Guest Post: A Message To The 'Left' From A 'Right Wing Extremist'

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market blog,

A Message To The 'Left' From A 'Right Wing Extremist'

Some discoveries are exciting, joyful, and exhilarating, while others can be quite painful.  Stumbling upon the fact that you do not necessarily have a competent grasp of reality, that you have in fact been duped for most of your life, is not a pleasant experience.  While it may be a living nightmare to realize that part of one’s life was, perhaps, wasted on the false ideas of others, enlightenment often requires that the worldview that we were indoctrinated with be completely destroyed before we can finally resurrect a tangible identity and belief system.  To have rebirth, something must first die...

In 2004, I found myself at such a crossroads.  At that time I was a dedicated Democrat, and I thought I had it all figured out.  The Republican Party was to me a perfect sort of monster.  They had everything!  Corporate puppet masters.  Warmongering zealots.  Fake Christians.  Orwellian social policies.  The Bush years were a special kind of horror.  It was cinematic.  Shakespearean.  If I was to tell a story of absolute villainy, I would merely describe the mass insanity and bloodlust days of doom and dread wrought by the Neo-Con ilk in the early years of the new millennium.

But, of course, I was partly naïve...

The campaign rhetoric of John Kerry was eye opening.  I waited, day after day, month after month for my party’s candidate to take a hard stance on the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I waited for a battle cry against the Patriot Act and the unconstitutional intrusions of the Executive Branch into the lives of innocent citizens.  I waited for a clear vision, a spark of wisdom and common sense.  I waited for the whole of the election for that man to finally embrace the feelings of his supporters and say, with absolute resolve, that the broken nation we now lived in would be returned to its original foundations.  That civil liberty, freedom, and peace, would be our standard once again.  Unfortunately, the words never came, and I realized, he had no opposition to the Bush plan.  He was not going to fight against the wars, the revolving door, or the trampling of our freedoms.  Indeed, it seemed as though he had no intention of winning at all.

I came to see a dark side to the Democratic Party that had always been there but which I had refused to acknowledge.  Their leadership was no different than the Neo-Cons that I despised.  On top of this, many supporters of the Democratic establishment had no values, and no principles.  Their only desire was to “win” at any cost.  They would get their "perfect society" at any cost, even if they had to chain us all together to do it. 

There was no doubt in my mind that if the Democrats reoccupied the White House or any other political power structure one day, they would immediately adopt the same exact policies and attitudes of the Neo-Conservatives, and become just as power-mad if not more so.  In 2008 my theory was proven unequivocally correct.

It really is amazing.  I have seen the so-called “anti-war” party become the most accommodating cheerleader of laser guided death and domination in the Middle East, with predator drones operating in the sovereign skies of multiple countries raining missiles upon far more civilians than “enemy combatants”, all at the behest of Barack Obama.  I have seen the “party of civil liberties” expand on every Constitution crushing policy of the Bush Administration, while levying some of the most draconian legislation ever witnessed in the history of this country.  I have seen Obama endorse enemy combatant status for American citizens, and the end of due process under the law through the NDAA.  I have seen him endorse the end of trial by jury.  I have seen him endorse secret assassination lists, and the federally drafted murder of U.S. civilians.  I have seen him endorse executive orders which open the path to the declaration of a “national emergency” at any time for any reason allowing for the dissolution of most constitutional rights and the unleashing of martial law.

If I was still a Democrat today I would be sickly ashamed.  Yet, many average Democrats actually defend this behavior from their party.  The same behavior they once railed against under Bush.

However, I have not come here to admonish Democrats (at least not most of them).  I used to be just like them.  I used to believe in the game.  I believed that the rules mattered, and that it was possible to change things by those rules with patience and effort.  I believed in non-violent resistance, protest, civil dissent, educational activism, etc.  I thought that the courts were an avenue for political justice.  I believed that the only element required to end corruption would be a sound argument and solid logic backed by an emotional appeal to reason.  I believed in the power of elections, and had faith in the idea that all we needed was the “right candidate” to lead us to the promise land.  Again, I believed in the game. 

The problem is, the way the world works and the way we WISH the world worked are not always congruent.  Attempting to renovate a criminal system while acting within the rigged confines of that system is futile, not to mention delusional.  Corrupt oligarchies adhere to the standards of civility only as long as they feel the need to maintain the illusion of the moral high ground.  Once they have enough control, the mask always comes off, the rotten core is revealed, and immediate violence against dissent commences. 

Sometimes the only solutions left in the face of tyranny are not peaceful.  Logic, reason, and justice are not revered in a legal system which serves the will of the power elite instead of the common man.  The most beautiful of arguments are but meaningless flitters of hot air in the ears of sociopaths.  Sometimes, the bully just needs to be punched in the teeth.

This philosophy of independent action is consistently demonized, regardless of how practical it really is when faced with the facts.  The usual responses to the concept of full defiance are accusations of extremism and malicious intent.  Believe me, when I embarked on the path towards the truth in 2004, I never thought I would one day be called a potential “homegrown terrorist”, but that is essentially where we are in America in 2013.  To step outside the mainstream and question the validity of the game is akin to terrorism in the eyes of the state and the sad cowardly people who feed the machine. 

During the rise of any despotic governmental structure, there is always a section of the population that is given special treatment, and made to feel as though they are “on the winning team”.  For now, it would appear that the “Left” side of the political spectrum has been chosen by the establishment as the favored sons and daughters of the restructured centralized U.S.  However, before those of you on the Left get too comfortable in your new position as the hand of globalization, I would like to appeal to you for a moment of unbiased consideration.  I know from personal experience that there are Democrats out there who are actually far more like we constitutionalists and “right wing extremists” than they may realize.  I ask that you take the following points into account, regardless of what the system decides to label us...

We Are Being Divided By False Party Paradigms

Many Democrats and Republicans are not stupid, and want above all else to see the tenets of freedom respected and protected.  Unfortunately, they also tend to believe that only their particular political party is the true defender of liberty.  The bottom line is, at the top of each party there is very little if any discernible difference between the two.   If you ignore all the rhetoric and only look at action, the Republican and Democratic leadership are essentially the same animal working for the same special interests.  There is no left and right; only those who wish to be free, and those who wish to control.

Last year, the “Left and the “Right” experienced an incredible moment of unity after the introduction of the NDAA.  People on both sides were able to see the terrifying implications of a law that allows the government to treat any American civilian as an enemy of war without right to trial.  In 2013, the establishment is attempting to divide us once again with the issue of gun disarmament.  I have already presented my position on gun rights in numerous other articles and I believe my stance is unshakeable.  But, what I will ask anti-gun proponents and on-the-fence Democrats is this:  How do you think legislation like the NDAA will be enforced in the future?  Is it not far easier to threaten Americans with rendition, torture, and assassination when they are completely unarmed?  If you oppose the NDAA, you should also oppose any measure which gives teeth to the NDAA, including the debasement of the 2nd Amendment.

Democrats Are Looking For Help In The Wrong Place

Strangely, Democrats very often search for redress within the very system they know is criminal.  For some reason, they think that if they bash their heads into the wall long enough, a door will suddenly appear.  I’m here to tell you, there is no door. 

The biggest difference between progressives and conservatives is that progressives consistently look to government to solve all the troubles of the world, when government is usually the CAUSE of all the troubles in the world.  The most common Democratic argument is that in America the government “is what we make it”, and we can change it anytime we like through the election process.  Maybe this was true at one time, but not anymore.  Just look at Barack Obama!  I would ask all those on the Left to take an honest look at the policies of Obama compared to the policies of most Neo-Cons, especially when it comes to constitutional liberties.  Where is the end to Middle Eastern war?  Where is the end to domestic spy programs?  Where is the end to incessant and dictatorial executive orders?  Where is the conflict between the Neo-Cons and the Neo-Liberals?  And, before you point at the gun control debate, I suggest you look at Obama’s gun policies compared to Mitt Romney’s and John McCain’s – there is almost no difference whatsoever…

If the two party system becomes a one party system, then elections are meaningless, and electing a new set of corrupt politicians will not help us.

Democrats Value Social Units When They Should Value Individuals Instead

Democrats tend to see everything in terms of groups.  Victim status groups, religious groups, racial groups, special interest groups, etc.  They want to focus on the health of the whole world as if it is a single entity.  It is not.  Without individuals, there is no such thing as “groups”, and what we might categorize as groups change and disperse without notice.  Groups do not exist beyond shared values, and even then, the individual is still more important in the grand scheme of things. 

As a former Democrat, I know that the obsession with group status makes it easy to fall into the trap of collectivism.  It is easy to think that what is best for you must be best for everybody.  This Utopian idealism is incredibly fallible.  Wanting the best for everyone is a noble sentiment, but using government as a weapon to force your particular vision of the “greater good” on others leads to nothing but disaster.  The only safe and reasonable course is to allow individuals to choose for themselves how they will function in society IF they choose to participate at all.  Government must be left out of the equation as much as possible.  Its primary job should be to safeguard the individual’s right to choose how he will live.  You have to get over the fact that there is no such thing as a perfect social order, and even if there was, no government is capable of making it happen for you.   

Democrats Can Become As Power-Mad As Any Neo-Con

I think it is important to point out how quickly most Democratic values went out the door as soon as Barack Obama was placed in the White House.  Let’s be clear; you cannot claim to be anti-war, anti-torture, anti-assassination, anti-surveillance, anti-corporate, anti-bank, anti-rendition, etc. while defending the policies of Obama at the same time.  This is hypocrisy. 

I have heard some insane arguments from left leaning proponents lately.  Some admit that Obama does indeed murder and torture, but “at least he is pushing for universal health care…”.  Even if it did work (which it won’t), is Obamacare really worth having a president who is willing to murder children on the other side of the world and black-bag citizens here at home?  Do not forget your moral compass just because you think the system is now your personal playground.  If you do, you are no better than all the angry bloodcrazed Republicans that bumbled into the Iraq War while blindly following George W. Bush. 

There Is A Difference Between Traditional Conservatives And Neo-Cons

Neo-Cons are not conservative.  They are in fact socialist in their methods, and they always expand government spending and power while reducing constitutional protections.  The “Liberty Movement”, of which I am proudly a part, is traditional conservative.  We believe that government, especially as corrupt as it is today, cannot be trusted to administrate and nursemaid over every individual in our nation.  It has proven time after time that it caters only to criminally inclined circles of elites.  Therefore, we seek to reduce the size and influence of government so that we can minimize the damage that it is doing.  For this, we are called “extremists”. 

Governments are not omnipotent.  They are not above criticism, or even punishment.  They are merely a collection of individuals who act either with honor or dishonor.  In the Liberty Movement, we treat a corrupt government just as we would treat a corrupt individual.  We do not worship the image of the state, nor should any Democrat.

Liberty Minded Conservatives Are Not “Terrorists”

There will come a time, very soon I believe, when people like me are officially labeled “terrorists”.  Perhaps because we refuse gun registration or confiscation.  Perhaps because we develop alternative trade markets outside the system.  Maybe because some of us are targeted by federal raids, and we fight back instead of submitting.  Maybe because we speak out against the establishment during a time of “declared crisis”, and speech critical of the government is labeled “harmful to the public good”.  One way or another, whether you want to believe me now or not, the day is coming. 

Before this occurs, and the mainstream media attacks us viciously as “conspiracy theorists” and traitors, I want the Left to understand that no matter what you may hear about us, our only purpose is to ensure that our natural rights are not violated, our country is not decimated, and our republic is governed with full transparency.  We are not the dumb redneck racist hillbilly gun nuts you see in every primetime TV show, and anyone who acts out of personal bias and disdain for their fellow man is not someone we seek to associate with.  We fight because we have no other choice.  Our conscience demands that we oppose centralized tyranny.  We do what we do because the only other option is subservience and slavery.   

Many of the people I have dealt with in the Liberty Movement are the most intelligent, well-informed, principled and dedicated men and women I have ever met.  They want, basically, what most of us want:

  • to be free to determine their own destinies.
  • To be free to speak their minds without threat of state retribution.
  • To be free to defend themselves from any enemy that would seek to oppress them.
  • To live within an economic environment that is not rigged in favor of elitist minorities and on the verge of engineered collapse.
  • To live in a system that respects justice and legitimate law instead of using the law as a sword against the public.
  • To wake up each day with solace in the knowledge that while life in many regards will always be a difficult thing, we still have the means to make it better for ourselves and for the next generation.
  • To wake up knowing that those inner elements of the human heart which make us most unique and most endearing are no longer considered “aberrant”, and are no longer under threat.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Harbanger's picture

"You guys friggin nominated Mitt Romney?"

Whose you guys?  I voted for RP.  FYI- Less republicans voted for Romney than McCain, read into that fact genius.

BKbroiler's picture

If RP had a shot in hell I would have voted for him.  All you purists can argue your point all you want, but voting for someone who has absolutely no shot in winning to satisfy your own ego is stupid (add to above list).  You bet on the first horse or the second, not the lame horse at the end, no matter how much he means to you.  Obama sucks but he sucks a little less than Romney would have and that's why he's president.

Harbanger's picture

So you admit voting for Obama?  and you're smart?  You won, enjoy your prize.

Zap Powerz's picture

Mr. BK

You seem pretty intelligent.  Sometimes intelligent people get frustrated with people less knowledgeable than they are and when they get frustrated they (you) can become condesending and sound like a dick.

We face a monumental challenge as lovers of freedom.  We need to bring as many people to the freedom movement as we can.  If we alienate them by being dicks we defeat our own objective.

So, exercise some patience.  Educate instead of insult.  We need bright guys like you to NOT offend those that are just waking up.  Even if they believe Adam rode diosaurs.  Build on common ground and forget the stupid stuff.  Think strategic.  Resist the tempation to ridicule even when youre surrounded by morons.


RockyRacoon's picture

Just count the red arrows.  That should tell you all you need to know.

It has come to pass that ZH is not as reasonable a place as it was.

strannick's picture

Articles are top notch, as always. You dont like the comments, then stop at the end. Maybe RocRac doesnt like the fascist left getting called fascist. Too used to the pandering it gets from the MSM I guess. 

Taint Boil's picture



I agree. Not the same as it use to be.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Libtards are getting smacked down here at ZH. You want validation for stupid libtard ideas? Go to Daily-Mark-of-The-Beast, or HuffPuff, or FailyKos.

RockyRacoon's picture

You know better than that.  It's not about "libtards", validation, or anything else.  It's about reason and common courtesy.

secret_sam's picture

There are a LOT of readers these days who have nothing to offer to the discussion other than an arrow.  For whatever reason, they mostly fling shit at the self-described "liberals."

I've drawn the OBVIOUS conclusion, and that was even before Tyler started pulling headlines from the NY Post.

BKbroiler's picture

To Zap Powerz  

This site needs more people like you.  You're right, I get pissed at people a bit prematurely.  In my defense, I'm having to argue the merits of science and the idea that the earth wasn't created 7000 years ago by an invisible man who doesn't like gays or minorities.  We are getting laughed at by the whole world because of a small group of brainwashed hicks.  If they are the liberty movement, then fuck the liberty movement.  No amount of ideology is going to make me reject basic science, or common sense and decency.  The real liberty movement lives in the universities these people so dispise.  That is where Ron Paul focused his efforts and it was a smart decision.  They are the future, they belive in both science and liberty, and that's my team.  

viahj's picture

i disagree.  Mr BK is still fighting the Democrat vs Republican false dichotomy.  doesn't sound very enlightened or intelligent to me.

UGrev's picture

RP would have won if everyone just put up their WTF signs and wrote off both candidates and put RP's name on the line.  I did that.. and everyone else who didn't HAS NO FUCKING BALLS WHAT-SO-EVER and I'm call you all out. 

shovelhead's picture


Get your own banana. We don't owe you one.

Sparkey's picture

Here is your Banana BK, still your observation is correct, the high level commentators have (largely) left the site,,,Why? Because there is too much noise here now,, or,,, because it possibly is no longer (intelligent) to show how smart you really are? What do you think? 

Cathartes Aura's picture

awww damn, I really wasn't going to get into this again, but so many of the replies to your posts BKbroiler are devoid of any intelligent arguments, I've decided to add some support to what you're saying, specifically this,

 How does a party that believes that government should stay out of their lives justify letting the government tell a woman what she can and can't do with her own body?  Doesn't that seem ironic to you? 

"ironic"?  idiotic, disingenuous too.  look guys, you've yet to make ANY decent argument as to why you'd vote for a government to have a say in a woman's body sovereignty, none.  I don't include "religious beliefs" as an argument, because those have ZERO place in LAW - you want to go to a church and worship your particular god - and there are MANY different denominations even here in amrka, so there's no ONE god we're talking about, just lots of folks preferences - then fine, you have the right to your beliefs,

just stop believing you deserve to make them into LAWS than penalise others who don't believe as you do.

there has been quite the hue 'n' cry about your RIGHT to bear arms/guns - I wonder if any of you can dredge up any amount of intellect/empathy to apply this to how a woman might feel about making choices as to what happens to her own body?  that you would, in ANGER, choose to let LAW ENFORCEMENT have their say over a woman's body is sheer lunacy, and shows the sociopathic hatred for what it is - do not give me the "she got herself pregnant" suffer the consequences bullshit - because unless we're talking immaculate conception, sperm was involved, and that came from a man, one you've yet to show any interest in legally.

blah blah blah - I've said it all before, and more eloquently - but let me sum this rant up with,

do not be talking about "LIBERTY" or "LIBERTY MOVEMENTS" if you want to include Sanctity of Life amendment laws, because you're fakes, hypocrites if "liberty" comes with a tag "for men & guns only"

either it's liberty, or it's something else, figure out your labels.


newdoobie's picture

I probably shouldn't reply cause you wont listen but...

If you believe the "fetus" is alive and has rights, then no one (even the mom) should be able to take those rights away.

I understand you dont believe the "fetus" is a child, but many people do.

You believe a person should not be allowed to kill someone else and so do we.

Cathartes Aura's picture


we're talking about zygotes here, not foetus nor baby nor child.

but that's okay, at least I can see ZH hasn't moved on in the thinking of this subject.

guns are rights, bodies, if they have wombs, subject to government control.

gotcha, thanks for sharing.

moar junks plz.


oh, and definitions of "liberty"

Fedaykinx's picture

i'm not going to junk you since it's apparently what you want and/or expect but you could probably take a lesson from zap and tone down the condescension just a bit there, cap'n.  you're not going to win any hearts and minds when it is so obvious that you have zero respect for the religious beliefs that lead to people taking such positions.  and this is coming from someone who has more than serious reservations about the existence of a higher power, or any afterlife whatsoever for that matter.

personally when it comes right down to it i don't give much of a shit about whether or not somebody aborts their child, in many cases it spares both the parent and the offspring great grief and suffering in the long run.  suffice to say my situation has led to to give a lot of thought to the issue.  maybe it's a bit too much "sharing" but the only reason i am sitting at this keyboard right now is because some woman who i'll never know, and don't really even care to know, thought enough of my worthless unborn ass to spit me out and give me to some very sweet and caring people who were more than capable and willing to share their lives with an unwanted zygote.

the only reasonable and rational conclusion, to my mind, is allowing states to decide what is ultimately just a wedge issue on the national level used to "divide and conquer."  does that phrase sound familiar?  you're not going to convince the hardcore right to lifers, and they're not going to convince you, either.  they should go to their corner, and you should go to yours, because frankly i'm kinda fuckin sick of hearing about something that will never, ever be resolved to either side's satisfaction.

secret_sam's picture

What kind of power and authority do you want to grant to any state government that determines abortion is a crime?

Do they have the authority to demand all medical records for all female patients?  Should they place armed men in doctor's offices to ensure that the doctors can't just give women a PILL? 

There's a big problem with creating laws that can't be enforced, and if you give some thought to what criminalizing abortion would require to enforce it, you start to recognize some of the reasons that SOME folks oppose the idea.

Fedaykinx's picture

frankly what i want personally is immaterial, and the suggestion that i haven't completely thought through both sides is either a tad insulting or perhaps a testament to my inability to express myself succinctly.  in fact if pressed i tend to come down on the side of the mother's right to choose, certainly up to the point that an abortion pill would be effective (7-9 weeks in?)

the "big problems" you reference are precisely the reason i think smaller polities should have to hash it out for themselves, and not be forced to endure some arbitrary decision handed down from on high by a monolithic central government.  both sides are wrong in attempting to force their belief systems upon each other in such a manner. 

i also advocate this approach for virtually any "hot button social issue" of the day, whether it is gay marriage, gun control, what have you.  at least if done on a state by state basis if a person feels strongly enough about any given issue they can vote with their feet, as it were.

Cathartes Aura's picture

"smaller polities" != Constitutional Amendments.

if the reference is to "States" then perhaps "medical marijuana" being "legalised" in some States, yet still subject to Fed raids/interventions/Rules might be a useful comparision.

of course, folks will have to confront just how firmly they believe in their national state-hoods, etc.

"monolithic central government" = Constitutional Amendment, yes?

secret_sam's picture

(To begin, I should mention that in this environment, you'll encounter far more insulting commentary than the possible implication that you haven't thought over the issue.  "Fuckhead" is how many commenters here say "old chap.")

       the "big problems" you reference are precisely the reason i think smaller polities should have to hash it out for themselves, and not be forced to endure some arbitrary decision handed down from on high by a monolithic central government.

While I am in general agreement in principle that virtually all government should only exist as "locally" as possible, I think that there are still plenty of overarching ideals which are recognized NEARLY UNIVERSALLY, and *no* governmental authority can ever legitimately claim the power to violate them.  Which principles those are is a matter of personal preference, but the simplest demonstration of the test that I think must always be overcome is a "negativist" restatement of the Golden Rule.

   Do not do unto others anything you would not have them do unto you.

As this applies to abortion, you have real people (in the philosophic sense--autonomous agents who can reason and communicate about their interpretation of the world) in conflict.  One such person is the pregnant woman carrying an embryo or a fetus who, for whatever reason, has decided she does not wish to go through the birthing process.

The other person in direct conflict here is NOT the embryo or fetus--that being cannot be qualified as a "person" due to the lack of ability to separate its interests from the potential mother, lack of personal autonomy, and lack of ability to communicate and understand legal relationships.  The other person is some third party, who MAY OR MAY NOT have any involvement in either the conception or the life of the pregnant woman--this is the State, or the "anti-abortion" activist, or the neighbor, or the potential father.

IF that third party cannot come up with a very compelling argument for why it should be granted the authority to (effectively) strap the woman to a table until the birthing process starts, there should be NO negotiation whatsoever to prevent the potential mother from taking actions which result in termination of the pregnancy.

The big flaw in the "unborn babies are people" argument (which is really what the entire anti-abortion argument hinges on) is that some unborn babies never make it through the birthing process.

This means that a pregnant woman is NOT the unborn being's "future mother."  She can only ever be, at BEST, the POTENTIAL future mother.  Criminalizing any act on the basis solely of that POTENTIAL is a very dangerous precedent to set and/or reinforce. 

Just as I'd say we'd never want government preventing people from purchasing cars or guns because they might POTENTIALLY harm someone with them, I'd say we should never permit government to imprison a woman because she could POTENTIALLY have given birth to a child.

Now there's at least one other legal approach which might work....the State COULD assert that it has a clear interest in the welfare of any *potential* person.  The simplest way to construct that argument would be to say that an unborn child is a future taxpayer, and thus depriving the State of that future revenue is something the potential mother should be accountable for.

The implications from that line of reasoning seem far worse to me than the simple "it's a baby" assertion, but I suppose if someone were really motivated they could try to make it work.  It might even be arguable beyond that point then that male masturbation could be criminalized, or that female menstruation could represent a similar "crime."

At the end of the day, we just personally decide which world we think would be "better." 

One in which women who end up pregnant and don't wish to carry their pregnancies to term end up in cells like pigs or brood-mares, or one in which these women occasionally do something which is morally repugnant to millions of people who are completely uninvolved in the decision?

Cathartes Aura's picture

well Fedaykinx, this is a topic I've kept in thread for well over a year, waaaay back when the "good doctor" was mentioned in virtually every thread, and no dissension was allowed.  a whole year of ZH electioneering - something that still raises my eyebrows, as it seemed so odd to be promoting teh voting??  but promote it did, and the bait was swallowed, and the threads were full, thus saith. . .

so, going with the flow of "who shall we vote for?" (and let me say, in case you've missed the many times I've stated this: I don't vote, never have and never will, mainly because it's obvious to me that "voting" is something only people who believe in the system that occupies them do, so they also believe they have a "say" in it, and can "change" it with something as simple as their opinion - I have never believed that, guess the skoolin' didn't take for me, sigh) - "who shall we vote for?" gets debated around. . . and I did some research on the characters proffered, and all the group love kept refusing to acknowledge what was out there on the interwebs for all to see. . . so I brought the subject up. . . to massive denial with the usual anonymous junks.

see, all I was asking to be acknowledged is this:  IF you've got these guys using the "liberty" word over and over and over, yet at the SAME time advocating for Constitutional Amendments that would allow the GOVERNMENT enForcement of a woman's fertility cycle, how is that "liberty"?  unless, oh wait, it's like the original Founding FATHER'S liberty, ie, it comes with a genetic requirement - male, white - and the rest can GTFO and spend centuries fighting for the right to be considered human, a full human, which is automatically accorded the "white male" by virtue of. . . laws.

how can anyone say with a straight face that making a LAW that gives "personhood" to a zygote - not a foetus, not a baby, not a child, but a mass of cells that are fully dependent on the body of the woman for survival - how can anyone SAY they are for "liberty" and then support a position that can only be enForced by the State through monitoring a woman's fertility cycle???  because that's it, that's the only way to make absolutely sure you have control over woman's fertility, by monitoring it.

so, now that you all are beginning to see the coalescing of the State via "health care" - ie, the white coat holy doctors of pharma will be monitoring your body for compliance - can you perhaps see the direction I've been pointing out for over a year?  I tried the careful, talk-around-the-subject route, I've been very polite at times, and I've had some in depth and valuable (to me) discussions when the replies were also respectful - but the majority of "opinions" here range from "fuck the bitches, the baby mammas, let them pay for their spawn, and they shouldn't be getting pregnant anyhow, the sluts!!! and what about teh baybeez??"  and when asked, indeed, what about the babies?  those babies you want to FORCE a mother to carry, then birth - what happens NEXT?? - because we all know what happens to children who are not wanted, and few here give a damn.

no, there has been zero thought given to anything beyond the enForcement issue, none whatsoever to the end results, how that might affect the culture (such as it is now), how the forced pregnancies might play out, who pays to support them, etc. etc. - just the promotion of the Laws.

which leads me to believe this is just plain old hatred of women, played out naturally in a country that believes itself to be "godly" and doing what "god" tells them to, control the fertility - it's a time honoured concept, I know, I've studied it.  the return of midwifery & doulas in some areas of the country is a direct challenge to the white coat priests of Medicine, and we will see the backlash on that too, as "HealthCare" gets the LawGivers treatment and becomes enForced.

THIS is where I come from, this is the argument that never gets much attention here, because the majority cannot approach the subject without their big ole hate shields, be they religious or otherwise. 

I have no disrespect for any believers who keep their faith near and dear - it's the ones who desire to put their beliefs into LAWS that might apply to ME, that might remove my LIBERTY - those are the torch carrying mobs I will continue to point at, point out.

if you'd like to take on the definition of "liberty" as it applies to this subject, I would gladly discuss this topic with you.

Fedaykinx's picture

you both gave me quite a lot to address and honestly i don't have the desire, much less the time, to really get into the minutiae.  i understand that previous discussions with different people can color fresh interactions with new folks in that you feel as though you're banging your head on a wall treading the same ground over and over.  i also feel that i've heard all the arguments and don't see much of anything new here either.  "hate shield" might be a novel term for me though.  as far as defining liberty, each state should have more leeway to differentiate itself.  you'd have 50 different flavors to choose from, i think that's about the best we can hope for at this point.  thanks for the discussion.

Omen IV's picture

a womans body and all its "parts" are her's to do as she pleases beginning to end - everything else is control not freedom - this will never be settled - that is why we all need to go to a corner - which means SECESSION

you go south along with the rest of what you call "your people" and we go north and we end this thing on so many issues

NYC for one - has a number of other geographic areas  that do not need the south or what is there at any level - we can get  those resources from Canada or other places - we will do fine without the insanity of this discussion any longer

we should all propose a national referendum on a breakup and have a border just like Mexico

jwoop66's picture

Brainwashed?!  Indeed you are.   The data?  You mean the data that says the climate has NEVER been consistant or stable?  Maybe your talking about the data that says the last 20 years have shown a cooling trend?   Ha!  Whatever.

Freddie's picture

Yah think?  There are millions of variables and the left idiots never take into account the biggest one because it is impossible to accurately measure.  Solar radiation.  Until you can accurately measure that including flares, distance and other factors you have no clue what you are talking about.   You cannot measure it because it is pretty much impossible to measure.   Your models are totally flawed because you leave out solar radioation and other variables. This means your models are worthless and junk science.

Oh and guess what - there is nothing you or I or anyone can due to control the sun.  One day it may flare up and cook the earth or it could put out less radiation and we would freeze to death.  Stop trying to play God because you are not that powerful. Stop thinking man has that power. You don't.  It is incredibly egocentric of you to think you have ANY control over the earth or global temperatures.  You don't.   The earth is far more powerful than anything you can conceive.  You can't control the sun, volcanoes, earthquakes, storms, etc. 

You might be able to use satellites to reduce the sun's radiation but the fix could be worse than the faux  problem.

You are the people who deny science because your models are so childishly simple with endless numbers of missing variables.   You are like idiot hedge fund managers who ignore long tails and black swans because it does not fit your model.   Their portfolio blows up and they say "oh we forgot to take that into account."

You are the first people to say the other side is stupid even though you never think of even 70% of the variables.  FAIL.   Go away.

Diogenes's picture

"Whether it's man made or not, the climate is getting warmer"

Well I live in Canada and the weather sure isn't getting warmer around here. I've been waiting for this much advertized Global Warming for 20 years and I'm still waiting. James Lovelock admitted he was wrong, a lot of other people have noticed the same thing.Global Warming is a bust.

And where's my damn check? I've been calling bullshit for years, when do I get my check?

gatorengineer's picture

Time in the earth is measured in Millions of years, Man has reasonable scientific data for a hundred or so years.... Get a grip.


All that coal we used to burn in our clean efficient plants, is now put on a boat and shipped to China and burned in efficiently in plants with no emmisions controls.....  Does the CO2 become a non issue because its burned in China?

MajorWoody's picture

clean efficient plants?  any fisherman out there eating a fish a day? why not? unless you're in Alaska perhaps

Flakmeister's picture

We have high quality data going back 800,000 years....

Google Vostok Ice Core

FrankDrakman's picture

You're as dumb as the sandwich you've named yourself after. Apparently you are unaware that until Sandy happened - and that was a freak confluence of storm systems that simple probability would predict will happen every so often (and has happened long before CO2 emissions were anywhere near present levels) - 2012 was shaping up to be one of the LOWEST years of insurance losses due to storms, hurricanes, etc.

Apparently you're unaware that on Christmas Eve, when they thought no one was looking, the UK Met snuck out a new graph of temperature predictions which shows 1) a substantial decline in their predicted future temperatures, and 2) an absolute drop in average temperature over the next five years.

I'm an engineer, not a fast food flipper. WHEN YOUR PREDICTIONS DON'T MATCH THE FACTS, THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOUR THEORY. The entire AGW thesis is flawed, based as it is on cherry-picked and massaged data. NOT ONE OF THE PREDICTIONS OF Mann, et al, HAS COME TRUE. Sea levels are not rising. Arctic ice is not decreasing. There has not been an increase in catastrophic weather storms. When one single prediction of the AGW alarmists comes to pass, I might give them another look, but since they have never been right, I and millions of others dismiss them as fools.

sessinpo's picture

BKbroiler:  " How does a party that believes that government should stay out of their lives justify letting the government tell a woman what she can and can't do with her own body?  Doesn't that seem ironic to you?"


So, you are saying that government shouldn't tell a woman what do to with her body, but the living entity in the womb shouldn't also get the same courtesy?  And you say Ironic?

Cathartes Aura's picture

is the "living entity" in your womb?

if so, your call, if not, get a another hobby.

preferably one that caretakes all the babies born into poverty, ill-health, bad parenting, etc.

start there, maybe you can branch out into other areas.

miro1a's picture

GW is science.  It is observed through measurement.  That being said, the cause of it is a scam.  Some parts of our galaxy are dustier than others.  When our solar system orbits through these areas less light reaches our planet and we have ice ages.  When we get to an especially clear part of our galaxy we have warming.  These trends last millenia.  I remember reading about a volcano erupting that put more shit into the sky than all of man kinds activities combined.  TPTB are exploiting this natural phenomenon for their own NWO purposes.

miro1a's picture

GW is science.  It is observed through measurement.  That being said, the cause of it is a scam.  Some parts of our galaxy are dustier than others.  When our solar system orbits through these areas less light reaches our planet and we have ice ages.  When we get to an especially clear part of our galaxy we have warming.  These trends last millenia.  I remember reading about a volcano erupting that put more shit into the sky than all of man kinds activities combined.  TPTB are exploiting this natural phenomenon for their own NWO purposes.

Diogenes's picture

Except that the measurements used by the University of East Anglia were revealed to be bogus in 2009. Also Michael Mann of the University of Pennsylvania. And most of the climate journals. And the IPCC. All these organizations being made up of the same individuals.

James Lovelock, one of the first Global Warming advocates and the inventor of the Gaia hypothesis, admitted last year that none of the predictions he made 20 years ago have come true and therefore the theories he made up at that time are falsified.

Yet Al Gore says "the science is settled". That is an interesting statement all by itself.

Einstein is still open to question. So is Darwin. So is Isaac Newton. So is all science.

When he says "the science is settled", that isn't a scientist talking. That's a pope.

Flakmeister's picture

Really? That dog don't hunt anymore and as if it ever did...

You have to come up with something better than it is all made up...

Oh the science *is* setttled, up to about 15 years ago you could quibble about the data..... (there is a diffrence)


Blano's picture

I've been hoping there was still a few of you left, pardon the pun.

Dewey Cheatum Howe's picture

Libertarian or Independent the new center left/right. Either way both are not what the Republicans and Democrats have become which is flip sides of the same control freak coin.

Groundhog Day's picture

Divide and conquer, red team - blue team, NFC - AFC, east coast - west coast, blacks - whites, etc etc etc.  it's as plain as day and night what they are doing.  Why can't most people see it.  What is this obsession with dems and reb, they are all the same

hankwil74's picture

The reason we get stuck on the "left" is because the "right" is now characterized by an absolute rejection of science, a woman's right to choose, environment stewardship, and the ability for immigrants and minorities to have the same opportunities of advancement as Americans have had over the last generation.

That about sums up while most of the Democrats I know are Democrats.  The Republican Party has truly become the anti-science party and the "you have to have that baby even if you're 14 and your father knocked you up" party.  They've truly gone off the deep end.  The sick thing is that they still get 48% of the popular vote.

knukles's picture

Take your pick and stop with the minutiae.
Essentially one either believes in Natural Law (in a sort of Edmund Burke-ian manner) or one is a statist regardless of what one calls themselves.

Argue away and miss the whole point of the ...
Oh neverthefuck mind..

Freddie's picture

The Mockingbird Obamo-troll shows up.

ISEEIT's picture

The solution is INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. Individual Liberty can only be had in an environment of ones own choosing. You 'on the left', and far to many on the false right, attempt to dominate and force your own CHOSEN values onto society as a whole.

If you are over the age of 30 and even remotely honest, you realize your mistakes and have the humility to begin recognizing that your only domain is within yourself. Free will and INDIVIDUAL choice.

Forcing others to accept your myths and other transient stories fails...Always.

True Conservatives have it correct because it is a fact that reality does not change, only our chosen perception of it.

Forcing me or anyone else to accept your CHOICE to devalue personal responsibility and acceptance of the consequences attached to the exercise of your own free will is tyranny just as surely as for me to inflict that violation upon you.


And rejecting science...THAT IS SCIENCE YOU GENIUS. Skepticism is to science what Liberty is to free will.


And so why dearest would anyone be even remotely 'skeptical'???


Totentänzerlied's picture

"a woman's right to govern her own body"

Alright, I'll bite, how about her right to pay for it, eh big-shot? Because, as you say, it's her choice, right, tough-guy?

I'll ignore, for your sake, the infinite hypocrisy of such a statement coming from a proponent of positive rights - i.e. powerthirsty control-freaks with communitarian god complexes - as all leftists always are, have been, and will be.

"environment stewardship"

Like carbon credits? Like the EPA? Solyndra? Like the oil industry your party has failed (gee I wonder why...) to do anything about for 100 ****ing years? Like a military that burns as much fossil fuel as a small country, each and every day?

You can't hide behind "divide and conquer" after saying that the Republicans have been betrayed by their party (as if you haven't been by yours?). You are both in the same ideological camp. Left or right, you are shills for more, more, more government, more, more, more control, less, less, less liberty, more, more, more guilt.

***infinite hypocrisy is real***

gaoptimize's picture

I'd like to add that there was ~$1T in means-tested bennefits provided by Government in 2012 (not including SS and Medicare).  I'll suggest that the epidemic in out-of-wedlock births has doubled this cost.

It is simply unfair to people like me who would VERY MUCH like to have more (awesome, joyous, top 5%) children that I have to pay for someone else to breed leaches that will almost certainly grow up with no respect for Western Civilization or the ability to contribute to its advancement.  I am outraged that the state has been organized to subsidize the devolution of our society.

Cathartes Aura's picture

if someone wants Laws to enForce births, then I guess they're ready to be taxed to pay for the Gov't. workerbees to carry out the Laws, hmm?

Cathartes Aura's picture


"a woman's right to govern her own body"

Alright, I'll bite, how about her right to pay for it, eh big-shot? Because, as you say, it's her choice, right, tough-guy?

perhaps some women make the choice not to birth babies because of the financial situations they're in, not wanting to invoke State "fathers" via benefits? 

and those who would force all women to give birth irrespective of the circumstances, her own personal circumstances which vary, those who want Laws to be enForced - they're willing to step up and pay for this point of view?