I did not know that Amy Schumer, the gross progressive vagina eliciting Hollywood actress, was Chuck Schumer’s cousin—however distant. But I should have. The Trainwreck actress after a shooting during the showing of her film in Louisiana teamed with Chuck to propose more gun control which was laughable considering the type of person she is—a fallen personality extremely self-deprecating, and clearly an entry-level contestant into the novel, Brave New World. She is the epitome of the term, orgy-porgy—another useless, casual sexual experience as common as a trip to the commode. And cousin Chuck thought it wise to put her up in front of the world to promote more gun control? The world has truly gone insane.
Amy Schumer represents the net result of progressive feminism and how it has destroyed the integrity of the American female. Her comedy is the embodiment of failure from the emergence of feminists into a culture of quality intent to destroy the institution of value within a capitalist society. The devaluation of women into sluts no different from their male counterparts has been the ultimate destruction of a civilization that had been a shining star in a world of gloom. And Amy Schumer makes comedy about the status of feminism in a culture destroyed by it.
I don’t talk much about personal family issues, but for this case I’ll make an exception. A number of years ago when my siblings were married, they had traditional bachelor and bachelorette parties—which I do not support. I find the whole ritual disgusting—reprehensible. If you are getting married to someone, one last fling as a single person should not be on your mind. Strippers for a man should never happen if he has a bride to be waiting to take his hand in marriage. But strippers for a woman are far worse. This whole culture of women licking penis shaped pop cycles and allowing strippers to grope their breast and rub against the females in disgusting ways is simply reprehensible. There is nothing funny or cool about the behavior. It is not funny to see a mother or aunt being liquored up and molested by some twenty-year-old hard body. It is a failure of human excellence to have any woman in any family witness such a thing. With that said, I have been a best man in weddings, and have watched several close family members get married over the years, but I have never been to a bachelor party—and I never, ever, will. People know how I feel about them and they don’t even invite me. But I was immensely pissed off when they invited my wife and she felt compelled to go. I will never forgive the people who ignited that episode. Sure we still get along—at Thanksgiving, birthdays, etc., but I will never forget it.
It was a shameful episode that was utterly despicable, and the women who participated, I never saw as quality people again. It changed the way I viewed them all. Now, some will read what I’m saying on the matter and declare that my views are extreme, and that my opinions are out-of-step with reality. They would be right to a certain point of view, but I don’t care. I want nothing to do with a culture that parades its women around as sluts for the easy taking of sex crazed males ruining the integrity and wisdom that should be the embodiment of womanhood and ruins it with disgrace.
My wife hated the bachelorette party. There was a lot of peer pressure to participate in improper behavior imposed on her from trusted family members which really shattered her opinion of them as well. They of course think we made too much of the incident, but then again, they also think that Amy Schumer is funny. They watch all the pop culture shows that inform society of what’s cool and what’s not and have accepted those things without question. Not the case between my wife and me. Marriage was always very serious and strippers at bachelor parties are terrible ways to begin a marriage.
It is to those people who Amy Schumer speaks. They are her audience and think its funny when she participates in female behavior that uses farting and belching to get a laugh. I don’t think it’s funny when men do it, and it is really disgusting when women do it. I heard Jenny McCarthy belch once twenty years ago and I still think of her as disgusting when I see a picture of her. If she were completely nude and had worked her body into a pillar of artistic beauty, I would still see a woman who belched to get a laugh tarnishing her for life in my mind.
Now keep in mind dear reader that the name of this site is not “average” warrior.com. It’s overmanwarrior—otherwise known as—“more than man.” I don’t personally participate in disgusting behavior, farting, belching, and speaking with nasty language. I expect to be more than man in everything I do. When someone says about someone else that they think their “shit” doesn’t stink, they are talking about people like me. I have no desire to be compared to defecation as a value system, so those who think in such ways I have no desire to be friendly to. That makes someone like Amy Schumer a pathetic mess. I find nothing about her as funny—because she is catering to the worse of what makes humans, human.
Yet I am certainly in the minority, and proud of it. Amy Schumer isn’t targeting me by any means, but she does have appeal to the legions of confused women who think they have to be everything to everyone without complaining about any of it—or by complaining about everything. Amy Schumer represents the “trainwreck” of their ridiculous lives. In the film of the same name Schumer is an embarrassment, she gets stoned all the time, sleeps with just about anybody and everyone and stays drunk often. She is the modern representation of what young females are molding themselves to, which means we are all in for a lot of trouble. The movie is doing good business however leading Schumer to more roles of more disgusting behavior.
Enter her cousin Chuck who is using Schumer’s popularity to advance gun control legislation restricting the Second Amendment. One minute we’re supposed to celebrate Amy Schmer’s recklessness and zanily brand of feminism, then we’re supposed to listen to her about gun control. How ridiculous is that! Progressives like cousin Chuck have ruined the lives of women with their progressive antics resulting in messes like Amy—then they expect America to listen to them when it comes to gun control. No Thanks! If Amy Schumer says we don’t need guns, or that she supports more restrictions I’m going to want the exact opposite of her position. After all, I want nothing to do with a dope smoking, farting, belching mess of a woman—least of all, advice on who and where we should have guns.
There are many kinds of wealth, and in many ways I think I’m far better off than Donald Trump. I wouldn’t trade my life for his. But I find myself having an awful lot in common with the 2016 presidential candidate, as many do which is one of the reasons for his popularity. With that said it is obvious that Trump is learning how to be a political candidate and is refining his approach that is most evident to me in this Anderson Cooper interview which is long, but illustrates several very important sociological behavior patterns for which he’s personally destroying. Trump is able to give this kind of interview because he’s literally a free man. That freedom comes from his wealth, which I understand. I share with him some of that freedom, so I understand what makes him tick, and that is why I’m so enthusiastic for his candidacy. Watch carefully.
Most powerful to me in that interview was Trump’s revelations about lobbyists, when he declared he’s been on the other side of the ball most of his life as a businessman and understands how the system works. When he says that he could get a politician to jump off a ledge he’s serious and I believe him emphatically. Cooper tried to pin him down with guilt about his participation in the system by using lobbyists to control politicians as Trump chided back that as a businessman he had to play the game–because that’s how the game is played. Trump then stated more or less that he wants to run so he can change the rules of that game. As a president, he couldn’t be bought. As a president there is nothing the White House can give him that he doesn’t already have. As a 69-year-old man who has made $10 billion dollars of worth, I believe he wants to sincerely contribute his independence to the philosophic debate of preserving the United States.
When Trump says that there is no politician that can turn this country around, he is absolutely right. When a lobbyist can control politicians the way they do, the system is hopelessly beyond repair. Trump additionally stated to Cooper during the interview that if he were in the White House, he would never leave, and would work hard while there—so much so that he wouldn’t have time to comb his famous hair. And I believe him. Trump may be arrogant, he may love to see himself on television, he may be narcissistic, but without question he is the hardest working candidate running for president. I recognize within that arrogance some of myself. When you work harder than other people, and people don’t respect your hard work, you have to learn to do things for yourself—because you see what needs to be done while others do not. The world doesn’t thank you for things that are done for which they don’t understand the value—but only in hindsight. When a person is on the cutting edge, often only they understand the treasure of that position, so they act on behalf of themselves knowing that people will thank them later. In this respect I share a lot in common with Trump. I believe him when he says he’d be the hardest working president that the White House has ever seen. He’d work hard not so that people would reward him, but because he personally desires to do a good job judged off his measuring stick. That is a tremendous difference between him, and everyone else, not just in who is running, but in who has ever run.
Another place that Anderson Cooper effectively brought up an important part of the Trump candidacy was over the question regarding faith. Virtually all of human society believes that faith in a deity makes politicians malleable enough to serve as public representative in a democracy. This is the most idiotic notion of any social analysis. On matters of faith I answer questions in a similar way as Trump does. I do not owe my life to a god of any kind. I do not give credit to my good deeds to some un-named creature only interpreted for me by some insufficient minds who might have written the Bible or Koran hundreds of years ago and translated for me by churches. I trust what I can see and touch—and if something exists in the quantum realm of the very infinitely small, I use my own experience to guide my thoughts. I do not trust the interpretations of history. But I certainly wouldn’t call myself an atheist. I don’t pray to some god to help something to occur, I utilize myself to unleash my potential to help solve problems. In a lot of ways the power of positive thinking is like praying. At some point in the distant past human beings recognized that the act of praying could shape the events of history—perhaps in small ways, but enough so that the act was worth doing. But strong, independent people have learned more, which just praying doesn’t do it, but the power of positive thinking goes several steps further. Trump is that kind of religious person. He is such a free man that he doesn’t feel he needs to kneel before a god whom he has never met other than through interpretations of others—to surrender his logic to the supernatural.
To assume that god will listen to billions of desperate voices and shape world events to their liking is absurd. It is even worse to expect a leader of the human race to pray to a deity for guidance. Who knows really what might answer such a prayer—the gods of the Holy Bible, the god of the Maya, of the Muslim, or the Asian—nobody really knows. In my experience there are many tricksters who live in the spiritual realm, many soothsaying mind-watchmen who will gladly steer an undefended mind to their doom just as there are car salesmen who will take your money knowing full and well that you can’t afford what they are selling. There is no way to know unless you meet these deities with your own eyes and touch them with your hands what they are up to, so trusting them would be absolutely foolish. Now, honoring what’s good about spiritual revealers is a tremendous positive, and Trump stated as much with Cooper. He lives his life in a way that he feels he shouldn’t have to ask for any forgiveness from a god. That statement is a powerful one. Who wants a leader who will surrender the sanctity of the United States to the prayer of some unproven manic who lives in the 5th or even 11th dimension hoping to get a boost to their ego by destroying the minds of those limited four-dimensional beings on planet earth with misdirection. Cooper represents a status quo opinion of politicians that has created some really major problems over the years. If politicians can make voters believe they are connected in some way to the afterworld, then they are free to repeat history as just another corrupt emperor, ruthless dictator, pharaoh or Pope. For instance, the current Pope Francis from Argentina is a maniacal socialist. We are supposed to believe that he went from a nightclub bouncer to a religious leader because some smoke came out of church chimney. And this guy is going to lead the world spiritually into progressive concerns? Give me a break. He might be a nice man, but a leader of human society—absolutely not. Is he connected to god, even less likely? Giving such people a seat at the table of leadership is like asking a dog to not eat a plate of food placed before them when their owners leave the room. Politicians and religious leaders are all made of the same secondary stuff. They live through others, not of their own individuality, and are therefore ill-equipped to lead a nation of individuals driven by a pure capitalist economy. Trump’s answers to Cooper on religion were very interesting, and I understand Trump completely, maybe more than Trump actually does. He has nothing to feel guilty about—even though Cooper obviously didn’t understand the answer. More than anything, I think that religious presumption is what gets all republics into trouble. Keep god in the church on Sunday or in your hearts during study. Keep it out of the realm of leadership. Leadership is a task for mankind on planet earth in a four-dimensional lifestyle. Those are the rules of the game, and we have to live with them unless those rules can be changed from the other side.
The theme of the interview essentially came down to the fact that Trump knows how to play the game of both religion and lobbyists and that he is best equipped to change the rules if he’s on the other side of things. John Boehner might be the third most powerful person in the world, but if the Pope comes to America to give a speech, Boehner is likely to listen to the church leader’s comments about the poor and destitute hoping to get into heaven than Trump would—and that makes Trump a better potential leader. Boehner might say because the Pope whispered in his ear that it is good to help the poor with sacrifice and altruism. That would be because Boehner is a second-hander who lives through other people himself. He needs money too from people like Trump to stay in power, so he will regulate his thoughts to a deity to guide him through life’s mysteries. Whereas Trump will also help the poor, he’ll tell them to get a job—and if there isn’t a job, he’ll make one through capitalism. That is the main difference between Donald Trump and everyone else. He’s a truly free man who works harder than everyone else, and has earned the right to say what he wants. And America needs such a person right now—otherwise it may fail to exist for four more years. We really are at a pinnacle of existence, and it will take more than prayer or lobbyists to pull us from the brink.
………………………………………I can’t think of a single good thing to say in support. He lost Issue 2. Gave Obama everything he wanted. And he was one of the first to tag Ohio to Obamacare. He shouldn’t be running for president…………………he should be running from angry voters.
Trump is clearly a front of the train guy—vastly different from a typical politician. He looks at the do nothing McCain who lost the 2008 election because of his passivity and has decided he doesn’t care for the guy. Being a veteran doesn’t give McCain a pass to be an idiot for the rest of his life living off the reputation of his 5 years spent in captivity. To Trump’s mind, and mine as well, McCain would have been far more effective if he hadn’t been caught to begin with, because it made him a liability to the United States strategically. McCain was a pilot who was shot down over Hanoi during a bombing mission. He was then captured, tortured and suffered lifelong physical limitations. To an A-type personality my first thought was that even with fractures to his right leg and both arms, he should have done what he needed to do to avoid capture—or escape by any means necessary instead of staying captive for five and a half years. Knowing now what we do about McCain it is likely that his natural inclination toward passivity is what kept him prisoner. An A type of personality would have escaped, or died trying—so there is reluctance to call someone a hero just because they suffered.
However, to the modern progressive, sacrifice, suffering and service to causes outside of individual motivation are what they are trying to sell to the world, and the American serviceman is ripe for that exploitation. Not to mention a fellow progressive who is one of their members in the Republican Party who has been instrumental in bringing conservatives more to a centralist position on most social topics. The Beltway political system is using veterans to preserve their static pattern way of life which assumes that people are heroes if they give up their thoughts and individuality in service to Capitol Hill. Trump is questioning that rationality which set off a firestorm of controversy. Reporters after the event lashed into Trump with a fury that defied reason—their assumption was that McCain no matter how effective he is, no matter what kind of quality person he is, is a hero because he was captured and tortured. That all his actions for the rest of his life would be forgiven because he was a war hero, meaning that any critical assessment of McCain was off the table—that’s not how reality works.
The cause of the ridicule of McCain from Trump started because of comments the progressive senator made about the 15,000 people who attended Trump’s rally in Phoenix, Arizona. He called the Trump supporters “crazies” which was an establishment desire to set the parameters toward acceptable behavior, because Trump’s support was growing well beyond the control of the GOP. That is the essence of the fear that the Beltway has about Trump, which he will not be able to be controlled by anybody, because he’s already a billionaire, so he can’t be bribed by money. So they have to try to build public consensus against him—and they started by calling his supporters “crazies.” Standard back of the train behavior. Trump then felt he had to defend his supporters which he did by questioning the performance of John McCain over the years, starting with his military service.
McCain pulled the ejection handle on his Skyhawk dive bomber at 500 knots breaking his right leg in the process. He passed out and landed in a lake nearly drowning until some North Vietnamese caught him and pulled him into the center of a nearby town. The peasants there were hollering and spitting on him kicking him when they could. They stripped him, his leg was broken at a 90-degree angle, and they stuck a bayonet into his foot. They interrogated him for the next four days then declared him for dead. McCain realized he had a major infection from blood pooling in his leg that would kill him so he agreed to give the North Vietnamese military information if they’d take him to the hospital. They declared that he was too far gone. It was only when they realized that McCain’s father was a “big admiral” that they took him to the hospital hoping to use him for political leverage. McCain was treated somewhat and spent the next five years in captivity. From the point of view of an A type personality, McCain made several mistakes. He didn’t have an escape plan during the crash. His survival instinct told him to pull the lever, to not drown in the lake, and to say whatever he could to keep from dying of an injury to his leg. But at his decision gates, he could have waited a bit longer to eject after scanning the ground for nearby villages. Once captured he trusted too much in the system as he was a soldier who accepted that his fate was up to others to deal with—even wounded, he took a passive position on his own safety which then put mission command at risk adding to the list of POWs that were being held in military areas they’d otherwise like to bomb. So strategically, McCain put the command structure of the United States forces at a disadvantage because of his capture that likely caused more death because of his natural impulse toward self-preservation. In hindsight it’s clear there were other options, but McCain didn’t use them. He was under duress, and surely terrified. But what made him a hero? He just wanted to live. That doesn’t make one a hero.
Is a kid who doesn’t know what they want to be when they grow up a hero because they are willing to trade freedom for security by joining the military as a young recruit? Are they heroes because they show a willingness toward sacrifice—because they were taught that in their basic training? Are they heroes because they accept orders without question letting other people do their thinking for them? And if they get into trouble like McCain did performing a mission that some bureaucrat came up with at a command bunker, are they heroes for trying to stay alive? These are legitimate questions. The political class wants to believe they are heroes for serving as congressman and senators, but in reality they are ineffective leeches who enrich themselves off the political process. McCain is one of those people. He had an unfortunate thing that happened to him, and he’s trying to cover up the many follies of his past with the awards of his desire to stay alive—which is human and quite natural. There’s nothing exceptional about wanting to stay alive. But in the real world where people like Trump live, he measures success off performance, not sacrifice. And under that lens McCain is a failure and not very heroic. Just because something bad happens it doesn’t make you a hero. Escaping and bringing back intelligence that would win the war would have. But just lasting from day-to-day barely alive doesn’t. It just makes you a survivor.
McCain all through his capture was very concerned about the other POWs who had been there longer than him getting home first. He to his very heart and soul thought of others over himself, which is what progressive society wishes to see. Trump wouldn’t be that way, and neither would I. I could not have stayed in a prison for over five years waiting for the war to end. I would have had to find some alternatives. But McCain believes in the static systems of the political orthodox, which is still a problem with him. He may be a good man relative to the politics of the Beltway, but is he a hero? That is a matter of definitions and who makes them, and whether those definitions come from the back of the train, or the front. In the end, McCain gave the communists what they were looking for, a confession of guilt that was beat out of him after years of torture. He had hit his breaking point and nobody can really blame him. That makes him a survivor. But a hero—only in Washington politics could someone conclude that. Donald Trump was right again.
The left leaning news reports all through Thursday July 9, 2015 were swarming on information that RNC chairman Reince Pribus had called Donald Trump to instruct him to tone down his rhetoric considered by progressives and lame duck politicians as “incendiary.” The centralist candidates jumped on the band-wagon as well hoping that the day would sink the presidential hopeful’s rising poll numbers. The billionaire Trump however met during the day with a barrage of reporters to set the record straight. True, he had spoken to the RNC chairman, yes the Republican leader asked him to tone down things a bit, but that the call was more of a congratulatory nature. Instead of allowing himself to be a progressive whipping boy, he corrected the media by saying “Mr Priebus knows better than to lecture me. We’re not dealing with a five-star Army general.” That is why virtually everyone in politics is afraid of Donald Trump. As a billionaire who has built a life for himself of success, he knows that the progressive dreams of “interconnectivity” terrorism won’t work with him because ultimately, organizations will seek out his money, and he’s in control once they reach out to take it.
Interconnectivity terrorism is the type of strategic enterprise that involves democratic emphasis on the collective against an individual so to modify behavior into a desired direction reached through group consensus. The roots of this behavior are taught in public schools where ten children might come to a classroom dressed in the latest fashion trends of the day then in comes one who is different. That student may ha
ve on a t-shirt of a favorite movie that is out-of-step with the rest of society, or they may simply be dressed a decade behind or ahead of the current fashions. Regardless, the ten students make fun of the one hoping to force them through a lack of collective peer approval to come dressed for school in the latest trends to avoid further ridicule. This is essentially how the political left has drug the political right so far past the center toward socialism over a long period of time—through this ingrained mechanism taught to us as children to seek peer approval at any cost—even at the expense of our inner logic.
Just today peers in activities I’m involved with declared that I am hard to work with because people are afraid of my temper, my volatile outbursts, and my otherwise aloofness to their quests for respect. I know what I do and what others do and where my skills are, and where they are otherwise lacking in rivals—so there is no need for me to arrive at a consensus with anybody, because I don’t need to. When people need something from you, they are at a weakened position if they don’t have something equally valuable to offer in return. To just point at a chain of command and hope that peer review is enough to mold behavior it is often scary to such people to learn that it isn’t. It works in the military when soldiers are broken down during basic training and rebuilt in the mold of an American soldier to sacrifice their life to others, and to respect titles, not the people who proudly utilize them for public approval. A soldier is expected to not pass judgment on their commander, to overlook any personal failings they may have. If that commander says to charge a machine gun, the soldier is expected to do so, even if they know it will mean their death. I am that guy who would tell the commander to get off his ass and do it himself. I have a better idea. People like that are terrifying to the established order seeking consensus.
It was the hope of the interconnectivity terrorists out there that once a few major retailers like Macy’s, NASCAR and other high-profile consumer heavyweights castigated Trump publicly, that the political newcomer would yield like a school kid to the pressure of a bully. But Trump didn’t yield, because he knows what they are afraid to admit, that they need his money and eventually, they’ll come to him like snakes shedding their skin if he shows a willingness to open his check book. That is the difference between a second-hander, and a primary. Trump knows he’s a primary and that most everyone else is a second-hander—one who lives through the existence of others.
Second-handers are always prone to gossip, because they can’t do for themselves, they rely too heavily on the opinions of other people. They are chained to others like anchors to a boat cast into deep water—unable to move or see the light of day without being raised to such heights by somebody else. When I spot a second-hander, or one tries to attach themselves to my hard-won efforts I typically choke off the second-hander as soon as possible and let them reel on the vine collapsing on their own efforts. Some might call that mean, I call it moral—in protecting what is mine—my work, and my effort. When some second-hanger attempts to suck off that effort and are cut off, they seek out a group consensus to regurgitate that terrible feeling of being the only kid in a room of ten who is out-of-fashion. Only I was the kid who loved that scrutiny and the older I became, the more I loved pissing off the establishment by rubbing their face in their own ineptness.
Trump knows in his heart that the RNC chairman needs him more than Trump needs the chairman and for most candidates who spend so much of their life trying to appeal to the political machine, that type of confidence is unequivocally terrifying. They don’t understand what it means to be your own man, yet in Trump they have no way to ignore it. They are used to him hosting political fundraisers and writing them checks—which made them feel important, because it included them in the distribution of power. But with Trump’s run for president, he has told the entire establishment that if he wants to see the presidential seat in the White House filled by somebody competent, then he’ll have to fill it himself. He’ll use his own money, his own reputation, and his own effort. He doesn’t need phony speech writers either, he’s been the star of his own television shows, so he is already more poised for the entertainment portion of politics than most politicians—so what does he need Reince Pribus for. Nothing!
So by the end of that same day there was serious concern. Their little coup de grace in the media to paint Trump as a mere mortal being called by the RNC chairman to be told to stop saying the things he had been saying turned out to be a complete failure. Polls at the close of business showed Trump at the top—and by a sustainable margin. Why—because Trump is one of the first candidates in my lifetime, perhaps ever, who is a truly free person not encumbered by second-hander interconnectivity terrorism. And people know it. The only way to solve today’s problems is with a real person and not some fake piece of plastic who says all the right things to get the right votes at the right time. What people want is something real, that can stand on its own, and be its own person. That is what people are looking for in an American president. And it is quite obvious that Trump is that in every way.
If you’ve ever worked for a complete idiot who believes that people follow titles instead of leadership, then you already know that defiance is sometimes needed in order to do a good job as defined by a sustainably good work ethic. Government officials are by their very nature prone to incompetence and the belief that it is their titles that people will follow—that if only a majority of the people who elect them can be convinced to cast a vote—that they represent the majority opinion and are thus insulated from competent assessment. The moment they get a nameplate on their desk they believe that they are so entitled to lead in any direction they wish without having any other qualification. The military is full of these types of people as is almost every position in government. However in the private sector where the best and brightest are encouraged to thrive, and to rise up to challenge management through healthy competition it is there where all things truly good emerge. Very little good can come from a system where incompetent people rule over the good, or that the good are prevented from making things better through their natural inclination by tyrannical power-hungry supervision. That is why in the United States we celebrate the 4th of July. It is a holiday of defiance and a reminder that sometimes idiots in charge have to be removed so not to ruin the lives of the good.
Leadership is all about respect, when good people know a better person is in a position to guide them to prosperity. For instance, people followed George Patton to the ends of the earth because they believed in the man as he was everything he advertised. Hitler would not have been defeated without Patton in a command position in Europe. A million pin-headed bureaucrats throughout the world gathered together in a thousand circle-jerk meetings about how to defeat the rising dictator and could not stop him with all the troops around the globe at their disposal. They had to have Patton to perform the task and break up the Nazi encampments all the way to Berlin. Patton was effective because people believed in him. People don’t lay down their lives for titles; they do it for people they respect. Without that respect, strategic objectives are impossible—except for the occasional shit-shot that just happens to work by happenstance, like a winning lottery ticket.
As my son-in-law and I were buying fireworks for our family 4th of July party I couldn’t help but notice the nature and body language of the people lining up out the door in the middle of a mid-week afternoon in Lawrenceburg, Indiana to buy fireworks. There was defiance in their presence as they were very conscious that they were illegally buying fireworks to take back across state lines to fire off at their homes while law enforcement stood down over the holiday weekend. Americans won their independence from England with defiance, and the 4th celebrates that defiance. It is the heart of the entire holiday. It is a holiday that celebrates rebellion from incompetent over-reaching leadership in the form of a blood inherited throne. The king of England expected people in the American colonies to remain loyal to his title, and that was simply not the case—it’s not how human beings work.
The settlements involved in westward expansion were about defiance. The boldest and most ingenious of the new American nation headed west to be free to function from the increasingly bureaucratic east. Along the way there were conflicts with Indian tribes, all of whom had acquired their land through similar battles with rival tribes who were meeting similar rebels seeking opportunity, and the Americans won by sheer will and cantankerous perseverance. The new nation flooded with ambitious people fleeing the titles of Europe for at least the opportunity to be their own people—to rule their own lives. The Indians could not stop that human desire to be rid of incompetent rule—that was the cause of westward expansion—to have the opportunity and freedom to live their own lives, and it built the greatest nation on earth—until America ran out of land and was forced once again to reconcile under the rule of people with titles, who sit behind desks bureaucratically running the lives of people from behind a nameplate bringing the same kind of ineffective stewardship to America as what we fled from in Europe.
Today’s Barack Obama, or Mitch McConnell types could not lead troops in the way that George Patton did, or even Sam Houston in Texas against Santa Anna. They are not respected and are incapable of real leadership. They are figureheads of administration and when they overstep their boundaries, they should be removed through elections. If they work the system in such a way—as they have—to stay in power regardless of public opinion then the Bill of Rights provides ways of preserving the American Constitution by forcible removal which sometimes is an unfortunate option. That is why we have the Second Amendment—it’s not to hunt rabbits, it’s to remove tyrannical governments from hiding behind nameplates and destroying our freedoms. The First Amendment is there to warn those knuckle-draggers of the danger to them if they continue to proceed—out of fairness.
Personally I think the American Constitution is way too Hamiltonian—too Federalist for my liking. My sentiments reside in The Anti-Federalist papers which I always have near me chronicling the Constitutional Convention Debates of 1787-1788. It is because of those Anti-Federalist Papers that we have a Bill of Rights—and thus the Second Amendment. It is clearly the plight of the Federalist types who are today’s soft bellied conservatives, progressives, libertarians, and blind patriots who accept with a shade of incompetency an adherence to The Federalist Papers and perhaps some Supreme Court case-law as a means of revision in a “living” document evolving over time by more desk sitting bureaucrats. Case in point, Justice John Roberts of the present court—I was thinking about him as I watched people buy fireworks at the store my son-in-law and I was at. The store itself was open 24 hours a day, seven days a week all the way up to the 4th. Proudly people were spending $300 to $1000 on explosives in large shopping carts to fill their cars with defiance and they had a swagger in their step that they don’t have otherwise. It was in the notion of defiance that they were most proud and it is there that the 4th of July holiday is best defined. It was reassuring to them to know that they were defying the law on the 4th, that just because someone like John Roberts stacked the court against the American Constitution recently with damaging case-law that future lawyers would use to make lots of money and further encumber individual freedom in favor of collectivist sentiment—that they had a means of rebellion against incompetency. I know that the Constitution is only part of the debate. The Anti-Federalist Papers represent still a large sector of the country that will always insist on defiance and freedom. All they lack is a leader who will unite them against a tyrannical government. I happen to know a few of those types of people, and right now we are using the First Amendment to help those name plate bureaucrats know their place. But at some point, the Second Amendment may be needed to remove the corruption and scum from the K-Street brothels, and Sodom and Gomorra scandals of the Beltway. Because they don’t know what they are doing, and are not equipped to lead us to a prosperous tomorrow.
The debates in The Anti-Federalist Papers tell the story of a nation reluctant to give control of the nation over to a central authority—because of the tendency of the weak to seek power and refuge behind a nameplate only to become everything that America fought from England only to become again was too tempting. There comes a time where the people of America must show defiance not just on the 4th of July, but the 5th, and 6th and onward to throw off the poor leadership of the nameplate types and free themelves to the best and brightest among them. Not the slickest talker or the most manipulative Shakespearian back-stabber. But the best that their society can produce, the Pattons, the Chennaults, and the Hustons to take the nation back toward The Anti-Federalist Papers arguments thus preserving the American Constitution with a swagger that is distinctly born of a free people. When you hear the fireworks from millions of American homes, it is The Anti-Federalist Papers that they unconsciously celebrate, and is the heart of what truly keeps us free.
Well of course Ronald Hicks, vice president for SHP Leading Design defended his efforts with Patti Alderson and my old friend Bob Hutsenpiller from No Lakota Levy to demolish the Old Union School with a brand new Boys and Girls Club of West Chester/Liberty with a $6.5 million dollar facility—by saying, “If any entity other than an education-based organization wanted to function in the structure, the occupancy of the building would change. That in turn would require a change of use for the facility, which would trigger ‘substantial wholesale upgrading of the building to current code requirements in order to change the function.” As I listened to Hicks speak about such invisible mountains of opposition I turned to lock eyes with the leaders of West Chester development—they were literally in the room and could easily handle such a change of use. But the elephant in the room wasn’t really about such concerns—it was a simple deflection to hide the real mechanisms of power percolating within the Lakota school district. The accusation that any other option was simply too hard for the old historic building was intended to mask the politics at play, CLICK HERE to read how the Journal News reported the issue.
The June 30th 2015th event was a who’s who of local politics as many of the heavy hitters from behind the scenes of most things political in Butler County were present. As I spoke to Randy Oppenheimer telling him honestly that I thought he was doing a good job as the Lakota spokesman, even if he was on the wrong side of things, another old friend of mine Mark Sennet was standing behind me talking to Lakota treasurer Jenni Logan and Karen Mantia about how the area developers have always been for Lakota schools. Mark was also in No Lakota Levy with me and on this issue was against the tearing down of the old school. But his dialogue was interesting. The next time there is a levy fight, I won’t be using the developers as a way to defeat the levy. It was in fact their lack of passion and commitment to hold strong that caused the last levy to be successfully passed. They were all too willing to side with Patti Alderson because she’s always good for potential projects down the road, such as this Boys and Girls Club deal. They were able to argue higher taxes and the impact to further development, but did not have the conviction to hold their line in such public forums, which was clearly what Mark was revealing quite openly.
To continue an answer to Randy about why I have so many blog postings and say so many things within those postings, it’s really to provoke thought from those who need to think more intensely about any given topic. For instance, there are elements to this Old Union School discussion that I can cover at this site that you simply won’t read in the Cincinnati Enquirer or the Journal News. Both news outlets were present, but they are not given the kind of space in their newspapers to cover the complete story, only the surface issues. In this case going back to the year before the Alderson/Lakota deal I was leading No Lakota Levy against the next tax increase attempt, we had a nice little press conference at Bob Hutsenpeller’s office within view of the Lakota East high school facility. I had Channel 19 there as well as Channel 5, and 9. I also had the Cincinnati Enquirer there giving Michael Clark an exclusive on a story where Patti Alderson refused to work with me on helping kids pay for their high sports fees at Lakota—which was an extortion racket designed to build support for a tax increase. Since Patti refused to help the kids then by working with No Lakota Levy—because of the politics of the situation, she and the Lakota school board worked directly with Michael Clark to write a hit peace on me hoping to break up No Lakota Levy. When it really pissed me off to the point of near violence they asked for a two-year cease-fire to regroup. During that time they went to work on Bob pulling him into an open alliance with Patti on this Boys and Girls Club project. Bob is a good builder, and a good person. He was the last one standing at the end, and it was hard for him. This deal is an opportunity to repair some relationships and get involved in building something significant within the community. Patti get’s to do some charity work which she likes to do, and the Lakota school system gets to marry together a major part of the tax increase resistance to an open levy supporter facilitator to deflect future opposition. Everyone wins—right? Wrong. They left out some missing pieces to the puzzle.
I was surprised that Michael Clark didn’t want to come over and say hello to me. Even with all our back and forth bickering, Karen Mantia said hello to me. What many don’t know, and what I explained to Randy a little bit is that I primarily make my living pissing people off. I work with people who outright hate me all the time, and I know that. My goal in all these efforts is to dig out thoughts, to get to the root cause of any effort. I don’t have a desire to be liked by anyone other than my wife, by anybody. That gives me a lot of freedom to provoke honesty in people and their relationships to money. Sure I’m angry at Clark. On the day he wrote his hit piece against me I was on several professional conference calls around the city while radio stations were reading on the air the way he assembled many articles from this site into a context that greatly favored the pro levy crowd. He all by himself threw turbo fuel on an already blazing inferno and he and the Lakota school board went for my jugular clearly. But that wouldn’t be the first time that’s happened in my life, and it certainly wouldn’t be the last. So it surprised me that he didn’t even say hello. When Karen asked where I’ve been, I told her I had been busy. Lakota passed their levy and this Old Union School deal has been some of the most recent activity since the 2013 levy passage. I’ve been focused on making an argument for a nationwide abandonment of public education all together, so haven’t cared much about the daily workings at Lakota—other than I don’t want to pay the taxes. But this Old Union School deal is something that affects all of West Chester, so I attended this meeting with interest, and I will get more involved in the future when Lakota tries for another levy. So Clark might as well get used to the fact that he’s going to have to see me around town. No Lakota Levy did not die with the alliance of Bob and Patti, the ruckus of all that controversy was a recruiting tool for me to bring new blood to the fight—because the developers were wavering in their resistance. That should have been obvious to all the smart people in the room. So I wanted to thank Michael Clark for the hit piece—it showed the cards of all involved and helped me tremendously. And at its roots, that is what is behind the Boys and Girls Club—and why I am against it, because of the cards involved that are hidden from the public.
I said in the Journal article that the school board did not solicit enough opportunities for the Old Union School project. They simply took Patti’s offer bringing Bob with her and went right to work hiring Hicks to design as the architect. He’s put in considerable effort so of course he’ll defend the project. But the Old Union School sits in a region where a conscious effort to preserve the historic nature of West Chester is taking place. Once Patti stamped her name on the deal most area developers knew to stay away, so there wasn’t much solicitation as far as options involving an auction of the property. There are many buildings like the Old Union School in Norwood, Ohio for instance that have been converted to office buildings. On the outside they have the architecture of Norwood’s traditions while on the inside they are contemporary. Such an option would be a prime utilization for the Old Union School which is just down the road from Union Center and is just a football throw away from I-75 access. Just across the highway are wonderful restaurants for lunch rushes, I would find it hard to believe that there are no takers out there for that type of development. I also brought it up in the meeting but there wasn’t much time to get into the meat of it, that due to declining enrollment, Lakota is facing the possibility of further school properties coming available. My point to them was that Lakota didn’t need to control the Old Union School property as an asset, that they could afford to let it go to someone who would love it, and nurse it back to health. An office complex there would make more money for the township, so zoning approval should be achievable. The leaders of the community were there to answer that question, but Hicks didn’t really want to talk about it. Hicks and his response were equivalent to a kid in the back seat of a car saying that he wanted to go to Disneyworld from Cincinnati, but he didn’t want to ride in a car the whole way. It’s just too hard to ask for a change of use—in his eyes. What he really meant was that he wanted to protect his time in the project and the commitment his client, Patti Alderson has in the endeavor now that it’s public. It doesn’t have anything to do with hard or not. It’s political purely and nothing more.
As usual Danielle Richardson did a good job of bringing debate to the table. Without her this whole deal would have just been rubber stamped and packaged into the Lakota win column with great fanfare at the expense of the community. She composed herself quite valiantly even though she is coming up on a July 8th variance hearing with West Chester trying to keep her pet chickens. Chickens like the Old Union School is part of West Chester history and makes our community unique. The people who judge top 10 communities around the country are the same type of people who typically support school levies, so their opinions are skewed toward progressivism. Danielle has given me eggs from her chickens and they are quite good, better than the eggs you can get at the grocery—because her chickens are happy, and healthy, and proud West Chester residents. So she has more than enough fights to deal with, and she composed herself well considering the implications. She’s an Ayn Rand purist and doesn’t think she should have to get a variance from the “state” to keep her chickens—which she’s right. But there are elements of West Chester politics who are breathing heavily down the necks of leadership to be one of those top 10 national communities. They see “progress” as new buildings over old ones and measure their success by erasing history and writing their own. Danielle is fighting for more than just chickens or the preservation of the Old Union School. She is fighting to keep West Chester’s history a treasured memory—something all the powerful people in the room at the Lakota school board meeting need to take into account as they take steps forward that they can never again retract once committed.
It’s a complicated web of entanglements, but all politics is that way. What matters is not whether or not people like you. They can hate me from now until eternity. What matters is that the right things happen, and sometimes people need to be challenged in order to do the right things. I like the idea of an office complex going into the Old Union School preserving its history for the next century along a historic area of West Chester that needs to retain its old style charm amid booming development. I also like the idea of stopping by Danielle’s house for fresh eggs they way I did when I was growing up and farmers handed out eggs like trick or treat candy in this region. Then I like to go over and have lunch at Jags spending $300 on a nice big Oscar steak and a bottle of wine. I like to have options and in regard to the Old Union School, because of Patti’s involvement, the best options for Lakota were ignored—and in the end that will cost them money in lost opportunity, and a place in preserving the history of an old school-house that is one of the last remnants of a disappearing past.
I actually feel bad for many out there who have been reading here, and have listened to talk radio for some time and understood the warnings, yet didn’t fully understand what was coming. Progressives have a desire to “progress” from what we have traditionally been—which is the most economically powerful nation in the world that provides the most opportunity to the most diverse population anywhere—and to take the country to some centrally managed disaster they consider a utopia. Watching what’s happening to America presently is painful especially for those who love it. But progressives were always about performing this kind of military attack against traditionalists. They took advantage of our kindness, and the naiveté typical of American traditionalists. They have sought openly to not only progress the country beyond them—but to destroy traditional America in the process. It is now quite clear what Barack Obama meant when he said he planned to fundamentally transform America. After the Supreme Court rulings during the last week of June 2015 it is obvious what that means to progressives—and traditional Americans don’t like it.
Matt Clark was back from his honeymoon and spoke very clearly about the tragic Supreme Court decisions involving the sustaining of Obamacare and of gay marriage. From WAAM radio in Ann Arbor, Michigan Matt had one of the better summations to date during his radio show and had a parade of very intelligent callers on to articulate their frustrations.
Speaking of vacations, if you are the type who is an innovator and a strong presence in whatever company you work for, you likely notice that whenever you take a vacation there is this vast parade of people who hide in your wake and try to assert their dominance while you’re gone. The stronger you are, the more of these second-handers there are to fight over the power vacuum you leave behind. It charges their ego like children to believe that they can steer the world as well as you have—even though they really can’t. They can hold the steering wheel and guide things along opposed to doing everything from the leading edge—but it’s their fantasy and it lasts until you get back from wherever you’ve been. It gets further infuriating when they declare themselves equal to the world, because what you do takes courage, insight, imagination, and a 24-hour, 7 days a week mental maintenance that they don’t commit themselves to, yet they want to be considered equal in the scheme of things—even though they don’t put nearly as much into success as you do. I have often deliberately baited these types over the years into revealing their intentions at times I determine to minimize the damage they can do—knowing full what their behavior patterns will entail to use their destructive behavior in a way that is positive toward a strategic assessment. In a lot of ways that is what’s happening on the national stage. I know I’ve warned about it for years, Matt certainly has along with a handful of others—but at some point you have to make the decision to let the progressives choke on their own skanky bi-product. They want to drive, they want the credit, but they don’t have the ability to sustain things so they progress themselves right over the side of a cliff threatening to take the rest of the nation with them. But, guess what—I’m not following and neither will most of normal America. To show the world what progressives are really about, we have to sometimes let them show their cards to a skeptical audience—which is what they are doing. Meanwhile we clean our guns in our garages and wait to return from a brief recess. Much of the damage currently witnessed can be repaired with good management. But these progressive scumbags need to be exposed, which is what we are seeing. Left alone they are painting the White House in colors of rainbows and unicorns while the rest of the world laughs, and it’s painful to watch, but it’s the only way to expose them of their true intentions.
My wife and I have been doing a lot of traveling lately and have been on the road extensively visiting family in remote locations. At rest stops along the way I would joke to my wife in the wake of all this progressive treachery that soon there won’t even be men and women’s restrooms—that someday soon we will be able to go to the same restroom at the same time. After all, with so many men who think they are women and women who think they’re men—complete with transvestites, gays, lesbians, pedophiles, child abusers, and other sexual deviants running around—what’s the point of even spending the extra money keeping the sexes separated with two bathrooms? Everyone might as well assimilate into some slime of humanity since progressives want to remove all barriers of judgment. But we all know that won’t work, it’s just a facetious statement. Normal Americans aren’t wired like that, and they won’t accept it. You know how I know that dear reader—because of the box office from the progressive machine itself in Hollywood, which I watch very closely to take the temperature of the country. When Disney puts out a romantic animation film like Frozen featuring two gay guys kissing and it makes a billion dollars at the box office, that’s when you can start worrying. But I think we’re all safe from that kind of thing. Not because Disney or some other studio wouldn’t want to try, but because movie goers would reject the premise—because they can’t identify.
The public schools are trying to wire our children into accepting gay behavior, as is every venue that government touches, particularly the entertainment industry. But what they can’t do is make it appealing to want to stick a part of your body into someone’s butt. That just doesn’t work and doesn’t have very positive biological implication in the realm of sex. It doesn’t make for a very good romantic comedy when people are forced to watch it on their movie screens—because human beings aren’t wired that way by nature. Progressives desire to progressive beyond such limits—but they are really just making fools of themselves. They are moving the needle a few percentage points today in the direction of their desire, but it won’t last. Gay sex is gross to most people and that won’t change through the aggressive progressive marketing that we are seeing. The harder they push their agenda, the more that Americans will cry out for traditionalists to come back from their vacations and resume control, which is why it’s important to let all this nonsense play out. If we always fix things for the progressives then they can pretend they are equal to the rest of us. Sometimes it’s good to take a vacation and just let things play out so their behavior can be exposed for what it really is. I know I’ve been warning people what would happen if progressives were not properly identified as the communists they truly are. But nobody wanted to listen because they were fat, dumb and happy. The money was rolling in, the jobs were plentiful, and our sports teams were keeping us entertained. It was at that point that people like me just dropped everything and went on vacation. You have to let the progressives show what they want to give the world so the world can finally dismiss them as irrelevant.
But that doesn’t take away the pain of seeing something you care about being dismantled and abused which is what is happening in America right now. It does hurt to watch, but people need to see this now so they can vote properly for the next president in 2016. They need to want the traditionalists to come back from their vacations of gun cleaning and Bible thumping and return America to normal. But before that can happen the progressives need to have complete ownership of the failure—which is what we are seeing at this very moment. Progressives might consider it a victory lap, but that won’t last very long because failure is a lonely road and so long as the traditionalist refuse to share that failure with them, there’s nowhere else to go but to say—“I told you so.” We all did. Traditionalists aren’t conquered or on the run, they are just on a tactically selected vacation—and they will return.
Even to this very day there has been great fear among conspiracy circles about the re-education camps that would spring up around the United States under United Nations control. Even Glenn Beck fell under the spell of that fear with his novels, Agenda 21. Essentially the strategy would be that local bureaucrats trained directly through local seminars into United Nations priorities passed down through Chamber of Commerce networks would gradually shut down private property taxing it beyond the reach of average homeowners. People would then be relocated onto government property using Sweden style public house to implement communities managed by the state. Those who resist would be put into a train and shipped off to re-education centers, similar to the concentration camps of Nazi Germany to either get with the “program” or to be killed. That is in essence what the conspiracy theorists have been concerned about. Yet reality is something else, the menace is not so literal. The bad guys don’t fit so neatly on a silver screen plot line—in a lot of ways, they are friendly faces from neighbors and community leaders who appear to do all the right things. But they are just as sinister nonetheless—perhaps worse because they behave in ways that we are taught not to identify as bad so we don’t see the behavior ahead of time.
For anyone who has ever had a pet bird, such as a parakeet they know that one of the things that must happen is that the wings of the birds need to be clipped so that if they get out of the cage, they won’t be able to fly too far. This always seemed bad to me. When I have had parakeets in my family I’d often get the birds out of their cages and let them fly around the house freely keeping a close eye on the door so they wouldn’t fly out and get away. But I didn’t like clipping their wings—it seems immoral to do such a thing to a bird. Yet its common practice at a pet store to deliver the birds with their wings clipped so that the buyer doesn’t have to worry about the little birds flying away. For human beings our wings are of course our minds. We fly not with wings, but with our thoughts and imaginations. That is the strength of the human being—the products of their minds.
In truth the re-education centers are already in place. We fund them with our tax dollars and we spend a lifetime of savings sending our children to their classrooms. Our public schools and colleges are those re-education centers that the conspiracy theorists have been warning about. Their primary function in these schools is to reprogram our youth into compliant citizens focused on progressive causes. In essence, to clip the wings of thought to keep their minds captive towards a cage of social justice as defined by progressives so that once grown, those students will be unable to fly away, but will stay in their cages for safety and reliability of food. The programming starts young and once the mind accepts the limitations imposed by the public schools and colleges, they will be adults forever after unable to fly away too far from the cages placed around them by progressive institutions.
The warnings have come from people like David Horowitz for many years. Many others followed—but the majority of the public wished to deny that this re-programming was occurring. I determined when I was going though the public school system that it was occurring and I resisted vigorously. If a teacher told me something was blue, I questioned it every single time—or I blew them off as know-nothings and obtained the information on my own. I was a naturally rebellious kid so that kind of defiance was easy for me. The angrier the authority figures were toward me, the more encouraged I was to indulge in the activity. Some people thrive in environments of conflict. Some people avoid conflict at all costs. Those unfortunately are the ones most impacted by this re-programming. In college I was sure that the primary focus of the institution was not in preparing students for a successful life in the style of American capitalism—it was to be in service toward a push for socialism on a mass scale. The entire focus of the institution seemed to be in teaching Keynesian economics and Marx philosophy. In essence, if birds were meant to fly and the most moral thing to do with a bird is to let it grow wings to fly as high and far as it could achieve in life, the intention of the education institutions were to clip the wings of those birds so that they would stay in the cages of life built by the politics of the day to make reliable taxpayers and well-managed creatures located in close proximity to the management tasked with feeding them. By clipping wings, the education institutions could ensure that every bird would be equally handicapped to live under progressive management. Even as an adult going into the Lakota levy fights of 2010 I still gave some benefit to the doubt cast by Horowitz over the years and had an open mind. Once I dug into the actual intentions of my local school system and contemplated the illogical diatribes they used to counter my assertions against them, it was clear what their primary focus was.
For me the straw that broke the back was when the school sought ways to cover up the story of a child molester in a third grade class—for the benefit of the institution at the expense of the individual lives of the students. About a year later after a third levy defeat the school dug in its heels to begin cutting programs to the students in spite of what the voters had declared. It was obvious that the intention of the school hell or high water was to impose a tax increase on the community and they would withhold service until they obtained what they wanted. They were playing an extortion game and using the children of my community to pull it off—which made me very, very angry, and changed my thoughts about public education forever. As I discovered in my research, all public schools were performing in essentially the same fashion, so it’s a nationalized effort coming directly from the Department of Education aligned with the progressive intentions of the national labor unions. The goal was to clip the wings of students so that they could be held hostage from parents who had placed all their trust into the schools leaving them with no other recourse but to go along to get along. It’s an abusive relationship designed to pave the way to extortion, which is not what education is supposed to be about. Parents want to believe that the education their children are getting are giving their children wings to fly with, but what they are really getting are wings clipped so that nobody can ever fly away—imprisoning them to the management desires of progressives within the United Nations. That is not a conspiracy theory—it’s a cold, hard, fact.
Most people don’t want to believe this hard truth, and I can understand it. It feels better to look at a parakeet in a cage and believe that we are saving it from the harsh world outside of their cage—that we as the owners are clipping the wings of the little creature for its own good. But in reality, we are denying it of its God-given right to live freely, and have destroyed its essence in the process. I am personally a person who supports zoos, aquariums, and theme parks like Sea World. But the same people who are advocating against Sea World’s use of killer whales are the same who most support progressive public education and the deliberate clipping of the intellectual wings of the youth—because at the heart of the United Nations efforts at all these issues—public education, conservation, civil rights, etc., is an almost god-like worship of nature. They care more for the earth than in human beings and would like to take humans back into a primitive state living in accordance with early nomadic people—to preserve the earth. Capitalism is a celebration of mankind’s mind. Socialism is a focus on the collective not only of human beings, but of all things on earth—and that is the intent of our education systems—to hold the minds of mankind within the cages of progressivism, not to protect them from the world, but to protect the world from humans.
If there is any doubt as to what I am saying—which I have said extensively over the years—watch the videos on this article, then do your own research. At that time you’ll discover that you and your children are just clipped winged avian nuisances that progressive intuitions want to stuff into a cage so they can worship their deities at the sacrifice of capitalism. That is what your children are learning in school and the path in life they are being imprisoned to follow.
This is exactly why I am weary of organized religions. It’s not because they espouse values and kindness toward other people—it’s because they wish to be just like the governments of the world, yet another force that controls the minds of mankind. Enter the idiocy of Pope Francis and his recent proclamations in favor of progressive political platforms directly against capitalist forms of government—specifically the United States. It must not be forgotten that the Roman Catholic Church is all that remains of the former Roman Empire, and in the wake of that ominous force in Europe under the banner of the cross, many deaths occurred and the Dark Ages were created. So no, I don’t think religion by default is a wonderful thing. Rather it holds back society into the limitations of the past within the framework of sacrifice—which is archaic and foolishly rooted in scientific ignorance. It is within such a tapestry of ordainment that the Pope made the proclamation that gun manufacturers—especially those in the United States—were hypocrites if they call themselves Christian. It is that kind of stupidity and radical detachment from reality that has led churches in general to declining memberships. To put a foolish focus on the afterlife rather than the here and now is the mainstay of religion implying that one life defended with a gun has less value than the collective whole of civilization and that we should all be willing to sacrifice ourselves to the “greater good.” That is why I no longer attend church—because of those kinds of teachings. It’s not just the Catholic religion which I have roots in—it’s the entire industry of sacrifice that I have a problem with.
The Pope backed up his attack on weapons manufacturers by saying, “if you trust only men you have lost. It makes me think of…people, managers, businessmen who call themselves Christian and they manufacture weapons. That leads to a bit of distrust, doesn’t it?” That was followed by thunderous applause by thousands of ignorant young people raised under socialism in the economically bankrupt Italian city of Turin. In essence the Pope was saying that weapon manufacture is anti-Christian. He is implying that we should all turn our minds toward a God—which he is the representative on earth—and give up our needs for aggression by eliminating weapons of war from society. The Catholic Church, just like every communist and socialist government around the world wants to be in the business of ruling our lives and the product of their endeavors is a flock of sheep that mindlessly puts their faith in a religion that can’t keep their hands out of the pants of little boys. Take away the ability to defend ourselves and what kind of evils might swell from such trust? Well, history tells us quite a lot on the matter—which was one of the reasons for the creation of the United States in the first place—freedom from religious persecution. People had the right for the first time to worship what they wanted decentralizing the authority of churches into spiritual advisors instead of just another competing government.
Frances attempting to place his radical words of worthlessness into a world stage filled with like-minded thugs and social parasites declared during his speech—“duplicity is the currency of today—they say one thing and do another,” referring to people in his congregation asking for forgiveness during confession who then turn around and commit the same sins the moment they leave the confessional. That is because most human beings don’t give much thought to the church or the “men” who run them as self-proclaimed representatives functioning on earth on behalf of an all-seeing deity. I know a bit about history and in America when the church becomes so bold as to come to my house to take what I have to give it to the so-called poor under church authority—there is ammunition on my shelf intended to stop that action from occurring. I know better than the church what leads to the “poor.” I don’t trust the Pope or his clergy of pedophiles and social collectivists to define it for me. God has not come to my home and told me that Pope Francis is his representative on earth. Men have made that self-designation—and if you really get to the heart of what the Pope is saying it is that the world should trust the church and give up their guns in surrender to the global unifying force of the Christian religion. Sorry, but no.
Years ago I had to make the hard decision of using rational thought to determine that the religion I grew up with was lacking something important—logic in their assertions. I was at a communion ceremony at the front of the church watching all the people coming to the front to worship. I used to be an assistant to the minister and would hand bread to the people in the congregation who waited for their sacrament. As I held the plate of bread thinking about what it really meant I realized that the body of Christ sacrament was essentially just a watered down version of human sacrifice as it had been passed down to us over thousands of years of incorrect spiritual belief. Now for context, be advised that I read the Egyptian Book of the Dead at the age of 13, so I was thinking heavily about such things during this period. I saved up my lawn mowing money to buy the book which was a real treasure to me—it still is. The wine representing the blood of Christ was no different from the cultures around the world that drink the blood of a sacrificed victim in the belief that a deity would be appeased by the action. It took me about five years of this activity to finally admit to myself that it was within the framework of sacrifice that many evils around the world were committed—that the church itself was what Pope Francis attempted to paint against the gun manufacturers—a “duplicity is the currency” not only of today—but of the church itself. Not just Catholics—but virtually every church. It was under the Roman Catholic Church that many people died in the past and vast evils were committed needlessly against others. Religion is not a mechanism for peace unless you happen to be a member of that particular congregation. I determined this as many people who were supposed to be socially successful and smart would sit bowed before me awaiting the “body of Christ, prepared for you” that I’d hand them. They went from the leaders of the community that I knew they were to willing sheep within the context of the church hoping that God might notice and give them everlasting life when they died.
Around this time I went on a youth camping trip with members of our church. I had a girlfriend in this group so it was a chance to sneak over to her tent once everyone went to sleep. She was three years older than I was so there was much to learn. I think I was fourteen at the time, and she was a hot-to-trot 17-year-old about to graduate from high school. You might wonder dear reader why she was interested in me when she had access to so many older kids—well, that was because of my bullwhip which I had with me much to the anger of our minister. Well, she wasn’t the only one who had a crush on me. The minister did as well, and he conveniently had me sleeping in his tent on this trip. It was a joke in my family how much the leader of our church liked me. I was defiantly his favorite member of the congregation. I helped during every service before and after, and my family helped set the church up on Saturdays. It was a good wholesome experience, but at times was a little creepy. He was a good person in most aspects of his life, but something about him made me weary. At that time I had a reputation for fighting quite a lot, and my bullwhip use was known by everyone—and was a little scary to them. But it kept me safe. I felt—it kept everyone at bay, and gave me access to the kind of girls I wanted to know—so I was very obvious about it and even brought it on our youth church camping trip.
Once we all turned in for bed and were all in our tents, girls of course were matched up in their own tents, the boys in tents of their own, and I was of course paired up with the minister in his tent—just him and I. The minister told me as we zipped up the tent that I didn’t need that whip in the tent with us—that it was a weapon of violence and that he found it offensive while laying his head down for a peaceful night’s sleep. I told him I slept with my whip every night and that I couldn’t sleep without it. He then shrugged it off for the true motive of why he organized this whole field trip. He took off all his cloths and encouraged me to do the same. Without his ceremonial robes, or even the jeans and t-shirt he wore on the camping trip, it was clear to me that he was just a man of flesh and blood hungry for a physical sexual experience. He was married, but obviously in need of relationships with young people both intellectually and physically. I told him I couldn’t sleep in the nude. I was still wearing the same camouflage pants I had worn all day and they were stinky from sweet, and he complained that they were stinking up the tent—all while he sat there in the nude trying to convince me to get undressed. When I still didn’t, he persisted to criticize my false trust in clothing—that if I were a true Christian I wouldn’t feel I needed to hide behind my clothing. What the minister didn’t know was that I had no intention of such a thing—that as soon as he was asleep I was going to sneak over to the tent my girlfriend was in.
That went on for about an hour. Eventually he turned out the light; he stayed nude for some reason even though it was chilly that night. When I heard he was asleep, I snuck out and did what I came to do on the trip. I told the girl about my experience later that night and we laughed about it the next day. It was obvious that the minister had known I had left the tent because he had been waiting for me to go to sleep as well. I didn’t come back to the tent until the first light of daybreak. But he couldn’t say anything to me about it because he was guilty of bad thoughts and malicious intentions. The girlfriend never saw the minister the same way again. When she graduated high school and left for college she became something of a godless heathen and went dramatically in the opposite direction. I never saw or spoke to her again. In a lot of ways the minister let her down most of all. He became all too terrestrial that night and the guilt was clearly on his face the next day. She lost her faith in religion never to recapture it again. I told my parents about it as soon as I saw them. They had a hard time with the information and never felt they could talk to the minister about it—because they were concerned that being a man of God, that it might reflect badly on them somehow. I continued to help with the church for the next four years. That guy married my wife and me but there was always a tension between us that remained. I wouldn’t say that he was a bad person because of that particular weakness for flesh, but it certainly diminished him in my eyes forever. And my experience tells me that his behavior is the norm in a relationship where someone has authority over another whether it’s in a marriage, a government relationship, or a religion. Honestly, what kept me safe from molestation was that I had my whip with me and everyone knew what I could do with it. It is why I can tell this story now without a history of molestation in the wake. Weapons keep us free from those who want to harm us due to their internal demons and weaknesses.
If anything gun manufacturers are saintly practitioners of goodness because they keep the bad thoughts of the power-hungry at bay. Just because a religious leader is supposedly the representative of God on earth—it does not mean they are free of corruption. Even those who are self-proclaimed non-sexual types have their weaknesses that come out when they think they are safely within the confines of an object of their desire. I knew that guy really well until he pulled off his pants. That’s when you realize that you never really know anybody until you get that close and I hold those lessons adamantly to this day. The world is full of freaks, punks and creeps, and within it we need ways to protect ourselves from intellectual and physical molestation. My story came out alright because I had the unique abilities with the bullwhip to keep me safe. But not everyone has such a luxury. For them, it’s good to have a 9mm in their purse, or an AR-15 in their duffel bag. It keeps the bad guys on their side of the tent you might say. And it keeps decisions and responsibility for them in control of your mind—because you don’t have to yield to force under any condition. That is why guns are a moral safeguard in America for the capitalist form of government. The Pope may not like guns as he is trying to unite the world around his church and personal ideology of soft socialism. But in America, we are different because we have the right to protect ourselves from people like the Pope. He may not be as inclined to act poorly as my childhood minister, but the Catholic Church has a long history of molesting young boys—so they are not to be trusted. The Catholic Church is responsible for more death and war than all the shootings in America added up over the last century. They are hardly worthy of political advice, and I would argue spiritual as well. They don’t understand “God.” The churches of our world are focused too much on sacrifice to be truly relevant. And it is in their error of focus that we need guns to protect us from their fallacy. Guns give us the right to be wolves of our own design instead of sheep sent to slaughter under the poor philosophy of a church built on foundations of improper focus on worship to history interpreted by men more than the reality of actuality.
The Overmanwarrior 