stir people from their idiot's slumber. 9/11 was such an event, except that it was not nearly large enough. Had 1000 aircraft been hijacked that day and flown into the buildings of every major city of the "first" world, then perhaps the slumber's spell may have been broken in a meaningful way. But then again, perhaps not, given the timidity to which men are now bred en masse. It appears with every passing day that my more recent assessment of things is correct: the people of this world will never return to a state of survival-worthiness until conditions alter in the way and to the degree that the very ability of the race of men to transition from one day, perhaps even one moment, to the next is immediately threatened in a very clear manner. Given the least pretext upon which to excuse themselves from having to act like men vis-a-vis kept and managed children, men will refuse to lift a finger anymore. Their minds are diseased as with the most insidiously raging cancer of spirit that tells them what they have is better than what they might yet have, were they to man-up and do that which good health demands - and here I mean good spiritual/mental health at least as much as the physical.

    The men of this world are in a death-spiral, and I mean this so very literally. Our mean physical health is plummeting. Just look around you at the billion tons of fat waddling around the streets. Is anyone going to dare equivocate to themselves or anyone else that this is actually OK in some way? The physical is driven by the mental, each a reflection of the other. The minds of the average man lies in a terminal condition that is such that it refuses to take the least measures to restore itself to a path which leads to vigorous health, as opposed to its current state of muscle-fueled self-destruction. My eyes at times can barely believe what they behold when it is compared with the vision of that which constitutes a proper state of healthy life. But people want what they want, which are those things that are anathema to physical and mental health. Convenience and petty comfort is more important to us than is freedom, all the beating of our gums to the contrary notwithstanding.

    Look around you and see what it out there. We live in a cesspool of mental filth that is so rife with virulent sickness that it has destroyed our bodies as well. I don't give the least damn what example you many parade before my eyes of the hard-bodied bitch who works out and whose thighs could crush my pelvic bones into dust. They, too, will likely die of cancer of some form, the question now being not whether they get it, but when and how many times. I've sat with my wife during chemo. The woman is about to turn 57 and she's built like a brick $#@!house still - hard as rock because she works for a living. But she still got it. My auntie Ly - 87 or 88 now, who for a lifetime ate "healthy" LONG before it was fashionable. Full of cancer for years.... in and out of remission, currently back in. My mom, dead in 1966 on 9 December from the ravages of stomach cancer. My beloved sister in 2009, lung cancer. They all took good care of themselves, and still. The point is that we have painted ourselves into a corner - a bad one - where the things we want conflict with life itself, and the chickens are now coming home to roost. Despite this, we continue to equivocate and and make up all manner of nonsense to justify our continued trod down the path which for us is familiar, and therefore comfortable, even though the tap-dance leads us to our own widespread destruction, both mentally and physically. Yeah, that's a good idea. Even people of a certain general faith that life is the sacred gift of God persist in justifying the rot that leads to genocide. The hell?

    Yeah, I know... another one of my insane, blathering tangents, and why should I even bother... I don't know. I guess I just want to have my pathetic little say on the issue... perhaps I am no less the idiot than the rest of whom I complain, holding out hope where none exists in reality. I guess I just cannot escape the depressing character of it all - to have been so fascinated with mere existence for all of my days, much less with life itself; to see the miracle of it all, the wonder... then to watch us all squander it with cell phones and methamphetamine and jealousy and religious contention and all the other profound marks of illness that besmirch the face of the Divine. Are people so bored with the Incredible that they must contrive and concoct the petty dramas of horror and shame and sadness in which we all now marinate? Truly I am a man bereft of intellect because no matter how long I remain imprisoned on this mad world, this habit of men makes no sense to me in even the least measure. I must be a true simpleton because I can sit all day in the orchard outside the front windows of this house and be happy just to be there among my trees, watching them and wondering how in hell any of this came to be - to witness miracles in everything around me. How does that become mundane so that one becomes moved to create drama that leads to nothing but ruin?

    OK, so while I am not in the habit of giving advice to anyone, speaking for myself I would not bother with the game that is afoot in US electoral politics. It is unworthy of my time and consideration. There is nothing good there, unless one's objective is to remain diverted and distracted from the truer nature of that which goes on around him. In that case, please carry on.
    There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
    -Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,
    Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
    Author of, War is a Racket!

    It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
    - Diogenes of Sinope

  33. #58
    Today's contribution;

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    As I penned my little polemic this morning, the concept of the Weakman dawned upon me. I decided to set forth an incomplete, yet hopefully adequate description of who and what he is. For contrast, I threw in the Freeman as well. It is the following with which I came up. Let me know what you think if it pleases you.

    The Freeman and the Weakman

    There are two kinds of people in the world.

    The first is what I call the "Weakman" and is as common as dirt. The second is the "Freeman", who is rare as hen's teeth and as precious as life itself.

    The Weakman could be epitomized by the so-called "progressive", which in point of practical semantic fact is represented by individuals of a decidedly regressive mindset who cling to wholly corrupted, self-contradicting, and thereby nonsensical notions of words such as "equality" and "justice".

    The Weakman is a paradoxical creature.

    For example, he is in many ways a fine and empathetic individual with a good and generous heart, while on the other hand he is petty, ill-bred and -mannered, vicious beyond fault, unreasoning, and driven by brute and primitive emotion to act in the most atrocious ways when the demented fantasies to which he has welded himself come under perceived threat. He believes that the use of physical force to compel the compliance of others not on board with his ideals is just and always warranted. Where the realization of these ideals are concerned, for the Weakman there is no tack or measure that is beyond propriety. The Weakman will gleefully see you and your children murdered for the sake of establishing upon the earth his deranged ideals of social architecture.

    Furthermore, the Weakman is marked by an aversion to responsibility akin to that of vampires to crosses, holy water, and mirrors.

    In short, Weakmen are essentially infants in grown human bodies. They are of ego so fragile as to make an adult cringe in horrified disbelief. The typical and so-called "millennial" is a penultimate example of the Weakman. On the one hand there stands this aforementioned glass-like fragility and brittleness. On the other, we find the wild viciousness that becomes manifest in such copious abundance once the Weakman's delicate sensibilities have been feather-bumped, as to amaze even the most jaded adult. He flies into rages of such all-consuming performance that I daresay most are deserving of an Academy Award such that an intact, rational, and nominally healthy adult is left utterly dumbfounded and in slack-jawed incredulity upon bearing witness to such senseless carrying on.

    Add to all this the rise of the new vocabulary to assist the Weakman in his efforts to force his dangerous petty tyrannies upon the rest. Over the last couple of years it has been my nearly unbelieving displeasure to become familiarized with the perilously unhealthy "social justice" terms that include but are not limited to "trigger", "micro-aggression", "safe space", "cultural appropriation", "equality", and "justice". The feats of mental midgetry that lead to the rise of such terms and their definitions are truly things at which to marvel.

    The Weakman is a nearly perfect stooge for the Tyrant, for so long as he is provided with the right lies by the "government" to which he is pathologically devoted, he will do nearly anything asked of him, so long as responsibility is not part of the deal. Weakmen, for example, comprised the ranks of "useful idiots" of Soviet Russian fame, and continues to populate the ranks of our contemporary equivalents. Weakmen kneel and praise at the altar of the "state", for government is the only apparent source of their sense of purpose and self-worth that such people possess. Their entire sense of self appears to be deeply tied to the notion of government, particularly where de-facto collectivism provides their aversive selves an escape from individual responsibility.

    Yet, despite all these terribly unflattering characteristics, the Weakman's basic instinct appears to be that of generosity; at least so long as he is being generous with someone else's assets, the giving is easy, and he's already gotten "his".

    There is more one could write about the Weakman, but there is really no point in going on too much further suffice to say that he manifests all the worst attributes of the human animal - fear, avarice, ignorance, and lassitude, the proverbial Four Necessities. I will nonetheless contrast him with his opposing counterpart.

    Behold the Freeman. He is courageous - enough to accept the sometimes dire risks and terrifying realities that are part and parcel with freedom in specific and the world in general. The Freeman claims all benefits of being free, as well as accepting of the costs, which he pays gladly in exchange for the exhilaration that freedom brings.

    The Freeman acknowledges reality as it stands, yet maintains his ideals as targets after which to shoot without any expectation of striking with perfection. Unlike the Weakman, the Freeman shows the proper respect for the rights of his fellows, having learned what those rights are and why they are important.

    The Freeman is an adult, rather than an infant throwing a hissy-fit through the agency of a grown body, or worse yet - government stooges. He neither shirks nor shrinks from his responsibilities as a Freeman toward himself or his fellows, no matter how it may inconvenience or otherwise pain him or grieve him.

    The Freeman is the master of his emotions, using his reason in place of brute feelings, whereas the Weakman is the willing and dutiful slave to emotional caprice.

    The Freeman is courageous, facing his fears and the dangers of this world with intelligence and discretion. The Weakman is a dyed-in-the-wool coward with little to no personal grace of which to bear witness.

    The Freeman is generous, even when generosity had become difficult. The Weakman is generous only when it suits his mood, and usually only with the assets of others. He will rarely if ever give to others if his own coffers are not overflowing with excess. This is why the Weakman tends to be a big fan of, and advocate for progressivism, proclaiming his adherence with abundant noises and chest pounding. He is all on board for any political philosophy where he feels he can hide from responsibility and labor and do whatever it is to which his unrestrained emotions may lead.

    The Freeman endeavors with humility to improve his state of ignorance. The Weakman revels in his ignorance, praising it explicitly as such, or relabeling it as "knowledge" and "wisdom".

    The Freeman is industrious pursuant to the goals he sets for himself. The Weakman expects others to hand him that which he randomly demands.

    The Freeman is worthy of one's trust. The Weakman cannot be trusted to the door.

    The Freeman is quietly tolerant of that with which find himself in disagreement. The Weakman noisily spouts off about his tolerance while wishing misery, prison, and death upon all with whom he disagrees.

    The Freeman tends by his nature to comport himself with a humility in the knowledge of his shortcomings. The Weakman, being of a collapsing-ego sort, never shuts his mouth such that the world is painted in his mind as revolving around him and his precious and all-consuming "feelings".

    The Freeman is thereby open-minded about everything, tolerant of much, and accepting of some. And yet, he allows others to hold to their value, opinions, and practices. The Weakman's tightly shut mind is peddled to the world as open to all, yet his pompously professed tolerance is belied by his open and spewing hatred of all that which does not mesh with his world-view.

    The Freeman retains the courage, responsibility, and moral fiber to judge for himself the merits of the manifold things he encounters in life. The Weakman shuns all courage and responsibility, all the while denying the existence of morals such that he abjures and forswears all proper judgment for his opinions and actions in his pathological need to avoid accountability at any cost to himself and those around him.

    The Freeman accepts responsibility for what he feels, says, and does. The Weakman denies any such responsibility, especially for his feelings. He discounts language and thereby the responsibility for his utterances. He holds to responsibility for his actions only to the very narrow degree that the circumstances in question mesh with his world-view. For example, he may assume apologize in teh wake of calling a black man "******", but only if such utterances are claimed as repugnant to him. In the same breath he will almost always attempt to excuse himself or mitigate his culpability by citing how his "feelings" got the better of him, or some similar nonsense. By that means will he apologize, but only with the subtext that he's not really responsible. The Weakman is the most hollow of all creatures imaginable.

    In short, the Freeman defines the Realman. The Weakman defines a flailing, lost, helpless infant of ill-breeding and temper who, despite his lack of skills of true and lasting value, nevertheless represents a clear and present threat to himself and all others, for he has neither the cloth nor discipline or decency to live by the tenets of that which he so vociferously boasts as being sacred to him. Most notable of these self-professed virtues being those of love, kindness, respect, generosity, tolerance, learnedness, no-violence, and open-mindedness, all of which the Freeman carries with him without the self-serving pomp and idiocy of the Weakman.

    So tell me, which would you consider yourself?

    Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

  34. #59
    Another fine piece;

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    What has so-called "civilization" brought to humanity on the whole? What is the net result? I submit that it has been nothing better than disease, misery, poverty, destruction, and death.

    It is so very easy to dismiss my claim with to many people pointing to the "miracles" of civilization in the form of technology and concepts that presumably did not exist prior to men becoming civilized. But when one conducts even a comparatively cursory but competently noiseless analysis of human civilization, it becomes rather rapidly clear that these claims of the purported miracles are eminently questionable. Once again, words matter: they form our thoughts and our thoughts form our reality. Depending upon the exact presumptions under which one chooses to labor, civilization may be deemed as a blessing, a curse, or any combination of the two.

    But what does it really mean to be "civilized"? That, too, may change depending on one's presuppositions. But let me not wax too pedantic and come to my own box of brass tacks. The very word itself, the verb "to civilize", to me means to domesticate; to bring to heel; to break the nature of.

    We are, at our cores, wild animals. To believe anything less than this is to lie to oneself. It is this wildness that is the very embodiment of our freedom, that thing for which so many here claim to pine and to which they tell the world their honors and fortunes are pledged. But how can this be when most people fail to understand the most basic aspects of their own nature? Any suggestion of the true nature of men gives rise to the deepest and most violent revulsion in the vast majority of men, and that is the reason the world is what it is: people want pretty slavery and nothing whatsoever to do with actual freedom.

    Even my Canon of Proper Human Relations is a lie because it compromises the true nature of men away for the sake of the illusions of peace and security, and that is the unvarnished truth. You want pure and wild freedom? I do. You, most likely, do not - but I shall speak for no other man. True freedom is largely terrifying. Imagine another man attempting to kill you for a stick of gum. While unlikely in a truly free world, it becomes a very real possibility. However, when we look at it more circumspectly, it is not appreciably more likely than under our current cultural circumstance. Imagine it: we have literally millions of "laws" on the books and yet people still murder each other for the most inanely flimsy reasons. Law is NOTHING. Human nature and the decisions of the individual man are EVERYTHING.

    The difference between being a savage and a civilian is almost precisely this: the savage assumes full responsibility for his every action, whereas the civilian renounces the greatest proportion of responsibility for that which he thinks, feels, and chooses, preferring to pass them off onto his fellows. But in doing this he abnegates his sovereignty, tossing his sacred freedoms to the wind because he wishes to live his like like an ill-bred child in preference to being an actual adult.

    In a savage society, every man is free to do precisely as he pleases. If he wishes to walk up to a stranger and attempt to put a sword through the man's belly, that is his choice, just as it is today, all false appearances of "law and order" notwithstanding. The only difference likes in what happens next. Similarly to one another, the intended target may not cotton to the notion of being run-through. The only question then remaining is, "who will prevail?", and generally speaking we may say that it is anyone's guess because combat is inherently non-linear.

    But if as assume Johnny is successful in running his blade to the hilt into Tommy's belly, what then? In purest terms, nothing. Johnny is alive, if a bit blood-soaked, and Tommy is skewered. In more real terms, however, if Tommy survives, Johnny faces the risks and dangers of retaliation: the classic vendetta, perhaps at Tommy's hands. If Tommy dies or lives, Johnny may face the same risk of vendetta, whether at Tommy's hands or those of Tommy's family, friends, or other agents on Tommy's behalf.

    There need be no contrived legislation to pose Johnny's hazard, as is the case today. In the savage world, just as in the civilized, the only threats to Johnny in the wake of his choice are other human beings. The difference between the two worlds is that the savage is honest, whereas the civilized is endlessly otherwise.

    I greatly prefer the savage world precisely because it forces people to be responsible for the things they think, say, feel, and do. The civilized world renders men as imbecilic infants, whose heads become filled with the most idiot of notions that aim to treat their fellows with gross and often criminal disrespect without having to face any consequences for their perfidies.

    The civilized man has been taught to believe in a great and endlessly harmful raft of lies about the savage world. For instance, he has been taught that savages are wildly undisciplined maniacs with nothing but rape and murder on their tiny, misshapen minds, every second of every day. The most cursory analytic consideration of this assertion quickly exposes its raw and suppurating absurdity. Generally speaking, people like it that they are alive and do the best they can to ensure they remain that way. In this, the savage is no different from the civilian. Given this, how long does anyone thing a savage society would last if being a savage meant endless milling and destruction? It would be over in matters of days, weeks at best. This has never been the case in general terms where savage societies have been concerned. They have survived the millennia just fine. Certainly they have many examples of one group wiping from the earth all traces of another, but this is no different from civilized people. Just consider the countless millions, savages and civilians alike, slaughtered by the Roman church, or the Pharaohs. How about the kings of Europe; the emperors of the various east-Asian empires including but not limited to China and Japan; the empires of South and Middle Americas? The lists are pretty long.

    Can anyone point to an example where a savage society has so much as attempted to do what Stalin and Mao did, much less actually accomplish it?

    So far as I can see, civilization has been the grandest show of smoke and mirrors in all human history. People have fallen for the false miracles of architecture and technology. The typical modern man whines about "muh roads", "muh internet", and so on down a nauseatingly long list of things that, were they never to have to into existence, would not be missed by these girly-men. I cannot begin to count the number of people who have used these sorts of things as the justification for demanding that every man submit to their visions of pretty slavery.

    The repulsive "leftie" demands not only to be allowed to suck another man's penis, but that everyone praise him for it. The similarly repugnant "righty" defines freedom more broadly, but still ends up with pretty slavery as his vision of paradise on earth. Can't suck another man's weenie, but can carry a gun. And damn it if most of want "muh gummint" to provide them with the force needed to compel the compliance of others, no matter who gets hurt or how $#@!ty someone else's quality of life may turn out for them due directly because of said applications of force.

    And just look at the pure absurdity of it all. For example, Obama signed this EO and that; and that; and that. Now the Trump says he's a gwyne undo it all with the stroke of a pen. There's your "civilization".

    Then some attempt to make the justifications of our slavery because it has provided all the miracles of modern medicine. Once again, the absurdity of this is of such a nature and degree as to leave the thinking man numb in his thoughts. For one thing, the attitude is reflective of the desire to as thoroughly squelch all risk as possible. It's the same old rotten saw about wanting something for nothing; in this case, wanting all the perceived benefits of "freedom" without having to pony up for any of the costs. This is the mindset of thieves and dull and ill-bred children, not proper adults.

    It would be instructive to note that were all these miracles of modern medicine not available, several things would happen. For one thing, people would SLOW DOWN. Their physical movements would become more careful and deliberate in a world where a broken leg or even a cut could mean death. They would slow down their mouths greatly, the necessities of a truer reality driving them to put their brains in gear long prior to engaging their yaps. Why? Because to speak ill-advisedly could result in one becoming severely injured or even being killed. Death is a wonderful advisor, by and large.

    A savage land would be different in so many ways precisely because the prospect of death or dismemberment at the hands of other humans in response to one's poorly considered behavior would teach one deep and abiding respect for his fellows. He would learn and practice REAL respect, vis--vis this thin and hollow gasbag shell so many today mistakenly conflate with actual respect. By "respect", I do not mean the modern and comparatively superficial notion of esteem and the sense of worth, but rather the more ancient meaning, which goes something as follows:

    There are so many intertwining layers of aspects of this that I am certain a very large, laborious, and verbose tome or three could be written on the matter of what it means to respect another human being in the sense that is relevant to this discussion. It has nothing to do with bunnies, light, love, and sucking each other's weenies. It has everything to do with recognizing the just and valid claims of other men such that one refrains from trespassing upon them with intent and making whole that which has been insulted when done so by accident.

    There really is no space to say all I could say on the matter in a single post, lest I receive the dreaded "TLDR".

    Suffice to say that this is a topic that is broad, endlessly deep, and goes on well beyond the horizon. For my money, civilization is more bad than good. Yes, without it there would be little to no modern medicine, but how many have considered the possibility that without the rest of the steaming pile that has been heaped upon us over the centuries, maybe most of the diseases we so deeply dread such as cancer, HIV, etc. may never have come to any notable rise in the first place? How much of that which we suffer can we give thanks for to our forebears who polluted the living hell out of the land, air, and seas? Are we so cock-sure that the ever climbing cancer rates are not attributable to such causes and would never have come to what they are today, had we forgone civilization, in favor of the savage life?

    And I reiterate the fact that despite all these miracles and laws, people appear today to be more miserable in their spirits than ever their savage forebears seem to have been. Civilization has done nothing as much as it has fought the natural order of the planet. Our technologies and medicine have resulted in a world choking on nearly 8 billion people. The idiotic religions of the civilized world have given rise to thought do poisonous, yet do deeply and I daresay terminally ingrained that we fail to see the folly to which we have committed ourselves, preferring to stand before that full-length mirror as we watch ourselves masturbate. That, to me, is the insanity of civilization; it is the codification, formalization, and deification of raving, howling madness.

    And for those Christians (just to pick on one of many prime candidate classes) who might chafe at the notion that their religion is somehow less-than, I would point out that had men remained as savages, there would have been no need for God to send a messiah in the first place. Think on that awhile... if you dare do so honestly and with open mind.

    I have absolutely no mental/emotional need for civilization. I have a physical one because it is nearly impossible to survive as a savage in a civilized world. But would that I could trade all this for the simpler and healthier life - and make no error in deeming be some ignorant dilettante who pines for something of which he knows nothing. I know well enough the totality of what would be required in order to have my preference and be happy with it. I would gladly relinquish all knowledge as it stands in favor of that which the lifestyle in question would require. That is how much I prefer freedom to even the most lavish of gilt cages. I am a wild animal living in the civilized world and have been miserable for it, much like the most pathetic sight of my life when driving through the zoo in Bridgeton NJ and seeing that black panther in a small cage, pacing back and forth all day long, its life reduced to mere existence. It broke my heart to small shards to bear witness to that unholy sight and it took me years to squelch the urge to go there at night and free them all, which would not have helped them.

    In a word, civilization sucks.

    The minority of one has written.

  35. #60
    Another quote worthy piece;

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    SD in every case, regardless of context. I don't care if you've been kidnapping, cooking, eating, raping, and murdering children, in precisely that order: I would convict no man for killing cops engaging in such actions. It is never right. It is the worst criminality on the planet, bar none.

    This brand of behavior is the lowest form of criminal puerility that I can imagine. Nothing is lower, more rank, or felonious. It is the mark of men with hard-ons for power over others; adrenalin addicts who have no respect for their fellows, no matter who gets hurt. It is a shame that more are not killed in such raids. Were it so, they might think thrice before agreeing to commit such felonies which, as far as I am concerned, elevate the actions of the child molester in the way Obama's presidency did to that of Jimmy Carter.

    The thinking that resulted in the adoption of these raids as common policy across the nation sprung from the drug war. Police, being the masturbating wannabes they tend, could not stand the fact that proper execution of warrants upon those in possession of scheduled substances routinely resulted in the residents flushing them down the toilet prior to opening their doors for inspection. THAT was the excuse they chose - "We have to do it, or the bad guys will get away..." Not a whit of them stopped to consider the glaring absurdity of the overall situation; the idiocy of the drug war itself and what it called upon them to become, which was nothing less than the most rank and foul criminals on the planet. They are literally more destructive, dangerous, and criminal than child-rapists, and those are the bottom of the barrel.

    I remember years ago, on one of those horrid TV shows that polish the police knob in glorification of their fathomless criminality, a cop in a van on the way to executing a no-knock bragged to the entire nation how he got off on the rush of it; how he loved it. Incomprehensible criminal mentality, that.

    The thinking that made for it: can't let the bad guys get away no matter what damage we cause; we are above you; we get off on it.

    What, I say WHAT greater evidence does one require to demand these men be rounded up by their tens of thousands across the land, and relegated to the bowels of our dankest dungeons for the rest of their lives? The fact that it is tolerated by Americans damns us. The fact that we accept, praise, and even demand such treatment reduces us to the status well below that of pond scum. We deserve every outrage perpetrated against us, precisely because we show not the self respect of a boiled turnip.

    Equality for equals. If you will not defend your rights, then you have them not. Equality for equals stems as much from attitude as anything else, if not more.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. This post deserves to be posted in a prominent sub-forum (osan)
    By A Son of Liberty in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 01-27-2015, 12:48 AM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-23-2008, 05:58 AM
  3. Their own words...
    By acmegeek in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-15-2008, 10:51 AM
  4. Any words from HQ yet?
    By 911cartoon in forum New Hampshire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-08-2008, 11:41 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts