Bill Ayers Book Dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan

(hat tip: The Rush Limbaugh Show)

William Ayers – longtime pal of B.O., who launched his political career in Ayers’ living room – dedicated a 1974 book Prairie Fire to RFK’s assassin.

So for all those believe that the Stench represents the Kennedy legacy, whereas McCain does not: think again. Also, the Democrats of yore are like the Republicans of today. Pro-life JFK would be right at home with the GOP.

As a Conservative, I Must Say I Do Quite Like the Cut of this Obama Fellow’s Jib

By T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII
Columnist, The National Topsider
Membership Chairman, The Newport Club

When my late father T. Coddington Van Voorhees VI founded the iconoclastic conservative journal National Topsider in 1948, he famously declared that “Now is the time for all good conservative helmsmen to hoist the mizzen, pour the cocktails, and steer this damned schooner hard starboard.” In the 60 years since he first uttered it after one-too-many Cosmopolitans at one of Pamela Harriman’s notorious foreign policy black tie balls, father’s pithy bon mot has served as a rallying cry for conservatives from Greenwich to Chevy Chase. Today, I say it’s time for we conservatives to once again grab the rigging and set sail with the flotilla of the true conservative in this race: Barack Obama.

Read the rest.

A Clarification of Terms

A racist is someone who has an incorrect view of race, which can mean that they either believe the races to be excessively different, or they believe the races to be excessively equal.

A sexist is someone who has an incorrect view of gender, which can mean that they either believe the sexes to be excessively different, or they believe the sexes to be excessively equal.

Bigotry is an exaggerated view of the differences between biological or ideological groups.

Egalitarianism is an exaggerated view of the similarities between biological or ideological groups.

Listening To or Caring About Celebritards is Not the Answer

It is interesting how, when talking politics, celebritards speak as if they weren’t retarded. Somebody needs to tell one of these celebritards: Wait a minute. You read scripts for a living. Shut the — up.

9 out of 10 celebritards think B.O. is cool because he supports killing babies, easing up on immigration laws, affirmative black-tion, homosexual tax breaks because they got “married”, economic damage due to socialist policies, leftist Supreme Court Justices, and putting America in harm’s way by putting diplomacy over principles. Oh, and he can lie with a straight face, mastering the fine arts of false confidence and double speak to the point that he could win an Oscar – not including the extra credit that Hollywood would give him for being an oppressed minority.

If you want style over substance, which is what appeals to those who don’t have much going for them upstairs, B.O. is indeed the One. Hell, if I were a celebritard, I’d vote for the Stench myself.

Where This Country is Headed Culturally

Homosexual high schools.

Vegan cafeterias.

Homosexual high schools with vegan cafeterias.

God help this country.

Where’s the Video?

Reuters recently reported that a web video shows that “an al Qaeda leader has called for President George W. Bush and the Republicans to be ‘humiliated,’ without endorsing a party in the upcoming U.S. presidential election, according to an Internet video posting.” But where is the video? I went to SITE Intelligence Group’s website, which allegedly reported this video, but I couldn’t find it.

Are people really this stupid? How many “al Qaeda leaders” are there? And for how long are these Secular Zionists going to try to dupe Americans and Republicans into fighting wars against Israel’s enemies?

The Secular Zionists tend to favor McCain, but the vast majority of pseudo-Jews are Leftist, and they favor the Socialist Stench. That is why the pseudo-Jewish-Leftist-controlled media have been pulling out all the stops for the Stench, and have cast aside McCain. So though many members of the Secular Zionist community support McCain – whereas others do not – that doesn’t mean that he isn’t the better man for the job. By far.

New Strategy of B.O. Sympathizers: Divide and Conquer

In a desperate last-minute effort to assure the installment of socialist Barak Obama (aka “B.O.” or “the Socialist Stench”) President of the United States, his stympathizers in the media are trying to portary the McCain campaign as polarized, especially vis-a-vis Sarah Palin. Anonymous quotes from “top McCain advisers” have her saying that she is a “rogue” or a “whack job.” Now, I don’t know too many campaign advisors who would wish to sabotage their own campaigns, along with their reputations, with anonymous quotes like that. Especially if you’re a “senior campaign adviser.” But there is no question that Sarah would make a better Vice President than Biden, and, if necessary, God forbid, she would make a better President than the Socialist Stench.

Letter from Stu and My Response

The following was posted under a recent blog entry.

Hmm. Well, you have to admit it’s hard to tell Jews and Zionists apart, given how Zionists do everything in their not inconsiderable power to blur the line. You seem like a reasonable person, so let me ask you a question out of curiosity, and not spite. With all of the stigma attached to Judaism, at what point do you just rename and redefine your religion? Zionism has used Judaism as a front. For instance, in WW2 the Zionists provoked Germany, knowing full well that the legitimate Jews would take the heat. They spill Jewish blood to expediate their machinations. This is how they operate. So at what point do you cut your losses and start over fresh?

It’s like if someone invades your house. And he won’t leave. And he pretty much ruins the place. You can still say, “This is my house, you jerk!” Is it still worth fighting for? Not too get too metaphysical, but what does God care about the name of a religion?

In answer to your question, people can be and should be taught to distinguish between real Jews and so-called “Jews” – whom I call “pseudo-Jews” – who do not practice the Jewish religion. The practicing, real Jews of the world will not change the name of their religion. They were there, first. And the pseudo-Jews will – as you pointed out – continue to hide behind the good name of the righteous, real, observant Jews. These people must be revealed as frauds and hypocrites. If they are willing to follow one rule of Judaism, then they are hypocrites for not following the other. We want to attack the Leftist/Zionists, who can be either “Jews” or “Gentiles” according to Jewish law. We do not want to attack those who are true, practicing, observant Jews. Besides, even if practicing Jews were to change their name to something else, they would still be killed by anti-Semites who want to kill everyone who has a Jewish mother. According to Alex Linder I should be killed because I have a Jewish mother. Bottom line is: don’t attack the innocent; attack the guilty. Don’t destroy everyone who has a Jewish mother. Destroy those who try to destroy your life and liberty, like Leftists, Zionists, Islamofascists (yes, they, too, are a problem), and other people who are evil, and who do evil things. This idea that the Jewish race is somehow biologically predisposed to do evil, or that Judaism trains Jews to be evil at a young age … these ideas are themselves evil, for they are misguided, and they threaten the lives of the innocent.

Leading Neo-Con Backs B.O.

From an article:

Ken Adelman — a leading neocon who advised Donald Rumsfeld on Iraq and introduced Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, to Paul Wolfowitz, the hawkish former Deputy Defence Secretary.

Mr Adelman admits to being startled at finding himself in Democrat ranks, attributing his defection to doubts about Mr McCain’s temperament and his “appalling lack of judgment” in picking Mrs Palin. He told The New Yorker magazine: “I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency.”

McCain’s choice of Gov. Palin to be his runningmate was the best decision that he made. It is Adelman who has shown an “appalling lack of judgment.” From Wikipedia:

More recently, he strongly supported the war on Iraq and worked for the think tank Project for the New American Century, arguing for new policies to help the United States remain a global leader. Adelman, called “a lifelong neocon activist”, worried in 2006 that the incompetence shown in handling the war in Iraq would damage the neoconservative movement: neoconservatism, he said, “is not going to sell” for at least a generation^[1]….

Adelman wrote a pair of editorial columns regarding the Iraq War in the Washington Post in February 2002 and April 2003 entitled, respectively, “Cakewalk In Iraq”^[4] and “‘Cakewalk’ Revisited”.^[5] In the first he argued that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq would be a simple matter to accomplish: “I believe that demolishing Hussein’s military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk.” In the later editorial, published just a few weeks after the invasion, he claimed his vindication and in particular praised key Bush administration players: “My confidence 14 months ago sprang from having worked for Don Rumsfeld three times — knowing he would fashion a most creative and detailed war plan — and from knowing Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz well for many years.”

Also notable are Adelman’s predictions regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Adelman said that weapons were likely to be near Tikrit and Baghdad, “because they’re the most protected places with the best troops. I have no doubt we’re going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.”^[6]

McCain for President.

Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics

Jew-Hater Alex Linder Has Censored Me – Again

This is the comment that I made that the egomaniacal fool Alex Linder has censored from his fallacious blog entry because it points out that he made a little error in his ways, and he doesn’t want his audience members to hear a different point of view, because he knows that they would be intelligent enough to agree with me over him if we had the chance to debate. He is not the first Jew-hater who was too much of a girlie man to debate me, and to admit that he’s wrong. This is a man who has publicly advocated my extermination. Why? Because I have a Jewish mother. God willing, justice will be done to this hell-bent son of a bitch. Anyone who is insane enough to want to kill people just because they have Jewish mothers is in for a big surprise. What goes around comes around, my friends.:

This is absolutely false.

The Orthodox absolutely consider you to be Jewish if you convert to Judaism.

Furthermore, you have no business defining a Jew as someone who comes from a Jewish mother. A Jew is properly defined as someone who practices the Jewish religion. Unless you want to declare that you are a Jew and that you go by Jewish law, there is absolutely no good reason for you to define a Jew in racial terms rather than religious terms.

The leftists and secular Zionists (the “neo-con’s”) that we hate – justifiably so – are not Jews, for they do not practice the Jewish religion. Most of them are atheists. These are atheist, pseudo-Jewish cults. Neither of these entities worship God, let alone in the Jewish manner. According to Judaism, they are heretics and apostates.

Hard-Hitting McCain Mailer

Barack Obama and Joe Biden have consistently lied to Americans about John McCain’s plan. Their claims have failed every fact check from CBS to the Washington Post. John McCain is not going to raise taxes on middle class families. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are the only ones in this race that plan to raise taxes. Their recent attacks have become increasingly misleading. Read the fact sheet below or click here to learn the truth about the McCain-Palin Health Care Plan.

Sincerely,

Doug Holtz-Eakin
Senior Policy Advisor
McCain-Palin 2008

Gianna Jesson Appears in Second Ad Against the Stench

Despite his double talk during the third debate, the Lying Leftist is indeed pro-death. Though he may be able to lie with a straight face – and convince the gullible of his lies – his record speaks for itself. Besides, McCain clearly established himself as “proudly pro-life”. All that Obama could do is try to down-play his opposition to the Born Alive Act on the grounds that “there was already a law” that doctors were “bound by the Hippocratic oath” to protect babies. Oh yeah? Well how does that explain the abortion industry? Also, if there were already “laws” that protect the baby, O ye who tells many tales, then what would be wrong with making it legally obligatory for doctors to provide born alive babies – like Gianna Jesson – with care? His answer? Because it would be a threat to Roe v. Wade. And that’s what this is all about.

It’s enough that the sick fool is a socialist. It’s enough that he is unwilling to clamp down on immigration (except, perhaps, Europic immigration). It’s enough that he would stuff the face of an already hyper-obese welfare state and nanny state. It’s enough that he would support gay marriage, and give tax breaks to those mentally disordered individuals. It’s enough that he is against education vouchers, and against health care vouchers, and that when it comes to how we should use our military, he has flip flopped more than a fish out of water. But the cherry on the top of this multi-decker disaster is that he is about as pro-death as it gets. And I praise Gianna Jesson for her courage to step forth and speak out against this son of a bitch.

‘Tito the Builder’ Introduces Palin

This goes to show you that voting conservative is not about race, it’s not about class; it’s about ethics and economics. Simply put, it’s about America.

[hat tip Breitbart]

Observation on the Stench

He has a big mouth, but he talks out of his ass.

Ashley Judd Inadvertently Campaigns for McCain-Palin

Watch this to see what I mean.

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=e4kUSUpruz

Two Kinds of Feminist Bitches

There are two kinds of feminist bitches in the world: the slutty bitch, and the nerdy bitch. The slutty bitch displays interest in men, but she displays interest in the wrong kind of men. The nerdy bitch does not display interest in men. The slutty bitch sexes herself up excessively. The nerdy bitch intentional dresses to look ugly. That is why it is so easy to tell that a women is a feminist bitch just by looking at her: either she dresses and comports herself like a slut, or she dresses and comports herself like an asexual man-hater. Occasionally, you get the ambiguous-style feminist bitch, with a little bit of both slut and nerd to her personality and dress.

But I’ll tell you this: a man could become so disenchanted by the bitches that surround him that he may go so far as to join a traditional/religious community, even though he doesn’t agree with much that is believed by its members.

AP Pulls Out All the Stops for BO

If this isn’t proof of extreme leftist bias by the allegedly objective Associated Press, I don’t know what is. This is one of the most pathetic leftist hit-pieces against McCain-Palin that I’ve seen so far. There is just no honor from the left: no limit to how low the left will go to try to secure a Presidency for the Stench. The good news is that it’s all a sign of fear of McCain’s recent closing of the Gallup gap, and it shows that McCain has a fighting chance in this election. Do not let the leftards discourage you from voting this November 4th. Be there or be square.

The American Dream?

The leftist definition of the “American dream” it totally out of sync with the conservative (real) definition. The leftists would consider “home ownership” a necessary part of the American dream. Since when? There is nothing to be found in any founding documents that points to home ownership as the “American dream.” Rather, the American dream is clearly understood by those who are remotely objective about history to be life in liberty under a constitutional republic. Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty or give me death.” He didn’t say, “Give me home ownership or give me death.” The American dream isn’t socialism; it’s the opposite of socialism: liberty. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a leftist scoundrel.

So go ahead: have your home ownership. But obtain it the American way; not the Soviet way. That’s living the American dream.

Biden Angered by Tough Questions

These were not the Leftist soft-ball questions that Sen. Joe Biden and the B.O. campaign anticipated. And now the campaign refuses to let this station do anymore interviews with them. (Hat tip: Drudge Report.)

Help Eliminate Psychiatric Abuse

I am seriously considering becoming a psychiatrist so that I can most effectively work to destroy psychiatry. Also, I would provide people with the help they really need: help that does not involve the use of dangerous and unnecessary and counter-productive psychotropic drugs. If I were to become a psychiatrist, I would sort of be like Dr. Thomas Szasz, but I would do a much better job critiquing the field, and I would do a much better job pointing people in the right direction. However, I am uncomfortable being labeled a “psychiatrist,” considering that I would be the “anti-psychiatrist.”

The people behind this website are interested in helping to eliminate psychiatric abuse. 

THE PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE: BOOK 1: PART 1: CHAPTER 1 (POL 1:1:1)

COPYRIGHT PATRICK KEEFE 2008 – DO NOT COPY OR DUPLICATE

I

How does the world work?

Notice that existence is something that must exist. By which I mean that there must be something that exists. For there to be existence is for there to be existence of something. So something must exist. It’s a very simple concept.

The question is not whether something exists. The question is what exists. But what happens if we try to question the existence of existence? What happens if we ask the question Why does existence exist, or Why does something exist, whether it is a tree or a hut or a trash can or a chair or happiness or sadness? Why does something always exist? Why is there always something that exists?

The answer to the question is that there is no alternative. There is no alternative to existence. There is no alternative to the existence of something. There is no alternative to something because you cannot even propose the existence of something that does not exist. Only something that exists can exist. So if you ask the question that was asked by Gottfried Leibniz, Why is there something rather than nothing?, the answer is that there is something rather than nothing because nothing does not exist. Nothing is nothing. It is not even imaginable. It is not even conceivable. If it is absolutely nothing, then it’s not something that you can even try to imagine. Therefore, there is no definition to the term “absolute nothingness” or just “nothingness.”

Just as you can never divide a unit of three-dimensional space (like a cube) in half so many times that the cube gets so small that it doesn’t exist any more – just as there must always be a unit of space no matter how many times you slice it, no matter how many times you cut it in half, no matter how many times you shrink it – there must always be something, no matter how hard it is to conceive. If there is to be a concept of “nothingness,” then it wouldn’t be nothingness, because the concept would be something. How can absolute nothingness exist if it is something? In that case, we would be abusing language because we would be calling something “nothingness.” It would be an abuse of language. That is all that it would be.

So when we ask the question, Why is there something rather than nothing?, there is no answer to the question because the question does not really exist, because “nothing” is not a word in that case. If “nothing” is to be a word, then the word would mean something. All words mean something. All words have meanings. And if the word means something, then it is something; it is not nothing. So it is not possible for us even to propose the existence of pure nothingness, or absolute nothingness.

There must always be something. Existence exists. Something exists. The existence of something exist. Always. There is never an exception to this rule. No exception to the rule is conceivable. We cannot even propose that there might be an exception to the rule.

So the first principle that we establish in the first chapter of the first part of the Philosophy of Life is the principle that existence exists. Now, that may be exceedingly obvious to you. Of course existence exists. Why am I wasting my time pondering the obvious? Why do I need some philosopher to tell me what I already know? Of course existence exists, right?

The truth is that it isn’t obvious to everyone. I just told you about a philosopher – a brilliant man – Leibniz, who was puzzled by the question, by the issue, and asked in sincerity, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” And if a genius of that magnitude who founded the branch of mathematics called the Calculus (along with Isaac Newton) had a question about this issue, then do not be so arrogant as to believe that laypeople also do not have a question about this issue. It is puzzling, but the issue can be clarified.

And so we establish the first principle, the first rule, the first axiom of metaphysics. So there is no question in the mind of one who understands the first axiom of the Philosophy of Life that something must exist, or existence must exist – there are many ways to phrase it. Rather, the question is, What is it that exists, and Why is it that whatever exists happens to exist?

I am looking at a vacuum cleaner. Why does the vacuum cleaner exist? Why not something else? Why am I looking at blinds? Why am I looking at a table? Why am I looking at a door? Why am I looking at a barbell? Why am I looking at a window? Why am I looking at a chair? Why am I looking at a computer? Why do these things exist in my world? Why doesn’t something else exist? Why is the world the way that it is?

Before we answer that question, is there a way to summarize everything that exists? Yes, there are many concrete objects. But between these concrete objects, there are similarities. All of these concrete objects share common attributes. We want to know the most common denominator. We want to know the essence of everything that exists. We also want to know why this world exists in the way that it does.

So now the question is What exists and Why does it exist. Both of those questions are interdependent. You cannot answer one without answering the other. There are many possible entities or things that could exist, as you can well imagine. There could be a world in which there is a tree, and nothing else. There could be a world in which there are a dozen chairs, and nothing else. In fact, there is any number of possible worlds that can exist. But there can only be one world that exist. There cannot be two different worlds at the same time. Otherwise, they aren’t worlds.

The world is everything. The world encompasses everything that exists. The world includes everything and excludes nothing. Therefore, there can only be one world. There cannot be two worlds. Something cannot exist outside of the world. So there cannot be contradiction. There must be consistency. That is the second axiom of metaphysics.

The third axiom of metaphysics is this. As a result of the fact, as a consequence of the fact, that there can only be one kind of world that exists – there can only be one world – a decision must be made as to which, of all possible worlds, exists. Which world exists? This is called the Metaphysical Question, and it is the third axiom of metaphysics. Which, of all possible worlds, is the world that exists? There must be only one world, of all possible worlds, at a time. Now, the world can change. But at any time, there can only be one world. There can only be one reality, for “reality” encompasses absolutely everything at a given time.

So a decision must be made, a choice must be made, a selection must be made, as to which world exists. Therefore, there must be a decision-maker. The decision is the object, and the decision-maker is the subject. The decision-maker is the agent that makes the decision. It goes to the market – on which every possible world is for sale – and he purchases one of these worlds, metaphorically speaking. This market of possibilities doesn’t actually exist. It is a hypothetical world. It doesn’t really exist. But it doesn’t really not exist, either. It may exist. That is the word to use: may. Not “does” or “does not,” but “may.” It may exist. It exists half-way. It is half-way between existing and not existing. Maybe it exists. Maybe it doesn’t exist. This hypothetical market, in which a decision-maker decides what exists, is hypothetical, possible, potential. It doesn’t fully exist. This is the fourth axiom.

The world that fully exists is the world that is chosen by the hypothetical agent. So now we are onto axiom five. Which world does the agent choose, and why does he choose this world? Both questions are interdependent, and both questions must be answered simultaneously. The world that is chosen by the hypothetical agent that goes to the hypothetical market to choose what world exists is the hypothetical agent going to the hypothetical market to choose which world exists.

In other words, the actual world that the hypothetical agent chooses is the potential world. And the potential world consists of an agent – whom we shall call God – Who goes out and chooses (makes a decision) as to what exist. Now consider the world in which we actually live, bringing the theory down to earth. What do we find? We find agents of free will. We find conscious beings who make decisions. Interesting. Thus, volitional creatures – creatures who make decisions – are physical embodiments of a hypothetical God – that go and choose from a number of hypothetical decisions, the actual decision that exists.

We conscious being have minds. In these minds are thoughts of hypothetical decisions that we could make. Then we make actual decisions, just like God, because we are analogous to God. Are we God? No. Are we as God? Yes. And some things in this world are more Godly than others. Some things in this world are more conscious and more volitional (consist of more free will) than others. And where does free will come from? It comes from the ability to make decisions that are best for the agent, the ability to make decisions that lead to the existence of the agent in the world in which he lives.

You see: God does not merely make a decision. God makes a certain kind of decision. The kind of decision that He makes is that He chooses to exist. He chooses to create Himself and the world in which He lives, the world of choices and opportunities in which He lives. He is not separated from His world. He and his world is interdependent, intertwined. He cannot exist without His world; His world cannot exist without Him. The subject cannot exist without the object; the object cannot exist without the subject. So He doesn’t just make a decision; He specifically chooses to exist. Well, creatures of free will don’t just make decisions; they specifically make decisions that further their existence. Which means the existence of the subject, and the existence of the object on which the subject makes decisions.

We exist because we are the physical, actual representatives and manifestations of God. And that’s the fifth axiom of metaphysics. God chooses Himself. God chooses to create Himself. From the hypothetical world that may or may not exist, He chooses to create Himself and His world of possible choices without which He could not exist. Now, can we be more specific? Yes. We can and we should.

The Structure of the Philosophy of Life

I begin the Philosophy of Life by stating that it is an explanation of the way the world works, and how we ought to live in the world. The first topic goes under the category of metaphysics. The second topic goes under the category of ethics. This goes not merely for the Philosophy of Life, but for philosophy in general. Philosophy is divisible into metaphysics and ethics.

Interestingly, however, there are two kinds of philosophy, both of which are divisible into metaphysics and ethics. One is metaphysical philosophy, which is about the metaphysical and ethical views that people do have. The other is ethical philosophy, which is about the metaphysical and ethical views that people should have.

The proper order of philosophy is to begin with ethical philosophy, and to end with metaphysical philosophy. But within both ethical and metaphysical philosophy, the subject begins with metaphysics, and ends with ethics. Thus, philosophy begins with neither metaphysics nor ethics. And both metaphysics and ethics are equally important and interdependent. The order of philosophy is illustrated as follows:

BOOK I: Ethics
Part 1: Metaphysics
Part 2: Ethics

BOOK II: Metaphysics
Part 1: Metaphysics
Part 2: Ethics

In each of these Parts, there are Chapters, which are not expressed as words; they are expressed as numbers, for there are no words that ought to be used to describe Chapters, for they are arbitrarily assigned.

Why It’s Bad to Steal From the Rich (Redux)

Economics is a branch of politics, which is a branch of ethics, and it is the study of property or ownership. This essay is a summary of my economic philosophy.

I

In a mostly wise nation – a nation in which mostly wise people have the power – everyone would want to be productive in order to contribute to the human pursuit of life extension and education (in the Philosophy of Life) and happiness. Life, wisdom, and happiness are interdependent: you can’t have one without the other.

But people would also want to accumulate personal wealth, because everything that everyone does is ultimately for one’s own happiness (whether in heaven or on earth). It isn’t enough that society is productive. The fruits of society’s productivity should be enjoyed by the individual. So wise individuals would seek to not contribute to making the pie, but eating a slice of the pie. Not only would people wish to produce; they would also wish to consume. Fair enough.

So there are two economic goals that everyone should have in mind: the wealth of society as a whole, and one’s own wealth. Ultimately, people only care about their own wealth (whether in heaven or on earth). But your own wealth depends in part on the wealth of society as a whole, because we largely depend on the productivity of others for our own wealth.

Almost everything that we own – if we are not irrational – has largely been created by other people. So we want “other people” to be as productive as possible, and – if we are not irrational – we also want to contribute to the effort to produce wealth, so that we contribute to the human pursuit of life, wisdom, and happiness. Even if we were not to directly benefit from the fruits of our own labor, why should other people give you a slice of the pie if you do nothing to contribute to making the pie? People are naturally selfish, so they have no interest in giving you a slice of the pie if you do nothing to earn it.

How should we go about distributing the wealth? Obviously, if you do nothing to enhance the happiness, or work on a project that would eventually enhance the happiness, of other people, then other people have no incentive to give you a slice of the pie. In other words, productive people – which is what wise people are – have no incentive to give a share of their wealth to non-productive people.

Of course, if you are struck down by illness, and are not responsible for your lack of productivity, then you may still be given wealth. Indeed, it may be a part of someone’s contract that he is to give you wealth during this time. But it would be because of your past – or future – productivity that people would give you wealth. Whether it is because of past, present, or future productivity, wise and productive people have no incentive to give you any wealth unless you are productive.

There are two kinds of people in the world: productive people and unproductive people. Productive people would wish to band together to form a cohesive nation, by which they defend themselves against any attempts by unproductive people to steal from them. But what would qualify someone as “productive,” and therefore deserving of some of the wealth? And how should we determine how much wealth people get for the productive work that they do?

II

Whether they are rich or poor, wise people are as productive as possible. It doesn’t matter how we distribute the wealth: wise people would be as productive as possible, so that they live as long and as enlightened and as happy a life as possible. So why not distribute the wealth equally? The reason that wealth should not be distributed equally is that individuals within productive society would want to realize their full potential. Indeed, it would be the desire to realize their full potential that they would band together and form a nation to protect them from outsiders in the first place.

So that individuals realize their full potential, they would not only wish to protect themselves from those who are outside of the productive nation who would wish to steal from them; they would wish to protect themselves from domestic thieves as well. But why wouldn’t wise people also want to steal from each other? The reason that wise people would not steal from each other is that such thievery would likely be mutually destructive. People would not allow others to steal from them. Attempts to steal would stir up conflict, and both sides would likely end up losing wealth rather than gaining wealth. Thievery would result in unnecessary destruction for all parties involved. Therefore, it would be considered an immoral and illegal activity.

It is human nature for people to have ownership over the fruits of their labor. Though more productive people would more likely be targeted for theft, they would also be better equipped to defend themselves. This can be stated mathematically as AW=1, in which A is your ability to steal from someone, and W is your willingness to steal from someone. A poor man has a higher willingness to steal from a rich man, because a dollar would mean more to a poor man than it would mean to a rich man. But the poor man would also find it more difficult to steal from the rich man because the rich man would be better equipped to defend himself because he could use his greater wealth to pay for weapons and soldiers and tools of self-defense. Similarly, though a rich man would be better able to steal from a poor man, he would be that much less willing to do so.

The name that I give to the mathematical equation above is the Crux of Capitalism, because it is the basis for a society that is free is theft. It gives you insight into a law of nature by which it would ultimately be futile for people to try to steal from others.

III

Now let’s look at reality. Today you likely live in a country that is governed by a dictatorship of some kind. There are basically two kinds of dictatorship: monarchy and democracy. In a monarchy, the ruler is one person, or one family, or one small group. In a democracy, the ruler is the majority of citizens. Under a monarchy, the minority can steal from the majority. In a democracy, the majority can steal from the minority. What is wrong with a ruler stealing from those over whom they rule?

The answer is that, if people are moral, they would fight back against such thievery, and overthrow such dictatorships in favor of a society in which there is a contract or “constitution” between the government and the people that prohibits theft of any kind. This kind of society would be one in which everyone pays a flat percentage tax depending on how much wealth they own. The only place for democracy would be in deciding how to run a government that is constitutionally obligated to levy a flat tax, and to prohibit thievery (euphemistically referred to as the “redistribution of wealth”).

To prevent dictatorial takeovers, people would be given a generous freedom to bear arms. This freedom would be limited to those arms that are most likely to be most conducive to the preservation of liberty, as determined by the democratic majority, and people would actively use this freedom. Such a society – in which the democratic majority is bound by the rule of law, as expressed in the constitution – is not a “democracy,” but a “republic.”

What if we live in a society whose people do not care to live under a republic, and whose people do not value liberty? Then we have a problem. Obviously, people do not know the Philosophy of Life if such thievery is allowed to take place. Indeed, it is because America’s Founding Fathers did not know the Philosophy of Life that they did not do a better job writing the United States Constitution. The US Constitution is a good try, but it is far from ideal.

Is it not possible for a wise person to take advantage of the failure of the rule of law to “loot” individuals and businesses, as when people vote for politicians who authorize government-sponsored thievery? Why shouldn’t someone who is born into a monarchy, or who votes under a democracy, take that opportunity to directly or indirectly steal from others who are not doing what they can to defend themselves?

IV

When wealth is taken from the rich and given to the non-rich, it goes towards rewarding people for their failure, and punishing people for their success. In other words, it provides people with an incentive to do nothing (productive), and it provides people with a disincentive to do something (productive). When dealing with fools, this is problematic, because fools are not necessarily productive. Wise people are productive regardless of how wealthy they are, but fools do not have the same incentive to be productive. Thus, this incentive scheme is particularly destructive in a foolish world, which is the only kind of world that would tolerate anything less than a republic of liberty.

In a totally wise world, the incentive argument doesn’t work because the non-rich would invest their wealth just as much as the rich, and the welfare recipients would still be as productive as possible. Thus, there would be no risk that an increase in taxes would harm the economy, because businesses would not be robbed of capital, and there would be no welfare recidivism. But in a totally wise world, it would be impossible for people to “redistribute the wealth” because the wise would not stand for it. It is only in a world of fools in which such redistribution is possible, and it is in a world of fools in which the law of incentives applies.

Insofar as the world of foolish, the law of incentives applies. If the foolishness of society is F, and if the law of incentives is L, then F=L. The greater the foolishness of society, the greater the law of incentives apply: the law that the redistribution of wealth rewards failure and punishes success, thereby harming the economy proportional to the extent of the redistribution, such that if the extent of the harm done to the economy is H, and if the extent of the thievery is T, then H=T. All three of these equations inform us of the Crux of Capitalism: AW=1, F=L, and H=T. But is the economic harm done by the redistribution of wealth greater than the benefit? Yes. That is implicit in the equation.

In conclusion, whether you directly or indirectly victimized by government-sponsored thievery, no wise man or woman would support it. Rather, wise men and women are republicans who demand a republic of liberty. As for what exactly the government and the market (politics and economics) would look like in a wise world, that’s another essay. But I’ll tell you right now that to become a citizen of the Nation of Life, you would have to pass a civility test, demonstrating your knowledge of the Philosophy of Life. This would be a matter of collective property that the nation of wisdom would make law. Indeed, vice in general would be illegal, insofar as the republic is willing to pay for it.

Correspondence with Patrick Grimm

The following letter was sent to me by Patrick Grimm – whose blogs are now defunct – under “Game On.”

Patrick,

I was just going to ask if you were behind me getting two blogs deleted in three days.  I find it curious that it happened right after we began our heated exchange.  Just curious.

Patrick Grimm

My response was as follows:

Mr. Grimm,

Am I behind you getting two blogs deleted in three days? No. I would much rather debate you. I am still waiting for your response to my rebuttal, and I am a little disappointed that you called me out, and yet you haven’t followed through.

May I offer you a suggestion? Maybe if you were to give my essay titled Leftism and Zionism serious consideration, and separate the Jews and the pseudo-Jewish Leftists and Zionists, then God may be kinder to you. Though you may or may not be as popular as you are now, you would be doing the right thing.

Patrick Keefe

After which he sent me the following:

Patrick,

God may be kinder to me?  I suppose you know the mind of God, if there is indeed a God.  What arrogance you possess, but I suppose it goes with the group you belong to.  Your people have such a wonderful history of getting along with others, don’t you?  What other questions did you want me to answer?  It is pointless to argue with you because you won’t concede a single point.  I have tons of books written by Jewish scholars like David Klinghoffer and they do confirm the things I say about the Talmud.  You would be ‘doing the right thing’ by stopping your subterfuge and twist-speak.  I think it’s funny.  If a Jew is part of the criminal network that is robbing the world, you declare him a pseudo-Jew, or worse yet try to label them a Gentile.  Pathetic.  Wrong answer.

Right now I am either going to have to get a website or try my hand with another blog, thanks to the censorship of your brethren.  Why don’t you call these people out for their censorship and attempted stifling of my ideas?  I’ve been dealing with them on the internet for two years.  Then maybe God will be kinder to you.  But I’m not holding my breath.

Patrick

After which I responded:

Grimm,

See, that’s your problem right there. You’re not even sure that God exists. If you were to understand the ways of God – starting with the fact that He exists – you might actually develop a conscience. But because you have forsaken Him, He has forsaken you. And He will continue to forsake you until you get to know Him better. And yes, mankind can know the essence of the mind of God. As someone who isn’t even sure that He exists, you are certainly in no position to say that His mind can or cannot be known. Obviously, you need to learn the Philosophy of Life. You are seriously philosophically confused, and it is this philosophical confusion which is at the root of your folly.

Excuse me, but you do not win an argument by saying “there are Jewish scholars out there who agree with me.” If you are a real man, you are going to stand up and follow through with your challenge to debate me, rather than run away like a girlie man.

You don’t know what a Jew is. You don’t define “Jew” properly. You don’t understand Judaism. You don’t understand the Talmud. You don’t understand the relationship between Judaism and the Talmud. And you have chickened out of a sparring match because you are too arrogant to face the possibility that you may be wrong about something.

You say that the Jews want to kill Christians because they are considered idolaters, and the Jews want to kill idolaters. That is incorrect. First of all, whether or not a Christian is an idolater depends on the Christian. You can be a Christian who does practice idolatry, and you can be a Christian who does not practice idolatry. Second of all, you say that Jew want to kill idolaters. This is also incorrect. The Jewish belief is that, during the messianic era, people will voluntarily stop worshiping idols. It will not be a period of mass genocide. Third of all, Christians and Muslims kill people for heresy and apostasy. It’s in the doctrine, and history proves it. Open up the Koran. Open up the New Testament. It is because of Christianity that the Jews have been branded “Christ killers,” and have been turned into history’s most convenient scapegoat.

I explained to you something about Judaism, but obviously it didn’t sink in. The Talmud is a debate and a discussion between rabbis, and it is used as a source of reference. But the current rabbis are the one’s who decide Jewish law. And, as I said, though though the Christians and Muslims slaughter heretics, as represented by the Inquisition and other persecutions, the Jews believe that, during the messianic era, idolaters will choose to stop worshiping idols.

Also, you should read my essay Leftism and Zionism. In it, I explain that Leftism and Zionism are pseudo-Jewish cults. They are against Judaism; they are not for it. If a Jew were to convert to Catholicism, he would be much more Jewish than someone who belongs to an atheist cult, be it Leftism, Zionism, or any other atheist cult. It would make much more sense for you to say that Catholics and Muslims are Jews than to say that Leftists and Zionists are Jews.

Jews do not belong to any “criminal network that is robbing the world,” you Jew-hating wacko. Jews do not steal from people. Jews do not murder people. Jews do not kill babies. It is Godless and agnostic and arrogant creatures like you who are responsible for the world’s woes. Those who are closer to God are more productive. Those who are further from God are more destructive. Your vicious rantings confirm the fact.

PK Patrick Keefe

Powell Endorses Obama for President

An Afric guy for B.O.? Shocker!

Why? Because he’s a “transformational figure”? Well, I’d have to agree with him on that one. The Stench would transform this country from “barely free” status to “barely communist” status.

And I’m suuuuuure it’s not about race, as you say Mr. Powell.

Oh, and how is B.O.’s affiliation with communists “irrelevant personal attacks,” whereas pointing out McCain’s inability to use a computer (because of the damage that was done to his arms in the Hanoi Hilton) not beyond “irrelevant” to the point of “reprehensible”?

I hate to break the news to you, Mr. Powell, but you were never that bright to begin with. The only reason you made it as far as you did was because of affirmative black-tion. Whatever you did in Vietnam was peanuts compared to what McCain went through. He outranks you, whether or not he has the decorations to prove it.

Botton line is: to come out for the Stench on the basis that he would be a “transformational figure” is nothing short of the most embarrassing and shameful thing that has ever publicly escaped your lips.

No, sir, you are not a Republican. With all due respect, you are just another overrated Afric.

Game On

Correction – the game is on. No worries. Reasoned debate is better than censorship, anyway. But all that stuff I said about God doing justice to those who persecute the innocent, or mix and match the innocent and the guilty: that’s all true.

All of the Smart Celebrities are Republicans

Check out this list compiled by CBS. It says on Wikipedia that James Woods “reportedly has an I.Q. of 180 or 184 (Stanford-Binet) and is a member of Mensa.” Jessica Simpson went to Columbia. (So did the Stench, but it was White Guilt – a.k.a. affirmative action – that got him in.) And Chuck Norris writes a column for World Net Daily.

Allegator Tears

I have to tell you that the shutting down of the Grimm Reaper was not entirely unpredictable. You see, God does not smile upon Jew haters, as illustrated in the music video below. But out of respect for the integrity of debate, I have taken down my latest rebuttal of his foolishness, for I do not kick men when they are down, even if they are Jew-hating douche bags.

Perhaps now he will distinguish between Jews and pseudo-Jews.

Enjoy the music video (“Life is Life” remix by Laibach):

John McCain Brings Down the House – Al Smith Dinner