Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Absolute censorship
This election is being run under total censorship, and the result either way will be total censorship.
What's the purpose of 'freedom of speech'? To insure that POLITICAL discussions, above all, can include truth. All of the important truths have been knocked out of this election, declared completely unspeakable and unthinkable.
Is Obama a Mohammedan? There's lots of circumstantial evidence in favor of this conclusion and very little evidence against it. Obama was unquestionably born into the Mohammedan faith. His grandfather and father were Mohammedan, so by the rules of that religion he belongs. He was raised in the religion for the first several years of his life. In the countries dominated by Allah, most people believe Obama is one of their own. Shouldn't we trust their understanding of their culture and religion more than our relatively ignorant judgment?
Obama claims to have converted to Christianity, but if he were truly a Christian we'd see fatwas against his life by prominent mullahs and imams. They don't allow important men to turn apostate. We have only his own word that he converted, and even his own words aren't always consistent. When he mentioned "my Muslim faith" quite naturally and unconsciously, the interviewer had to "correct" him. And the minister who taught him for twenty years was a Black Muslim before he allegedly became a Christian. Wright's preaching still resembles Malcolm X much more than, for instance, T.D. Jakes.
Similarly, is McCain the Manchurian Candidate? There's circumstantial evidence for this and not much against it. He gave many propaganda broadcasts for NV while he was in prison; he stayed when he had the chance to leave; he admitted during one debate "They broke me." Most importantly, NV has a memorial for him which still stands. Ho Chi-minh didn't build memorials for adversaries.
I have great sympathy for his plight; I would have broken much sooner. But sympathy and respect are not the same thing, and sympathy is not a good reason to elect a man who admits that his mind was broken by the enemy.
Since both of these questions are unthinkable, unspeakable and undebatable, there is absolutely no point in pretending that we have something called "freedom of speech".
We have two candidates who appear to represent enemy ideologies ... one of which is our current enemy, unless this whole war is a complete fake, which I'm really beginning to wonder about ... and we are officially forbidden to discuss it.
= = = = =
The most urgent question is being censored by a different method, a classic Soviet method. The people understand, instinctively or logically, that the Great Nation Robbery is evil in every possible way. It's simultaneously a reverse redistribution of wealth and a redistribution of good and evil. Wall Street gets all the money and escapes all the punishment. While the lowly Taxpaying Units starve in Weimar hyperinflation, Commissar Paulson and his Bathhouse Buddies will zoom off to Dubai and enjoy whatever nasty activities such unspeakably filthy creatures enjoy.
We are not forbidden to discuss this question, but we are forbidden to exercise any sort of influence on it. If we had a genuine parliamentary system, if we had a real two-party contest, we would get a choice. One party, presumably the party of Hoover, would defend the Great Nation Robbery; and the other party, presumably the party of Roosevelt, would promise to unravel the Robbery as soon as possible and immediately punish the malefactors instead of rewarding them.
We aren't allowed to make the choice. Instead we get the good old Soviet choice: we can vote for the Robbery or we can vote in favor of the Robbery.
Later thought: this could also be described under Polistra's corollary to Manweller's Rule: The questions that matter most to the elites are never allowed to reach a vote. ¶ 8:08 AM
What's the purpose of 'freedom of speech'? To insure that POLITICAL discussions, above all, can include truth. All of the important truths have been knocked out of this election, declared completely unspeakable and unthinkable.
Is Obama a Mohammedan? There's lots of circumstantial evidence in favor of this conclusion and very little evidence against it. Obama was unquestionably born into the Mohammedan faith. His grandfather and father were Mohammedan, so by the rules of that religion he belongs. He was raised in the religion for the first several years of his life. In the countries dominated by Allah, most people believe Obama is one of their own. Shouldn't we trust their understanding of their culture and religion more than our relatively ignorant judgment?
Obama claims to have converted to Christianity, but if he were truly a Christian we'd see fatwas against his life by prominent mullahs and imams. They don't allow important men to turn apostate. We have only his own word that he converted, and even his own words aren't always consistent. When he mentioned "my Muslim faith" quite naturally and unconsciously, the interviewer had to "correct" him. And the minister who taught him for twenty years was a Black Muslim before he allegedly became a Christian. Wright's preaching still resembles Malcolm X much more than, for instance, T.D. Jakes.
Similarly, is McCain the Manchurian Candidate? There's circumstantial evidence for this and not much against it. He gave many propaganda broadcasts for NV while he was in prison; he stayed when he had the chance to leave; he admitted during one debate "They broke me." Most importantly, NV has a memorial for him which still stands. Ho Chi-minh didn't build memorials for adversaries.
I have great sympathy for his plight; I would have broken much sooner. But sympathy and respect are not the same thing, and sympathy is not a good reason to elect a man who admits that his mind was broken by the enemy.
Since both of these questions are unthinkable, unspeakable and undebatable, there is absolutely no point in pretending that we have something called "freedom of speech".
We have two candidates who appear to represent enemy ideologies ... one of which is our current enemy, unless this whole war is a complete fake, which I'm really beginning to wonder about ... and we are officially forbidden to discuss it.
= = = = =
The most urgent question is being censored by a different method, a classic Soviet method. The people understand, instinctively or logically, that the Great Nation Robbery is evil in every possible way. It's simultaneously a reverse redistribution of wealth and a redistribution of good and evil. Wall Street gets all the money and escapes all the punishment. While the lowly Taxpaying Units starve in Weimar hyperinflation, Commissar Paulson and his Bathhouse Buddies will zoom off to Dubai and enjoy whatever nasty activities such unspeakably filthy creatures enjoy.
We are not forbidden to discuss this question, but we are forbidden to exercise any sort of influence on it. If we had a genuine parliamentary system, if we had a real two-party contest, we would get a choice. One party, presumably the party of Hoover, would defend the Great Nation Robbery; and the other party, presumably the party of Roosevelt, would promise to unravel the Robbery as soon as possible and immediately punish the malefactors instead of rewarding them.
We aren't allowed to make the choice. Instead we get the good old Soviet choice: we can vote for the Robbery or we can vote in favor of the Robbery.
Later thought: this could also be described under Polistra's corollary to Manweller's Rule: The questions that matter most to the elites are never allowed to reach a vote. ¶ 8:08 AM
