The Brutality of Reason Example

By Ironcross One-One

Slicing and dicing things into pieces small enough
to be fed to Liberals, Kooks and Anti-Americans.
When feeding Kooks and Anti-Americans
I suggest a potato gun.

If you are the emotional liberal type, this mindspace will make you uncomfortable. If you think my logic or facts are faulty, lets discuss it. When your findings disagree with my findings, that is dialogue. But using rhetoric to disagree with science is demogoguery. No demogoguery! I usually refrain from insults, but occasionally, ignorance and liberal hypocrisy bring out the worst in me.

Location: Edge of Nowhere, Washington, United States

Military Jumper, Diver, Motorcycle Rider, Air Traffic Control and Demolitions Man. I build furniture and cabinets and can frame, roof, wire, plumb and finish a house. Can weld steel, drive heavy equipment, build pole barns and mortared rock walls. Have written one bad novel and one brilliant thesis. And I play the guitar.

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Liberal Spin

On the way home from the squadron today, feeling grateful for this great nation and a rich life full of wonderful people and experiences, I saw one of those silly hybrid cars with a bumper sticker that read:
When Jesus said: Love Your Enemy, I'm pretty sure he didn't mean killing them!
My goodness, what insight! What clarity of thought. A new interpretation of scripture that had somehow been missed for two millenia.
However, in typical liberal fashion (when twisting traditional sources to their cockeyed new age world-view), the premise is completely flawed. Christianity was not put forth by the Master as geopolitical policy. It is meant as a code of personal conduct with a goal of establishing a relationship between the soul and God the Father with Jesus the Messiah interceding on behalf of the sinner. Since Nation-States have no soul, the concept that Christianity should guide political policy is absurd. Further, isn't it the hybrid driving, ACLU card carring, tree hugging, gay marriage advocating, abortion supporting Liberals that tell us to get religion and morals out of public discourse?
I want to make sure I've got this right. Performing a late term abortion to end the heartbeat and brain function of a child that will be born innocent and without avarice or hate is a sacrament of liberalism reserved and protected by divine right of human sovereignty. But killing an organized, thinking and merciless enemy that wants to kill you and enslave your posterity into a medieval theocracy is against the instructions of a religion that you wish to strike from public discourse. Do I understand this right? Is that how you see it?
The Old Testament is replete with examples of Jehovah laying waste to those threaten his righteous. Jehovah of the O.T is the Christ of the N.T. He is not opposed to reaching to the rod as a correctional tool and even cleared the temple by force while in his mortality. If you think that he changed his ways after the resurrection, go take a look at the Revelations of St John the Divine. (Book of Revelations). Wrath, Sword, Death, Earthquakes, Plagues and one third of the Earth being burned before what is called the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord.
Matthew 13:49-50 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
The Messiah is not a pacifist. He is the Supreme Commander in the battle between good and evil. And don't go twisting his words, he doesn't like it.


Blogger Brandon said...

You know, only the most extreme pro-choice support late-term abortions just as only the most extreme pro-life people support the birth of a child that would kill the mother instead of letting her decide what happens in her body.

3:54 PM  
Blogger ironcross11 said...

Abortion: the Holy Sacrament of the American Left
Several Hundred words on a critical cultural question. But liberals always make sure to defend abortion first.

11:43 PM  
Blogger Brandon said...


I just don't have the time or effort for you to debate your blanket arguments that all liberals are just awful people who hate god, kill babies and make corporations responsible for the environment they destory and make them make less money because of it.

I could very well say that typical conservatives have no care for gays or blacks or the fact that they use a book to base their morals on instead of critically analyzing morals and deciding on their own.

12:13 PM  
Blogger ironcross11 said...

Prove me wrong. For starters, I'd like to know the name of a public pro-life, pro-school prayer, pro-profit liberal.

I don't differentiate between gays and straights, blacks, whites yellows or pinks. They're all people. I differentiate between behaviors. Certain behaviors are destructive. Abortion, Homosexuality, Smoking Drinking and other Drug Abuse, Tribalism, Gang Violence, Lawlessness, Racketeering, Gambling, Bigotry, Nepotism, and Bureaucracy are all behaviors that at least statistically have been shown to damage people or reduce our productivity.

I believe in productivity.

When a big business like General Motors is run into the red by regulation and the unions, where does the money come from to pay the retirement benefits for all those pensioners?

Profits are not evil, they are proof you're providing what people want.

9:39 PM  
Blogger Brandon said...

Just as I can't name a liberal that stands for conservative values, you sure as well can't name the opposite of that in conservative party.

Maybe not a liberal, but a democrat that supports most of these would be someone like Tim Kaine who is Catholic, pro-life, maybe school prayer and maybe pro-profit (whatever that means, make the most money possible for corporations and fuck the future?). Given, he has to denounce these values in support of the law or whatnot, but he personally believes in at least two of those.

You say certain behaviors are destructive, such as abortion but then you say bureaucracy is destructive as well. When the government invades the privacy of people to tell them they cannot control what goes on in their body, does that not create bureaucracy? I think it does.

And I don't understand what you mean by homosexuality as a destructive behavior. You say it as though it is something that can be changed, but it cannot. It is as inherent in a person as is the race of a person.

I think it is safe to say I agree with all the other 'behaviors' that you list off because those are just inherently obvious as reducing productivity.

But I fail to understand, what happens to these companies when there is no longer an environment or planet for them produce in. Sure, it cuts at their profits, but what good is profit when there is no liveable land in the future. Sure profit is optimal, but shouldn't we consider the lower classes that create this profit? Shouldn't they have a say in all of this? Given, you are right in some degree that unions can be taken too far and regulations can be too tight, but none at all? That seems a bit counterproductive.

10:29 PM  
Blogger ironcross11 said...

The lower classes have never produced a profit. It is the strategist, the entrepreneur, the inventor and the leader that created the profit. The lower classes were there before he got there and there was no profit, just medieval serfs slaving away at a hand to mouth existence. But then came large people with large ideas to change the world. An assembly line worker does not create a profit anymore than a machine does. It is the idea and the differential of cost and value that can be harvested for a profit by an ambitious mind.

Who is Tim Kaine? I'll bet he won't be speaking at the Democratic Convention.

10:46 PM  
Blogger Brandon said...

It's a pity you don't address all my arguments.

The worker does not individually produce profit, but don't respect him or her and you don't have profit. It's kind of disturbing that you're only focusing on profit, not on humanity. Seems you're missing a critical element in this process. Just because they don't produce profit doesn't make them totally obsolete.

and finally, Tim Kaine is the new governor of Virginia. Beat conservative Jerry Kilgore by a considerable margin and this race was considered one of the most important governor races along with the New Jersey governor race.

1:11 AM  
Blogger ironcross11 said...

My goodness! Where to start…

There’s nothing here that hasn’t been blogged here before:

A conservative Democrat replaces a Democrat in Virginia and that’s a huge powershift in favor of the Liberals?

If there is a genetic pre-disposition to homosexuality, does it automatically reason that homosexual behavior is natural and healthy? Should it be sanctioned and encouraged by government if it’s statistically known to be more dangerous than heterosexual relationships?

If there is a genetic pre-disposition to violent crime, should we set up some process to sanction crime or promote relationships between criminals?
If there is a genetic pre-disposition to addiction, should we set up some process to promote drug dependency?

The "It’s just the way I am" excuse is lame and over used. Champions are because they become what they want to be. Pioneers are because they push back frontiers. Some of us ignnore whatever deficiencies may be in the DNA soup and figure out how to make the best of what we have.

For my part, I think it’s the survival of the fittest. The strong consider their DNA a starting line, the weak view it as an excuse for accepting mediocre outcomes.

And for you brilliant gay anthropologists: If there is such a thing as a genetic pre-disposition to homosexual behavior, once it is no longer suppressed by societal influences, won’t it effectively root itself out of the gene pool in 3-4 generations?

Next topic: I don’t have a lack of respect for the laborers of the world, I give them the respect they are due. However, I know they are not the source of productivity and prosperity, they are the beneficiaries of it.

Next topic: I don’t feel a need to suppress terms like Happy Hanukkah or even a contrived holiday like Kwanzaa. I resist the efforts of the anti-Christian left to suppress Christianity while promoting Islam as the religion of Peace, Love and Brotherhood in the world today.

You seem a like a bright kid who is actually interested in learning. You need to separate your sexuality, emotions and conditioning from learning. There is a reason this nation leads the world. That reason is not because we rape the world and give nothing back. We buy what we use at market prices. Our trade deficit fuels half of the economies in the world. A trade deficit is actually an annual export of wealth.

Go back and read the entire archive for the month of January 05. I had a lot of spare time during that period and you’ll find essays and references on self-reliance and accountability as a personal, local, regional and national strategy.

9:05 PM  
Blogger Brandon said...

First of all, could you quote unbiased sources that say homosexuality is a more dangerous relationship? Sure, the stereotypical version of homosexuals is a bit skewed to the rest of the public and that gives us a bad name. It always seems to be the minority percentage of the group that people stereotype. There are many of us who are not promiscuous, want healthy relationships and hell, might even want the government to recognize this love we have for our life-long partners. Just as there are heterosexual people who sleep around all the time but for some reason, the majority doesn’t exactly get stereotyped as easily as minorities, especially those who the Christian fundamentalists disagree with the most (to put it lightly).

And it’s funny how you bring up the ‘danger’ of homosexual couples when you look on TV at some of the things the government allows like the famous, often-quoted example of Brittany Spears. Funny, heterosexuals can abuse marriage if they want, but GLBT people are not even allowed to give it a chance. What is the divorce rate up to now these days?

And you can’t compare homosexuality and crime because it is not a crime and it is not detrimental to society, no matter how you look at it. Imagine yourself in my position, you dare to say you would just kill yourself off if somehow being heterosexual doesn’t promote a continuation of the species? Would you force yourself into marriage with a homosexual male just because you know it’s not accepted in this pretend society to like the opposite sex. It’s not natural they’ll say (whatever the hell that means) and quote the Bible against you. It’s not so much fun then, now is it?

“figure out how to make the best of what we have.” Sounds like the basis of the fight for gay marriage to me.

And if you’re wondering, they don’t know what causes homosexuality just yet, if anything. Nothing causes heterosexuality, now does it? It can’t be cured, it’s an inherent part of people’s personality and it’s not going away, whether you pray or wish for it to be so. Must be a recessive gene or something that just shows up every few generations, eh?

Next topic: Oh, we promote Islam now? It’s just not the bane of your existence is all I’m trying to say, haha….promoting Islam.

Hmm, you ask me to separate my emotions and sexuality? I guess I can’t since they are what has made me who I am today. It gives me a more humane point of view some might say. Maybe this is the socialist feelings speaking out, but I do feel like we partially rape the world for resources. We are what how much percent of the world and consume like half of the resources of the world? Guess it is survival of the fittest but should we do that because we won the life lottery? No, it doesn’t.

And I suppose I might read the articles after exam week when I’m not so stressed out. And if I don’t get really angry, I’ll attempt to make my way through them.

7:48 PM  
Blogger ironcross11 said...

Why would I care if you get angry?


I am not going to hold your hand through the research. Go get the comparative statistics on Gay versus Straight mortality (that's morality witha "t in it) from any source you want to find, Use an insurance company, the National Center for Disease Control or medical or psychiatric journals. I can't believe this isn't bedtime talk for you guys.

Did I say Gay couples were dangerous? Noooooooooo. I asked a question with the premise that statistically, (measured across a representative population) there appear to be risks in gay behaviors that are not present in heterosexual behaviors.

I also didn't say anything about killing yourself off. I hinted that anthropologically, a gene that decreases the probability of reproduction eventually self-eliminates from the gene pool. Strategic thinking isn't part of the the whole liberal thing, it must not be part of the Gay thing either.

I also didn't say or indicate homosexuality is or should be a crime. I listed other behaviors that have increased risk and asked if we should federally subsidize them too.

As for homosexuality not hurting anyone, I'm afraid I know different. It hurts people.It kills people, Maybe you're just new at this. Has anyone warned you about Hepatitis? E. Coli? There was some obscure thing going around called HIV too. These diseases spread when infected body fluids break into the circulatory system. Certain tender, loving gay practices are ideal for causing this. Do yourself a favor, get every inoculation you can. I tell you this because I care.

You said homosexuality can't be cured. Hmmmm. they used to say that about a lot of things. If we just don't really know what causes it, we really don't know if it is a condition that can or should be cured... do we? Maybe it shouldn't be cured. Maybe it's the solution to global warming and all of society's problems. Let's not assume it's the end of the world but let's not assume it's the greatest innovation since paisley prints either.

You wrote that there's no evidence that heterosexual behavior is genetic. Actually the evidence that straight behavior originates in the DNA is pretty conclusive. There's tons of psychology, anthopology, OB/gyn and other science. All that stuff about how the male reproductive stuff and the female reproductive stuff work together would be a pretty good clue. Heterosexual behavior is the only sexual behavior that has direct genetic causal effects. If one stopped thinking with ones emotions, one would be able to see that. One more comment like that, and I'll declare you a frickin' idiot and ban your posting.

The real question follows from that - why does all that genetic coding not work in some people? What causes a willingness to participate in homosexual behaviors when they have no obvious reproductive or anthropological precursors. Until we know what motivates gay behavior and can come to grips with the apparent risk factors, it would be silly and short-sighted to promote it equally with other models of behavior that lower risk factors.

There is also the statistical blip that an increase in gay behavior sometimes pre-curses the collapse of cultures. (Greeks, Romans, and certain other eastern and western dynasties.) Is there a connection? Or is that increase just an outcome of the other factors that precede the fall of empires.

Gay is not something to be hated or feared. But it needs to be understood before it should or will be fully accepted and validated. Natural selection would appear to rule out a purely genetic cause. Therefore it seems reasonable that we look at cultural, psychological, metabolic, nutritional, precursors that may carry influence.

I ask the questions because I refuse the "It's just the way I am" excuse. We are who we are based on genetics, learning, nutrition, exercise, nurture, metabolics and perhaps other factors. Blindly accepting oneself or another as "the finished product" is a limiting, self-destructive view. If you don't understand this, think of it as an application of the third law of thermodynamics as applied to the human being. If you don't know what the third law of thermo is, maybe I'm not as ignorant as you think I am.

I manage the careers and employment of about 100 people where I serve. I reject "It's just the way I am" as a strategy with them too. "It's just the way I am" seeks to avoid accountability, fails to ascertain causal factors, and undermines ambition or progress. I frequently am called as motivational and leadership teacher.

Caught your note about my high school education. First, don't believe everything you think you know. Your information is flawed. It's another fact you don't have straight. (Notice the clever use of the word straight there.) Second, Your premise is flawed too. Don't put too much faith in college. In the vast majority of students, it doesn't take. It's may certify to future bosses that you are willing to take a long term view and finish the chore. It doesn't mean you know anything or can apply it effectively. Where I work, all the post-graduates refer to me as the "adult leadership".

As for your social view that we use and unfair share of the world's resources. We produce more efficiently than everyone else. That means we get more out of those resources. That's one of the reasons we can afford a huge trade deficit year after year. Other people around the world are being enriched by our labors.

Africa is not poor because we have stolen their resources. When I was in Angola in 1992, gas was 25 cents per gallon, 1/4 of the price in the US. Africa has coal/oil reserves and rare and precious strategic minerals and metals. They are poor because tribalism and nepotism don't respect property and the sanctity of contract. The powerful steal from those with the drive and talent to produce. So those with ambition - -leave. They go to the US, Europe, the Caribbean, Canada and even Asia to avoid the deficiencies of anachronistic political/social structure.

What you fail to grasp is that the laws of supply and demand put resources where they will be used most efficiently to meet the greatest demand.

If someone else could put those resources to better use, the supply chain would rip them away from us and deliver them elsewhere. It's starting to happen with China. Unhampered by environmental regulations, trade unions, confiscatory taxes, chinese industry is ramping up efficient capability. As they do, they are putting enormous pressure on the oil and steel markets. One way or the other, resources go to the most efficient use.

And don't tell me that feeding the starving is better use. Feeding the unproductive starving so that they breed more unproductive starving people is an idiotic proposition. What they need is cultural change. Cultural change will fix the problem. Throwing resources at it just delays the problem till tomorrow.

This post is closed to further ramblings. When you have something scientific to say, Post it. But I will delete any further emo twaddle.

4:14 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Copyright © 2005 Michael A. Breeden