TRIGGER WARNING: the below post contains frank discussion of liberalism and statism that survivors of leftist regimes may find troubling.

 

Some years back, there was a huge push to amend the Constitution to outlaw desecration of the flag.  It's an emotional issue for many.

My objection to such an amendment is the terrifying concept of using the Constitution to control people, not government.  The first such experiment was Prohibition, and we're still paying for that monumental fuckup, initiated, btw, by the progressives of the time to save "women and children." They never learn, because they are incapable of learning.

Several well-intentioned idiots whined that "before doing so, one should first get permission from a veteran who has fought for the flag and an immigrant who has sought refuge under it."  My response was, "Hi, I'm an immigrant and a veteran. If you want to be the kind of sad, pathetic pussy who burns a flag to annoy people, go right ahead. You have my consent and contempt." Apparently, that wasn't what these people wanted to hear.  They argued with me or ignored me.  None of them, though, doxxed me, attacked my email or Facebook, threatened to hack me, ruin my business, or otherwise. They were inferior, but civil.

My further response was that if they did pass such an amendment, or even a law, or even continued to push the matter, I'd be honor bound to find a unit's battle flag for sale, buy it, set it on fire, and piss out the flames, just to anger them and make them recognize that freedom of expression MUST NOT be stifled.

Conservatives seem to mostly have accepted this fact.

Liberals are incapable of accepting any fact.

First, we need to define the term "liberal." The modern American "liberal" is nothing like the classical liberal of the 19th Century, who gave us most of modern civilization, nor even the anti-statist liberals of the 60s, who were well-intentioned if a bit naive.

The modern American "liberal" is a statist cocksucker who cannot tolerate even the existence of dissent.  They claim to be "tolerant," but a quick discussion will lead to them admitting they don't have to tolerate those hatey haters who hate, which is anyone they disagree with, even if the facts conclusively support the other party.  They are a cancer on society and, as in several past societies, at some point they will have to be exterminated.

Strong words?  These are the people who will riot and shut down a campus to avoid even the presence of a gay man they disagree with.  It wouldn't be a problem if they simply refused to attend, and thereby maintained their ignorance (a valued liberal trait).  No, the very existence of a speaker who they've never actually heard, but have been told by their collective will say things they disagree with, is unacceptable.

This behavior is not "liberal."  It's just like when the USSR claimed to be a "Democratic republic."

Oh, right--liberals were fairly fucking masturbating over how "classy" the sister of Korean Dictator Lil Kim looked next to Vice President Mike Pence. This is a psycho bitch who sends gays, missionaries, dissenters and even liberals to be tortured to death. She's a fucking rock star to liberals.

Beyond that, they'll define anyone who dissents from their agenda as a Nazi, and of course, it's perfectly okay to try to kill "nazis" with blunt objects, firearms and other weapons, for the crime of being a "nazi," and "due process is racist."  There's simply no way to reason with such an entity.

I know some of you are going to say, "But liberals are faggots, so who cares what they think?"

Well, you're correct, liberals are faggots. And of course, we mean it in a non-sexual context, but there are virtually no liberals who are aware of the different definitions of faggot.

However, in another context, a whole bundle of liberals is also a faggot, and very hard to break. En masse, they make noise, harass employers and businesses, and do their best to ruin the lives of anyone who isn't a liberal faggot.

But, you must never give in to the faggotry.  There's no appeasement, no "compromise." If you appease them once, they'll just come back, emboldened, bleating for more.  There's no "Compromise" because they don't offer anything. They just want you to give them something, like some bum who pretends to be homeless and waiflike, but if you watch and see, he'll drive off in a reasonably average car at the end of the begging shift. (Seriously, most of them do. I have photos.)

The only response you should give to a liberal about anything is, "Fuck off, pussy."  Now, I'm in the blessed position of being able to do that without retaliation. People who have a boss to answer to often get fired just because the boss hopes the shouting will go away if he appeases the mob.  But, that just means the mob now dictates his hiring and firing choices. They'll keep coming back for more.  It's an orgy of self-righteous faggotry.

That's part of why liberals hate the self-employed. It's much harder for them to have any effect on me that I'd notice. Oh, sure, they can threaten to boycott my books, but that's based on three false threats--A) that liberals can read for content 2: that they'd comprehend my stuff if they read it, and c] that they have ever paid to read anything of mine in the first place. Threatening to continue not to pay me isn't a viable threat, and the more offensive I am to liberals, the better my sales are among normal people.

This, by the way, is the point where the liberals are emailing my publisher in outrage, demanding that they muzzle my "offensive" statements.  Fortunately, unlike many other authors, I'm published by man.  Well, actually Toni is female, and a minority single mother of a disabled child.  However, she espouses every virtue of manliness we wish our leaders and fellows had, and she'll simply tell them that my opinions are mine, don't reflect at all on a publisher that publishes stories for content, not politics, and publishes far left writers like Eric Flint and Elizabeth Moon as well.

Speaking of Eric Flint, he's one of the rare, real liberals, or in fact, actually a Communist.  However, he's astute enough to realize capitalism generates wealth, and pushes for that wealth to be shared.  He and I can have a reasonable discussion, and I have more in common with him than I do with any proclaimed modern day "liberal." I also highly recommend his books. See how that works? Rational adults can disagree, be friends, and support benefit to each other. Modern so-called "liberals" froth at the mouth at this concept. There can be no real compromise with liberals.  They're like some primitive pagan cult.  Either you accept every word as fact, or you must scourge yourself, beg forgiveness, and abase yourself so they deign to withdraw the charge of lesser outlawry and once again allow you entrance to the clique.

Which is why I'm here.  I will keep escalating my contempt of those tantrum-throwing little shits until they eventually grow out of it, go away, or die from lack of attention.  I have to wonder where an entire generation of parents were.  One of my kids took several years to break of the habit, and the three year old is learning now that tantrum = nothing. It will never, ever get you what you want.  Somehow, we have an entire generation of pussies who have never learned this.

If your circumstances don't permit (For example, a friend who is a newspaper editor), you may simply have to keep quiet about the matter. That's fine, and I hold nothing against you for discretion. But, you must never give a liberal what they want through manipulation, threat or tantrum. Once you do, they will only come back for more. Kipling warned us of Danegeld, and it's Danegeld through whining, not force, but the outcome is the same.

Right now, the liberals are pointing at this essay on screen, and virtue-signaling to each other in howls and catchphrases that I'm a racist, a Nazi, unclean, need to check my privilege, etc.  Now, these are ad hominem from pussies, so there' s no reason to address them.  But, it gives me a warm feeling to remind them how wrong they are at everything.  So, let's run down the list:

Racist:  Ah, the default shriek of the pussified-American.  Actually, all of my kids have some Native American blood, and my wife is more "of color" than the last president, regardless of her skin tone--Choctaw, Cherokee, black, Irish and German, and it wasn't long ago that "Irish" wasn't "white." She's reservation born, white-trash ranch raised, possessed of two STEM degrees, and earns a healthy salary working as a female in STEM, and can actually tell you all about the actual racism, sexism and everything else in society.  I didn't marry her either because she's a minority, or because she looks "white."  I married her because she's fucking awesome and I wanted dibs before someone else realized it.

Now, my ancestry is all "white," but to think that means no history of repression means you have to think that English and Scots, English and Irish, English and Welsh always get along, and that Scandis, Brits and Germans are all identical and never had issues. My Viking ancestors raped and pillaged the coast of Scotland where I'm from, then those English bastards came up and destroyed our language, culture, wealth, property and history.

Well, that was 150 years ago, and I got over it. And yes, there's still trouble now. My English mother and Scottish father got quite a bit of flak about marrying. Because while skin color matters in America, in parts of Europe (including the UK, but God help you if you call a Brit a European in a pub), it's not color, it's background or even surname. That whole Hatfield-McCoy thing you're fascinated with? That's pretty much the entire HISTORY of the British Isles, son.

And as I always like to say, I don't hate anyone based on their demographics. I find it much more satisfying to talk to them for two minutes and hate them as an individual.

Nazi: You know, that would greatly disappoint my maternal grandparents, who hosted Jewish children in the 1930s and 1940s, and helped crack Enigma, and flew in the Battle of Britain and Italian Campaign.  I would never do anything to disappoint Ernest Frederick Stephens and Dorothy Maidlow. It would also disappoint George Williamson and his brother Jock Williamson, who fought with the Gordon Highlanders.  I suspect Phyllis Jane Henderson wouldn't approve either.

Nor, being factual here, do I support any kind of socialism, national or otherwise. If I did, I'd have voted for Hillary Clinton. POINT: Liberal faggots don't even know what a "Nazi" is, other than "something that makes me cry."

Check my privilege: Oh, I do, and it's fucking awesome.  Nature blessed me with an outrageously high IQ, perfect vision and hearing, aristocratically handsome looks, good health and fitness, and a larger than average penis. I enjoy the company of amazing women of intellect, presence and appearance. I have good friends.  I have an upper class income and lifestyle now, though that was not true for most of my life.

However, that came from two sources: Genetics, and hard work.  The former I have no control over, and hating me for it IS racist.  Well, eugenicist. Some sort of -ist. I'm not sure the virtue-signalers even know how to categorize that one, because they're all concerned with how pathetic a piece of shit someone can be, rather than how awesome they can be. As to the hard work, I'm in a field where no one can see my skin color, and such a claim is based on the assumption that everyone is racist. What's at work here is confirmation bias. Almost all liberals are racist, so they assume by default that everyone is.  A recent example of this fact is all the bleating from liberals that "if we arm teachers, they'll snap and shoot black kids." What they mean by this is, "I'm an unstable racist and if I had a gun I'd shoot black people, so I assume everyone would."

So, no, I'm not racist or a Nazi. That would make me a liberal.

I think that's enough words wasted on liberals. so let's move on to a second example.

MUSLIMS.

There are a billion Muslims in the world, and it's true that the overwhelming majority are peaceful. Those poor people are stuck in the middle between the violent nutjobs and those fighting the violent nutjobs. Nor do they have an obligation to apologize for the nutjobs, anymore than gun owners should apologize for mass shooters, responsible drinkers for drunk drivers, or Canadians for Justin Bieber.

Liberals, though, do need to apologize for the acts of other liberals, because there is no such thing as an innocent liberal. They're pretty much all on board with Kim, Stalin and Hitler, and most come out and extol those behaviors. But I digress.

However, the violent nutjob arm of Islam are worse than liberals, because they're actually competent, and do kill innocent people over...disagreements of belief.  In other words, liberals would actually be terrorists if they weren't worthless pieces of shit. And we'll need to stomp them out of existence before they become a relevant threat.  But I digress again.

Now, there are two responses to violent Muslim nutjobs.  The first response is of course to be violent right back, but more effectively. This is a sound strategy, and it works.  It is also expensive, time consuming, and not 100% effective.

The other prong is persuasive, and it takes two approaches.

First, is for honest Muslims to keep preaching peace.  A noted imam in Bangladesh spoke just last week, at a very beautiful mosque, http://vitti.com.bd/project/masjid-ut-taqwa/#ad-image-847 about the proper meaning of Jihad.  He notes that the response to angry speech is persuasive, measured speech.  The response to ignorant speech is louder, informed speech.  Armed jihad can only be undertaken on a national scale, and only to ease the suffering of the oppressed. Individual armed jihad has no place in Islamic theology. Dissension, jihad of opinion, jihad of speech, jihad of personal improvement.... those are permitted, not armed jihad. This is a fine man of character, and I pre-emptively apologize to him and my Muslim friends that I must take the other arm of persuasion, and fight the violence with contempt. 

Whenever some nutjob commits an act of violence on behalf of Allah or The Prophet Muhammad (May piss be upon him), I double down with condescension, that Muhammad raped children, likely pigs, possibly men, and considered the drinking of medical piss to be healthy https://islamqa.info/en/83423.  Then I offer to meet them with their weapon of choice and one of my AR-15s, and we can see just how potent this "Allah" is. Although, if mere words from mere mortals can distress him so much, he's probably a faggot himself.

At this point, decent Muslims are rolling their eyes, and a couple of friends are pleading, "Mike, Mike, please don't be so disrespectful. You know we will never harm you and wish you only the best."

This is true. They do. But my message is not for them. It is for the violent nutjobs, to assure them their violence cannot silence speech, even ugly speech.

Unlike liberals, Muslims actually believe in something, so can be reasoned with. Most are very reasonable, some few will have to be reasoned with contemptuously or with violence.

The liberals, however, insist I'm a "Racist" for these statements.  They've never been able to explain which "race" a billion Muslims are, or which "race" the Catholics would be in contrast.  They double down that I have "racialized" Muslims, and that I'm somehow worse than the terrorists who blow kids up.

So, my current jihad is to continue to remind terrorist scum that they can't silence decent people--Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Pagan, areligious, or otherwise, with bombs. And to remind liberals that they're pathetic shit who can't silence the voices of decent people, aren't even effective terrorists, but that if they attempt to become so, we will have to kill them.