Penguins have been cited as scientific proof that same-sex couples are natural and normal throughout the animal kingdom. Since then, we’ve seen examples of a penguin and even a red panda become smitten with… a 2D Waifu. Since reproducibility is a hallmark of the scientific method, another example of a penguin falling in love with a 2d Waifu to give scientific validity that having a 2D Waife is as valid as same-sex marriage.
After the now infamous “Mosque Attack” in New Zealand, the sad and pathetic excuse of a Prime Minister has given what the terrorists wanted while exploiting the tragedy to snuff out civil liberties and ancient civil rights in order to appeal this modern-day “age of feelz.”
Not only has, within days, the possession of semi-automatic rifles (with scant few exceptions) suddenly banned, which the vast majority of gun owners ignored and criminals openly scoffed at, was declared to be “just the beginning“.
And how, this example of the decline and fall of society went out of its way to do exactly what the terrorist wanted them to do, as stated in the madman’s “manifesto“:
“I chose firearms for the affect it would have on social discourse, the extra media coverage they would provide and the affect it could have on the politics of United states and thereby the political situation of the world… With enough pressure the left wing within the United states will seek to abolish the second amendment, and the right wing within the US will see this as an attack on their very freedom and liberty. This attempted abolishment of rights by the left will result in a dramatic polarization of the people in the United States and eventually a fracturing of the US along cultural and racial lines.”
But, of course, this isn’t just about arms suitable for self-defense (funny how the use of a gun to stop/impede the terrorist attack resulted in not only an excuse to restrict that fundamental human right, but other rights as well), with those not only reporting via internet links newsworthy information, but anyone who dared talk about it outside of acceptable, and controlled, forums being promptly investigated, and even indicted and convicted, for daring to offer anything that opposed the politically correct actions of the Parliamentary DICTATORSHIP that New Zealand is plagued by.
In the hopes of encouraging a more civil, and illuminating, discourse, here is another episode of William F. Buckley, Jr.’s “Firing Line”.
Sometimes a civil debate from someone with a different consciousness can be more illuminating and experiential, with the posibility of mutually opening each other’s minds to alternate possibilities, than any particular mind-altering chemical could be, as is with case of this week’s episode with Timothy Leary.
“The Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer Studies Department at Montclair State University offers a 200-level course called ‘Queer Identities in a Transforming World: The Trouble with Normal.’ The class is being offered this coming semester.
“According to the course description, the class will use an array of ‘textual and cinematic sources’ to ‘explore issues such as gender performance, the third sex, transgender issues, intersex issues, the political underpinnings and the transgressive nature of “queer”, the history of queer politics (from AIDS activism to the gay marriage issue), schisms within the LGBTQ political movements, queers and disability, issues of race, class and representation within the queer community, and non-human perspectives on queer.'”
Under the guise of “aid in dying”, Connecticut is considering a bill (HB 5898) that would provide legal cover to doctors who proscribe death to treat illness, provided they dot every “i” and cross every “t”. Worse yet, there is no requirement for a mental health evaluation to be done before the patient takes the death drugs, only that any such evaluation is made when they are requested, and even then a patient could be “steered” by a doctor, hospital, &c..
“Proponents talk of ‘safeguards.’ Nothing can prevent an erroneous prognosis or keep a vulnerable person from subtly being steered. Moreover, the bill’s focus is on the parameters of permissible medical behavior and not on patient protection. Thus, the minimal criteria written into the bill apply only to the prescribing of the lethal drugs, and not to their use. Any mental health evaluation to determine if a person has impaired decision capacity is made when he requests the drugs.
“There is no requirement that a person be evaluated just prior to taking the drugs although mental state can fluctuate widely based on physical factors like oxygen level. It is conceivable that a person could take the drugs during a temporary depression or on impulse. Drugs are to be self-administered but there is no mechanism for insuring that will always be the case. It would be very easy for mistakes or abuse to occur and never be discovered.”
What is the definition of “Nationalism”? The answers vary from “advocates of genocidal ethno-states” to “the last bastion against the globalist elite cabal run by the Stonecutters”. Most people, however, fall well within these two histrionic extremes, yet even then there is a general divide in opinion and categorization. To wit: ‘Twould seem that the biggest difference in definition of what “Nationalism” is is the question of if one defines “Nationalism” as being of the “common” or of being of the “collective”; in other words, it is defined by individuals with commonalities, or is it defined by a collective from which the individual is defined.
This is a question that has been gestating for some time, and a question over which people with differing opinions about the definition of “Nationalism” have been attacking and speaking past each other because they are attacking each other over completely antithetical definitions of the core word about which the antagonistic disagreement occurred.
Perhaps this conflagration of definitions has lost any common mooring in the English language, but the following facepalm worthy “explanation” has led to the point where we all need to step back and agree on definition lest a rectification of name be upon us.
To be generous, one could say that Ms. Owens is ignorant of the doctrines and subsequent actions of the NATIONAL Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP), or that she adheres to a libertarian notion of Nationalism that embraces the “non-aggression principle”. But it is without question that just as the NSDAP was indeed socialist and that fascism was the twin whelp of Communism from the same Hegelian dialectical bitch, that both National Socialism and more classical Fascism held Nationalism as a core doctrinal truth.
Fascism, and National Socialism (both Strasserite and Hitlerite) were Nationalists of the “collective” vein. What does this mean? Mussolini (give or take a ghost-writer) explained this.
Fascism saw the collective being as not an oppressed class as under Communism, but of the entirety of a nation, whereby the Nation was not defined by the commonality of the people, but whereby the individual was defined, and received not only meaning, but definitional existence, from the collective Nation.
“In the Fascist conception of history, man is man only by virtue of the spiritual process to which he contributes as a member of the family, the social group, the nation, and in function of history to which all nations bring their contribution.”
This, of course, is in contradiction of the idea that “Nationalism” is defined by people who bind together based what they have in common and in common hold special the mores, folkways, traditions, and heritage that transcends mere blood and soil limitations. In this sense, “Nationalism” is synonymous with “Patriotism”, at least in the American vein whereby an immigrant who happily embraces America is far more American than some elitist whose ancestors were listed amongst the “first families” of one English colony or another who now support U.N. governance over their spiffy little townhouse.
Many, if not most, people who champion the label of “Nationalist”, including presumably Candice Owens, would reject this collectivist definition. But then, how many people either championing this label or denouncing the same have actually thought about it?
The horrible anti-2nd Amendment bill SB261 wasn’t enough for the anti-gun Democratic majorities. Now they are taking all those bad provisions and putting it into an omnibus bill (AB 291) that will repeal state preemption over anti-gun local laws that was put into place in 2015 when the Republicans held both the Governorship and the Legislature. That ended confusing and often nebulous local anti-gun laws and eliminated “blue card” handgun registration scheme in Clark County, which is the home to Las Vegas and a majority of the state’s residents.
In the hopes of encouraging a more civil, and illuminating, discourse, here is another episode of William F. Buckley, Jr.’s “Firing Line”.
Rather than an illumination of the Left, sometimes a civil debate can be help clarify positions on the Right. Such is the case of this week’s episode with Barry Goldwater from over 50 years ago.
