Impenetrable barriers, us and them

It does not hurt, on our little isolated island here at this blog, to try to walk in the shoes of regular people.

I recently became reacquainted with a man I knew years ago, a newscaster, and became Facebook friends. He knows everyone who is anyone, and his list of friends includes people whose names I recognize as important in the Montana sense. They were or are in news, politics, business. They are each in a cloud, as we all are, a dense smokescreen difficult to penetrate called “me.”

The most prominent aspect of these men and women, which cannot be dispelled or penetrated, is that they are either Democrats or Republicans, very few of the former in Dave’s group, and that difference is a permanent barrier. From that distinction they draw their life force, their raison d’etre … , a sense or moral and intellectual superiority. As the Broadway song says, “No, no you can’t take that away from me.” 

Democrats and Republicans are different personality types, though I regard them equal intellectual caliber, and I do not mean that in a derogatory sense – none of us is without those abilities. Use and development of intellectual abilities vary.

Republicans, generally, have latched onto Randian economics, that they are each stand-alone productive machines put upon to involuntarily give up their hard-earned wealth to support ne’er do wells. The concept of “going Galt” holds real sway. They really believe they make of made it on their own ability without assistance. They sense no web of support or ease of access to the wealth machine. They do not sense any privilege.

But I tend to like them more that Democrats. They don’t have to hide their attitude, don’t need to defend it. They can be genuine, and that is refreshing. When they pay homage to free markets, even as in my view no such thing exists, they are sincere.

With Democrats we get into the world of tolerance and degradation of standards of excellence and achievement. All of that has to be set aside to make everyone equal, and God forbid that perceived inequality be based on race, gender, or any of the many contrived varieties of sexual differences cast about today.*

It’s no wonder they look down on one another. I only wish there were more of those painful and unforgiving devices called mirrors.

I personally find Democrats to be the more offensive of the two sides. I spent enough time in the ranks in years past to become disenchanted, finding the party leadership to be far more cynical and manipulative than that of Republicans. Once that upper echelon is penetrated, public pretenses disappear, and there is an unveiling of sociopathic ambition. Their followers tend to be of the nurturing type, as opposed to more rigid and authoritarian Republicans. There is no hesitation at the top to exploit those instincts for unspoken but real objectives that are meant to do great harm. Obamacare comes to mind, as does the Green New Deal. Only Democrats can achieve such monumental oppression and think it a public good.

There is some genius at work in this superimposed “two” party system, to be able to separate people into groups and exploit natural differences. The squabbles that go on, the debates and elections, are all about etherial swords and daggers, as I see it. No matter public proclamations, party leaders are used to appeal to different voting blocs while serving the same masters. Election outcomes really matter to partisans, however. When they win, they are ecstatic, when they lose, depressed. I have noticed, especially with Democrats, that after the elections are over they turn off politics. They are blissfully unaware of the real activities of their people once put  in office. There is no accountability.

They are, both sides to varying degrees, in this manner unaware of the true machinations of political leaders.

*I recently learned that Caitlin Jenner’s penis, which he elected to keep, must be referred to as not “his” but rather “hers.” I have limits, places I cannot go, ideas I cannot fathom. If he kept it aboard, he is a he.

48 thoughts on “Impenetrable barriers, us and them

    1. Photo analysis does not work with people. They see what they are told they see. Things like Van Allen and fuel capacity are Playtex jump suits are foreign to the non-scientific public. (I read however that a smarter 1969 public was as much 20% non-believers.) I have seen one thing that to me is incontrovertible proof that Apollo was fake, a Super 8 film (taken by a believer) that showed the Saturn rocket that supposedly lifted the astronauts to Low Earth Orbit at only 20,000 feet when the official NASA record says at that time it was at over 60,000. It did not have enough thrust to leave LOE, much less take men to the moon and back. It was ditched in the ocean, all of the necessary footage already in the can, including the astronaut pickup out at sea.

      But believers believe. Evidence does not matter, only the voices of authority figures, right, Swede?


  1. “I personally find Democrats to be the more offensive of the two sides.”

    The state should pay for women to murder their own babies inside the womb. Whichever side vocally supports this position is, insofar as I believe in ‘offensiveness’, bound to be the most offensive.

    What is more ‘offensive’ than state-funded murder of babies in the womb?

    Truly, I would like to know.

    War, famine, interrogation without trial (all mostly hoaxes, mind you, but for the sake of argument, bear with me here), which of these things is more offensive than the state condoning and even paying for the killing of babies in the womb?

    I used to consider myself a ‘progressive’, what the Americans would call a ‘liberal’. My god in heaven, I was brainwashed into utter stupidity. I knew no better.

    This is a long-winded way of saying that I agree with you. The progressives (in your case the Democrats) are the most offensive. And of course they are so self-righteous. Years of state-mandated indoctrination will do that. Orwell was right (although he is also a Hoax, but again, another topic for another day).


    1. John “I don’t care about semantics” le Bon….

      It is not a baby and thus is not murder. A foetus is mostly unable to survive outside of the womb.
      Murder can only happen to people who have a life expectancy.

      None of these is true for abortion, where one doesn’t kill babies, but prevents them from being born and where we talk about foetuses, not babies.

      But who cares, when you can storm in and make a non-sensical provocative point, JLB is always there to put his ducats in the bucket.

      Even though we have methods to protect them; you want to force women to have babies against their will? Are you insane?


      1. Be careful, Gaia. You’re not reciting law here, but trampling on human sensibilities. I learned long ago that those who honor life in the womb are among the most idealistic and truest of humans … my own practical side concedes that we cannot be so altruistic. But my bottom line is that abortion is ugly. There is no prettying it up.


        1. I have never said I recited “law”, as in “human law”. Survivability outside of the womb is a biological feature, a natural ‘law’ let’s say.

          I don’t know about you but I have talked with “””pro-life””” people, and they in large majority are Republicans/religious wackos.

          So it’s perfectly ok to kill and murder and invade and steal lands and put people to death row, but a mother is “not allowed” to terminate her pregnancy.

          Altruism is a curse, but do you consider such attitude “pro-life”?

          I have no problem with anyone who chooses no abortions, that is their fair judgement and choice. It becomes ugly when they think they have the right to decide for other mothers what they should (not) do.


          1. I remember William F. Buckley, way back when I read his magazine, saying that it was agreed among scholars without dissent that there is no natural law. Never looked into it myself but I do think most people, when not forced by circumstances, make good choices. But life presents many, many circumstances, an unwanted pregnancy but one.


          2. It is not really a surprise that a statist (wrongly described as a “libertarian”) is claiming that natural law doesn’t exist and pushes governmind “laws”, is it?


          3. It has to do more with differing customs around the world, some abhorrent, as suttee, or burning a woman alive on her husband’s grave, or burying her alive next to his body. Natural law makes no objection, right?


          4. Babies don’t survive outside the womb by themselves, nurses, parents, even incubators give them succour. Abortion is an ugly business, yet Europe is being flooded with ‘retarded’ immigrants to quote German businessmen/ women in an article in Das Bild magazine because of the low birthrates – not as low as Japan’s mind you. [By the way, Abort is also German for a toilet.]

            The saddest sound I ever heard was the cry of a mother cheetah who returning from food gathering found her cubs dead, killed by a lion. Even in the animal kingdom, the newly born need help to survive.


      2. Little buddy, here in ‘murica a fetus has been defined as a “child in utero” and therefore a person. And persons have rights even if the person happens to be google or Halliburton. Not that it matters as the law is nothing but semantics. I’m of the opinion that if a woman wants to kill her child in utero that’s up to her but I’m also of the opinion that if she does she is one sick bitch.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. “It is not a baby and thus is not murder.”

        If your ex-gf aborted a child which the two of you conceived, then she murdered your unborn child, Gaia. No amount of nonsensical, fallacious arguments from you will ever change that. I can completely understand why you might feel guilty about what happened, but that is your cross to bear, not mine.

        In the meantime, if you want to promote the killing of unborn humans in the womb, you can use whatever language you like. Personally I refer to the unborn human as a ‘baby’, and the killing of that baby as ‘murder’, but if you would prefer to use other terms to make yourself feel better about it, then go right ahead.

        You are only fooling yourself — and even then, I don’t think even you are truly, deep down, dumb enough to fall for your own tricks.


        1. What the fuck? Why are you spreading lies about me? Pathetic troll.

          None of my ex-girlfriends has had an abortion (that I know of). A friend has had one, and you thought you had the right to force her to raise an undesired child?


          1. “A friend has had one [an abortion]”

            Then your friend murdered an unborn child, Gaia.

            You can replace the word ‘murder’ with ‘kill’ and the word ‘child’ with ‘fetus’ if it makes you feel better.

            But that is what happened. And you are clearly defensive about it which is why I inferred that perhaps you were a willing party to one of these acts of murder. But if you say that this is not the case then I believe you, and I apologise if my previous comment was interpreted to be an accusation, which was not the intent, but I can see how it might have been interpreted that way.


  2. One angle on this Dems vs Reps… I guess it occurred to me once while talking to my parents, who belong to some flavor of the Republican cult (Libertarian TeaParty Trumpism)… Is that the Dems get positive reinforcement from the “mainstream” media, while the Reps have relatively alternative/ marginal outlets… Talk radio, Fox news, Wall Street Journal (on econ issues), Drudge Report or other websites. Hence, at dinner parties and social events, the Dems are more complacently obnoxious in bleating their latest propaganda programming. They can assume that their side is the given— the dominant, obvious side, supported by all major social institutions. They have a secure psychological buttress in place. Reps are the beleaguered weirdos (or worse: racists, bigots, homophobes etc.) in the “official” narrative. Similar to, but less extreme than, the case of “conspiracy theorists”, who are so marginal as to provoke not anger, but laughter (depending on the case.) Thus too, by living outside the mainstream, Reps more easily migrate further and further off the plantation into greater levels of questioning (Dems have their fringe too of course but maybe their “continental drift” to uncharted waters is a bit slower.) Anyway, the Reps, as a bit of the underdog (in terms of media representation) can be more sympathetic, in the way underdogs always are to most people.


    1. (One can argue the mainstream media is very status quo/ conservative, as it does the bidding of the ownership class.. Chomsky might say this for instance. But while that may be the case on some fundamentals, or economically, “they” promote agendas radically opposed to traditional ways of life, remaking village or peasant life in their cosmopolitan image. Of course it’s largely consensual, everyone wants to leave the family farm for the big city…)


    2. Reply to “Gentlemen,Please stand down”. You’ve shone growth beyond your years in which many do not .”Most”, stick to their guns,”Right or Wrong”. But your wisdom has taught you how to learn from past uncertainty to move on until you can prove yesterday can certainly make a difference tomorrow. That is growth in which many struggle with. for we are all creatures of habit, But to grow beyond that…You’re the coolest in my Book, “KEEP ON TRUCKIN’ ~ >> ~ ~ > > >


  3. “Republicans, generally, have latched onto Randian economics, that they are each stand-alone productive machines put upon to involuntarily give up their hard-earned wealth to support ne’er do wells. ”

    The opposite of that statement would be that traditional low IQ peoples and fringe groups cannot exist based on their own merits so they form a mafia style protection racket.

    Liked by 1 person

        1. By a process of deeply delusional self indoctrination you’ve convinced yourself that you are some kind of exceptional human, and that others of lesser quality are feeding off you. This is my biggest problem with Rand (other than she was wrong about most things and never experienced romantic love and could not write!) … it usually happens in formative years, maybe early twenties. It is natural to go through such periods of exciting intellectual growth as she provided so many youth, but we have to keep moving forward, keep growing. You cannot stop in place at that time in your life and imagine that you have any meaningful understanding who we are and what we are about. This is why your comment was so infuriating. You’re self-deluded and unreachable.


          1. And just who’s being impenetrable? Of course we never actually see the results of collectivism gone amuck. San Fran, LA, Detroit, comes to mind. The most glaring to me has been South Africa, see example below.


          2. Your thinking is black/white, there is “collectivism” and “free markets.” We are a cooperative species and achieve our best results in group settings. Your examples are mere anecdotes. Free markets left unregulated run amok, something almost everyone knows, which us why we see so few examples. The ultimate expression of a “free” market is slavery, though sweatshops may be worse, as there is no provision for food and housing. It is a downward spiral, only interrupted by outside intervention.

            What is a corporation if not a “collective?” The only difference between that and a labor union is bad publicity.


          3. Free markets left unregulated run amok, something almost everyone knows, which us why we see so few examples

            Is this coming from the Democratic Handbook?

            Free markets are the natural situation and work perfectly, as long as statists snd other collectivists don’t get their hands on it.

            Cooperation and competition are also natural factors that will always happen around us. And that is very healthy and good for development.

            Except when the collectivists (darwinistically weak, as Big Swede rightly pointed out) get their hands on it to destroy those natural factors.


        2. PS: Dissect this sentence from Allan Bloom: “There is always a girl who mentions Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead, although hardly literature, which, with its sub-Nietzschean assertiveness, excites somewhat eccentric youngsters to a new way of life.”


          1. Hungarian-American political economist Karl Polanyi wrote “The Great Transformation,” published in 1944. His thesis is that modern market economies developed hand in hand with modern states. From an excellent summary on the Great Transformation:

            “A self-regulating market demands nothing less than the institutional separation of society into an economic and a political sphere… True, no society can exist without a system of some kind which ensures order in the production and distribution of goods. But that does not imply the existence of separate economic institutions; normally, the economic order is merely a function of the social order. Neither under tribal nor under feudal nor under mercantile conditions was there, as we saw, a separate economic system in society… Such an institutional pattern could not have functioned unless society was somehow subordinated to its requirements.

            A market economy can exist only in a market society… A market economy must comprise all elements of industry, including labor, land, and money… But labor and land are no other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural surroundings in which it exists. To include them in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself to the laws of the market.

            The crucial point is this: labor, land, and money are essential elements of industry; they also must be organized in markets; in fact, these markets form an absolutely vital part of the economic system… The extension of the market mechanism to the elements of industry labor, land, and money— was the inevitable consequence of the introduction of the factory system in a commercial society. The elements of industry had to be on sale… But labor, land, and money are obviously not commodities; the postulate that anything that is bought and sold must have been produced for sale is emphatically untrue in regard to them… But the fiction of their being so produced became the organizing principle of society. [TGT:71-72]”


            Further on, from Fred Block and Margaret R. Somers’ “The Power of Market Fundamentalism: Karl Polanyi’s Critique”:

            “Government action is not some kind of ‘interference’ in the autonomous sphere of economic activity; there simply is no economy without government. It is not just that society depends on roads, schools, a justice system, and other public goods that only government can provide. It is that all of the key inputs into the economy—land, labor, and money—are only created and sustained through continuous government action. The employment system, the arrangements for buying and selling real estate, and the supplies of money and credit are socially constructed and sustained through the exercise of government’s coercive power.

            In this sense, free-market rhetoric is a giant smokescreen designed to hide the dependence of business profits on conditions secured by government. So, for example, our giant financial institutions insist that they should be free of meddlesome regulations while they depend on continuing access to cheap credit—in good times and bad—from the Federal Reserve. Our pharmaceutical firms have successfully resisted any government limits on their price-setting ability at the same time that they rely on government grants of monopolies through the patent system. And, of course, the compliance of employees with the demands of their managers is maintained by police, judges, and an elaborate structure of legal rules.”

            Liked by 1 person

        3. You’re talking with Mark Tokarski, who prefers the idiotic ramblings of Velikovsky over the wisdoms of Rosenbaum. You see the response.

          It’s about time that Rand becomes more popular again, in an ever-increasing statist anti-individualistic Clownworld.

          For instance Anthem (1938).


          1. If ever someone defined “somewhat eccentric” and excitable, it would be you … Immanuel Velikovsky has to be set aside pending further and better evidence in some future (and more open and honest) era, and not casually dismissed. Some things cannot currently be known, and as I’ve said on several occasions now, Earth in Upheaval, with its mountains of inexplicable and unanswered evidence, is the book I leave behind as the best testimony to this man being not only a pillar of moral courage, but a stellar intellect as well.


          2. First on Stalin’s kill list was the intellectuals.

            A silver lining in the clouds of America’s next revolution is the frightening stares of the intellectual elite as they’re lined up against a wall.


  4. I find it useless discussing politics with either group seems when you learn the truth about the world you become noncommittal when it comes to parties. I havent watched anything related to the media in years I come across links online but dont pay attention to television politics. Every time I hear someone talking politics they are just regurgitating what theyve seen on television or have been following some seedy script thats going on with Trump. All of this tells me this is the way its always been. The masses have always been ignorant to what’s really going on in politics and if youre believing what you see on television then your world will always be inverted. It’ll never change and its been this way for several thousand years how else could a relatively small group of men control billions of people if they arnt constantly lied to and given a false perception of the world.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “Man-made law, or “positive law” is all derived from natural law, or “negative law.”

      We wish.

      Laws are just pieces of paper that mean very little to us (try suing a big corporation or the state; good luck) and are there to protect the interests of the oligarchs.

      Natural laws are laws defined by nature. They are true, no matter what people make of them.

      The trend is to get away from nature (and thus natural laws) as far as possible. That’s why we have Transgendas, MGTOW, Femifascism, etc.


      1. Hmm, actually “they” are all about nature… Transcending its limits, yes, but science and materialism are laser focused on the laws of nature, and doing whatever is permitted… “Do as thou wilt.”

        Traditional societies, “primitives” invested nature with sacred qualities and did not want to tamper. Modern elites with transhumanist agendas and their convergence of man and machine, are arch materialists, who desacralize nature. Or one could say their “faith” in science, w a scientific priesthood, puts man in the place of god.
        So it is not “getting away from nature” so much as “treating nature as dumb matter” to be altered however man (god) pleases.


        1. Science is observing and trying to qualify and quantify nature.

          What we have is mostly scientism; anti-science, with AGW, space travel hoax, Nuke Hoax, GMOs, BigPharma, etc.

          Scientism is all but nature; it is an “we CHOOSE to go to the Moon” (no Johnny, you cannot just choose to overcome physical boundaries) narrative.

          Where do you observe mankind getting closer to nature?


      2. DERIVE, verb intransitive: To come or proceed from. There are similarities, no? Not the same, however. The alterations, made by creators (man) intended to oppose the original, IMO. NO accident. What would be the point? Early agriculture (6,000 – 8,000 years ago) created “middle-men” that benefited from food storage, price manipulation and debt/loaning for interest (usury). Usury: the practice of taking interest (obsolete). The rest, as someone said, is history.


    2. When it comes to politics and religion there are no laws. All is “free in love and War. Unless of course you want to argue and debate some more…Aside from authority on the subject. Thanks Steve, That was very thoughtful.


  5. I agree about all the scientism you mention… It’s quite muddled though, because there ARE real advances in computing power at least, and many related fields. I think other fields are also genuine — the scientism comes in around politically charged areas, areas of social control, or profit areas.

    I still am not sure how pervasive the phoniness of science is or isn’t. Is there an inner “real” science, and outer layers of scientism? Are some fields more infested than others? Etc.

    But also, say in Big Pharma, they are genuinely seeking knowledge of nature; just a perverse knowledge imo, treating humans like machines. Sort of a dark science.


    1. Mark, do I have a “lifetime suspended sentence” from your site…or is this just an extended lapse of time on your part of the 30- day-“stay away cool down period” ? You could let me know…Ya, know ?


    1. Let the hall monitor be the judge. That’s why he is the “monitor and the judge” and you don’t get to “RE–BUTT” anything.


    2. I think it’s time for the “MOTERLESS HEAD” to have his ass torn down to the “Muffler”. Rico, had a shot at him and he did a damn good job. Let me back on for a minute so I can pull his plugs. ..and by the way, that comment for Steve Kelly was meant in a positive way. I would never disrespect Steve Kelly. I have the ultimate respect for that man.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s