SCOTUSThe Nazgul now inform Us The Unwashed even more officially (no, really) that Obamacare is just peachy, good for you, and nonfattening. SCOTUSThe Nazgul have now "legalized" and "protected" State marriage for what might be called (at the risk of hyperoffending the hyperoffensensitive) non-traditional sexual preferences.
- Following another "gun-free zone" disaster in South Carolina, the Who Does What To Whom machine has rather effectively rallied its Committee For The Disarmament Of Everyone Who Didn't Do It, along with Occupy Race Bigotry Army soldiers of all ages, and now otherwise normal people are positively tripping over themselves to disassociate from symbols and mythologies that mostly have absolutely nothing to do with all the chest-thumping.
Sure, it's messed up. Fancy robes don't excuse rubber-stamping thuggery. I still cannot, for the life of me, figure out why any self-respecting gay couple would anywise be excited about now being subject to the same control and abuse as the rest of us. Victim disarmament is still just about as misanthropic a principle as one could possibly visit upon another human being. And wholly aside from race bigotry going "both ways", trying to rewrite history by somehow suppressing it, pretending it didn't happen--well shit, what could go wrong there? Yezhovschina, indeed.
Messed up, yes, but it's hardly surprising. Seriously, did anyone--anyone-- really think that The Robed Nine would somehow come back on Obamacare and say, "Tut tut now, none of this is authorized in your charter document--you'll have to give it up and go home."? Jeez, pull the other one. We're already well down the road toward bypassing inconvenient impediments to power (e.g., fast track) anyway; it won't be long before people start suggesting regularly that we simply bypass SCOTUS rulings entirely. You know, when we know up front how they'll always turn out in the way that benefits the State.
And I truly found myself wondering, when I first heard about the "gay marriage decision": okay, what is this decision supposed to distract our attention from? (In the vein of why are they telling me this, and why are they telling me this now?) Yes, I understand that there are going to be exploitable provisions in that decision that are going to be used unfairly against people who commit no harm...but hell, we already have that, just for other "protected" demographics. This decision was treated like a giant party--that seemed to be the point--and I suspect it took a whole lot of attention off the Obamacare
The church shooter? Jeez. With the nearly standard caveat of "presuming he wasn't in fact a groomed CI", this character seems to be much more fitting of the stereotype that the Victim Disarmament Now! crowd insists all gunnies are--and I suspect that this is the primary reason the Hive Mind decided to plant its flag in this event in the first place. Their reaction to every shooting (-in a "gun-free zone") is the same--the only difference here is in the timing and circumstances, which were formulaically exploitable.
And then there were the church fires, about which there seems to have been a splash of interest and then near-silence. Curious. (One might logically think to go to the FBI about that, given the agency's expertise in both church and evidence fires.) But the race warriors seem to have played their hand well regardless, and may well get their race war if someone does something stupid now.
Again: is any of this surprising?
- Master investigates Master and concludes that Master's word is law.
- Master simply adds another dependent group to its rolls, handing out the news like a Mardi Gras party, but changing the way it works hardly at all.
- Disarmers exploit the blood of others, ignoring the success of the Deacons in favor of the enforced helplessness of victims whose tragedy they can use.
- Race bigots stir up envy and hatred in every symbol available, again for the purpose of pitting the peaceable against each other, instead of leaving them alone to learn about each other.
Which brings me to the thought that first prompted this post. The reason these things are unsurprising is that most people sold the farm years ago. Judicial activism has been around for just a few years less than the country has--and thus whoever accepts judicial activism in principle doesn't really have much a leg to stand on about this ACA decision. Likewise, it seems kinda hypocritical to "defend" a State sanction for (and thus its control over) one kind of marriage, and yet criticize the same sanction for another kind. Most people seem to accept the State's monopoly on force and violence, whether in the form of "SYLP", or siccing the FedCops on "those people" for some vice or other (drugs, guns, raw milk, erotica, etc.), or the thunderous worship of "Support Our Troops", yet try to act appalled as some minor dipswitch of detail gets decided or discussed that supports the principle. And my word, but people seem to believe anything they are told about racial bigotry in unknown others, yet get all uppity when others insist on seeing it in them as well.
And all of this is rendered even the more disturbing because nearly everyone who is running around without his mind right now, doesn't really care about any of it. He doesn't want these things--he wants to be seen wanting these things.
I don't remember when I first heard the phrase, "It's all over but the shouting", but lately, it seems to be in my mind every day.
Because all this? This is "the shouting". And "we" have fully earned it.
Post a Comment