Matthew Yglesias: Human Jackal

Jonathan Wilde drops a dime on this savage-with-a-keyboard:

I’d be happy, however, to pay a bit more in taxes as part of a campaign to raise several million additional dollars to spend on the program, provided we could fine a well-designed program (I’ve read recently in The Atlantic that the Bush administration’s point man on the issue is doing good, and unfortunately neglected, work in this area) to spend the money on. I’m willing, in other words, to sacrifice my share in order to really change things, but I’m not going to sacrifice to make a purely symbolic gesture.

I suppose to the libertarian mind all this business of “I’ll do x if and only if I can force everyone to do x” sounds rather dodgy and immoral, but fortunately enough we live in the real world, where people understand the vital role coercion has to play in building a better tomorrow.

That’s this Matthew Yglesias creep, just up on my radar now. Look at how he offhandedly endorses the idea that other human lives are bricks for him to build “a better tomorrow” with. Unbefrickinlieveable.

But fortunately, a quick refutation for the arguments of the sorts of folks who understand “the vital role coercion has to play in building a better tomorrow” is at hand:


image

Above: a solid argument against inititating force.

64 thoughts on “Matthew Yglesias: Human Jackal”

  1. Mike,

    There’s no reason that Islamic fanatics should be the *only* ones employing effective combat techniques.

    Effective at what?

    I think you’ve made it clear that you think we should start shooting statist weasels, but who have you shot?

    In any case I don’t think much of the idea.

  2. Make absoluterly NO mistake here: Matthew Yglesias has *declared war* on YOU. Everything that you own, he has declared to be *his*, at his appointed mob’s convenience, and you’re going to take it and enjoy it like a cell-bitch.

    John?

    Hire some guys to CUT OFF HIS HEAD on videotape as a throroughly-deserved reap-what-you-sow incident, and see that copies are mailed to every worthless socialist media outlet on the planet.

    There’s no reason that Islamic fanatics should be the *only* ones employing effective combat techniques.

  3. Personally I find the Springfield M1A to be a much better argument. I don’t like ’em close enough for the 1911 to be effective. ;-)

  4. <dry sarcasm mode>

    Does *anyone* here actually propose to shoot *any* bad guy at *any* point before the showerheads are spewing out the Xyklon-B?

    Enquiring minds want to know.

  5. [Last question first] “When do you figure that will be?”

    Answer: John, I don’t think they’re going to. Since they’ll not commit to civil-disobedience, then no feed-back mechanism exists to thwart the state from becoming more and more oppressive (as its nature dictates). Therefore, it’s reasonable to predict they’ll, in ones and twos, be incrementally stripped of their “arsenals”, until they’re all disarmed. You probably won’t see Xyklon-B after that, but that’s only because the modern state is hip to ranching humans to harvest their productivity ad-infinitum rather than butchering them.

    …Until, of course, *somebody else* manages to deliver such a crippling blow to the state that it virtually disintegrates without help from domestic opposition — in which case they’ll happily pull their guns out and go clean up the neighborhood. (That “somebody else” is unlikely to be a liberty-lover, which is why any liberty which results will be “the fruit of irony”.)

    > Effective at what?

    Naturally, getting what they want. Osama bin Ladin is getting exactly what he wants: A world-wide Islamic hegemony capable of bullying almost everyone with impunity.

    I’ve made the following prediction before: You’ll see liberty in the US, again, *after* Islamic fanatics destroy Washington with a nuclear-strike which destroys any last vestige of credibility (and, subsequently, onus to continue funding via “voluntary” taxation) in the notion that an iconic nation-state can successfully defeat a physically non-discernable opponent. (The US fighting Al Qaeda is like a medieval knight swinging a sword at a plague covering him with boils.)

    This is *evolution in action*, John, and as a very hot Tina Turner in Thunderdome warned, it’ll take the first man that screams.

    Look out.

    > Who have you shot?

    Obviously I cannot answer that in any affirmative way for regrettably pragmatic reasons, so why ask? Otherwise, it bugs me when “conservatives” flash their guns like gang-banger punks when I know damn well they’re *less* committed to hunting down and exterminating thieves committed to stealing their property — in perpetuity — than those crazy white-powder selling *capitalists*.

  6. Nice photo. This right here

    <img src=”http://www.presenceofmind.net/1911.jpg”>

    looks kinda like the assertion of a property right. Supposing someone stole a picture of a 1911 handgun, would the owner of that image have the right to use a 1911 on the thief?

    (Kennedy thinks so, or did, but, to his credit, he seems by now to be horrified by his own reflection.)

    –GSS

  7. Obviously I cannot answer that in any affirmative way for regrettably pragmatic reasons, so why ask?

    Because I assume you could honestly admit that you have not shot anyone.

    Otherwise, it bugs me when “conservatives” flash their guns like gang-banger punks…

    While I obviously favor trashing Yglesias rhetorically I don’t think Lopez’s “quick refutation” is very sound. How is that gun even slowing people like Yglesias down?

    You see, “people like Yglesias” includes roughly everyone, his special offense here is his candor. Almost everyone agrees in principle with what he wrote. Whatever he may deserve, cutting off his head would be the first step in a shortcut to precipitating totalitarianism.

    Islamic terrorists might have some hope of getting the US military to pull out of the Iraq, but there’s no way to get statists to pull out of America. We’re the zero percenters, which makes them the hundred percenters.

    Your proposal to behead a blogger who says out loud what 99+% Americans believe in their hearts borders on the insane.

  8. Greg,

    The idea of shooting thieves doesn’t horrify me, I just think it’s crazy to precipitate a shooting match with essentially the whole human race. My objection isn’t that this weasel deserves to keep his head; I just intend to keep mine.

  9. Swann: >Nice photo. This right here <img src= “http://www.presenceofmind.net/1911.jpg”> looks kinda like the assertion of a property right. Supposing someone stole a picture of a 1911 handgun, would the owner of that image have the right to use a 1911 on the thief?

    I dunno about that, but I have every confidence that he’d be quickly added to the spamming lists of “Odysseus” <Odysseus@BloodhoundRealty.com>.

  10. kennedy wrote:
    >schneider wrote:
    >>Obviously I cannot answer that in any affirmative way for
    >>regrettably pragmatic reasons, so why ask?
    >
    >Because I assume you could honestly admit that you have not shot anyone.

    Assuming, contrarily, that that *wasn’t* the case (i.e., that I *had* indeed went out and shot some worthy and deserving bastard), how would you expect me to “honestly” confess to murder in broad-daylight in a forum of public-record? Uh, do you, like, think they’d use it at the trial? :-P

    >>Otherwise, it bugs me when “conservatives” flash their guns
    >>like gang-banger punks…
    >
    >While I obviously favor trashing Yglesias rhetorically I don’t
    >think Lopez’s “quick refutation” is very sound. How is that
    >gun even slowing people like Yglesias down?

    It *isn’t*, because it is the weasel’s experience that blustering chicken-livers, for all their posted pictures of guns, will always back down and pay their taxes like good little serfs. — And why shouldn’t he have (and indeed calcify) than opinion when that’s exactly what he sees everywhere around him? (At least, that is, up until the moment of him suddenly being put out of his misery.)

    >You see, “people like Yglesias” includes roughly everyone, his
    >special offense here is his candor. Almost everyone agrees in
    >principle with what he wrote.

    Because they see no *negative consequences* arising from holding it.

    >Whatever he may deserve, cutting off his head [is] the first
    >step in a shortcut to precipitating totalitarianism.

    1. If you’d stipulate to a “he may deserve” [it], you’ve rendered moral approval to the form of justice described, and subsequent concerns with “impending totalitarianism” are *pragmatic* ones.

    2. Such a shortcut would not precipitate totalitarianism any faster than it’s already occurring at breakneck speed utilizing any of dozens of other excuses, and *enabled* every step of the way by ZERO opposition.

    >Islamic terrorists might have some hope of getting the US
    >military to pull out of the Iraq,

    The rank-and-file fanatic nitwit wants the US out of Iraq, because that’s what he’s been told to think. But tactically, the US is exactly right where Osama wants it: Bogged down in a tar-pit blowing trillions of dollars uselessly on live-television, every second of it being engraved 3×4 aspect-ratio propaganda grist for the mullah’s mill.

    >but there’s no way to get statists to pull out of America.
    >Your proposal to behead a blogger who says out loud

    John? “But I don’t think of him” so little, for all I was aware, he could have been a congressman or a judge or the lead editor of the Washington Post, rather than the smallest prole imaginable. I can certainly cop to an argument that a nobody-of-significance isn’t the best candidate upon which to announce the commencement of active-measures of resistance.

    >what 99+% Americans believe in their hearts borders on the insane.

    Well, then, is there’s no escape from the reality of taking it up the sphincter 24/7 until eventually you curl up and die in a hospital bed with tubes up your nose while an HMO hovers the remnants of your pitiful life-savings?

    Help me out here.

  11. Kennedy:Islamic terrorists might have some hope of getting the US military to pull out of the Iraq, but there’s no way to get statists to pull out of America. We’re the zero percenters and which makes them the hundred percenters.

    Your proposal to behead a blogger who says out loud what 99+% Americans believe in their hearts borders on the insane.

    Okay, let’s follow this train of thought. If 99+% of Americans believe was Yglesias does, then how’re they going to react when Kennedy Freedom Corp. shows up with a product that will allow the <1% of them who desire to do so the ability to exit the looting cycle?

    A: Yglesias’d be in a rage, faced with the fact that someone wasn’t paying “his fair share”.

    Do you think that the resulting national fury would precipitate totalitarianism?

  12. Swann: But few of us seem to understand that a more important freedom that freedom from taxation or freedom from burdensome paperwork is the freedom to turn your back on your neighbor, having every confidence that he won’t shoot you or behead you…

    1. You’re afraid of people with guns who persue a stated philosophy of minding their own business? Oh, that’s just precious. Pray tell, *why*?

    2. People who stubbornly refuse to shoot or behead their “neighbors” when said “neighbors” persist in initiating force against them — will, *inevitably*, be evolutionarily de-selected by said “neighbors”. That de-selection process is evident all throughout the Middle East, where pacifist Christian “turn the other cheek” philosophy has been supplanted by Islamic “kill the infidel” philosophy.

    Your “confidence” is misplaced, and at very best a fantasy-embracement of “out of sight, out of mind”, which leads to association with grinning jackals with palmed knives (in preference to gruff, holster-wearing hombres who conceal nothing and are men of their word), and is nterrupted by reality shortly before sudden death.

    The lumpen-pacifist “soccer-mom America” that you represent has yet to have a real taste of virulent Wahabbism in which any random passerby is capable of exploding amok at your bus-stop. We shall see if you have any built-in immunity when, like biological influenza before it a century ago, this *meme* disease sweeps the planet.

  13. Ghertner:At least Yglesias is honest about his willingness to coerce. I would much rather deal with the straight-shooting Yglesiases of the world who are under no illusions about what they support, rather than mindless zombies who swallowed whole everything their third-grade teachers told them in civics class.

    And how do you deal with the straight-shooters, Micha? What makes them preferable to the mindless zombies?

  14. > The idea of shooting thieves doesn’t horrify me

    Obviously it does, to your credit. You live surrounded by thieves–freelance, organized and governmental. Not quite the throngs the libertarians and conservatives whimper about, but enough. And yet there you are, day after day, not murdering anyone. I think it demonstrates an admirable restraint, a quality that marks you as a potentially safe neighbor. No one would dare turn their back on the ferocious animals most libertarians pretend to be, the ferox you sometimes pretend to be. We all know it’s all pretense, idiot fantasy. But few of us seem to understand that a more important freedom that freedom from taxation or freedom from burdensome paperwork is the freedom to turn your back on your neighbor, having every confidence that he won’t shoot you or behead your or steal your stuff. I trust you not to behave rashly in anger, John. This is something I can say about most people I know, but about damn few libertarians…

  15. At least Yglesias is honest about his willingness to coerce. I would much rather deal with the straight-shooting Yglesiases of the world who are under no illusions about what they support, rather than mindless zombies who swallowed whole everything their third-grade teachers told them in civics class.

    And to build on what JTK already said, Lopez’s little pea shooter is no where near “a solid argument against inititating force”; Yglesias’s team has bigger and better guns.

  16. The lumpen-pacifist “soccer-mom America” that you represent has yet to have a real taste of virulent Wahabbism in which any random passerby is capable of exploding amok at your bus-stop. We shall see if you have any built-in immunity when, like biological influenza before it a century ago, this *meme* disease sweeps the planet.

    Do you think random humano-bombs will induce soccer-mom America to tolerate you better, or to recognize you as easy prey and shred you to ribbons?

    You want I should install an alarm on your clock, set to go off in 2009? Lay low, man.

  17. John,

    Okay, let’s follow this train of thought. If 99+% of Americans believe was Yglesias does, then how’re they going to react when Kennedy Freedom Corp. shows up with a product that will allow the <1% of them who desire to do so the ability to exit the looting cycle?

    My first impression upon reading this was that you were misunderstanding me, thinking I was proposing only products that would enable only a few to exit the looting cycle. I’m talking about products that could offer anyone relief.

    But upon rereading I think you mean something else. I think you mean that given the existence of such products less then 1% will choose to use them. That’s completely wrong. Given the ability to shield his income you think Yglesias is going to stand on principle and pay his taxes? Not a chance, you can depend on him to act in is immediate self interest and keep his money. And THEN he’ll work out a new rationalization for his defection from what he said was right.

  18. Mike,

    Because they see no *negative consequences* arising from holding it.

    I think they saw Tim McVeigh.

    Didn’t McVeigh do much the same as you are proposing? He imposed costs on the FBI and civilians. Do you like the results he precipitated?

  19. McVeigh did it all wrong, John. To start with, he signed up to be the patsy of Iraqi and/or Al Qaeda front-men (the “John Doe #2” the feds keep lying about now along with every other terrorist incident during the Clinton administrations), thereby diluting any alleged pro-liberty statement — but even more important, he refrained from isolating his action to specific guilty individual(s) and instead acted without regard for innocents.

    He didn’t, for instance, *furtively* hunt down and snuff a worthy statist candidate, then mail videotapes of him (wearing hockey-mask and gloves) holding up the severed head to every media outlet.

    The state doesn’t have the resources or the manpower to provide 24/7 bodyguard service to every podunk appellate court jerk, alderturkey and zoning bonehead in the whole fatted land, and there’s no way that cops afraid of weinerdogs are up to the task of it.

  20. Greg,

    Obviously it does, to your credit.

    No, the decision is tactical. I calculate the consequences. If there were a dangerous intruder in my home I wouldn’t shoot him if my kids might be on the other side of the wall he was standing in front of. On the other hand if he passed in front of the stone fireplace I’d have no qualms. The kind of horror you’re talking about doesn’t enter into it.

    There was a time when what you’re saying would have been true about me, when I would have experienced anguish at taking any human life, but now I’m quite comfortable with living with the consequences of my best judgment made in good faith. Because I understand now that it’s all I have.

    I trust you not to behave rashly in anger, John.

    I won’t let you down.

  21. Mike,

    He didn’t, for instance, *furtively* hunt down and snuff a worthy statist candidate, then mail videotapes of him (wearing hockey-mask and gloves) holding up the severed head to every media outlet.

    Neither did you.

    And if you think that’s a good plan you don’t need any help to do it.

  22. JTK>Suppose he plans to kill you by voodoo. Is that actionable?
    JTK>Is it actionable if he attempts to kill you by sticking pins in a doll?

    Outrageous straw-man argument.

    JTK>I point out again that your gun isn’t dissuading him form doing
    JTK>as he pleases politically. In practice it has not refuted him.

    This is simply nonsense, as Lopez’ gun has NOT been put into “practice”. Were it, the “refutation” would be unequivocable.

  23. (Is this an example of someone reaching their “threshold of outrage”?)

    Notice how cleanly JTK has committed himself to a lose-lose existence in which using reason on his enemies “won’t work”,…

    It’s a false dichotomy; I intend to win.

    but using (pre-emptive defensive) force upon them is, at best, too gauche for polite tea & crumpet sensibilities, and at worst blatantly immoral.

    No, my objection to your approach is that it won’t work either.

    (Despite the fact, as you’ve repeatedly written, that it won’t matter because the state will happily grind on without the input of a few bolters.)

    You’re not following what I’m saying if you think I’m talking about a few bolters. Virtually everyone will defect from collectivism if the right incentives exist.

    By the way Mike, you’re all over the place. Your recent comments have been riddled with contradictions. I hardly know how (or why) to begin.

    What do you hope to accomplish by, for instance, calling for the beheading of public officials? You criticize Lopez for tough gun talk you say he won’t back up, and that may be perfectly fair, but you’re obviously not beheading anyone and sending the tape to the media either, so why doesn’t the same criticism apply to you in spades?

  24. JTK
    my objection to your approach is that it won’t work either.

    Let’s pick a very simple and very blunt word to describe my “approach”: Resistance. (And yes, if you wish, violent resistance.) I can point to many successful historical examples of successful resistance. You’re simply wrong: Historically, resistance to tyranny is demonstrably the *only* means of escaping it within one’s own lifetime.

    Virtually everyone will defect from collectivism if the right incentives exist.

    Lemme adjust your neurons for a second. Hold still…

    *THWACK* (Kennedy wakes up, all woozy, and discovers he is in the middle-east.)

    There. Now open your eyes and look around you at a land covered in people who are (at least the men anyway) demonstrably freer in many respects than people in the US: They’re able to walk around toting automatic weapons if they choose, forget their ID at home, drive as fast as they allahdamn please, shop at duty-free black-markets on every street corner, hire and fire as they like, and salt 100% of the profits away untraceably via hawala banks.

    Nevertheless, save for Dubbai sparking like a diamond in an ocean of manure, virtually everyone there is heart-and-soul committed to a collectivism of utter barbaric depravity known as Sha’riah. Orangutangs that murder their young aren’t this insane. Really. Turn on the telly some time and just *watch*.

    What “incentives”, in your wildest dreams which don’t involve genetic recombination *or* violent deposement of some existing authoritative structure, could you possibly implement in that much more capital-friendly market that would have any hope of success causing the masses to defect from collectivism?

    [I] What do you hope to accomplish by, for instance, calling for the beheading of public officials?

    Self-evidently, the cessation of life in a predator.

    [I]You criticize Lopez for tough gun talk you say he won’t back up, and that may be perfectly fair, but you’re obviously not beheading anyone and sending the tape to the media either, so why doesn’t the same criticism apply to you in spades?

    You’ll notice, for starters, that I haven’t flashed a piece, then NOT used it.

    It should be manifestly obvious that if one engages in encouragement of, minimally, the mere *idea* of resistance, that the boasting of one’s ear collection would be detrimental to continued public appearances. No, the smarter tactics are to NOT flash one’s piece, but instead use it secretively as one deems prudent, and, if one elects to make a small victory public knowledge, to do so while remaining anonymous.

  25. Audience, watch this:

    Kennedy:
    John [Sabotta],
    Yes. I believe him [Schneider] when he says he wants to build a better tomorrow (on a foundation of corpses).

    Hold that thought…

    snip
    This of course is why I’ve been saying for a long time that Rational Evangelism Won’t Work.

    Notice how cleanly JTK has committed himself to a lose-lose existence in which using reason on his enemies “won’t work”, but using (pre-emptive defensive) force upon them is, at best, too gauche for polite tea & crumpet sensibilities, and at worst blatantly immoral. The lose-lose argument continues:

    they perceive to be their immediate self interest. The crude way to attempt to persuade them is what Mike is advocating – put the fear of death into them. The better way is to arrange things so that defection from collectivism becomes more profitable.

    (Despite the fact, as you’ve repeatedly written, that it won’t matter because the state will happily grind on without the input of a few bolters.)

    “Our deal was that I wouldn’t kill you. I figure you got a bargain.” — The “Road Warrior”, to the gyro-pilot (who’d tried to ambush him earlier, and failed.)

    — And the gyro-pilot was, as Max judged, a fairly rational guy, which is *precisely why* he survived to be bargained with in the first place, when Max otherwise had no moral requirement to do so. (The gyro-pilot was fucking Einstein compared to Kurt Lockner.)

    Now then: Do you think Osama bin Ladin is interested in profit? *He’s not even a state!* He has no loot to promise his followers. He’s not even afraid of *death*, John (so there’s no point even trying put the “fear” of it into him). Essentially, neither the carrot nor the stick will work, because neither “argument” with you nor a business-relationship, is what he is interested in.

    The “foundation of skulls” *already exists*, and it stretches from sub-Saharan Africa straight over to the Hindu Kush. It’s simply blatant escape from reality to posit this it’ll suddenly plunk down into existence upon the exclusively pivotal historical event of one twitchy Michael J. Schneider finally breeching the opportunity-cost levee.

    (Sabotta should also take a stab at this one) Can you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, prove that OBL has done anything more than “publicly express political opinions”? IIRC, he’s never appeared on tape doing anything other than yammer into a microphone. For that matter, did no less than Hitler ever personally slap a Nazi stooge into implementing, as edict, what were just musing in “Mein Kampf”? The difference between them and (to pick a much smaller worm) Yglesias is the propensity of the audience to immediately act to violence — but is one “excused” and the other not, due to the behavior of followers? If Roger Moore blurts “Go kill Bush!” during a MoveOn rally — and someone does — how is he different from Osama? If a man exhorts masses to your robbery and or murder, isn’t it actually just a waste of time — if not actually suicidal — on your part to treat him as anything other than a dangerous predator?

    Everything requires careful consideration if one is to understand it. In ancient times, as I recollect, people often ate human beings, but I am rather hazy about it. I tried to look this up, but my history has no chronology, and scrawled all over each page are the words: “Virtue and Morality.” Since I could not sleep anyway, I read intently half the night, until I began to see words between the lines, the whole book being filled with the two words–“Eat people.”

    You should remember perfectly well those “Eskimo-eating” threads (regarding “prudent predators” and assorted other crap) that spilled out all over HPO several years ago. Consequently, there’s no reason for you to be catering to Sabotta’s (or anyone else’s) misimpression of me as an amoral situational ethicist when you know that’s not the case. *That* labels sticks firmly to the scum they’re *defending*.

  26. To the J. Lo and Mike S. not-so-massive massive:

    Let’s start with a simple basic principle.

    It’s wrong to kill people merely for publicly expressing a political opinion.

    Even Nazis.

    Even Yglesias.

    Do you understand that? You have no right to fucking kill somebody for saying something – even something you don’t goddamned like- on their own goddamned blog or newspaper or privately-engraved-and-embossed-toilet-paper.

    Because it’s theirs – not yours. Theirs. Do you understand that?

    Now, I will say also that you will never have that right, no matter how many guns or pictures of guns or big-character-signs (provided courtesy of the late unlamented Red Guards) you wave around on the web or even in person.

    Even if nobody else in the world agreed with me I would still say you had no right. And even if everyone else thought it was a wonderfully heroic and necessary deed,I would still say that you were nothing but a common murderer and thug because you had no right.

    And don’t give me that “initiation of force” crap. Because if what Ygleisias did was an “initiation of force” then the term “initiation of force” means everything and therefore means nothing, and we should throw that phrase away like a dangerous booby-trapped toy that’s good for nothing but to kill and maim. A shadowy ever-expanding intepretation of language is exactly what totalitarianism runs on. So let’s not use that phrase anymore, if that what you propose to warp it into.

    And if freedom can only be built on a foundation of terror and violent intimidation, on a foundation of ignoring the rights of some to build a kind of simalucrum of freedom for yourself – if your freedom requires that you do nothing but sit around waiting and for all I fucking know, hoping for some long-predicted catastrophe that will bring death and misery to innocent millions but might, maybe bring freedom to you – then I don’t want your freedom, I would be ashamed of such liberty and curse every single day that such a “free land” endured.

    And I would not only be right to do so but prudent as well, because the blood of the innocent cries to Heaven for vengeance, (If you feel more comfortable substituting “reality” for “the vengeance of Heaven” go right ahead.)

    Now, perhaps, having gotten all that straight, maybe you and Lopez can actually read what you write instead of playing “More-Radical/Cynical/Tough-Minded-Than-Thou” stupid-ass games, dropping childish and absurd dark hints of secret assasination, instead of waving around ballistic fucking clip art like a know-nothing talisman, instead of, to put it very plainly, acting like a couple of melodramatic, pseudo-bloodthirsty politically posturing fools.

  27. John Sabotta gave Tokyo Rose and Paul Josepf Goebbels a clean pass thusly:

    Let’s start with a simple basic principle.
    It’s wrong to kill people merely for publicly expressing a political opinion.

    “Expressing a political opinion” is arbitrary and euphemistic schmaltz. Hint: Billy Beck II(rip) “I’m not interested in politics or other forms of violence.” That’s what your precious “politics” is: *delegated violence*.

    Where in Sam Hell does anybody get the right to be an accessory-before-the-fact accomplice to *initiation of force*, John?

    And don’t give me that “initiation of force” crap….

    (Too late.)

    Because if what Ygleisias did was an “initiation of force” then the term “initiation of force” means everything and therefore means nothing, and we should throw that phrase away like a dangerous booby-trapped toy that’s good for nothing but to kill and maim. A shadowy ever-expanding intepretation of language is exactly what totalitarianism runs on.

    It’s *also* what suicidal-pacifism runs on: No avowed adversary is judged a credible threat worthy of any response until his knife has already been drawn across one’s Adam’s apple. (See below.)

    So let’s not use that phrase anymore, if that what you propose to warp it into.

    You’re firmly trapped in a fallacy-of-the-excluded-middle. In pursuit (on autopilot, I say) of your argument slapping me with the “ever-expanding interpretation” jag, you’ve *shrunk* the definition of initiated-force to an infinitesimal, until you’re stuck in a position of having no “right” to respond preemptively to the promised and impending intentions of publicly avowed enemies, no matter how loathsome of jackals (e.g., *Nazis*) they may be.

    It’s no wonder you’re hostage to a live-for-the-moment-and-hope-to-croak-before-all-hell-breaks-loose mentality.

    And if freedom can only be built on a foundation of terror and violent intimidation,..

    Yeah; that’s where the fallacies will lead you: Into those kinds of stupid snout-leading arguments containing blatantly smuggled false-premises such as that a counter-threat to an initiatory threat is “violent intimidation”. — *Horseshit*. You’re just not paying attention.

  28. Lopez,

    Let’s put it this way: are you agreeing with the idea that other people have the right to refine their plan to kill you?

    It depends. Suppose he plans to kill you by voodoo. Is that actionable? Is it actionable if he attempts to kill you by sticking pins in a doll?

    I think this particular point is fuzzier than either of you would like. On one hand when Y has thought this through to the extent he has and voluntarily identifies himself with those who are undeniably combatants it’s tempting to take him at his word. If we consider the situation as somewhat analogous to a lynch mob then are we going to say that only those who actually lay hands on the victim are responsible? No, I think the responsibility goes further than that.

    On the other hand we could look at Y as someone who thinks he’s in the mafia but really isn’t in any meaningful sense, even though he cheers them on.

    I think that issue is moot though unless you’re actually prepared to shoot him. I don’t think that’s a good idea and I don’t think you do.

    And I point out again that your gun isn’t dissuading him form doing as he pleases politically. In practice it has not refuted him.

  29. Sabotta,

    It’s wrong to kill people merely for publicly expressing a political opinion.

    Okay then, John, here is what we have: A “political opinion” that gets picked up as a “political platform” which becomes a “law” which results in a “warrant” which means that men with guns come to me and poke the muzzles of those selfsame guns into my face and threaten to kill me if I don’t acquiesce to this “political opinion”. Just so’s I know, then, can you tell me exactly when in this process I’m allowed to do something about the unfolding chain of events? When the snipers show up? When the tanks start to roll? When?

    It was a “political opinion” that those rootless cosmopolitans are a threat that needs taken care of, right quick. Was that “merely” an opinion? Answer: no it was fucking not.

    It was a plan.

    You think Yglesias is kidding? You think those bills in Congress are opinions?

    Let’s put it this way: are you agreeing with the idea that other people have the right to refine their plan to kill you?

  30. Everything requires careful consideration if one is to understand it. In ancient times, as I recollect, people often ate human beings, but I am rather hazy about it. I tried to look this up, but my history has no chronology, and scrawled all over each page are the words: “Virtue and Morality.” Since I could not sleep anyway, I read intently half the night, until I began to see words between the lines, the whole book being filled with the two words–“Eat people.”

    – Lu Hsun, A Madman’s Diary

  31. John,

    Yes. I believe him when he says he wants to build a better tomorrow (on a foundation of corpses).

    He won’t pay his taxes if he doesn’t have to. He means what he says in a shallow sense but his philosophy, such as it is, is nothing more than window dressing. It’s nothing but a rationalization for what he judges to be in his immediate self interest. When circumstances change and his perceived immediate self interest changes with it his philosophical rationalizations will follow.

    What I don’t believe is that the overwhelming majority of people share his desires. If they did, then there really isn’t much hope of any plan.

    Like nearly everyone else he’s functioning almost exclusively on the level of instrumental rationality. The philosophy of such people isn’t grounded in anything, it’s simply a rationalization for whatever they want to do next. You can’t reliably persuade such people of anything by rational argument because they see no point in establishing a connection between argument and reality. For the instrumentally rational the purpose of an argument is to advance one’s agenda.

    This of course is why I’ve been saying for a long time that Rational Evangelism Won’t Work.

    The instrumentally rational can be persuaded by other means though, because they act in what they perceive to be their immediate self interest. The crude way to attempt to persuade them is what Mike is advocating – put the fear of death into them. The better way is to arrange things so that defection from collectivism becomes more profitable.

  32. Given the ability to shield his income you think Yglesias is going to stand on principle and pay his taxes?

    Yes. I believe him when he says he wants to build a better tomorrow (on a foundation of corpses). What I don’t believe is that the overwhelming majority of people share his desires. If they did, then there really isn’t much hope of any plan.

  33. [I] What do you hope to accomplish by, for instance, calling for the beheading of public officials?

    Self-evidently, the cessation of life in a predator.

    And why do you want to accomplish that? Do you think it will improve your life?

    You’ll notice, for starters, that I haven’t flashed a piece, then NOT used it.

    It should be manifestly obvious that if one engages in encouragement of, minimally, the mere *idea* of resistance, that the boasting of one’s ear collection would be detrimental to continued public appearances. No, the smarter tactics are to NOT flash one’s piece, but instead use it secretively as one deems prudent, and, if one elects to make a small victory public knowledge, to do so while remaining anonymous.

    But with these coy answers you are effectively boasting, without anonymity, of dealing out vigilante justice. So where’s the sense in that?

  34. >Seems to me you could be worse off…

    Well, why should *you*, care, John? It’s really my decision, isn’t it?

    >>Nonsense — I’ve confessed to no such thing. I’m simply stating
    >>that if I *had*, it’d be imprudent to tell you.
    >
    >But there’d be no harm in honestly admitting you hadn’t,
    >so the implication of your coyness is clear….

    What *is the point* of you asking me, in a public forum, if I’ve commited what you know the state considers to be a crime, and suggesting I should “honestly admit” to an answer one way or the other?

    …and you’re flagging *me* for “coyness”?

    Bullshit.

  35. JTK: What do you hope to accomplish by, for instance, calling for the beheading of public officials?

    MJS: Self-evidently, the cessation of life in a predator.

    JTK: And why do you want to accomplish that?

    MJS: The “why” should be self-evident.

    It’s not evident to me. Seems to me you could be worse off afterwards even if you don’t get caught.

    JTK: Do you think it will improve your life?

    MJS: If I get away with it, certainly.

    How do you expect it to improve your life? Through the pleasure you’d take in dealing out justice to the wicked?

    JTK: you are effectively boasting, without anonymity, of dealing out vigilante justice. So where’s the sense in that?

    MJS: Nonsense — I’ve confessed to no such thing. I’m simply stating that if I *had*, it’d be imprudent to tell you.

    But there’d be no harm in honestly admitting you hadn’t, so the implication of your coyness is clear. You are clearly trying to leave that impression.

  36. I didn’t blithely accept his refutation – I took issue with it. I think the final paragraph of this blog entry is half baked for reasons I’ve stated. But it’s well within the range of acceptable material for a blogger here.

    If Lopez is shooting bloggers I don’t need that here either. I’m persuaded he’s not. I certainly won’t tolerate him dropping hints here that maybe he is shooting bloggers or public officials. He’d have to take that on the road, same as you or anyone else. He hasn’t done that, all he did was blog a comment I consider injudicious. Which is fine with me as a matter of editorial policy.

    …commies such as Lockner who *laugh their asses clean off* whenever conservatives flash their guns..

    …and what do you figure people think about your call to have them beheaded?

  37. JTK:>Seems to me you could be worse off…

    MJS: Well, why should *you*, care, John? It’s really my decision, isn’t it?

    I care because I value you. It’s your decision but it looks like very bad judgment to me, judgment which could possibly be improved if we walk through your reasoning.

    What *is the point* of you asking me, in a public forum, if I’ve commited what you know the state considers to be a crime, and suggesting I should “honestly admit” to an answer one way or the other?

    …and you’re flagging *me* for “coyness”?

    Bullshit.

    I can honestly admit that I’m not furtively dealing out vigilante justice. The fact that you won’t must be intended to communicate something.

    So here’s my point: If you’re not furtively dealing out vigilante justice then you look ridiculous for calling Lopez on posting a picture of a gun because you think he’s not willing to back it up, while you’re calling for the beheading of bloggers and public officials but unwilling to back that up yourself. And oh yeah, in this case -you also look ridiculous for trying to leave the impression that maybe you are furtively dealing out vigilante justice.

    And if you are furtively dealing out vigilante justice then you look stupid for drawing attention to that fact here.

    If you are comitting such crimes then drop your dark hints about them somewhere else. I don’t need that here.

  38. > > …and salt 100% of the profits away untraceably via hawala banks.
    >
    > Bingo – defection from collectivism.

    <sigh> Hawala (AKA hundi) *predates* Islam. Sometimes I wonder if you even know what they hell you’re talking about. Remember “The Adventures of Robin Hood”, where Robin’s men are scrabbling together King Richard’s ransom, and the one merchant drops a tied roll of paper on the table, pledging an umpitty honking huge amount — and they stare at him like he’s bonkers? What he’d plunked down was a remittance-contract.

    Like the other guy drolling over his sub-orbital rocket deus ex-mechina plot device the other day, you think technology is going to come along and just basically make everything so much easier for you to wiggled you way out from under the thumb of the state — seemingly oblivious to the fact that without computers, the IRS couldn’t reach out and hoover bank accounts at their leisure in the first place. Or accumulate a nationwide facial-recognition database while mounting cameras on posts everywhere. Obviously the state can spend billions and trillions of stolen loot on better toys than you can with your meager thousands.

    Technological conveniences do not cause “defection” from collectivism because collectivism does not depend upon markets to sustain itself — it utilizes FORCE. One soldier/cop manning a road-block in a setting of fn[all easements are built with government loot over stolen land] makes ten-thousand motorists do exactly what he wants them to do. “Yeah, but wait until we’re all in flying cars!”, the freaky-geeks excitedly exclaim. Uh huh, and the HARM-equipped Predators will blow your ass out of the sky if your licensed and registered and quadrupled-taxed and spybot-monitored vehicle doesn’t fly precisely where it’s supposed to in exactly the mandated manner each and every nanosecond.

    Unless and until, of course, a segment revolts and brings the tyranny down.

    snip
    >>>What do you hope to accomplish by, for instance,
    >>>calling for the beheading of public officials?
    >>
    >>Self-evidently, the cessation of life in a predator.
    >
    >And why do you want to accomplish that?

    The “why” should be self-evident.

    >Do you think it will improve your life?

    If I get away with it, certainly. If I don’t, no. Of course, at a certain level of outrage, people no longer care if they’re caught. (Thoreau, and the Islamic militant, to take two philosophy-opposed mindsets, are examples of people who aren’t stymied by the prospect of jail-time. “Improve” is an arbitrary; quality of life is a personal evaluation encompassing all sorts of individual preferences, such as, for instance, the relish at seeing justice applied, and that in opposition to other desires, such as for making love again tomorrow.)

    >you are effectively boasting, without anonymity, of dealing out
    >vigilante justice. So where’s the sense in that?

    Nonsense — I’ve confessed to no such thing. I’m simply stating that if I *had*, it’d be imprudent to tell you.

    Look, John: You and I can have a perfectly reasonable discussion involving the most potentially effective battlefield tactics in a given setting — say, the Eastern Front circa 1943 — without actually dressing up in combat accoutrements.

  39. >I don’t need that here.

    Then why the blithe acceptance of Lopez’ “quick refutation” — unless you’re certain, like the commies such as Lockner who *laugh their asses clean off* whenever conservatives flash their guns, that he’ll never, ever stoop to the “crime” of vigilante justice (hint: if “state justice” is an oxymoron, then what other kind is there?)?

  40. Revenge

    Margie thinks garbage men are filth, and wants them to get what’s coming to them.

    Clip: Garbage Men Getting Hernias

    Garbage men – extras

    Mark Newell took revenge into his own hands, against his bank clerk, and has some home video.

    Clip: Blowing Up Bank Teller’s House

    Mark Newell – Flaherty

    However, the teller gets her revenge when Mark is taken away for seven to ten years. A lunatic with dynamite strapped to his head shows up, claiming he hates the show.

    Host: Ennio Gorodetsky – Thomas; Margie Walker – Kathy Laskey; Mark Newell – Flaherty; Angry Guy – Moranis; Audience – extras; Announcer – staff announcer

    BUMPER

    ( From the SCTV Episode Guide )

  41. John K.,

    Do you really expect anyone to believe that you’re going to do anything in real time except wave bye-bye if a gangsta with an AR-15 decides to make off with your car?

    (FWIW, I would consider any other immediate course of action, where the only value at stake is the car, to be patently insane. Gangstas and Jihadi, etc., die young because they are insane. Some libertarians experience self-loathing because they cannot reconcile their imaginary self-image to their habitually sane behavior. It’s the crisis of mind, I think, impulse versus measurement. Sane humans always measure.)

    –GSS

  42. Do you really expect anyone to believe that you’re going to do anything in real time except wave bye-bye if a gangsta with an AR-15 decides to make off with your car?

    I’ll act in accordance with my best judgment of the tactical situation.

    Sane humans always measure.

    Yes, and sane humans shoot thieves when it makes sense to do so.

    If you are not willing ultimately to defend your property by deadly force or free ride on some force producer who will do it for you then I don’t think you’ll get to keep your property.

  43. >>Sane humans always measure.

    > Yes, and sane humans shoot thieves when it makes sense to do so.

    And that would be the extreme exception, as your life’s history aptly illustrates. Continuous thievery, zero shots fired. Very sane.

    > If you are not willing ultimately to defend your property by deadly force or free ride on some force producer who will do it for you then I don’t think you’ll get to keep your property.

    I can’t imagine any circumstance except an extreme emergency where you could justify deadly force, and even then your action could not be righteous, merely exigent. You do not ever own other people, regardless of their behavior. There cannot possibly ever be a circumstance whereby you acquire the moral or political right to dispose of another person’s life. The rest of the sentence is nonsense: It omits obvious alternatives. An excellent protection from freelance thieves, for example, is not the deadly force you do not deploy, but the locks on your doors. No death, no free rides, just capitalism in real life. And, obviously, your best defense against all thieves is a philosphically-consistent culture of egoism. The ego is what you are shouting down when you sputter on about how you intend to kill people. You don’t, to your credit. You just say you do, to your fault.

    Be who you are, John. You’re a much better man than you pretend to be.

    Greg

  44. JS> And if freedom can only be built on a foundation of terror…

    Your “if” is a blatant misrepresentation of any position I’ve ever had. As usual, you continue to argue against an “impression” you have of me, rather than actually *listening*.

    JS> …and violent intimidation….

    <cricket.wav>
    “Yeah; that’s where the fallacies will lead you: Into those kinds of stupid snout-leading arguments containing blatantly smuggled false-premises such as that a counter-threat to an initiatory threat is “violent intimidation”.
    <cricket.wav>

    JS> on a foundation of ignoring the rights of some….

    <cricket.wav>
    “Where in Sam Hell does anybody get the right to be an accessory-before-the-fact accomplice to *initiation of force*, John”
    <cricket.wav>

    JS>…if your freedom requires that you do nothing but sit around waiting…

    But you object to any suggestion which does NOT involve doing nothing but sitting around waiting for whatever happens to happen. It’s hypocrisy.

    JS>..hoping for some long-predicted catastrophe that will bring death
    JS>and misery to innocent millions but might, maybe bring freedom to you
    JS> – then I don’t want your freedom

    Hyperbole aside, I deduce you’re happy to enjoy freedom so long as someone else obtains it for you.

    As for the hypothesis in your argument, that’s going to happen anyway — take it to the bank. Then, when and if DC becomes a hole devoid of kids and bunny-rabbits and all the other unfortunate inhabitants of the Death Star’s kitchens, you might just find yourself without an IRS to pay all the swine cops who no longer have a boss to pay them hyperinflated fiat toilet-paper.

    Goverments established “for the good of society” are just levees built by stupid people to protect themselves from evolution — at your, my, and everyone’s forcibly-extracted expense. But all levees eventually fail, and the bigger they are, the worse the flood.

    This country has had a hundred-year’s worth of thief-breeding programs and sanctuaries in place, and the whole place is going to rot like carpenter-ants boring out an oak. You can see it everywhere around you: Mean IQ [*however* you want to measure it] is just plummeting through the floor; and the people’s government, with looted trillions at its disposal, is manifestly unable to halt the spread of [I[REAL[/I] “terror and violent intimidation” known as Wahabbism throughout every pore and nook of the world.

    Remember the “Beltway Sniper”? Caught on a pure fluke? He was a moslem nutcase. A carpenter-ant boring away. That’s the future here shortly, Sabotta. Guys like him, everywhere; and the doers among us having to deal with them, and also having to put up with *bullshit* from pacifists every pace of the way who think they’re “sane” for gaming a free ride.

  45. Swann> Continuous thievery, zero shots fired. Very sane.

    It is instructive to note here that if every non-thief-who-never-shoots-thieves was as “sane” as Greg presumes he is, then they’d all be slaves laboring 16-hour days in the fields and mines. Greg is, however, still marginally free because he’s living upon the desiccated remnant of an ideal established into reality by people whom he would consider utterly flat-out insane for picking up their squirrel rifles to declared war upon the world’s strongest military power in their time.

    MJS>…commies such as Lockner who *laugh their asses clean off*
    MJS>whenever conservatives flash their guns..
    >
    JTK>.and what do you figure people think about your call to have them beheaded?

    You’ve adopted the ambiguous-collective fallacy in order to foster the impression that my set-of-all-those-I’d-like-to-see-fountaining-at-the-neck encompasses any random bunch. That’s a mischaracterization.

  46. Lopez> This is a nation that was founded on violent revolution.

    No it wasn’t.

    LIBERTY was secured via revolution (when the principles in “Common Sense” and the Declaration of Independence were put into action); the “nation” was an artificial construct created some years later with the adoption of the Constitution by some gassy old farts in Philedelphia who thought they could speak for everyone.

  47. Sabotta,

    And if freedom can only be built on a foundation of terror and violent intimidation, on a foundation of ignoring the rights of some to build a kind of simalucrum of freedom for yourself – if your freedom requires that you do nothing but sit around waiting and for all I fucking know, hoping for some long-predicted catastrophe that will bring death and misery to innocent millions but might, maybe bring freedom to you – then I don’t want your freedom, I would be ashamed of such liberty and curse every single day that such a “free land” endured.

    This is a nation that was founded on violent revolution. In fact, our forefathers engaged in such practices as tarring and feathering those befuddled souls who objected to their little revolt. Now that’s some violent intimidation. Of course, that says nothing to the plight of African slaves, or of the natives who were subjected to literal physical and cultural genocide. The American Civil War, of course, led to the ironic spectacle of Northern slave-soldiers being killed by the thousands to ostensibly liberate the Southern slaves. Moving forwards, we come to the American empire abroad, where the Chinese, Phillipinos, and Spanish were brutalized into submission. And then World War One, Two, Korea, Vietnam, etc., etc.

    All of which leads us to where we are today: inhabitants of one of the freer and more prosperous nations on the planet, whether by design or accident or in spite of it all. Should we then despair at the thought that our relative freedom and prosperity comes at the expense of untold millions of innocent deaths?

  48. > Your sneering is unbecoming.

    Albeit correct with respect to the actual nature of the objects considered. That is:<blockquote>You do not ever own other people, regardless of their behavior. There cannot possibly ever be a circumstance whereby you acquire the moral or political right to dispose of another person’s life.</blockquote>Your rebuttal is absent. Your fashion advice is irrelevant.

    –GSS

  49. Swann: all day long, you could set up one-off situations in which the bad guy (yes: they really do exist) gets the drop and makes off with the goods. And you can cheer and sneer every time they win in your one-offs. (The car-jacker with the AR-15 might very well win, just because of the set-up, but maybe not every time.) It won’t do to talk about “san[ity]” in your tones, however, because every reasonable person knows there is nothing wrong with conceiving — and achieving, if possible — the setting right of an obvious wrong, with action. It also really does happen: sometimes, the good guys prevail, through violent action.

    Your sneering is unbecoming.

  50. Billy, let me take you a little more seriously. We have a history, even if I don’t always like the way you comport yourself:

    What is wrong with John’s idiotic posturing, with Lopez’s still more idiotic posturing, and with Schneider’s doing the very, very best he can do in his special circumstances, is that it is entirely the wrong approach to take to the systemic problem. We will never rid the world of cannibals by eating them. Mutually-voluntary peaceful human social interaction requires volunteers. Force will never ever produce them, no will epidemic force eradicate their opposites–rather more the opposite, as anyone can understand who dares to understand.

    So: It’s a stupid pretense with no action behind it. It will not work because it cannot work. And it does get in the way of achieving what does work.

    Now if from here you must posture, rage on. It’s a waste of life, but it’s your life–and John’s and Lopez’s and Schneider’s–to waste. The purpose of life is Splendor, but if the best you can do is bilious acrimony, that’s the best you can do.

    Greg Swann

  51. You do not ever own other people, regardless of their behavior.

    And the fact that they can’t own me is precisely why I’m entitled to deny them my property by whatever means their action makes neccessary.

  52. >> You do not ever own other people, regardless of their behavior.

    > And the fact that they can’t own me is precisely why I’m entitled to deny them my property

    John, you can take their property first if you want. We’re not talking about capacity, we’re talking about rectitude. They don’t own you, you don’t own them, and you don’t own them even if they claim to own you. Defending yourself against a (presumed) property crime by resort to deadly force is murder. Thieves are bad. Murderers are worse. Sane humans always measure.

    > by whatever means their action makes neccessary.

    Here you are pretending that your chosen behavior is caused by other people, a very common dogde. All purposive human behavior is internally motivated, never otherwise.

    I’ve covered all of this at enormous length. A good place to start is Meet the Third Thing.

    Facts are facts. Posturing is what you do to avoid them.

    Greg Swann

  53. It is simple Swann. You steal a crust of bread, I can kill you. That is what they call freedom. Nevermind how many pieces of bread Mr. Kennedy swipes each day (as do we all, see my post above).

  54. Swann:
    What is wrong with John’s idiotic posturing, with Lopez’s still more idiotic posturing, and with Schneider’s doing the very, very best he can do in his special circumstances, is that it is entirely the wrong approach to take to the systemic problem. We will never rid the world of cannibals by eating them.

    The cannibals will be more than happy to empty to world of *you*, Greg, just as soon as they’ve gobbled their way through everyone standing in the way like CHUDs after ‘Snake’ Plisken. Then, I’m either going to watch you hop into their mouths as a man of your word, or watch you *discover* sanity after listening to your bullshit for half-a-dozen years.

    Let’s take a look at the cannibals who want you on their plate:

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040705-658290,00.html
    Meet The New Jihad
    A TIME investigation reveals how insurgents in Iraq aim to create an Islamic state and turn the country into a terrorist haven — By MICHAEL WARE/FALLUJAH

    Sunday, Jun. 27, 2004
    The safe house lies on the outskirts of Fallujah in a neighborhood
    where no Americans have ventured. Inside, a group of Arab sheiks has
    gathered to discuss the jihad they and their followers are waging
    against the U.S. The men wear white robes and long beards and greet
    each other solemnly. They are all Iraqi, but their beliefs are those
    of the strict Wahhabi strain of Islam repressed under Saddam Hussein.
    Unlike most Iraqi sitting rooms, this one has no pictures adorning its
    walls or a television or radio nestled in a corner. Such luxuries are
    forbidden, just as they were under the Taliban in Afghanistan. At the
    back of the room are a few men from Saudi Arabia, who stand silently
    as one of the sheiks, the group’s leader, addresses me in Arabic and
    stilted English. The war in Iraq, he says, is one of liberation, not
    just of a country but of Muslim lands, Muslim people, Islam itself.
    There is no room for negotiation with the enemy, no common ground.
    What he and his men offer is endless, righteous resistance. “Maybe
    this war will take a long time,” he says. “Maybe this is a world war…”

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31571
    “Eventually there will be a Muslim in the White House dictating the laws of Shariah!”

    These fanatics don’t intend to stop killing until they are themselves killed, or they are victorious in their imposition of theotyranny. They know from experience that violence works, and have every reason to be convinced that the west is either too pacifist/cowardly or too incompetent to deal with them. They’re porking enormous littlers out of their slave-wives, and covering the face of the earth in splinter-cells who intend the defacing of synogogues to be the least of their objectives.

    Kennedy isn’t going to buy them off with a business plan, and you sure as hell aren’t going to shame them by lecturing them on the error of their ways, or elicit their sympathy. Right now, for all its excruciating lameness and incipient failure at the task, the descpicably rotten US government is the only thing keeping them out of your neighborhood.

    “Schneider’s doing the very, very best he can do in his special circumstances…

    You’re one to yammer autism, suicide-freak; since when it’s down to you and them, they’ll be more than happy to “waste” your life for you because you didn’t value it enough to keep if from them.

  55. Pingback: Improved Clinch
  56. Pingback: No Treason!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *