Below are the 10 most recent journal entries recorded in the "jordan179" journal:
[<< Previous 10 entries]
On the Milwaukee Riots|
From what I can tell it was a good shooting, and the main problem is that the Mayor has been acting with "restraint" in dealing with the rioters. The job of city officials in a riot is to make sure the cops break heads, shoot to kill (if necessary, take out the ringleaders with snipers) if things get out of control, and haul the scum off to jail and prosecute them for every offense they can pile together so that their city does not become known as a safe place to riot. Riots can destroy the futures of cities, because businesses will not move back into cities where their security against total destruction cannot be assured.
As for the kind of vile creatures who treat times like this as an opprtunity to destroy cities -- who cares whether they live or die? All that happens if they live is that they cause more misery.
As for the riot tourists, they should not be allowed to go from city to city unscathed doing this sort of thing. It is insane that we allow there to exist a group of rich college kids who attack people and destroy property for recreation, pretending to be "social activists." Kill 'em, or put them to work at hard labor. The hobby would become a bit less popular then.
Do Not Get a Green Dot Card -- You Risk Both Information and Monetary Theft - Wahlgreen's Complicit|
I attempted to get a Green Dot Card. Wahlgreen's took $1.95 from me. I then tried to initialize the card. Green Dot claimed that my name and social security information was unverifiable, even though it is recorded by the State of California and the Social Security Administration. Green Dot then said that they would not send a permanent card, meaning I was unable to get ID from them, and that they would anyway deduct a $7.95 fee for the service, and I could not reload the card. I am thus out almost $10 for the "service" of having my time wasted. I have also create a security threat to myself by giving my personal information, including Date of Birth and Social Security #, to a company which is demonstrably either incompetent or fraudulent.
I hereby state that Green Dot Corporation is an untrustworthy fiduciary corporation and advise all readers to shun their supposed "service." If you use it, be aware that they may at whim provide you no service, and steal your personal information in the process. How are they making money? I won't use their service any more.
Well, they have my $10. And my information, which they may well sell repeatedly to even less reputable groups.
So -- deal with them at your own risk. Or, if you're wise -- DON'T.
Why I'm Going To Vote For Donald Trump|
I am perfectly aware that Donald Trump is a very flawed human being, and worse is probably guilty of deliberate criminal fraud and possibly other felonies. However, the exact same thing is true of Hillary Clinton, with the addition of multiple murders. And ...
... Trump actually GETS that his number one job as President is going to be national security. He's said he's going to increase the power of our military and ... and this is the REALLY important part ...
... take back control of our borders, particularly in keeping out illegal aliens and Muslims.
The Democrats don't even seem to understand why this is important. They can't look past "We can get VOTES from the illegals if we naturalize them as citizens" and "the Muslims will VOTE for us" and see that what they are embarking on is one of the classic ways countries die -- namely, have a political faction invite in foreign barbarians to gain advantage in their conflicts with their rival politicians.
The Mexicans don't have values all that incompatible with our own. I'd be okay with making it easier for them to immigrate, coupled with heightened border security and screening out the criminal and terrorist element.
But that's NOT what the Democrats are doing. They're leaving the border wide open for ANYONE to come through, including foreign terrorists. If this goes on, eventually our enemies will walk A-Bombs in to the country by this route. This is security suicide.
The Muslims are far, far worse. They are impelled by a radical religious ideology that tells them that they have the right to rule the lands of the Infidel, and that any atrocity is justifiable in that cause -- that THEIR law should prevail over our Constitution
Those friends of mine who are female, or LGBTQ, should reflect that YOU are among the people who Muslims consider inferior (or in the case of LGBTQ, downright abominations) and worthy of abuse with no right to defend yourselves against this. You are seeing in Europe what happens when lots of Muslims are let into a country. Why do you believe it wouldn't happen here?
If we go with Hillary for 4 or 8 years, at the end of this America may well be embroiled in an ethnic civil war. We know what THAT looks like too -- I direct your gaze to the former Yugoslavia.
We Americans will probably win that war, but it won't be pretty, and when we come out of it we will have a really bone-deep hatred of those we fought (and probably extirpated in our own country). We will not be inclined to mercy. The consequences will be even worse abroad than they were here.
Hillary won't even listen to this argument. Her top adviser (and possible lover) is a Muslim. She will call anyone who points out the danger a "racist" (even though Islam is a RELIGION). She DID send a man to PRISON for criticizing Islam in a movie, and was PROUD of doing so.
So in conclusion, morally I don't see much difference between Hillary and Trump (Hillary seems more murderous, though), and Trump's proposed policies are considerably less disastrous for America than Hillary's. Given that the choice is binary, I choose Trump, as by far the lesser of the two evils.
Regarding the Orlando Attacks ...|
What you're seeing here is the Caliphate attempting to enforce its laws -- shari'a -- in Western societies by means of terrorist attack. This is part of a wave of terrorism they explicitly called for, to be launched during Ramadan. And in shari'a, homosexuality is punishable by death.
This target was cleverly-chosen, because the point is to get some Westerners who hate homosexuals, to sympathize with the motives of the attackers. Also, gays are at least perceived to be politically-vulnerable, because their political allies are unwilling or unable to do anything against Muslim anti-homosexuals, as it will offend Muslims (the Muslim radicals, watching our system from the outside, don't realize that gays don't vote as a bloc).
Unless we as a nation act effectively to block terrorist entry into America, and the radicalization of Muslims in America by ending the idea of "different culture" as a de facto exculpatory factor; and in cases like this respond with massive and deliberately over-proportionate retaliation against the foreign sponsors (where present), these attacks will continue. Islam will [i]always[/i] find lunatics whose mad hate can be encouraged, rather than suppressed, by a religion largely built around hatred; and they can be primed and shot off like rounds of ammunition against us -- and worse, like precision guided munitions, against the parts of our society which they don't like.
Worse, because it means that they will change us to be more like them.
Have you enjoyed the last 40 or so years of freedom to be openly gay, a freedom unprecedented in the history of the West, maybe of civilization? Do you want to keep it?
Then be prepared to fight for it, because Islam does not mean that you should keep it.
That is the significance of what happened in Orlando, and what has already begun happening in London and many other places in Europe.
FIght, or lose your freedom.
Legal Question Regarding George W. Bush's Possible Culpability|
If George W. Bush participated in enabling Saudi accomplices to 9-11 flee the country, can he be prosecuted as an accessory after the fact? I know that his Presidential immunity no longer applies -- after the end of his second term, he no longer needs to be impeached to be charged with a crime.
If so, perhaps some Democrats should make their reputation going after this target. Heck, or even REPUBLICANS.
If Bush did this, I want to see him end his days in prison.
If the Saudis were behind 9-11 ...|
Then our entire foreign policy from 2001 on has been insane, as it would mean that the main threat to American national security is Saudi Arabia. If Saudi Arabia launched a war against us on 9-11-2001, starting that war with attacking civilian targets without a declaration of war and murdering civilians taken captive on the airliners, it means that no Rules of War apply to our treatment of the Saudis. We should then begin the annihilation of Saudi Arabia, with the goal being depopulation of the Kingdom. Destroy the cities, destroy the water sources, drive the people into the desert and let them try to swim like fish in the sea of the people ... of the Empty Quarter. The desert wil ltake care of our problems for us.
As for the oil fields, annex them and never give them back.
Yes, I'm angry, but when it comes to the revelation that a supposed US ALLY has committed the worst act of war against us in the last century, and one which was itself exterminationst in approach, there is no sane reason for mercy.
Kill 'em all, let Allah sort them out.
ADDENDUM: We should let them unconditionally surrender, as Japan did. Unlike Japan, I'd say hang the royals. Also, we keep the oil fields. Forever. They've shown they're not mature enough to handle the power that wealth can buy -- they can just kiss our feet like good little Arabs and thank us every time they see us for letting them live.If they resist after surrender, then kill a lot of them until the survivors beg to be allowed to surrender.
The New Nationalist Right Are MEANIES And Won't Take Their Beatings and they Hit Me, Mommy! WAAAH!!|Encountered the following statement here:
One of the most easily recognizable features of the new nationalist right is its general embrace of rhetoric, often harsh rhetoric, as a means of furthering its political goals.
This statement is almost comical in that it is (a) true and (b) leaves out the rather important fact that this "general embrace" represents the "new nationalist right" copying the behavior which the "New Left" has engaged in for the last HALF-CENTURY.
"One of the most easily recognizable features of the Western Allies in World War II was their willingness to break the rules of war as regarded civilians."
The lie in both statements is a lie of implication and omission. The wording is clearly meant to imply that the new nationalist right in the first statement, and the Western Allies in World War II, were behaving badly by the standards of their era and opposition. In both statements the implicatation would be false, because the Axis and Soviets both treated civilians far worse than did the Western Allies, and the New Left (which is now, of course a fairly old Left) is far less tolerant of political opposition.
What's actually happened is that the American Right, having finally tired of behaving in an extremely civilized fashion and getting treated by the media as if they were vicious, while they see the Left behave viciously and be treated by the same media with forbearance and understanding; has adopted some vicious tactics, under the theory that if they're going to be accused of viciousness anyway, they might as well practice it. And people including you are acting as if it's a terrible thing, that the Right is finally fighting back.
Terrible. Don't they know that they're just supposed to curl up and try to protect their vitals during the beating? How dare[ they get up and throw punches of their own?
And what's really terrible is that it's turning out that the Leftists have glass jaws. Poor babies are sitting on the floor clutching their bruised faces and crying "But they hit us! We were just trying to beat them up and they hit us! This is unfair!"
Poor, poor babies.
Some Opium For the Masses|I happen to be an atheist, in that I believe in no gods. I am also an agnostic, in that I do not acknowledge proofs of any gods, since no valid proofs have been offered.
Having said that, hating "religion" lock, stock and barrel is the equivalent of hating humanity.
Why is that? Because every effective Human culture in history which was not also casually-democidal has incorporated religion as a significant element. The only truly atheist cultures of which I know were those of Communist-totalitarianism, which murdered 100 million of mostly their own people in the 20th century; and (to some extent) modern European democratic socialism, which is in the process of laying out its own population as lambs for the slaughter by Muslim invaders.
The closest thing to an atheist culture which has ever actually worked is the United States of America, and we are "atheist" on the Constutional level -- we forbid the establishment of religion by the Federal Government. As America adopts the democratic-socialist model, we are sliding toward the same ineffectuality as the European Union has already attained.
This strongly implies that the impulse to religion is very strong in Humans, and that if religion is forbidden or discouraged, either Humans turn to worshipping men (Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao) or become rudderless and helpless in the face of fanaticism (the European Union). Even if religious belief is objectively wrong, the Human need for religion is apparently overpowering.
Religion may be the opiate of the masses, but sometimes the medical condition of a patient indicates opiates as the best treatment of -- at least -- the symptoms.
European Governments Undermining Themselves Over Muslim Immigration Issue|
All across Europe, Muslim immigrants are launching unprovoked attacks on Europeans, doing so in the belief that their religion gives them the right to abuse the Europeans at will. The governments are not even trying to protect or avenge their own people. These governments are, instead, cracking down hard on all attempts to resist or even protest such attacks.
What the Europeans don't get is something even more fundamental. Governments derive their legitimacy from the degree of consent of and to the degree that they protect the rights of the governed. A government which brings in hordes of abusers and then punishes those who resist the abusers is undermining its own legitimacy. This is true, and will have the effect of making riots, coups and rebellions more likely, whether or not the Europeans know it. Natural Right is the political-science equivlent of natural law -- you can ignore it when you build your social structures, but do not be surprised when they then fall down.
Quite aside from the direct threat posed by the Muslim immigrant invasion, the European governments are flirting with disaster in the form of an anarchic breakdown of their regimes. And they don't seem to be aware of this -- they are sleepwaliking forward, apparently convinced that their legitimacy is unquestionable.
I don't think that the Muslims will win. But I increasingly doubt that European liberal democracy will win, because the former European liberal democracies are increasingly transforming themselves into ineffectual authoritarian states -- and when that happens, the people will prefer effectual authoritarian ones.
The Man On A Horse is riding into town. Let's hope that we get Francos instead of Hitlers, or the next few decades could be very interesting.
"To Hell with their culture!" says Dawkins of Muslims|
He's probably the most brilliant evolutionary biologist of our age. He's revolutionized my grasp of how evolution works by explaining "kin-selected altruism" by showing that evolution operates at the genetic, rather than the individual, level. A subtle difference, but one with tremendous implications. And, unlike most atheists, he's willing to publicly oppose Islam, giving it the (non)-respect that it deserves..
As for atheists and Islam, some are simply cowards, lacking the courage of their convictions when it comes to opposing any religion whose adherents might get violent (The joke of this being that Muslims are famously incompetent at violence, due to their fatalistic doctrine of insh'allah). Others don't actually see any religions other than Judaism or Christianity as being "real" enough to be worth debating, a dangerous arrogance that is bearing bitter fruit right now in Europe.
I've frequently taken my fellow atheists to task for the absurd cowardice of confronting Christians, whom they may reasonably assume won't try to harm them, while letting Muslims have a pass because they might try to harm them. This attitude on their part is encouraging religious violence, by refusing to criticize violent faiths.
What's especially courageous about Dawkins' stand is that he's the subject of a country which does not back up his right to free speech with a First Amendment. Englishmen have been fined or put in prison (and under conditions amounting to state-sanctioned theft or their reckless endangerment -- read the story of Tommy Robinson some time) for expressing views similar to those of Dawkins. This, rather than the inept aggression of Muslims, is the real risk he runs.
Dawkins' intellectual courage should be celebrated.
As for Muslims ... to hell with their culture, indeed.
[<< Previous 10 entries]