 |
|
|
 THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 667, April 22, 2012 "Conservatives I understand. They're vampires, of a sort, or at least Aztecs at heart."
Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.org
This time she gets it Check out [this link] To Ms. Coulter's excellent summary of the points made in Jews for the Preservation of Firearm's Ownership (jpfo.org) video No guns for Negroes I must add the comment that The Post Civil War Ku Klux Klan bore the same relationship to the Post CW Southern Democratic Party that the Irish Republican Army bore (bears) to Sinn Fein. I must add that Ms. Coulter's artiicle is about a book titled Negroes with Guns by Robert F. Williams. It is a meme that needs to be embedded in our culture, "gun control" is inherently racist, aimed at disarming the victis of racism, and a tool for empowering those who practice and/or gain power from racism. A.X. Perez
Was that worth reading? Re: The Hunger Games, A Brief Review by David Walker As loathe as I am to invade one Author's newsletter with discussions of another Author's work, the subject has been broached so I will put in my 2p. Yes, I have read the book(s). No I have not watched the Movie, and probably won't until all 3 come out. There is a reason for this. In my opinion, the "Hunger Games" trilogy should not be read or viewed as stand-alone works. There are too many vital political subtexts that get lost in the "quick teen read" format delivered by the author. However, when read in their totality a few things become blindingly apparent—apparent enough that they were noted by my tweener nephew and given to me as a reason to read a tweener series. His opinion was it was scarily like government is now. My take is that it is scarily like what has been proposed. The Hunger Games "universe" is the inevitable result at the attempt to implement Agenda 21.
Other Themes, late in the series: Revolutions aren't always led by noble causes. The books present the Heroine as a reluctant Revolutionary Icon. Sort of a female Che Guevera without the Politics. However, you find that Politics is certainly involved and that the Heroine is being manipulated from both sides—in this case an Ascetic regime that is the Cultural opposite of the Decadent Regime of the "Capitol"... but just as Authoritarian/evil. I.E. Nobile Revolutions tend to get co-opted by Tyrants. History Repeating. Hollywood will love this angle since they can play up the evil ascetics as the antithesis of their decadence. There are more, some blatant, some subtle, but all in all there's more than meets the eye and certainly more than the media's "you will read into it your own political prejudices" meme. B. Potratz
Was that worth reading? Was that worth reading? I keep reading comments to the effect that the Second Amendment does not grant a right to self defense. Of course it doesn't. First off, none of the First Ten Amendments give any rights, they simply promise the Federal Government will not violate rights you were born with. Secondly, the Second Amendment only guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to use them for any particular purpose other than a recognition that these are necessary tools for the security of a free state. Insofar as the Bill of Rights in any way addresses the right to self defense it is protected by the Ninth Amendment ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."). This leaves us the 64 (Groucho Marx and H, Beam Piper reference), why wasn't such a fundamental right enumerated? Perhaps the answer is that it is such a fundamental right, so integral to the definition of what it is to be a member of society, that it is unimaginable by sane human beings that it could ever be questioned. I don't know about you, but I retain an absolute right to self defense, over and above any obligation to anyone. My willingness to use force to protect others or to give up my life to the same end are simply extensions of this right. I join society to obtain aid in exercising this right, any claim the government has on my fealty is based on government assisting me in the right of self defense.When any government seeks to deny me this right I have no obligation to obey That government, Indeed, I have a moral right and duty to violate such laws and destroy such a government, either by use of a democratic political process or by force if need be. This right can be expressed in many ways. It can be by a teenager beating the crap out of an older person following him in a car and harassing him, it can be an older person shooting a kid who jumped him and is beating older person to death. Or it can be a rock singer raising votes against an incumbent before the incumbent causes the rock star's death or imprisonment. And of course, I'm sure you correctly feel that you have the same right. A.X. Perez
Was that worth reading? On Saturday 21 April 2012 the El Paso Times published an editorial cartoon by Mike Thompson of the Detroit Free Press showing a mother and a stereotypical gun nut expressing the fear that the death of Trayvon Martin incident engenders in them. The Mother fears for the well being of her kids, the gun nut fears losing his guns. It obviously is intended to show the moral superiority of the mother's point of view and to imply that wanting to protect gun rights in the face of the concerns of all mothers is improper, indecent, and wrong. Of course it disregards the fact that many of us consider our gun(s) necessary tools for protecting our children, spouses, selves, and others dependent on us. I "get" the liberals' point of view. And part of what I get is that they do not get the conservative or libertarian points of view. Indeed they frequently refuse to admit that conservatives and libertarians even have the right to have a point of view. This is not conducive to open and honest debate. A.X. Perez
Was that worth reading?
TLE AFFILIATE
|
|
|
|
Previous
Contents
Next
