Folding, spindeling, and mutilating lauguage for fun since Aug, 2004
Saturday, 23 February 2008

Volume I:

Chapter 1:  Life story, lots of whining and bragging about how tough and smart his dad was, and how tough and smart he was.

Chapter 2:  Says that as a Christian, he had a hard time accepting anti-Sematism, but then started to read the works of REAL CHRISTIANS ™ and  came to understand that it was his Christian duty to oppose the Jews and their Marxist plot to destroy humanity.  He also says he  figured out that the secular Jews were only pretending to oppose the Zionist Jews and they were all actually in cahoots together.

Chapter 3:  He says reason Germany was great was because there were mostly just Germans there, the reason Austria was having so much trouble was because of cultural pluralism and liberal acceptance of other people’s and cultures and languages.  Germans should have been running things in the German language, and all other ethnic groups should have been educated into a German identity and required to conform to German norms.

Also, it was a bad idea to let everyone vote.  Representative government is a big joke, because everyone gets to talk.  In a representative government, great men are always burdened by what most of the people want.  Real leaders can’t really express themselves fully with the great mass holding them back.

The Liberal Press fools people into thinking representative government is good, when it is really just a way to avoid personal responsibility.

The Pan-German movement failed because it tried to defeat representative democracy from within, when it should have been trying to destroy it at it’s foundations.  Also, it tried to win over the middle class when it should have exploited the Proletariat.

The Christian Social Movement was successful because it properly exploited the lower class,  and won over the Catholic Church.

Chapter IV:

He says that God has created nature such that it is essential for the survival of a group to have numerous offspring.  Any attempt to limit the number of births is a crime against God and nature.  God has shown us through his creation that the strong produce many offspring, and then they over-run the resources, and have to struggle with other groups for resources.    Eternal struggle is God’s way of increasing the human race.  Attempts to try to help the unfit survive, attempts to manage resources for the future, or to limit population within the bounds of resources will end in the extinction of “our” race.  Also, it is an unpious attempt to thwart the will of God.

Refers to a person who interferes with God’s plan as a”dear little ape of an almighty father”.  In other words, such a person thinks he’s an ape and he thinks he’s God all at once.

The German policy of “internal colonization”…that is, encouraging German people to move to other areas of Germany to provide labor for agriculture and to shore up ethnic German presence in areas dominated by other ethnic groups is short-sighted, because it implies that Germany can secure its survival through work and not through conquest.  Other European countries make the mistake of creating far-flung empires around the world which are difficult to maintain, and expend too much effort for the gain they provide.  If would be more efficient to expand German territory to neighboring countries.  Expresses admiration for America's position as having enough land-mass to expolite for quite some time and grow strong before having to join the struggle.  Notes that America had no need of colonies, because they could efficiently expand into their own land mass.

He says that a leader should embody the religious values of his people.  If he can't do that, he should be a religious reformer. 

Chapter V:  Contempt for pacifism.  Contempt for international commerce.  Contempt for social doctrine stressing pacifism.  Expresses happiness about the Boer War, because it is a “heroic struggle”.  Describes relative peace as “morbid decedance”.  Favores isolationism and expansionism.

Expresses joy at the outbreak of WWI because now Germany could (in his view)fight for its existence without limiting its consumption to the limits of its borders, or gaining the difference through trade.  Celebrates the end to peace efforts  as salvation for the German people.

“And if this struggle should bring us victory our people will again rank foremost among the great nations. Only then could the German Empire assert itself as the mighty champion of peace, without the necessity of restricting the daily bread of its children for the sake of maintaining the peace.”

Describes his transformation into a battle-hardened soldier, and expresses his contempt for “politicians” who were talking about peace, and “the press” who were, in his mind, dampening the citizens zeal for war.

“Shortly after our first series of victories a certain section of the Press already began to throw cold water, drip by drip, on the enthusiasm of the public. At first this was not obvious to many people. It was done under the mask of good intentions and a spirit of anxious care…Instead of catching these fellows by their long ears and dragging them to some ditch and looping a cord around their necks, so that the victorious enthusiasm of the nation should no longer offend the aesthetic sensibilities of these knights of the pen, a general Press campaign was now allowed to go on against what was called ‘unbecoming’ and ‘undignified’ forms of victorious celebration.”

Expresses contempt for “Marxist” (Jewish) intellectuals who had been preaching the liberal ideas to people.  Rejoices that they had to retreat in fear at the uprising in national pride.  Laments that they were not rooted out and killed while public sentiment would have allowed it.

He advances the idea that the only way to completely eliminate a world view (in this case, what he describes as the Jewish Marxism; pacifism, population control, resource management, commerce, diplomacy) is to kill every last person who adheres to the world-view.

But in order for it to work it has to: 1) have a spiritual and moral basis to get the support of the people (already established earlier that the moral basis should be the prevailing religion of the people, and the most fundimental doctrinal foundation should be stricktly adhered to). 2) advance a positive message of self-defense and talking about what is being preserved more than what is being destroyed.  People need to know what they are fighting against, but they should be kept more aware of what they are fighting for. 3) the movement to eradicate the world-view must be absolutely consistent, and there must be NO ideological compromise with the enemy, no room for moral confusion, no grey area, and no hesitancy.  There must never be a show of weakness, indecision, or error.

Saturday, 23 February 2008 07:56:40 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [1] |  | #
Friday, 22 February 2008

I got a call from my mom and sister today.  My sister got up in the middle of the night to use the bathroom, and she tripped over an ice auger that her husband had left in the kitchen (don't ask).


Anyway, she fell and broke her arm.


Her husband took her to the local ER, and they had to call a doctor in to look at her arm.  He was cranky, and brusk, manipulating her arm around and crabbing at her when she reacted in pain.  She asked him for pain medication, but he continued manipulating her arm, and told her that if she didn't "shape up" he was going to go home without doing anything for her.


Finally, after getting tired of hearing her express her pain, he gave her a shot, and did an x-ray.  She has a horizontal fracture near the middle of the humerous, and a vertical fracture nearer the shoulder.


Later, she found out that the doctor had written in her records that she was "under the influence" and uncooperative (both untrue).


He made a crude sling out of gauze, and sent her home with no pain medication.


For two days, she and her husband tried to call to be seen for the break, and let them know that my sister was in a lot of pain.  They were put off repeatedly.


Finally, they drove 2.5 hours to Bemidji, and were seen in the ER.  A proper sling was put on, and pain medication issued.


Later, the local hospital called to do a follow-up on my sister, and asked if she still had pain or any concerns about her condition.  She replied that she had gone to Bemidji to have the break looked at.  The person on the other end responded "Oh!  Your arm is broken?"


Apparently, the doctor had merely noted that she came in "under the influence", was uncooperative, and complaining of shoulder pain.  Not mentioning the break at all.


This was the same crack medical team that failed to diagnose a cancerous tumor in my grandfather's colon...and instead concluded that he had a heart condition.  (a different hospital actually did a hemoglobin test, which I would think would be a standard procedure in someone suffering from weakness and dizziness...and discovered that he had a hemoglobin count of 3).


My in-laws drive down to the cities to get care for my MIL now, because someone in the hospital near THEM let my MIL go through a whole course of chemo therepy without adding one of the perscribed active ingredients.


I'm collecting a string of anecdotes that adds up to "God save me from having to get medical treatment in a rural hospital".


Some places in America have the best health care in the world.  Others have something that is marginally better than the 3rd world.


But don't let those "liberals" tell you there are "two Americas".




Oh, the punchine?  My sister makes her living as a violin teacher.  Let's just say, that it would probably be better for her family and for the taxpayers if her arm got proper treatment so it could heal properly, so that she could continue to earn a living.

Friday, 22 February 2008 13:06:07 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [6] |  | #
Monday, 11 February 2008

A while back, I wrote a story that was inspired by something a friend of mine told me about her childhood.

I never published the short story, because it was so completely personal to her, and I took a few liberties with details to fit it neatly into the short story form, and also to set the story in a time closer to the time-period I was most familiar with.    This woman was about ten years older than me, the youngest of several children in a Catholic immigrant family.

The family was from Poland.  My friend was the youngest because her mother had died while giving birth to her.

The father’s sister came from Poland to care for the children and help their father run his household.

This aunt was apparently a perfectly sufficient care-taker for all of the other children…but she believed that my friend was touched by evil, and possessed by demons, which had killed the mother.

So she tortured the little girl for the duration of her childhood.

I only learned of this story because of my blundering and often insensitive big mouth.

My friend had lost her first child in utero.  She had given birth to her second child with great difficulty, and he was three weeks pre-mature and struggled through infancy.  Her third child came along and this is where the story actually picks up.

My friend’s little toddler had fallen face-first into the wading pool while her back was turned.  Only the quick action of the older child (who was all of four years old) saved the little girl.  It was one of those momentary lapses that every parent has, every parent knows they have, and every parent know it is only by luck or provenance (whichever you prefer) that it turns out well.

There were a few other small bizarre mishaps, which I don’t even recall exactly what they were now, ten years later.

A few months later, my friend was stalled in a residential neighborhood.  Her old van had stopped running, and she had no idea why.  Her two children were sleeping in the back seat, and there was a house right there.  So my friend decided to ask to use the phone.  (this is before cell phones were as ubiquitous as they are now)  The woman who answered the door said “Is that your van that’s burning?”

My friend turned, and sure enough, there was smoke and flames shooting out from under the hood of her van.

She managed to pull her children out, they were treated and released from the hospital, the fire was put out, and except for some minor concerns associated with smoke inhalation, the kids were OK.

I couldn’t believe her run of bad luck.  We were sort of sitting around doing the “Now that everything’s OK, let’s try to make light of it to make ourselves feel better” thing, and I said “If I didn’t know better, I’d say there was some supernatural force after your kids.  It’s like the last few months it’s been one freak accident after another.”

She looked as though I had slapped her hard across the face.

Now, in my defense, this was completely in keeping with the tone of “I can’t believe it, how bad can my luck get” quipping that SHE had set for the conversation, and I had never had an inkling that she was tortured by a religious nut for her whole childhood…

…but the whole story came pouring out then and there.

Some of the most horrifying things I’d ever heard.  And the last thing was that apparently this evil aunt had told my friend that if my friend died first, the aunt would urinate on her grave…and if the aunt died first, she would haunt my friend and make her life miserable because of the pain and evil she had brought to the family.

So, you can see why it sort of bothers me to read this story.

The punch-line is, of course, that my friend’s husband is a Protestant Fundamentalist, and they send their kids to a Catholic school.

I don’t understand people sometimes, and I don’t know why someone who was tortured by religion, who’s misery was caused by superstition, who felt shame and terror over some bizarre belief that she was responsible for something she had no control over, would ever subject her children to the same philosophy and raise them with the same view…

…or why huge segments of the population would turn away from reason and make a mad-dash back to the Demon-haunted world.

Then again, some run the other way, and thank goodness for that.

Monday, 11 February 2008 08:07:12 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [2] |  |  |  |  | #
Wednesday, 19 December 2007

I’ve discovered a remarkable text (where else?) on the internet.

It perfectly embodies the perfect Fundigelical upbringing!

I’m going to start with Chapter 1 and give you an overview.  Periodically, I will overview another chapter.  I’ll try to give you time to recover in between.  The piece is written by one Jack Hyles, of blessed memory. (from the website: Jack Hyles was the pastor of First Baptist Church, Hammond Indiana from 1959-2001. He died Feburary 6, 2001 but his influence lives on.)

From Jack Hyles: How to Rear Children

We will begin with his premise that people need training in self-restraint.  Mere knowledge is not good enough, after all, because knowledge itself does not bring wisdom.   OK, I’m pretty much there with him.  Then again, there’s this:

To be sure, the intellect is a part of the mind. There is, however, another part of the mind that is far too often overlooked - the will. For the intellect to be trained and the will to be untrained is dangerous.  Susanna Wesley said she disciplined each of her children until his will was broken. The wise parent starts when the child is and infant in the training of the will.


The training of the will means the child is taught to do right by constant practice so that the mind rises to action by reflex just like the body. When the will has been brought into subjection to do that which is right the child learns to make his decisions by mental reflex. This is accomplished by applying a certain stimulus to the child and having him practice the proper response. For example, when I was a boy my mother used to have me practice standing when a lady would walk into the room. I would be seated; Mother would go outside and reenter. As she entered I would stand. She would go out again; I would stand again. Over and over this was repeated until it became almost a reflex for me to stand when a lady entered a room. This was continued day by day until I never had to decide to stand when a lady entered the room I stood by mental reflex.  Hour after hour Mother would practice with me on giving a lady my seat when there were no others seats available.

No really, Oh-oh.

But at least this intensive training will lead a kid to develop useful habits that will always result in constructive and helpful behavior…right?

Recently, on a given Sunday I baptized over 100 people. When I baptize a convert I raise my right hand in the air and say the following words: “In obedience to the command of our Lord and Master, and upon a public profession of your faith in Him, I baptize you, my brother (sister), in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.” I said those words over 100 times. After the service I went home. The phone rang. I picked up the receiver with my right hand, but every time I had raised my right hand that morning I had said, “In obedience to the command, etc.” When I used my right hand to raise the phone to my ear I said, “In obedience to the command of our Lord and Master, and upon a public profession of your faith in Him, I baptize you, my brother, in the name of the Father, and the Son. . .” Then I realized what I was doing. By reflex after practice I said those words when I raised my right hand.

So, here we see that a proper Fundagelical upbringing will result in crazy and inappropriate phone ettiquitte.

But that’s not all:

  Not long ago I was going to go to the store. It is only four blocks from my house. I got in the car but was thinking about church work, etc., so naturally I found myself driving to my parking place at the First Baptist Church. I had driven three or four miles along the usual route that I take to the church and did not realize where I was going until I was sitting in front of the church. I have taken that route so much that when the subconscious took over I ended up at the church, not at the store.

Unsafe driving habits, time-wasting mistakes, and disorientation.

I take natural vitamins and minerals. I keep several jars of vitamins in a drawer in my office. From the first bottle of vitamins I take four tablets a day. From the second bottle, which contains Vitamin E, I take two tablets a day.  One day I opened the drawer and did not realize that the Vitamin E was in the wrong place. It was the first in line. By force of habit, I took four vitamin E tablets (which, by the way, is not a good idea). The subconscious had taken over. I had taken four tablets of the first bottle for so long that I didn’t notice which bottle was in the first position.

WARNING!  A Fundigelical upbringing can be an important factor in a number of preventable health risks!

I was going to cut this up more, but I just can’t bear to.  It’s too perfect.  Apparently, God is B.F. Skinner, and the path to heaven is conditioned response:

The above illustrations show how the will can be trained to react by reflex.  This is good only if we teach our children the proper good reaction to certain stimuli until the decisions of life are made by mental reflex and good is done subconsciously. This means the child will do right by habit, for basically, character is learning the proper habits.


And you silly secularists and “liberal theologians” thought that character was about consciously making carefully considered choices, thinking about outcomes, weighing pros-and-cons, and doing what you believe will be best for yourself and others in the long run, even if it is hard.  But no.  Character is about making snap decisions and undertaking thoughtless actions that your parents have drilled into your head while you were wishing you could go out and play baseball with the normal kids.

 It is learning to do right without voluntary action. It is the subconscious doing of right. This can be done only by practice and more practice and more practice.  The wise parent will make a list of the things he wants his child to do under certain conditions and influences. He will then require the child to practice the proper response to each condition and stimulus. When my children were little I made a list of all the things I wanted them to learn to do by mental reflex.  Some of these things were: answering the phone properly, shaking hands properly, walking, sitting, using correct posture, paying bills, having respect for elders, and many others.

Good God Almighty

 Each evening we would spend some time practicing each of these things until they became natural. This is the way a child learns to walk, to eat, etc. This is the way an athlete learns to be successful.  When I was a child my mother would often ask me this question, “Son, would you like a cigarette?” I would say, “No!” Over and over again she would ask the same question and I would give the same answer. She was trying to get me to associate the word “No” with cigarettes. She did the same thing about liquor and other temptations. She would hold up cigarette ads in front of me and say, “No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no!” Then she would ask me to do the same thing. I would look at the cigarette ad and say, “No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no!” until the two words “cigarette” and “no” became associated indelibly in my subconscious mind.

No really, Good God Almighty.

Every great nation, whether her philosophies were right or wrong, rose to greatness using this method of teaching. Such discipline made America a great nation. She is now crumbling because of the lack of it. All strong nations were made strong by such training of the will. Such programs had been added to their schools. Every nation that has crumbled did so when such discipline was deserted.

Is it just me, or does this guy seem like, instead of viewing the Stanford Experiements as a dire object lesson, would view them as an excellent tool for teaching dinner-table etiquette?

The wise parent, the wise pastor, the wise coach, etc. will produce the proper decisions by constant repetition until the child has learned to do right without voluntary action. Hence, the will has been cultivated to make decisions by principle. The making of decisions by the child, or the adult for that matter, will have less chance of being wrong when the doing of right has become habit!

Wednesday, 19 December 2007 14:33:28 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [7] |  |  |  | #
Tuesday, 18 December 2007

I can't wait to hear how the apologists for the worship of the almighty dollar (The Church of Wall Mart) make this OK.

Seriously.  Stealing the compensation a woman got for having her brain ruined?  They can do that?

Note to self:  Don't sign any F#$%$^%$^ thing without having a lawyer look over it first, and also, just for good measure, have it doused in holy water, buried in consecrated ground under a full moon, left there for a month, and then have a voodoo priestess clear it of evil spirits.

(And yes, I know a laywer and a voodoo priestess.  Although for efficiency's sake, I think I should find a lawyer who IS a voodoo priestess.  Anyone know where I can find some decent holy water at a discount?)

Then, leave the contract lying somewhere uninhabited, take off, and nuke the site from orbit. (it's the only way to be sure).

[Update:  They couldn't just be happy with Dead Peasant Policies?  Evil I say.  Wall Mart is evil] 

Tuesday, 18 December 2007 05:47:31 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [10] |  |  |  | #
Tuesday, 02 October 2007

Many entities benefit greatly from Global Climate Change Denialism.

Can you tell the difference between two of them?

ExxonMobile and brain-eating ameobas.

(Hint:  Though they both strive to affect your brain, one funds denialist propaganda, and one is an opportunistic parasite).

[Hat Tip:  Pharyngula]

Tuesday, 02 October 2007 06:51:29 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [0] |  |  | #
Monday, 01 October 2007

It's been pointed out numerous times that people do not always make rational decisions.  That feelings and emotions have a much more substantial hold on our decision making than reason does.  Even people carefully trained in reason and logic can be motivated to do unreasonable things.

Take this case, for example.

A surgeon, presumably someone who has at least brushed up against something resembling reason, kills his wife and spends the rest of his life in prison.

As he nears the end of his life, he finds himself more and more willing to confront what he did.  He HAD maintained his innocence all this time, but now, he makes statements that border on confession:

“You look back, you know, it’s you can’t believe how sometimes things happen that you did that it was completely unnecessary,” Dr. Friedgood said in a recent interview from prison. “If you don’t want to be with a woman anymore, you divorce. You know, you don’t have to resort to murder. So 32 years later, I begin to realize how stupid you can do things.”

There's not enough information in the article about why he chose murder over divorce.  Probably a little bit of lots of different reasons.  He would have gotten more money out of getting away with murder.  He wouldn't have to suffer the public shame of divorce either.  And certainly, he would rather be the sympathetic character of a bereaved husband; than subject to the derision of society as a man who divorced his invalid wife.

But how does a man who is, at the very least, of average intelligence, who has superior mental training and education, come to the decision that it is better to kill your wife than divorce her?  And what sustains someone for decades and decades in prison, still able to claim innocence until the very end, where even so, the best he can muster is an admission that killing his wife was "unecessary" and "stupid".

The article seems to think he should be paroled to save taxpayers money for his medical expenses, and because he's old.  I'm thinking that he needs to stay in there as long as he merely sees murder as an "inapporopriate" alternative to divorce.

Monday, 01 October 2007 07:32:22 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [0] |  | #
Thursday, 31 May 2007

Reader Ben (and blogger at Eclecticsanonymous) recommended this video.  He wasn't wrong.  It comes in five parts on Your Tube.  Here they are:






Thursday, 31 May 2007 06:37:40 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [3] |  |  | #
Tuesday, 01 May 2007

For those who wondered why we are here, in the decade of the double aughts, and you don't have your personal flying machine yet...WAIT NO LONGER.

Tony - This one's for YOU baby!

Tuesday, 01 May 2007 16:04:41 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [0] |  |  | #
Wednesday, 18 April 2007

Pro-life forces are trumpeting their victory.  The Supreme Court has ruled, sustaining a ban on a procedure that is reportedly performed 10 times per day in the US (estimated).

I was recently involved in an internet discussion on a blog, and was surprised that the "partial-birth abortions" that I had heard so much about were the pro-lifer's name for the D & X procedure.

People go on and on about the "Partial Birth Abortions", but their descriptions of it were so outlandish that I thought they were making it up.  Turns out, they kind of the descriptions of PBA that I was told (admittedly by rank-and-file pro-lifers) bear only a passing resemblance to the reality of D&X.

Apparently, the procedure is primarily used to remove babies from the mother's womb after fetal death in-utero, to remove fetus' from the womb who are so deformed that they cannot live outside the mother's womb, or when a continued pregnancy would endanger the mother's life, or vital bodily functions.

I've just really started looking into this, but it does not appear that this decision will actually prevent any abortions, as there is another procedure that is still legal which can be used if a late-term abortion is necessary for the woman's health, so it is unlikely that this ruling by itself will prevent any abortions.

The main reason why I question if this is a victory for anybody is just what I've learned from reading up on this subject over the last day or so.

From what I can tell, the situations under which women find themselves considering a late-term abortion are situations that leave a word like "choice" sounding hollow and meaningless.  The "choice" to abort the baby you wanted to save or prolong your own life, the "choice" to forgo a treatment that the doctors can't give you if you are pregnant, the "Choice" to try to live as long as you can with your pregnancy, but very likely not survive?  Some "choice".

And what about "life"?  The situations described seem to offer very little in the way of "life" for either the mother or the fetus.

I can't imagine why anyone would want to inject themselves or their politics into the kinds of decisions these women and their families have to face, or why anyone would call gaining public involvement into a terrible and private decision like this a "victory".

Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:40:16 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [14] |  |  | #
Wednesday, 04 April 2007

I hate spam.

I hate Hitler.

I'm not a fan of pronography, particularly artless, badly written pornography.

So when I repeatedly get spam messages that appear to spam Hitler porn...I block the sender.

What possible purpose could someone have for sending out such stuff?


Wednesday, 04 April 2007 11:14:45 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [0] | #
Friday, 23 March 2007

Just a reminder, women, bring your drink with you when you leave the table.


It seems like such a simple thing, but it is easy to forget that information like this, which was drummed into us older women can drop off the radar and not be passed on to the next generation.

I'm just glad that other women were observant and looking out for their fellow human kind.

Friday, 23 March 2007 08:38:15 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [4] | #
Wednesday, 31 January 2007

Anne of Boker Tov, Boulder!  fame has dubbed this guy as a "liberal".

I skimmed it once, and then read it through again, and while he sounds sort of academic in tone, his structure is haphazard and muddled.  While he mouths some liberal-sounding platitudes, (Not all Germans should be demonized by Nazi behavior) his ultimate message appears to be a luke-warm justification for the right of people to deny the Holocaust.


While he seems to claim that people should not be demonized by race, he does blame most of the modern world's problems of Jews...although not directly.  No, he's careful to not come right out and say it.  Yet he tried to tie acceptance of Holocaust denial to the possibility of solving the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.  As though somehow, if we give legitimacy to the Holocaust deniers, it will free us from our preconceived notions about the root of the problems in the Middle East.  (In other words, he’s implying it’s all the Jews fault).


He also has some sort of weird notion that the primacy of the Holocaust in our minds as an example of evil run amok somehow minimizes the sufferings of other people who have suffered similar fates throughout history.  Claiming that there is more evidence and more legitimacy to these events, and that somehow, Jews have wrongfully diminished these events by making the Holocaust so important.  How twisted is that?


Like so many disingenuous right-wing revisionists, whether you are talking about the supposed "harms" of fluoridated water, the pleas for "honest debate" from the Intelligent Design crowd, or the assertion that the U.S. was founded as a "Christian Country"; he claims that all he wants is "open debate" of the controversy.


One give-away to his intellectual dishonesty is where he asks what's the harm in demanding evidence of gas chambers.  Implying that there is no evidence, without having the balls to actually claim it.  How much evidence do you need?  They found the vents for the gas in the ruins of Auschwitz (Thanks, Ben at EclecticsAnonymous for the link).  I have personally stood inside the "shower rooms" at Dachau, and saw it with my own eyes.  He says there are no photographs of the rooms.  I have some.  They are in my photo album.   Come on, only people who desperately need to deny the lessons of the Holocaust will believe this sort of thing.


He plays disingenuous word games with the numbers of people dead from the Holocaust, by claiming that they were not all executed, but died by other means...what, like starvation, disease, and neglect of basic human needs, and no opportunity to attempt to flee to areas where they could better meet their needs?  Really.  As soon as you wall people up and take control of their surroundings, and you control their access to everything they need to live, you become responsible for their lives, you schmuck.  It doesn’t matter if you shoot them, burn them, starve them, or just let them get sick and die while the doctors watch.  You killed them.


And like so many other topics, the debate has happened.  It's over.  There is a consensus, and your side lost, you wing-nut.  No matter how many of your lame-ass arguments we refute, you'll just keep recycling them with new terminology.  No matter how much evidence we bring to the table, you'll just make your bizarre conspiracy theories more wild and paranoid.


All these attempts to change the accepted facts surrounding the Holocaust, to make it "mean" this thing or that thing does nothing to shed any light on our current situation.  Too many people want to take a terrible, monstrous, injustice and warp it into something that supports their particular ideological view of the world.


But what I get out of it is this:  If you can view a group of people as not being human;  when you can see all members of a group being of a uniformly inferior quality; when you can blame them for (or somehow tie them to) everything that goes wrong in the world; when you can justify the necessity of their complete destruction (even if you don’t come out and say it in so many words); when you can split hairs about how many were killed due to this cause, and how many were killed due to that cause as if it absolves you of your responsibility; and when you can minimize and denigrate their suffering – there WILL be tragedy.


All the psudo-academic faux-logic and in the world can't worm it's way around that.

This guy is no more liberal than the Discovery Institute or any of the other wing-nut revisionists who share his tactics.

[Update:  A commenter at Boker Tov, Boulder said this:

    "In my experience, right wing lug-nuts deny the Holocaust ever happened, left wing nutzos are glad it happened. They can both go to hell. It's the middle of the roaders who scare me. One cannot be middle of the road about genocide..." 

 I asked her who was left if the left-right and center were her enemies, and she said it was decent people who stand up to bigots.

But I want to know...what on God's green earth possesses someone to believe that liberals are glad the Holocaust happened?  Seriously, can anyone think of a single solitary liberal who is glad the Holocaust happened?  Where do people get these bizzare ideas?]

Wednesday, 31 January 2007 13:02:54 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [10] |  | #
Saturday, 27 January 2007
It's not just for ignorant hicks in pole-barn churches anymore.
Saturday, 27 January 2007 22:55:17 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [1] |  | #
Friday, 26 January 2007

I KNEW it would only be a matter of time before they started burning books.  The anti-immigrant rhetoric, the "Liberals hate America and Western Culture" rhetoric, the T.V. Presenters saying "We need more white babies" as if that sort of crap is OK and mainstream, The promotion of the assumption that "we" need to defend ourselves violently against "bad ideas"...all the repugnant "Christian Identity" crap that normal everyday people have picked up and parroted as though it made any sort of sense at all... all creats an environment that emboldens these guys and leads directly to this.  Bastards.

Neo-Nazi group's plan to burn Jewish books in the Twin Cities draws protests

Pioneer Press

A group of religious leaders and government officials are denouncing plans by a neo-Nazi group to burn copies of Jewish books in the Minneapolis area.

The book-burning will take place Saturday at an undisclosed place and time, according to website of the Minneapolis-based National Socialist Movement.

Alan Silver, president of the Jewish Community Relations Council, said the choice of Saturday for the book burning was obviously no accident, since it is the anniversary of the liberation of a Nazi concentration camp in Auschwitz. The day is now commemorated as International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

Attorney General Lori Swanson said only a concerted effort by those who oppose hatred and prejudice would quell the efforts of neo-Nazi and similar groups. She wanted to participate in that, she said.

"I think it's important for public officials to stand up and say, in our Minnesota, we don't tolerate hatred and bigotry," she said.

The neo-Nazi group's site states participants in the "Great Minnesota Book Burning" will "torch degenerate books such as the Talmud, and other anti-American and/or anti-White books."

Friday, 26 January 2007 16:25:14 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [1] |  |  | #
Thursday, 25 January 2007
Exploring whole new worlds of WTF.
Thursday, 25 January 2007 16:19:40 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [1] |  |  | #
Friday, 12 January 2007
Why you need ammunition
Friday, 12 January 2007 23:50:39 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [2] |  |  | #
Monday, 23 October 2006
Enforcing proper conversational ettiquette = Sexual Harrassment; looking at both sides of an issue presented in the curriculum = indoctrinating students with your personal views; Peace = anti-patriotic. Got it. Anything else?
Monday, 23 October 2006 10:23:28 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [3] |  |  |  | #
Monday, 21 August 2006
Apparently, we need more of them.
Monday, 21 August 2006 07:08:03 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [2] |  | #
Thursday, 10 August 2006

Here's a link to a story defending the right of an employer to dictate an employee's sexual behavior in her own home.

As much as I am comitted to religious freedom, I am beginning to see the point that we would be better off without these people and their poisonous ideas.  I realize that this is a little-known regressivist e-rag...but the fact remains that a woman was ordered by her employer to get married to her live in boyfriend, leave him, or quite her job.


AND there are people who feel the court should have upheld the employer and not the wronged employee.

These people are enemies of the right of conscience, the right to free thought, the right to personal freedom of every kind.  They are enemies to your right to live on your own terms as a human being.

They have the right to believe whatever they want to believe, but no matter what they believe, that right ends when their beliefs infringe on the rights of others to live as they choose, according to their conscience.

UPDATE: There are seven states with anti-cohabitation laws: Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Virginia, and West Virginia.  So, if you want to live together with someone and you aren't married to them, don't do it in any of these states.

Thursday, 10 August 2006 16:13:15 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [4] |  |  | #
Saturday, 05 August 2006

What is wrong with you people? I’m talking to YOU, you people who got to my blog through the following searches:


“sims 2 how to make whoopee?”




“Alcoholic chaos confusion”


Also: the two of you people who came to my blog searching for “Wilfred Brimley”?  You frighten me.


Almost as much as the people who get here via the search term “wookie scrota


Really...who goes to log on to the internet, and goes to the trouble to bring up Google, and types in "Wilfred Brimley"?


What, in the name of all that it holy or even just plain innocent, is wrong with you people? (I ask again, because it bears repeating).


I’d like to fickin’ know.


BTW…the copious quantities of Margaritas previously mentioned? 




That is all.  Goodnight.

Saturday, 05 August 2006 22:11:49 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [0] |  |  |  | #
Tuesday, 01 August 2006
Boys and their toys.
Tuesday, 01 August 2006 12:06:18 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [0] |  | #
Monday, 15 May 2006
In which I repudiate Larry Darby and make a passing swipe at Bill O'Reilly.
Monday, 15 May 2006 07:54:46 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [3] |  |  | #
Tuesday, 09 May 2006
...tell him he can have it.
Tuesday, 09 May 2006 15:20:12 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [2] |  | #
Tuesday, 28 March 2006
In the Time of the Scampering
Tuesday, 28 March 2006 09:52:14 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [6] |  |  | #
Monday, 24 October 2005
Monday, 24 October 2005 21:11:06 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [3] |  | #
Sunday, 23 October 2005
It's too important.
Sunday, 23 October 2005 11:27:58 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [3] |  | #
Monday, 08 August 2005
Hey, Debbi did Dallas...
Monday, 08 August 2005 22:23:22 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [0] | #
Thursday, 21 July 2005
Evil, I say.
Thursday, 21 July 2005 16:20:53 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [3] |  | #
Wednesday, 09 February 2005
Ew. Ew. Ew. EEEEEeeeeeewwwww. Brain stuck on the "Ew" loop...please excuse me.
Wednesday, 09 February 2005 20:17:05 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [5] |  | #
Wednesday, 02 February 2005
I'm beginning to think they need a little boulder...right on the noggin.
Wednesday, 02 February 2005 21:35:02 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [5] | #
Admin Login
Sign In
Pick a theme: