I heard there was an election

One of the sides won again.  My first thought was:  "More overt military adventures to ensue."

The PNAC stated agenda will accelerate - with the usual exigency-driven, fear-and-terror befuddled populace prodded, not dragged along.

Trigger words will dominate and dope-down the already-dumb discussions on the ditto-screen.

Another assassination plot arises - to slay Lady Liberty - this time put her to rest forever.

Religious people will unite to first rally round the flag of their own religious belief system then around a bonfire made from the bodies of their religious opponents.

The tortured victims of happenstance that rot in Gitmo will remain there since the justice system supported by the recent election winners will work day and night to prevent justice from ever occurring.  Those God-fearing people to your left and right in church smiling as they shake your hand are the very violent religious extremists we all fear from our own perspective.  Who doesn't fear any violent religious extremist?  Or at least what they are capable of doing.  In the name of God no less...

I wish I had happier thoughts to share - after all I cherish my readers.  Without them this exercise is pointless it seems to me - since people in the future won't need to see this blog because the current trend looks like they may not be educated enough to read this sentence - who knows?

If I didn't give you this cynical viewpoint I wouldn't be much of a friend to you.  I would not be performing my duty which I see as pointing these thoughts out.

I base the above on the agendas, groups and forces that I see at work out there in the propaganda I get a dose of in my little universe.

I've met some folks recently that know nothing of the 911 questions  - I wonder how they are able to plan so well when they base their decisions on false information.  Put justice aside for a moment -  for some people - an insular life is blissful if one wishes to ignore such matters - but shouldn't there be some financial penalty?  Oh that's right - war costs a lot of money and we are paying the tab.  One would think they would care about that right?

They don't - because they think these wars don't matter to them.  They are not really feeling any ill-effects they can link to the war.  But if they were linked to the war - these financial problems - and the true financial cost of the war were explained to the ostrich - maybe they would care.  They certainly have no concept of any suffering, killing, death or destruction. And with 911 that's a "conspiracy theory" and people like me - would bring up that I think we got scammed - need to "get on with their lives."  Well of course I have to get along with my life - the question is "upon what information shall I base future decisions?  Decisions with regards to where to live, financial stuff etc...  And what do I say when somebody brings it up in front of young people who don't know any better?  If silence is agreement and I just sit there and listen to repetitions of falsehoods - what to do?  So far I've chosen the life of a hermit.

Some of them do understand that wars are bad things but they think they are necessary because the Arabs are simply bad evil people who would do our culture in.  Some think there is a clash of religions for sure - yes - they will tell  you that - but these folks think that the USA needs to fight a Christian war because we are really a Christian nation.  But others will tell  you that we were not a Christian nation and that Thomas Paine only had 14 people or something like that at his funeral because he wouldn't agree to join up with a certain religion.  War is necessary to stop these people from preying on the weak in their countries because here in the USA we never prey on the week.  Sure.

America seems to have a police-violence epidemic - or more likely - the police violence and disregard for the rights of citizens is the result of their having been conditioned.  What's with cops killing all these dogs?  Look it up - there something seriously wrong with all the incidents of cops shooting people's pets.  Then the answers come back from the police-good-no-matter-what-they-do category that it's "just a dog."  Or somebody is shot by the police - why is there no mention of the loss of the life of the victim of the cop's bullet?  We all pulled that trigger when a cop kills a fellow citizen - we've all failed - a solution exists - yet instead we will invest in more stuff to blow up in other people's country.  It's really something this culture of ours.


  1. yeah, i drew my line at the cop who stomped the parakeet to death...because he felt threatened. i call bullshit on ALL of it but no one is listening. most people are in for a big hurt. damn shame, i tell ya'...damn shame.


    1. satanic Eruption In CYCLIC Spenglerian "Western Decline" Must Be Grasped

      Yes, ms, I agree and sympathize ("damn shame"). But note what's happened--US was genuine success--till the war btwn states, 150 yrs ago, when it was destroyed for political, cultural base. But the economic base was still going strong--so that economics continued for its amazing productivity even till this day, though fading quick now, the currency collapsing even as we speak. Not just disaster, but absolute catastrophe beckons.

      U gotta remember then a successful generation of pioneers--like the original American founders will thereupon breed-up following generations which tend to becoming quite degenerate, corrupt, and perverse--this is where we are now, I'm afraid, and the ancient Roman cultural example is yet another, even classic case-in-pt. for the CYCLIC nature of history whence corruption follows the beginning generation.

      Thus we suffer now fm a veritable SATANISTIC regime--these aren't just criminals or mere corrupt politicians, but highly organized CULT, not merely "gang."

      I've tried to explain this out-right satanist regime and philosophy to "Jack Rabbit" here, how it follows in the CYCLIC hist. course of things, but he just scoffs, pretending, in the typical manner he knows-it-all--precisely what the satanists want and need in order to thrive.

      As I note, the following generations fm original pioneers are horrific weaklings and inferiors in spirit, not having to fight and work like the originals did--and these are much the problem, running "interference" for the top satanists who rule and run things.

      Thus satanists will continue to succeed long as their funny-money "central-banking" continues, capable of paying-off their LEGIONS of inferiors and weaklings who keep them in power.

      "Jack Rabbit's," and many, many others, greatest problem is he cannot even begin to conceive to imagining these satanists or their necessary conditions for ruling--he rather continues with the very "good-evil" child's conception of things, mouthing platitudes and cliché's about the "individual rights" of the satanic psychopaths, not realizing these psychopaths have FORFEITED their "rights." Ck my expo at http://donaldfox.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/guest-post-satanism-built-on-moralism/

    2. Apsterian,

      Forgive me for mentioning this - I prefer not to act like a know-it-all but...
      u/inalienable rights cannot be taken away or even given away -

      that even psychopaths cannot forfeit their rights. That's made clear in the Declaration of Independ so if I gave that impression I think it is fair.

      But for the sake of argument - are you talking about Bill Gates-types going around vaccinating everybody with his foundation?



    3. Rights: Product/Condition Of Reason

      Psychopaths who act against others' rights, forfeit their own--all in self-defense--and Dec. of Ind. DOES NOT defend psychopaths, on the contrary, and this ought to be clear in all reason, to which reason Jack only pretends.

      And yes indeed, Gates is PERFECT example--he's a murderer who has long, long since forfeited his rights, all rights, any rights--he may as well wear a bulls-eye--same w. Warren Buffet, G. Soros, and Michael Bloomberg. I'm sure no one can get to being billionaire without joining that satanic club.

      Remember the nature of rights--something that's recognized as legal/social condition in accord w. soc. contract and reason. Without reason (e.g. psychopath), no rights are possible or even conceivable.

    4. Apsterian,

      But if those rights are God-given are we not becoming arrogant abrogators of God's law that he bestowed us with rights?


    5. msamerica,

      I'll have to look that one up. Kooky


    6. Rights Exist ONLY In Reason--And That's Often Tricky

      God/nature created us as creatures potentially of reason; rights then are implicit, but humans only observe rights as they're rational. So irrational people forfeit their rights--no differently fm an animal, a dog or cat, having no rights. Irrational people are hardly even people.

      Second, note again these natural rights are mediated by same rational faculty, sanctioned then by social contract--people outside this social contract aren't necessarily covered if they're considered enemies, for example, it then being necessary to eliminate/neutralize them--as in declaration of war--regardless of any other abstract considerations.

      Jack Rabbit wants to pretend that monsters and anti-human criminals like Jews are somehow, by some mystic means, "owed" respect for "rights" by the people these Jews seek to victimize, Jews having forfeited their "rights" as they conspire in Jew irrationalist fashion.

      Jack Rabbit seems to have a 10 yr old's grasp of reason and hence rights, for rights can only be respected in reason, hence in accord w. social-contract, this contract limited to "citizens," by definition.

      Those who are not citizens are latent (potential) enemies, and citizens must treat non-citizens according to one's best judgment for one's interests at any given moment.

      I agree rights exist in reason, but Jack Rabbit has strange ideas as to how this reason plays-out in reality. Jews for example have no rights as they're enemies in accord w. their devilish Talmud--Jack Rabbit cannot and refuses to grasp this about Jews--but that's not my problem.

    7. I guess I am not the only one having all the enjoyment here! keep up the good work

      hazel games
      kissing games

  2. Apsterian cannot override God


    1. God Hates Jews--Provides Reason To Protect Humanity Against Jews

      Ho ho ho--apster is affirming God--it's Jack Rabbit who wants to pretend to Godliness himself, insisting upon what's "good" or "moral," or "Constitutional," etc., as if he's God determining reality.

      Humans act in their interest, this in accord w. reason. So the Constitution is the social-compact/contract by which the people protect themselves, invoking "natural rights," these pertaining ONLY to those within the contract--and against enemies, who are outside the contract.

      So the social contract/Constitution is something in way of weapon/tool by which to insure the survival of the people.

      And there are lots of things inimical to human survival--starvation, plague, enemy humans, wild animals, etc.

      So the social contract is seen as instrument enhancing survival, as I say, enabling the economic production and technical means to providing food and medicine, etc., army and navy to protect against outside enemies--and criminals like Jews, Jews criminals by their very own admission (in effect), as in Talmud.

      Jack Rabbit has this obsessive compulsion to playing "protector" "big-bro." for Jews--almost as if he thinks God will give him brownie pt.s, the Jews laughing up their sleeves.

      Jack Rabbit: observe the very purpose of reason, soc. contract, and Constitution is TO PROTECT AGAINST Jews, and by protecting Jews u're enemy of God, reason, soc. contract, and Constitution. I told u and told u to ck the Talmud--this is essential to Jews, by definition. It's not my fault if u REFUSE to heed reality (God).

  3. Apsterian,

    Okay- I'll check into the Talmud.

    But even if it agrees with you,
    it only takes one exception to void your argument against all Jews,
    and since we cannot check each and every Jew for what you accuse them of...
    it is impossible to verify your assertion with regards to ALL JEWS.



    1. Then WHY do they call themselves "Jews"?--unless they sympathize and are loyal. It would be like if someone called themselves psychopaths, but then said, oh, but I'm not a psychopath myself.

      It would be like if I called myself Christian, but then said I didn't practice it.

      No decent person would want to be known as Jew.

    2. Humanity, Survival, Jews, And Rights

      But anyway, Jack Rabbit--u'd be making mistake if u mis-construed the problem--human survival which is pt. to reason and rights which u insist are "God-given."

      WE DON'T REALLY CARE WHETHER U EXAMINE THE TALMUD--what do u think will happen?--that ur examination is going to change anything?--that somehow u're going to find another excuse to impose Jews upon the rest of us?

      For "rights," God-given or not, are mere means--to end of survival.

      U want to pretend that "rights" are END IN ITSELF--that's where u're horribly wrong.

      Question is really whether and how humans can survive, hence reason successfully--rights are just means to these ends.

      Thus humans reason and recognize "rights" ONLY as means to end of survival. "Rights" to Jews is contradiction to this survival, and Jews are not going to enjoy "rights"--"rights" being only for citizens who are NOT Jews, by definition, of necessity.

      U've got a huge problem figuring out what "rights" are and how they fit in scheme of things.

      Just remember: we're NOT ur slaves, and we're NOT going to accept ur delusions about Jews having rights, etc.

    3. Good - I don't have to read the Talmud. Sounds boring anyway. Thank you for that I was already dreading reading it.

      And to read the Talmud I'd have to go steal 'cause I won't pay for it and don't know anyone who has a copy or has ever even mentioned it.

      Shuck the Talmud and the rest of this gibberish already. The pope himself just recently and finally admitted that killing in the name of God is blasphemy. Even the Vatican couldn't keep that lie up anymore. The point is that we have to do what is right to solve the problems that ail us. When we say "us" we must define the term - to me "us" means those who may admit that the Constitution may be flawed but are not willing to give up the bill of rights part of it. We use the bill of rights as the commonality that defines "us." Anyone who tries to take those rights away is an enemy of "ours" and it doesn't matter if they are Jews or not - they both get the same punishment. So defining Jews is unimportant to the preservation of our rights - God given or not.



    4. Rights: Products Of, Subordinate To Human Reason, Social Contract

      U can ck the Talmud on-line at Come-and-hear.com.

      Life is grim business of war of all against all, according to Thomas Hobbes, so the main purpose is, must be, to survive.

      Thus those who make up the commonwealth (or society) devise a social contract, product of reason, reason the main tool of human survival.

      So the white Christians of 13 states, fully independent at the time, devised the Constitution, best thing they could come up w. for social contract.

      Since they were all Christians they knew they understood same basic things--Jews were (and are) utterly foreign monsters--just ck their Talmud--but which makes them master criminals and liars.

      The Constitution is MEANS not Ends--ends being survival and more, a truly human life in accord w. reason and law.

      U make the Constitution, Bill of Rights to being God, end-all and be-all--it's not at all, as I note, it being mere means oriented to survival, as noted.

      And no one says anyone should "kill in name of God"; question is how to survive which means reason, thus soc.-contract (Constitution being the practical expression of such contract). So u see Const. is just a make-shift for the soc.-contract existing in the un-spoken natural law, in accord w. reason.

      So then, what actually are "rights"?--they're conventions in agreement (in reason) for what's necessary for human living, consisting of "right-reason," according to Roman, Cicero, "do no harm," being another precept known fm Aquinas.

      So the Constitutional soc. contract was a practical instrument dependent upon conditions, Bill of Rights being things that people wanted AGAINST THE GOV., as the English folk had generated fm experience.

      Primary precept was sovereignty of individuals, power coming fm the individuals to local gov., then county, then state--and then they decided upon the "Federal" union--a confederation, NOT a "nation," as states were always considered the national units, though this steadily eroded to the crisis of 1830 and S. Carolina "nullification" controversy whence A. Jackson threatened to attack the state.

      So since the individual is sovereign, the only higher power is God--thus "God-given" rights, products of reason, nature, in agreement w. other citizens having equal rights.

      Rights, gov., soc-contract are primary means of DEFENSE against the rest of the world seen as the threat--and also against internal criminals who violate reason and law.

      Jews were NEVER, could NEVER have been imagined as part of "the people"--citizens--Jews always seen as monsters, gloating over killing Christ, at war w. gentiles, etc.

      So rights are no more "God-given" than reason, rights being SUBJECT to human reason--subject to rational agreement among men. Right to life is conditioned upon not being threat. As soon as one is credible threat, one loses the right--that's how state has "right" to kill/execute criminals duly found guilty in court of law, in accord w. justice whence he LOSES his right and life, etc.

      So Jews, being anti-human monsters, could NEVER have been citizens (in reason) and can never have rights, they being enemies of God, humanity, reason, etc.

      Thus are "rights" understood in light of reason, rights only arising in accord w. reason, rights subject to reason, products of human reason.

    5. Apsterian,

      There's another problem here I think:
      "Rights: Products Of, Subordinate To Human Reason, Social Contract"

      If that were true it would justify the killing of human beings who have no ability to reason - for example, retarded people.

      That is un-Christian I would say according to my upbringing. I already told you I've done Roman and GReek catholic as a kid - ten commandments type stuff.

      So are we to start killing retarded people because they have no rights because they lack the ability to reason because God made them the way they are?


    6. "Rights" And Nature Thereof Needs Proper Understanding For Grasp

      U utterly, totally mis-understand the thesis regarding reason--WHY is this?--because u're pre-occupied w. defending Jew psychopaths (a redundancy)?--ur preconceived agenda?

      And how/why would anything be "un-Christian"?--do u mis-understand Christianity also? (yes)--imputing ur own and Jew's understanding?--i.e., that it's just version/variation of Judaism?

      Christianity is anti-satanism/anti-semitism, worship of TRUTH above all (Gosp. JOHN 14:6), against Jew lies (JOHN 8:44).

      For note retards can reason, though it's very primitive level. And one would only kill anyone, not to mention retard, for self-defense--having nothing to do, otherwise, w. whether the retard possessed "reason."

      Thus ur so-called "right" DEPENDS UPON MY CONSENT TO IT. Reason simply indicates that to violate others rights violates one's own. To kill an attacker UPHOLDS right in reason--upholds reason itself, actually.

      Like a mystic, u just want to invoke that magical word (to u), "rights," imagining it makes u smart or virtuous . . . or something. U're obviously trying to use "rights" as something by which to bash society in behalf of Jews.

      U need to do some serious thinking, JR--just WHAT is it u mean when u use the word, "rights"?--it could ONLY be product of, hence totally dependent upon, social contract (agreement) and human reason--otherwise it's absurd. "Right" is meaningless and without substance without (a) soc. contract, and (b) human reason.

    7. Apsterian,

      I'm not trying to accomplish any particular goal here. Blogging is just a bad habit I haven't been able to quit. In the big picture maybe an idea will be struck that does some good in the world. Maybe not. There's no way to know.

      Regardless of action, the simple act of documenting things, like opinions at the time, and having these discussions will, at least, leave a track that there were some people who watched the madness and knew that madness was what they were looking at while they were looking at it.


  4. Apsterian,

    If rights are no more God given than reason then they are indeed inalienable - which means they cannot be given or taken away.

    Just as you cannot take away my ability to reason you cannot take away my rights.

    Also: When you say that being a "credible threat" is reason enough for action it seems there may be a problem. If the same logic is used on neighbors - you may find your neighbor to be a credible threat when they buy a .45 and all you have is a slingshot. Does that mean you should just go ahead and attack them? Of course not.

    Again - none of this matters. Justice wears a blindfold - ANYONE intent on taking away my rights gets the same punishment - it doesn't matter to me who they are or who their father and mother are.

    Now I do understand the concept that interest groups conspire to undermine our liberties. They are always easy to identify - individually or collectively - they are the people taking away your rights.

    People like Cass Sunstein - read his paper. I don't care who the professor is affiliated with he is still an enemy of the people because he wants to make expression of ideas a reason for harassment.



    1. What Are U Really Trying To Accomplish?

      U may pretend all u like, arguing like a corrupt lawyer, as u do, u have these "inalienable rights." But the trick is to securing them. And the reality is humans are sinners engaged in warfare.

      So go ahead and pretend u're clever for all ur corrupt-lawyer arguments--question remains whether that will successfully secure those so-called "rights."

      After all, securing rights isn't really ur goal, is it?--rather, u just want to pretend u're clever, babbling w. ur corrupt arguments. And u imagine u get brownie pt.s defending Jews and satanists. Keep imagining, sucka.

    2. Apsterian,

      You are right - action is required. Ideas are only a beginning as always.

      Art will set the examples and lead the way to a better future - as life does indeed imitate art.

      I admit I need to do more - so does everyone else - but I haven't seen much progress from the violence-prone. They''ve got us all nowhere - so why continue on that course? Complete waste of time bombing and shooting.

      The culture must be constantly attended to...



Only by exercising YOUR freedom of speech shall you keep it. Comment now - I can handle it....

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.