The 9/11 Hucksters

Like an insidious parasite the paranoid ramblings of the left have created created a new infection known as the "9/11 truth movement"

Unfortunately for these folks their assertions have been disproven scientifically. But facts never stopped crackpot lefties before.

Legitimate dialogue is distorted and interrupted by these lunatics. Websites have become completely inundated by jack off juveniles spewing retarded propaganda.

Ron Paul, a man who I greatly admire had his campaign destroyed and smeared as a result of their lies. They even insisted that Dr. Paul secretly agreed with them even while he publicly disavowed and criticized their comments.

This is because 9/11 hucksters do the same the thing most lefties do when confronted with evidence that contradicts their assertions.

THEY JUST IGNORE IT!!!!!!!!!!

I remember I saw video of the Popular Mechanics guy's ripping one of the "Loose Change" assholes.
After getting served with the facts he said something like......

"Well your just a mouthpiece of the yellow journalism Hearst propaganda machine."

In other words I can't contradict you with facts so I JUST IGNORE IT AND CONTINUE MY FANTASY.

An interesting facet of this is their so called "revisions".

Every time one of their theories is destroyed they go back to the drawing board and figure out how to make it work and then release a "new version of the truth".

Ac ham's razor tells us that the simplest explanation to a problem is most often the correct one.

Instead 9/11 loonies tell us that the government flew military jets into the WTC while coordinating a simultaneous explosion from with the buildings at the moment the planes hit. The plane over Pennsylvania was "shot down" and the Pentagon then shot a cruise missile at itself.

Maybe the Madrid and London bombing were a conspiracy too!!! Maybe when Hamas straps suicide vests to children in Israel are also a part of the Zionist capitalist international right wing conspiracy!!!

Or what about Bali, the 72 Olympics and the Lockerbie disaster? I guess we should just stick our heads in the sand.

Often ignored however is what I call the inherent radical left wing Bush bashing conundrum.

This is that that Bush is the most incompetent idiotic president who ever lived, and that he engineered the most flawlessly executed,intricate, difficult, improbable and physically impossible conspiracy ever devised.

I thought that G.W Bush was stupid liberals?

John Edwards - The Populist Hedge Fund Trial Lawyer

John Edwards has an estimated $100 million dollar bank account and a 30,000 a square foot home.

He made this fortune by suing doctors and hospitals and then re-investing the money in Wall Street Hedge Funds.

One of these funds was recently found to be eviciting destitute Hurricane Katrina victims from their homes.

But this comes as no suprise since hypocricy is Edward's most consistent trait.

Now that he's finished chasing ambulances, John Edwards can be found on the campaign trail where he regurgitates Anti-Capitalist rhetoric to his delluded supporters.

He is also fond of criticizing the Iraq War and the Patriot Act.

Coincidentally he authorized the former and voted for the latter.

But to realize what a true scumbag John Edwards is you have to go back to his illustrious career as a Trial Lawyer.

This excerpt is from Wkipedia

In 1985, Edwards represented a five-year-old child born with cerebral palsy whose doctor did not choose to perform an immediate Caesarean delivery when a fetal monitor showed she was in distress. Edwards won a $6.5 million verdict for his client, but five weeks later, the presiding judge sustained the verdict but overturned the award on grounds that it was "excessive" and that it appeared "to have been given under the influence of passion and prejudice," adding that in his opinion "the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict." He offered the plaintiffs half of the jury's award, but the child's family appealed the case and settled for $4.25 million.[11] Winning this case established the North Carolina precedent of physician and hospital liability for failing to determine if the patient understood risks of a particular procedure.[12]

So John Edwards made millions of dollars by suing a doctor who made an honest mistake on a technicality.

Impartial observers including the judge noted that "The jury seemed to be swayed by Edwards passionate oratory rather than the actual fact's of the case".

Theres also something twisted and ironic about a sheister lawyer engaged in medical malpractice suits over child birth while advocating pro-choice policy.

He most likely ruined the doctors career and bankrupted the hospital. But it's OK, when your a trial lawyer theres always more people to sue and ruin!

Like later as a personal injury lawyer suing corporations for product liability. Garnering millions even in cases when products were clearly labeled and used irresponsibly.

Of course you could expect the anti-business rhetoric from Edwards. After all he never made money by creating products and services like a real businessman.

Every dime he made was taken from someone else's hard work and tears.

And every political gain was based on distortion and lies.

John Edwards a real American Democrat Dirtbag.

Hate Crimes and Liberalism

On January 6th 2007 a Tennessee couple went out for dinner and a movie at a friend's house.

They would never make it.

Instead they were assaulted, sodomized, tortured and mutiliated for 4 days before being killed and then burned.

The assailants were a gang of four African American men and one woman.

Given the horrific nature of this crime you would think it would garner national media attention.

Instead, the media focused on stories like the Duke Lacrosse case and later the so called "Jena 6" in Louisiana.
But you see there is a catch.

The victims, Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian where white, and as every good liberal knows only "minorities" can be the victims of hate crimes.

Where I wondered, were the crusading activists Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to help and console the victims families?

Where was the FBI Hate Crimes Unit to collect evidence?

The ACLU was coincidentally too busy that week to bother.

After all, arguing for the legalization of Child Pornogrophy, and suing public universites to install Muslim foot baths while conversely attacking Chrisitan worship in public is difficult work. They can't be expected to intervene in something so trivial as racially motivated gang violence.

They can still help though, perhaps they can organize a fundraiser to pay for the murderers defense team!

The whole thing made me wonder, what is a hate crime?

The answer is a series of laws designed to give minorities special rights and protection under our Federal judicial system.

But just like affirmative action these laws actually encourage more racism by endorsing the idea that people should be treated differently based on race.

The result being that when a white couple is viciously attacked, tortured and murdered by a black gang it is not considered a hate crime.

But imagine the uproar if the same thing had been done by a white gang to a black woman, hispanic or any other racial minority.

The truth is that everyone should be treated and punished equally based on the severity of their crime.

Did Timothy McVeigh or the unabomber "hate" the goverment when they bombed and killed people?

Did the VT Tech killer "hate" the students on the campus that he murdered?

Why would we not use hate crime legislation in these cases as well?

RICO statutes can and have been used to prosecute racist criminal organizations.

Premediated crimes should all be prosecuted under the same criteria.

And if not, then these laws should be extended to everyone.

Diary of a Liberal - All Corporations are evil except Starbucks and Apple

Corporations are all wicked and irresponsible.

You know, even the notion of private property is immoral and despicable.

Its clear that we need an authoritarian goverment which will reign in these ruthless plutocrats.

We should nationalize all private business and redistribute their ill begotten wealth to the destitute.

I mean it's not like these companies became successfull by providing goods and services efficiantly to their fellow citizens for a reasonable price.

Everybody knows that real wealth is created through intrusive taxes and goverment welfare programs.

Well, I guess I can't say that all corporations are evil.

Also, I wouldn't want the goverment infringing on my private property.

It's only OK for the goverment to steal property from the wealthy.

This is fair because they "stole" it from the poor. Nobody ever becomes successfull through hard work or innovation.

Apple and Starbucks however are just fantastic!

I love their $6 Cappucinos and those little danishes by the counter.

Apple is truely a fine example of contemporary corporate egalitarianism.

I mean it's almost like they give away overpriced computers and gadgets for free., direct from the factory in Indonesia.

And when Steve Jobs is involved in an insider trading deal for millions of dollars by defrauding investors we can just ignore it.

It's only wrong when companies like Enron are involved in corruption.

They sell energy to power our Macs which is just downright evil, think of Global Warming.

BREAK...

BACK TO REALITY

The Apple Starbucks phenomenon is another syphtom of liberal hypocricy.

I like to point out the left winger selling a Che Guevera T-shirt which is in of itself a process of Capitalism.

Or Rage Against the Mansion, a band whose very success condradicts the notion of class disenfranchisement and non-existent social mobility.

To the liberal I say if you hate private property than why don't you give me yours.

And if you hate corporations so much than stop participating in Capitalism.

Steven Colbert Dirtbag Extraordinaire

I despise Steven Colbert and his communist variety show.

Colbert lampoon's the right by hosting left wing academics and then utilizes the most cliched talking points to ridicule their position.

The result is brainwashed viewers who then think that the most extreme left wing position on any issue is the correct one.

This is the intellectual equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel.

This annoying shtick is as irresponsible as it is repetitive and obnoxious.

I wonder how long Steven will do the same thing over and over again.

I guess the answer would be as long as it makes money.

Like fellow socialist crackpot Michael Moore, Colbert makes a handsome living delivering naive criticisms of Capitalism.

Hey I bet I can be just like Colbert, only a right wing version poking fun at the left.

Let's see how hard it is!

"Obviously it's the governments responsibility to take care any problem a person might have"

"What we need to do is plan every aspect of the economy, pay for every one's
health care and personal bills while having a $20 an hour minimum wage and a 20 hour work week".

"Financial responsibility isn't important, we should be spending as much as possible on every government program, it's OK because we can just tax it from the rich people who stole it from the poor. That won't cause financial problems and inhibit growth at all".

"Obviously we should never be allowed to eat meat, which is the moral equivalent of murder".

"Unborn children should be aborted when convenient, but serial killers and murderers should never be executed, that would be downright wrong".

"All cultures are uniquely deserving of respect, except western culture which is evil racist and sexist".

"Industrialism is wrong, in order to save the planet we have to move back to the forest and live off the land. That way we can build a hairy pitted matriarchal eco society".

"If we only coddled our foreign enemies more and handled them with kid gloves everything would be better, I mean appeasement was a really successful policy in the 1930's".

"Corporations are all evil, except of course Starbucks and Apple which make great coffee and computers"


Whew, that was really difficult! Colbert sure is a genius.

The sad thing is that an entire generation is being misled by this nonsense.

Colbert is willing to distort facts and interrupt his guests to push his ideological agenda. He is no different than those he purports to ridicule.

We should honor the hard working people that built this country, not the Kook's and Whiners who hate it.

Sex In The City Or Slut's In The Sewer?

I prefer the latter.

I hate this show more than just about anything. The sound of that intro music turns me into a howling monster, thrashing about until the source of the disturbance is eliminated.

In this disgusting series and it's clones, women are told that cheating on your husband or partner is a "fun and exciting thing to do". We also learn that the only important thing in life is being a licentious, self indulgent, materialistic tramp.

Or what about "Desperate Housewives"? Let's wait until our husband leaves and then go screw the neighbor, hell the whole family can watch!

The sad thing is that these programs provide "life lessons" for the moronic modern woman.

So we can treat people and our partners disrespectfully because "You know they just weren't doing it for me".

Or...

"Wow, that man has lot's of money and a girlfriend, I sure do want to go fuck him".

The star of this show is so called "sex symbol" Sarah Jessica Parker who is no great beauty by the way.

The woman is old and looks like someone smacked her in the face with a 2 X 4.

Judging by the damage, this attack was most likely perpetrated by professional wrestler Hacksaw Jim Dougan.

Of course, no left wing media shit burger would be complete without tales from People Magazine on our wonderful celebrity benefactors.

Nobody actually knows these people, but we all love their dedication to knee jerk left wing causes with their surplus millions.

We also get important information like which whore sucked some guy's cock that particular week. Or which lowlife vomited all over themselves on Sunset Blvd.

Women can spend hours conversing about this reprehensible trash.

The only thing I can say's is that it's amazing.

Amazing that values in the West have degenerated so far, and that the most contemptible individuals and irresponsible behavior is placed on a pedestal for a whole generation of scum to worship.

Could My Dinner With Andre Be The Worst Film Ever Made?

My Dinner with Andre is a famous film based on a single shot of a postmodernist conversation at a restaurant in NYC. It features that bald guy from The Princess Bride

The movie focuses on two men. One is a struggling playwright, who moonlights as an actor in order to pay the bills. The other is Andre a successful playwright who leaves town in the midst of some kind of mid-life crisis. The protagonist arranges to meet Andre and is nervous. He is jilted by Andre's success and his long absence.

Initially the conversation delves into Andre's experience's in experimental theater with a polish director named "Brutowski" in Poland.

He describes his first experiment. He asks Brutowski to give him"40 Jewish women to play harp in the forest" and that they "do not speak English". He emphasizes the nature of theatrical improvisation and its importance in helping solve the question of "Who am I, Where am I going, What am I doing here? He then tries a beehive, or a mass concentration of human beings interacting randomly. He remarks that their is a striking similarity between the "Group Trance" he experienced and the Nuremberg rallies.

Andre describes himself as completely flabbergasted by these experiences. He calls these random interactions an example of "surrealism" and the art of Jackson Pollack. The next stage in the conversation is his trip to Morocco and a desert oasis. It is here that he "eats sand, and throws up". He also meets cuson, a Japanese Buddhist monk who helps "enlighten" him.

Later he returns to NYC with kuson. He decides to make a flag based on the Tibetan swastika which is just "hideous". Later it is destroyed by some random women. It is here that he begins ruminating on Finhorn. This is an experimental artistic colony in Scotland where he enjoys carrying out his experiments. He exclaims that while there he "could see what if alive in those leafs" and describes "drinking instant coffee out of the top of my shaving cream with brutowski in the bathroom". Throughout these episodes is constant drinking, and dancing until "7:00 AM" as described by Andre. With the last bizarre comment I wondered if the participants in these "experiments" were possibly jacked up on psychedelic drugs.

Eventually he describes writing his last will and testament and "being photographed naked and then buried alive". Then he begins attacking his identity and likening himself to Nazi industrial minister Albert Speer and describes his artistic record as "horrific". The existentialist leanings of the conversation and its reminiscence of Sartre and German Nihilism is revealed when he says

"I feel like I am just washed up, I feel as though I squandered my entire life"


Andre attempts to show how perspective can be diluted through emotional confusion. He describes a doctor expresses optimism at his mother's failing health when he actually knows that she is dying. This is complete nonsense. The woman is either sick or she is not sick, just like an object is its identity or it is not. For example you cannot say that "the piano is a piano but also not a piano". Fact in objective reality is unyielding. Human emotions have no implication on the actual existence of objective reality. A is A, B is B. A is not be and also not A. Just because a doctor is uncomfortable with a sensitive topic and chooses to articulate in a careful way does not mean that perception of reality in itself is changed. These arguments echo the moralistic interpretations of duty and skepticism of sensory perception common in today's Postmodern/Existentialist philosophy.

Andre emphasizes that suppressing emotions is abnormal. By this method of reasoning , perhaps I should interrupt the teacher in class every time a point that i disagree with is made. Since I am a savage male perhaps I should express my sexual libido to females whenever the instinct tells me. This nonsense is rooted in the German and Austrian school's of mental repression. Sigmund Freud argued that all human interactions are predicated on thoughts and feelings which are suppressed in the sub-conscious mind. Freud also believed that cocaine was good for you, and regularly "interpreted his female patients dreams to mean they wanted to have sex with him".

Consider the story of Joe Sixpack as articulated by the postmodern left. Joe Sixpack works a 9-5 job a an industrial factory doing a repetitive task. Before he comes home he purchases beer, a product of mass manufacturing. He guzzles his beer and sinks into his comfortable chair. He then turns on the television, and for several hours is bombarded by advertisements and erroneous information. As he does this the phyco-active effects of the beer slowly comforts him and dilutes his inhibition and perception of the world around him. When he becomes tired he goes to sleep and then repeats this process indefinitely.

This the postmodernists say, is how all reality can be predicated on sub-conscious reality and the pervasive effects of technology and society. These themes are common in the writing of Chomsky, Parenti, and Postman. Not included however is a more important factor, free will. Individuals in a free society can choose to go about their lives in any way. Joe Sixpack can watch survivor and work at the factory while I build a business and rehearse a piano concerto. A woman can get a tatoo above her rear end and then watch sex in the city while I write a song and read Sir Edward Gibbon. Most people are ignorant and stupid and always have been. If the postmodernists have such contempt for "Joe Sixpack" than why do they so fervently wish to liberate him? Just like abstract socialist thought, the school of repression aims to influence individuals who have no concept of these arguments much like Marxisms intellectual relationships to the proleteriat.

Andre says that individuals often "really don't know what they are talking about". This may sometimes be true, but I assure you I and many others KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. If I say please pass the ketchup, than please pass the Ketchup. There is no sub-conscious agenda in passing conversation for most individuals. Consider that relativist epistemology and postmodernism have absolutely no application to any of the technical fields. I suppose a mathematician doesn't know what hes talking about when he addresses a complex problem, or a biologist doesn't actually understand the micro-biotic events taking place in a petri dish.

Andre exclaims that people place no value on "the perception of reality". He goes on to ridicule the idea of individual goals and plans.

If this is the case than postmodernists can go about life in an aimless and pointless manner while I set practical goals. Postmodern theorists and educators are themselves examples of planning and individual goals. They hate America, the west, reason and fervently study relativistic epistemology and sociological issues to enumerate points to this effect. When contradictory philosophy becomes a matter of principle, it is easy to make non-sensical arguments based in emotional feelings.

Andre eventually asks "are we really hungry, or is it just a habit". I will answer this succinctly. Yes I am oftentimes hungry. In fact when I woke up today I was hungry and then made a sandwich. I ate the sandwich and my hunger was satisfied. The reasoning wasn't predicated on any "habit" accept my own need and desire. Andre than ruminates on how an "electric blanket" misinterprets reality because it eliminates perspective on "all those poor people in the cold" or the starving children of Africa. Once again postmodern contradiction is evident. Technology is bad but it is unfair that some people have more technology than others.

I am not responsible for starving children in Africa or the bum on the street. My material comfort is created by wealth produced by myself and my family. I have no moral responsibility to society besides respecting other peoples individual rights and safety. My goals are my own just as your goals are your own. Altruism is a concept rooted in religion and contempt of reason. It is not abnormal that people should reflect their own rational self-interests. Perhaps all my friends should give me a foot massage because it is a "nice thing to do". I'm also pretty broke right now. Maybe society should give me money so i don't have to work, I sure do hate working.

In conclusion I despise My Dinner with Andre and its philosophical overtones. The film is boring, pretentious and biased in its presentation of philosophical concepts. The movie implies that it has done a great service by "liberating" the protagonist from his blind perceptions of reality and daily habit. I think however that this film has actually done a dis-service to humanity. It emphasizes emotions, perception, altruism, contempt of technology, and anti reason as the most important factors in understanding "truth". Curiously absent however are arguments based on individual rights, private property, goals , reason, science, liberal capitalism and rational self-interest.