JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/07/frightening-white-people.html (72 comments)

  Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.

jsid-1216872614-594507  USCitizen at Thu, 24 Jul 2008 04:10:14 +0000

I saw the comments fly on this and noted that we tend to moderate each others' posts / articles in a very public way. Previously, it was with pre-Heller admonishments 'not to discuss' fully automatic weapons.

I happen to hold the belief that freedom of speech is to be upheld even though some may find the message uncomfortable.

I'll stand with Mike Vanderboegh if it comes to a situation of forcible disarmament. Even though it may scare some people, his is the right answer. His position is the only one that prevents the forcible disarmement scenario from being enacted.

There is a huge difference between advocating the overthrow of the government (which I do not) and defending Citizens' rights (which I do).

Scary? Definitely.

Wrong? No.

jsid-1216872794-594508  cabinboy at Thu, 24 Jul 2008 04:13:14 +0000


To those "reasonable gun owners" dampening their knickers over Vanderboegh's writings, I'd say:

'Want it'?


Anyone who wants violent revolution when there are other viable alternatives has gotta be out of their minds.

But what if - just perchance - there's been a revolution already going on for at least 75 years?

A revolution dedicated to the proposition that all men (other than the nomenklatura, of course) shall be rendered equal - by force if necessary, but more likely by the drip-by-drip of Gramscian/Fabian socialist incrementalism.

What if those revolutionaries have already captured 100% of the government elementary and high schools, 95% of the institutions of higher education, 2/3 or better of the state and federal legislatures, > 85% of the state and federal judicial seats, and 95%+ of the mainstream media outlets?

What if these collectivists, in their revolutionary zeal to extirpate individualism wherever found, were able to capture the White House and both Houses of Congress, and shortly thereafter reassert the so-called "liberal majority" on SCOTUS?

Having done so, what if the federal revolutionary collectivists planned, along with their local and state minions, to impose European-style state socialism buttressed with a technological security surveillance apparatus synthesizing data from both public and private sources on each citizen of the former Republic?

Would those citizens then, in the faint final glimmers of liberty's twilight, be morally and ethically justified in saying publicly:

When you come to arrest and imprison me and my friends, I will evade and then kill

- you who have been sent

- you agency management types who sent them

- you political bosses and functionaries who established and funded the agencies responsible for the arrests

- you media types who have called for the "end to gun violence"

- you Judendienstordnung "reasonable gun owners" who thought it would be best to "police our own"?

Would it be time then to dare to publicly utter the words "back the f**k off"?

Or might that just "scare people"?

There are today in this country hundreds of thousands of men, women, and young folks who will not be enslaved - even at the price of their lives.

Those are the 3%.

They are real.

And they will fight.


Keep up the struggle, bro.

jsid-1216875255-594509  Sebastian at Thu, 24 Jul 2008 04:54:15 +0000

I should note that the majority of my objection was not that it was said, but that it was said in a Madison newspaper who gleefully printed it, knowing what most people who read it would think.

There's a big difference between saying it on a blog, where it's mostly gunnies reading, and mailing it as a letter to the editor of a newspaper.

jsid-1216879888-594510  RAH at Thu, 24 Jul 2008 06:11:28 +0000

Actually I think that this was unwise of Mike. It escalated when it did not require it. But I will like to see the local reaction. And yes it will make those idiots think of the consequences.

jsid-1216882146-594511  Mike at Thu, 24 Jul 2008 06:49:06 +0000

I told one of my lefty friends who expressed hope that the day may come when they come for the guns, "Should that day come, I will be knocking down your door before your jack-booted thugs get around to knocking down my door."

jsid-1216889560-594513  Mark at Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:52:40 +0000

I have expressed similar opinions before on various forums when the question of "gun control" comes up. It is expressed in the form of a question: I'm willing to die for my beliefs. Are you?

Most of them are not.

jsid-1216901212-594516  Matt at Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:06:52 +0000

Yeah, I go back and forth on what the appropriate time and place is to say that. I wholeheartedly am in that 3%. They ban any of my guns, I'm going down shooting. But then that does feed into the "gun nut" stereotype. At the same time, they do need to understand the consequences of what they are proposing. But then I don't know if I want to say it out loud and give the thugs a chance to prepare to take me down, as opposed to being surprised I'm fighting back. Still, the RKBA is about fighting government.

Bah, as you can see, I'm conflicted.

jsid-1216904614-594517  ParatrooperJJ at Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:03:34 +0000

Able, willing, and prepared.

jsid-1216906129-594521  Mark Alger at Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:28:49 +0000

If you fuck with me bad enough, I'll kill your ass.

Yes. And it's best that "bad enough" be left a rather uncertain line.

In international affairs, the US maintains that the use of nuclear arms is always on the table. It is seen to act as a deterrent.

Why should the projection of this attitude be any different on an individual basis?

The hysterical pants-shitters are going to leave skid marks in their BVDs no matter what anyone says or does. Free men are better served if their attitudes are widely known, and to hell with what scares the white folk.


jsid-1216907774-594523  Egregious Charles at Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:56:14 +0000

I live near Philadelphia. My regular carry gun, a Glock, was illegally declared an illegal assault weapon in Philadephia a while ago. I did not travel to Philadelphia with it carried openly, but I thought about it hard; it could have resulted in my death and/or the deaths of some officers who were "just obeying orders". I still don't know what I would have done had the court injunction not to enforce come through so quickly. I'm very glad it did.


jsid-1216910190-594524  Oldsmoblogger at Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:36:30 +0000

If enough say it out loud, the Enemies might think twice.


jsid-1216919113-594530  GrumpyOldFart at Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:05:13 +0000

I don't own a single gun, nor have I ever owned one. Nothing against them, they just don't call to me.

And yet, I would call myself one of the 3%. I am of the opinion that an adult US citizen with no felony record should be able to buy, keep and own a fully functional, fully armed M1 Abrams or AH 64 Apache if he/she wants. Why? Because "government of the people, by the people and for the people" to me says plainly that the defense of this country is AN INDIVIDUAL responsibility, and that owning the tools you consider useful for the job makes precisely as much sense as having a toolbox in the trunk of your car when you break down on the side of the highway. I don't think drivers should have to put up with the government dictating what tools they can have in their trunk, either.

Not being a gun owner myself, I don't expect to have to deal with the cops (many of whom are friends of mine) coming after me for my guns, no....

...but I do expect that if/when they come after my gun owning neighbors, they might find themselves very unpleasantly surprised at what I can improvise.

jsid-1216920770-594531  Frank N. Stein at Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:32:50 +0000

This is going to come across as insulting, even though I really don't mean it that way, but...for all the rhetoric of "you shall not pass!" with respect to further encroachment over individual rights by the ever-growing government - it's hard to square that (admirable) stance with a perceived cheerleading over status quo GOP candidates. 99% of politicians have no interest in turning back the tide (ie, biting the special interest hands that feed them), so it's hard to see how continuing to play their game will actually accomplish anything.

jsid-1216921557-594532  Kevin Baker at Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:45:57 +0000

Nor are you alone in your perception. That's one reason I empathize with those who want to pull it all down and start over.

And I am reminded, once again, of the radical brilliance of Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence:

"...all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

jsid-1216925737-594535  Kresh at Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:55:37 +0000

"I have expressed similar opinions before on various forums when the question of "gun control" comes up. It is expressed in the form of a question: I'm willing to die for my beliefs. Are you?

Most of them are not."

To paraphrase Patton, winning comes from making the other guy die for his beliefs, not you. Regardless of whether someone wants to die for their beliefs, or not, when the rubber hits the road we'll all find out exactly how far we're willing to be pushed before pushing back.

Kim Du Toit's Take: "Enough bullshit about revolution. We have letters to write to Congress and the White House, votes to cast in elections, and posts like this to write. Soapbox, mailbox, ballot box. Forget the fourth box. If that time ever comes, you’ll bitterly regret having to use it, I promise you. "

Sound advice.

jsid-1216928667-594536  Old Blind Dog at Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:44:27 +0000

Have you ever been face to face with a city manager and have him blatantly and arrogantly state to you, "We can do anything we want!" (we being the "city" if that's not clear)? When you do your ideas about timelines may start to shift.

jsid-1216953890-594545  jed at Fri, 25 Jul 2008 02:44:50 +0000

There's a big difference between saying it on a blog, where it's mostly gunnies reading, and mailing it as a letter to the editor of a newspaper.

Oh God yes, let's not have the message of Liberty get out where anyone who's not on our side will read it!

Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel but on a candlestick and it giveth light unto all that are in the house -- Matthew 5:15

So, I guess it's okay for Justice Kozinski to note that the 2nd Amendment is a "doomsday provision" when it's buried in a dissenting opinion, but hey, let's not let the lefties know the truth?

Well, I guess you know where I stand.

jsid-1216954650-594546  Kevin Baker at Fri, 25 Jul 2008 02:57:30 +0000

Jed, you see no difference between Kozinski stating in a dissent:

The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

and Vanderboegh stating in a letter-to-the-editor:

There are some of us "cold dead hands" types, perhaps 3 percent of gun owners, who would kill anyone who tried to further restrict our God-given liberty. Don't extrapolate from your own cowardice and assume that just because you would do anything the government told you to do that we would.

Are you proposing to come yourself, or do you want someone else's son or daughter in federal service to take the risk? Are you truly prepared to stack up the bodies necessary to accomplish your plan?

No difference at all?

Kozinski lit a candle. Vanderboegh dropped a hand-grenade. You tell me which one casts more light.

jsid-1216956708-594547  jed at Fri, 25 Jul 2008 03:31:48 +0000

I read a lot of difference in tone. Yeah, candle vs. hand grenade, if you want to put it that way, but I wouldn't. Candle vs. arc-light, I suppose, but I see your point. (So, I'm openning myself up to the rejoinder that an arc-light is too blinding ... well, maybe for some people, but what would Sam Adams have to say about them?)

However, when the rubber meets the road, either comes down to shooting the bastards. Kozinski's line in the sand is further out than Mike's.

Sure, Mike's tone is much more harsh. I don't expect to find the same used in a judicial opinion. But in substance, the difference is not in what the appropriate response is, but when it's time to use it.

jsid-1216960438-594549  Bambi Bukowski at Fri, 25 Jul 2008 04:33:58 +0000

I wonder if it does any good to warn them?

Probably makes people feel better to SAY it, but I wonder if it helps? Not only do you put yourself on the "list" of people to whack right off the bat (you non-tech guys - believe me, if they want to track you down, they can), but what good does it do?

If you're serious about blowing away some filthy Nazi who has decided to infringe your rights, why warn him? What's the point? Why would you not just DO it?

To any who don't already understand, I'd think the pile of dead Gestapo agents would be warning enough... if they're ever going to "get it" that is.

jsid-1216966263-594553  Warsong at Fri, 25 Jul 2008 06:11:03 +0000

"To any who don't already understand, I'd think the pile of dead Gestapo agents would be warning enough... if they're ever going to "get it" that is."

The difference is, if your voice has not been heard before the first shot is fired, no-one will ever hear the actual things you said, only words the "Official Spokesman" and media put in your mouth.

jsid-1216974043-594555  Santee at Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:20:43 +0000

Since the 1930s the government, federal, state and local, has unconstitutionally infringed upon the 2nd Amendment rights of every citizen in this country. The vast majority of the citizenry have remained quiet because these infringements have not affected them to any great degree. But, each seemingly small infringement has been the prelude to another infringement. And in some places, these steps have led to an outright ban on 2nd Amendment rights.

There is a time to draw that line in the sand and in connection to the rights of citizens, that time should actually be when the first small infringement takes place. And so, any time after that is the time. So, this is the time.

What the 3% say is, "No More." If it upsets the rest, then so be it. The 2nd Amendment was not written about hunting, target shooting, or even about self-defense in the home. It was written about the inalienable right of every citizen to be free, yes free from abuse by others who would harm them, free from a government which would abuse them by restricting that liberty which sets citizens free.

The 2nd Amendment is about the right of every citizen to live in a nation whose government supports and even fights for the rights of liberty for all citizens. And thus, it is about the right of every citizen to demand that their government conduct itself so as to expand liberty and not restrict it. And yes, now is the time! No More, No Farther: By the suggestion box, the ballot box, and God forbid, lastly, by the ammo box.

jsid-1216983001-594558  Warsong at Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:50:01 +0000

Be it known that I am one of the 3%, though I didn't make that statement above.

I'm also one of the few people that knows the 20 Markers of the "End of Golden Ages" (Volume 20 of the Time/Life set of books, "Civilization").

For what it's worth, just the things I've read today, convinces me that we have already plunged over the precipice at the end of the "Slippery Slope," and, there's no going back. We can only hope that there are small pockets of real Americans left, when it's well and truly over, to rebuild the society, the civilization, we allowed to be 'voted' away.

jsid-1216994897-594563  DJ at Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:08:17 +0000

I can't help but wonder how the Army would respond if it were ordered to enforce the abrogation of the Second Amendment. Does anyone take the oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" more seriously than does the Army, both as individuals and as a group? (Marines, maybe?) Would they stop such a revolution, would they join it, or would they, in turn, lead it?

jsid-1216994986-594564  Uncle Lar at Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:09:46 +0000

Permit me a couple of observations.
IIRC G. Gordon Liddy was roundly castigated 8 or 10 years ago for suggesting on his radio show that if you're attacked in the middle of the night without warning to shoot for the head, they might be cops wearing vests. Seems like nothing much changes.
As I understand things, the gang and their fellow travellers are shorts soiling upset over the Ross book. To the point of trying to get it suppressed. Luckily the First Amendment still sorta kinda works.
3% hmmmm .03 times 300 million. Doing the math in my head gives me something like 9 million seriously dedicated shooters. Ought to be enough to make a difference don'tcha think?
And a last comment speaking directly to the theme of Mike V's latest work; eventually as one matures they come to a realization that we are all terminal, nobody gets out of here alive. It's a very empowering and freeing concept, at least for me.

jsid-1216995073-594565  waypasthadenough at Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:11:13 +0000

Oh good Lord. Still beating around the bush I see. It may help some to go here:


And why pray tell do we let someone out of prison if society can't trust them with a weapon? Maybe because it allows the repeat criminals to be used as a propaganda tool by our enemies.

A few years back a so-called 'gun rights supporter' told me we shouldn't call them 'weapons.'

The sheeple have always been and will always be the sheeple. A percentage will always herd them around. We will have to decide in the near future that we, those who profess to believe in individual human Liberty, are going to be the herders, or we will be the herded.

We will have to kill many to 'force' Liberty on the sheeple. That's what the Founders did.

jsid-1216999580-594573  Uncle Lar at Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:26:20 +0000

Sorry, I mistakenly applied that 3% to all Americans, not just gun owners. Using the commonly bandied about count of 80 million owners that reduces the number to a paltry 2.4 million of us hard corps "gun nuts," barely enough to take over a small third world nation like for example Iraq or Afganistan.
My bad.

jsid-1217007939-594589  Kristopher at Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:45:39 +0000

2.4 Million? Cool.

The IRA ran the brits in circles for decades with a few hundred fanatics.

When the hammer drops, I will not be there ... the JBTs will find an empty house ... and their bosses will be made to regret that bad decision.

jsid-1217010951-594594  Tim at Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:35:51 +0000

Oh Look? A site that preports to believe in freedom......But sensors. Isn't that special?
Sorry! It does NOT work that way.

I wonder how the owner of this site would like it if I had the Power to just...shut them up & OFF? I wonder how that would make them feel?
Oh I'm sure they would have quite the tantrum!
Screaming! My freedom and rights have been abused.

jsid-1217011869-594595  Kevin Baker at Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:51:09 +0000

Tim, I don't know what the hell you're talking about, because I haven't "sensored" you. (The misuse of the word makes me think of alien anal probes for some reason.)

Did you do something that HaloScan didn't like? Too many links, for instance?

I have, however, banned a couple of people in the past for being outright assholes. You have the right to freedom of speech. You do not, however, have a right to be listened to. This is my personal site, and it's under my personal rules. If you were in my home, I'd have the right to throw you out on your ass if you overstepped your welcome. Same for my blog.

If you want to say something I object to, there's a whole internet out there for you to do so on.

But according to HaloScan, this is the FIRST comment you've left here, so don't get your panties in such a bunch.

jsid-1217012564-594597  Tim at Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:02:44 +0000

But Kevin? This is NOT YOUR HOME! And is open to the Public for response.
And I did not write anything anti-thesis to the subjects at hand , nor did I swear or leave anything that could be construde as rude or hateful. Yet? My post is gone.
And all I posted about was Freedom!

Like I said Kevin. How would you like it if I had the Power to shut you down and shut you off?
And start sensoring your articles?
Even maybe changing the words in your articles?

What are your principles Kevin?
Do they apply only to you or to everyone?
You may OWN this Blog. But it is no different that if we were standing on the street talking.
You have a responsibility to act accordingly to the principles of the Public relm.

jsid-1217013578-594601  Kevin Baker at Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:19:38 +0000

Well, Tim, I suggest you write your comment again, because I didn't delete it, and I'm the only person here with Administrator privileges.

And no, this is not the two of us standing on a street corner. This is my property and you're pasting up a handbill on it. If I disapprove strongly enough, I get to exercise my property rights and remove it, and if sufficiently piqued, to banish you from doing it again. You are free, however, to post that handbill on other surfaces, public and private.

The GOVERNMENT does not have the right to arrest you or threaten you to make you STOP. Neither do I. And that principle applies to everyone.

Welcome to the world of Freedom of Speech.

With respect to your missing post, welcome to HaloScan, where anything free is worth what you pay for it.

And the word, sir, is censor.

The other word you were grasping for is "realm."

jsid-1217013920-594603  Tim at Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:25:20 +0000

Doesn't that anger you to know someone that took the time to respond too your article had their post deleted without your permission. And does it not, beg of you to question it?
As to how this could of happened?
And? How many others who have posted here, have had their posts deleted without your permission?

And they donot respond back, because it's become the norm?
Do you understand what I am trying to convey, to you?

jsid-1217014264-594604  Warsong at Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:31:04 +0000

Some odd years ago, while working in Algeria, some friends and I took a trip over the Atlas Mountains to Sidi Bel Abbes, the now abandonned home of the French Foreign Legion. I'd been told to look over the Door of the Mess Hall after I got inside, I'd find something I liked. It's a sign directed at new recruits, and, it says, "You are a dead man, and, the Legion will find you a place to die."

The 3% is my Legion, and, at my age, dying is not a problem.

I've got a problem with curiosity, and, I'm wondering why no-one in DC can see that what Mayor Fenty, Chief Cathy Lanier and the gang are orchestrating? It's one of the most blatant Conspiracies to Commit Tyranny, since Hitler rose to power in the Weimer Republic, and, they can't see this?

This totally dumbfounds me. What do they think this is all about? It's Tyranny, blatant and in your face.

jsid-1217014546-594605  Warsong at Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:35:46 +0000

Ach...forgot to back out "what" in the a sentence. It should read, "...DC can see what Mayor Fenty..."

jsid-1217014568-594606  Tim at Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:36:08 +0000

"None are so blind, as those who choose not to see."

jsid-1217014759-594607  Kevin Baker at Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:39:19 +0000

Doesn't that anger you to know someone that took the time to respond too your article had their post deleted without your permission. And does it not, beg of you to question it?

Not really. I admit that it's frustrating when HaloScan farts, but it's far better than it was when I started blogging five years ago. What's really frustrating is working for literally hours on a blog post and having Blogspot eat it. That's happened to me more than once, so I understand your frustration. But you immediately assumed that I DELETED your comment - and that says something about your mindset that perhaps you should question yourself.

Because, generally when someone's comment is eaten, they try again.

jsid-1217014783-594608  Tim at Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:39:43 +0000

HALO.scan stinks! They've been caught changing words in peoples posts at other sites.
And they've been caught putting up posts that were not from anybody.
But were computer generated.

jsid-1217014848-594609  Kevin Baker at Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:40:48 +0000

Got links? First I've heard of it.

jsid-1217014881-594610  Tim at Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:41:21 +0000

I jumped the gun. I apologise kevin, I'm sorry.
But the things I've seen, and the urgency that I feel.because of the things I understand are very frustrating for me.
To the point of migraines somedays.

jsid-1217015085-594611  Tim at Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:44:45 +0000

Well? When you try to copy the links to the proof. Your link gets lost.
Or you cannot show the persons comment that experienced the generated post that was supposedlly by them that they are responding about.
It's really weird.

jsid-1217015425-594612  Kevin Baker at Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:50:25 +0000

Perhaps your HTML-fu is weak?

I do have email. It's on the sidebar.

jsid-1217015821-594614  Tim at Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:57:01 +0000

But when this happens to some folks. They are hesitant to make a big deal about it. Because? It's like the UFO, BS! Affraid to say anything because you may get labelled a LOON!
I am not making this up, either.
It is happening.

jsid-1217016029-594616  Tim at Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:00:29 +0000

Perhaps your HTML-fu is weak?

I do have email. It's on the sidebar.
Kevin Baker |

Well if it happens again? I will be sure to try and e-mail you and show you what I am talking about. Thank- you.

jsid-1217020729-594619  Federalist at Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:18:49 +0000

I stand with the 3% And I am also part of the ORGANIZED militia as well.

If and when the time comes, I will stand with the people. And I know that many in the professional military will join that 3% so it's really more than 3%. had to say how much more since many of the military are among the 85 million.

3% is still 2,550,000 armed militia.

We can take back the US Constitution if we really want to; if we need to.

jsid-1217021016-594620  DJ at Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:23:36 +0000

Tim, HaloScan is a mite schizophrenic. It is sufferable, given its price, and I suggest a simple workaround that makes it much more bearable. When you're ready to preview or publish a comment, first copy it into (for example) Windows Notepad and save it to a temporary file. Yeah, that's a pain in the ass, but it'll be intact no matter what HaloScan does. I haven't lost any that way, despite HaloScan's flatulence.

jsid-1217022691-594622  Kevin Baker at Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:51:31 +0000

We can take back the US Constitution if we really want to; if we need to.

And do what with it, I have to ask? I'm reminded of two quotes. One, from Antonin Scalia:

"To some degree, a constitutional guarantee is like a commercial loan, you can only get it if, at the time, you don't really need it. The most important, enduring, and stable portions of the Constitution represent such a deep social consensus that one suspects if they were entirely eliminated, very little would change. And the converse is also true. A guarantee may appear in the words of the Constitution, but when the society ceases to possess an abiding belief in it, it has no living effect. Consider the fate of the principle expressed in the Tenth Amendment that the federal government is a government of limited powers. I do not suggest that constitutionalization has no effect in helping the society to preserve allegiance to its fundamental principles. That is the whole purpose of a constitution. But the allegiance comes first and the preservation afterwards."

And this one from the comments here:

"remember that your revolution will not change the people of the United States, who elected the government that you so despise"

jsid-1217042753-594630  Warsong at Sat, 26 Jul 2008 03:25:53 +0000

Heads up...I'm catching references to Nostradamian Prophesies this morning, back in a minute for updates..."King of the World."

jsid-1217045713-594633  Warsong at Sat, 26 Jul 2008 04:15:13 +0000

Update: Laura Ingram said on Fox News that President Sarkozy of France made a comment, that (paraphrase), "It is obvious to me (after travelling with Obama for several days), that he is campaigning for 'President of the World'."

That is almost a perfect reference to Nostradamus' "King of the World" prophecy about a man of mixed blood who aspires to rule the world. I don't have my books with me (Baghdad) so I'll have to do an online search to find it. It is one of the 'doomsday' prophecies, that references a 'third' Anti-Christ.

Curiouser and Curiouser.

jsid-1217055160-594636  Tim at Sat, 26 Jul 2008 06:52:40 +0000

"remember that your revolution will not change the people of the United States, who elected the government that you so despise"
Kevin Baker

That's a good point to bring up, Kevin.
I think the ,"People", will change their minds though. Once the abuses become so intolerable.
It disrupts their norm or they loose someone they love, because of the abuses.
I don't know? I guess it would depend on what you believe in also.
And how deeply rooted your life is by the Founded princples of this country, and how well you are in tune with those principles.

I believe most People would like to
resolve corruption in, Gov't, peacefully.
But I believe that Our process & ability, has been taken away from Us to do it peacefully.
I've come to this conclusion. because I have noticed that this country swings from democrats to republicans(back & forth) with no real affect.
It just keeps getting worse.

jsid-1217055717-594637  Tim at Sat, 26 Jul 2008 07:01:57 +0000

Like I said once before.
I talked to some Older germans in germany when I was on tour there in the US Army.
And they told Me how they stood by and allowed their own good neighbors to be wisked away by the, Gestapo/SS Polizei.
It Infuriated them, but their loyaty to their government was stronger, than their love for their neighbors well being, and rights.
Many claimed they didn't even understand what they had been put through, until the War ended.

jsid-1217266083-594713  Kristopher at Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:28:03 +0000

Hitler was elected as well.

Sometime the majority screws up ... and then it is up to the Remnant to pick up arms and fix it.

Next time around, I would suggest disenfranchising people as long as they are unarmed, or if they or their non-adult children are supported by welfare, rent control, or any other form of federal subsidy.

jsid-1217271500-594716  NASCARLuis at Mon, 28 Jul 2008 18:58:20 +0000

To Warsong:

The Antichrist is said to be alive on the Earth, and born around 1962. Obama was born in 1961. He is already on record as supporting Muslims "if the political winds shift".

Nostradamus' quatrains say that Arabs (or "Mohammedans" as he called them) and the Chinese will align to fight a battle against the rest of the world. The West will win, after being led to victory by a Germanic-Nordic type.

jsid-1217272125-594718  Kevin Baker at Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:08:45 +0000

Well then! That settles it! (I wish Haloscan had a "rolleyes" smiley...)

jsid-1217306004-594747  Warsong at Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:33:24 +0000


Yes, Nostradamus says all of that, and, in one quatrain he says, "...the (ultimate) victor born in the West." And, we (Bush) would seem to have won this War, but, it would appear that this may only be "a Battle" in the greater scheme of things.

These Quatrains, based on more than a million Troops drawn up in ranks for Battle (and, "45 degrees of the Climacteric," ~Baghdad) are all linked to the "Mabus Sanquinaire" Quatrains. Bloody "Mabus," is a mirror image anagram for the Arabic pronunciation of ...bloody "sudaM" (Hussein).

Disclosure - I'm in Baghdad.

Some of the "...machines of flying fire" quatrains would seem to fit, as well. Likewise, the quatrain about "...a thing without senses will cause its own end (Tomahawk Cruise Missle?)."

The 'greater battle(s)' of this War may indeed be fought "in the West." A war of words, or, in the streets, has yet to be determined.

jsid-1217371884-594811  DJ at Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:51:24 +0000

Not so fast, Warsong.

A Tomahawk cruise missile has "senses". All versions are guided and stablilized by an inertial navigation system. The later versions are updated by navigational fixes obtained via GPS receivers. The earlier versions are updated by fixes obtained by radar altimeters (a technique known as terrain correlation, or TERCOM), and by optical cameras (a technique known as as digital scene matching area correlation, or DSMAC). Finally, my understanding is that the newest versions also use some form of optical sensors for terminal guidance, but that part I have no real knowledge of.

jsid-1217394691-594826  Warsong at Wed, 30 Jul 2008 05:11:31 +0000

Well, yes, those are sensors, but, Nostradamus would probably not consider artificial sensing to be senses, in the context of a mind. The ones it uses would fall into the physical senses, see, feel, hear, touch, taste. And, you're right, there are machines out there that can do all of that, now.

A Tomahawk uses a form of machine logic, but, I would hope that it is not the exact thing that the inventor of Oracle (and several different machine languages) is thinking of as artificial intelligence. He, and, a friend of his, the Unibomber (communicating from Prison), built a good case in a Wired Magazine article that we are inventing the superior race that will replace us.

They described the 'breakover' point, or point of no return as the ability to "Self replicate," and, there are several 'Black Projects' (maybe, a little Grayish) out there developing this machine ability.

jsid-1217433899-594840  DJ at Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:04:59 +0000

Hmmm ...

I don't claim to be an expert on artificial intelligence. So, I looked up "artificial intelligence" in Wikipedia. I found this:

"Major AI textbooks define artificial intelligence as "the study and design of intelligent agents,"[1] where an intelligent agent is a system that perceives its environment and takes actions which maximize its chances of success."

That's kinda broad, ain't it? By that definition, a Tomahawk cruise missile embodies artificial intelligence. It continuously estimates its attitude, velocity, and location by integrating the outputs of rate gyros and accelerometers, it perceives its environment with altimeters and cameras to determine its location, it determines the differences between where it was and where it thought it was, and it estimates real-time sources of error, including sensor drift, bias, and noise, as well as anomalies in the gravitational model of earth, thereby improving its navigational ability and so maximizing its chances of success.

But it doesn't reproduce. It does, however, manipulate its environment, quite energetically so.

jsid-1217477981-594861  Warsong at Thu, 31 Jul 2008 04:19:41 +0000

I agree, it does all these things, but, it is not self aware, it is not sentient.

I believe this is the way Nostradamus would perceive Robots of any kind at this stage in their developement. Only when they reach the stage of being able to replicate themselves in an endless stream of 'Clones' that are sentient (percieve themselves as individuals), will they become a threat to the Human Race.

How would we determine when or where this 'spark of Life' will occur? How do we guard against it? How do we know we are not standing on this precipice, now? And, how do we know we have not already passed this point of no return?

They are having 'contests', now, to see who can build the best 'Robots' that build Robots.

jsid-1217515095-594872  DJ at Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:38:15 +0000

"How do we guard against it?"

Guarding against self-replicating robots is trivially easy. Just don't make the first one.

jsid-1217573719-594903  Warsong at Fri, 01 Aug 2008 06:55:19 +0000

The thing that's wrong with that statement, is, that there was an article in Scientific American or Science Illustrated this month about a contest to build Robots that can build Robots.

I didn't get to read it because, over here in Baghdad, if you take your hand off it, it'll run off with a stranger. Not, only took my hand off both of 'em, turned my back for a second as well.

One thing about Baghdad, though, they'll come back when the Covers are gone and most of the print smeared off th' pages (they'll just borrow it for a while).

jsid-1217627373-594931  DJ at Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:49:33 +0000

"The thing that's wrong with that statement, is, ..."

Baloney. There's nothing wrong with that statement. If you never build a self-replicating robot, then you'll never have self-replicating robots. It's not as if one would spontaneously appear out of the ooze.

"... that there was an article in Scientific American or Science Illustrated this month about a contest to build Robots that can build Robots."

So, the robot would find the ore, mine the ore, smelt the metals, make the pieces parts therefrom, grow and cut the silicon wafers, make the chips, ...

Or do you mean a contest to build a robot that can do at least some of the final assembly of an identical robot? Cause, y'see, there's more to duplicating a robot than turning the last screw.

jsid-1217641123-594933  Kevin Baker at Sat, 02 Aug 2008 01:38:43 +0000

They are working on nanomachines that can handle materials at the atomic level.

With the aim of self-replication.

jsid-1217660890-594938  Warsong at Sat, 02 Aug 2008 07:08:10 +0000

That's correct, however, the picture in the article about the Contest was of a Cube shaped Robot built of PVC Pipe, with a Plastic cover, very crude, and, apparently the copies it built were even cruder, which gives some hope.

The Nanobots are another issue, and, possibly a lot more advanced. At some point, the prediction is that a "spark of sentience" will occur, and, probably no-one will notice until it spreads worldwide through the Internet.

We'll know when our Computers say, "Hello?"

jsid-1217685731-594943  DJ at Sat, 02 Aug 2008 14:02:11 +0000

And you'll know the rest when your computers can use dirt as a feedstock and replicate themselves.

jsid-1217702308-594952  Warsong at Sat, 02 Aug 2008 18:38:28 +0000

And, one of these Robot Builders was talking about that being a goal, to use common Feedstock, like Dirt, as you say.

jsid-1217710452-594953  DJ at Sat, 02 Aug 2008 20:54:12 +0000

Well, of course it would be a "goal". Don't bother letting me know when it happens. I s'pect I'll be dead.

jsid-1218144576-595178  perlhaqr at Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:29:36 +0000

If you're serious about blowing away some filthy Nazi who has decided to infringe your rights, why warn him? What's the point? Why would you not just DO it?

To any who don't already understand, I'd think the pile of dead Gestapo agents would be warning enough... if they're ever going to "get it" that is.

Because even the 3% don't want to kill. We want to be left alone. If the Gestapo guys hear the warning and heed it, I've no need to put them 6 feet down. I'm one of the good guys. Warning the bad guys to mend their evil ways is just something the good guys do.

jsid-1233623021-601585  James Maynard at Tue, 03 Feb 2009 01:03:41 +0000

3% and everyday I find out more and more how small of a group that really is. I have forgone any symbolization of a social life as I go to work to make the money I need to keep the PTB off my back and to stock up on my ammo box while I support the only soapbox I can use consistently: the internet. I spent 2 hours on the phone trying to get through to the senate switchboard tonight upon arriving home so Those that say we weren't trying haven't a leg to stand on later.(and if some jerk accused me of that later then I would be sorely tempted to blow the one leg he was standing on right out from under his A$$!)
I know where this country is headed and its truly only a matter of time b4 those that have seeming control find out how tenative such illusions are.
Play by the rules and we are ok, don't and we don't have to either.

jsid-1235241015-602163  18Echo at Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:30:15 +0000

Way back in 2005 Peggy Noonan wrote an interesting article for the WSJ called "A Separate Peace" It's well worth reading and rather prophetic (though darn depressing).

She said " I believe there's a general and amorphous sense that things are broken and tough history is coming."

"Tough history is coming" seems to be the resounding theme of a lot of my friends and I agree.

The majority of folks in this nation have been so long removed from real hardship that they think they are immune. They, *we*, are not. I don't go for all the conspiracy stuff mostly because I think the government is simply too incompetent to pull it off but that does not mean that we couldn't end up in the same place anyway.

What I fear that there may be a time coming when the government is simply overwhelmed. All it would take is a series of economic events, an deep energy crisis, another 9/11 style event and/or an epidemic. Any combination could easily push the system to the breaking point.

The really scary thing is that some of these events are under the willful control of external sources (Chavez, ImANotJob etc.. ) and I fear that our new government is thinking that "hope" is the same thing as a "plan"

"Tough history coming" indeed.

jsid-1235257115-602174  Kevin Baker at Sat, 21 Feb 2009 22:58:35 +0000


See the left sidebar of this blog for a link to my post "Tough History Coming," written shortly after Ms. Noonan's piece was published.

jsid-1250235218-610742  Sweettina2 at Fri, 14 Aug 2009 07:33:38 +0000

Right on, beautifully said.
When anger overcomes fear, people will indeed fight. Uprising HAS begun.
Freedom was paid for with the ultimate sacrifice before, and we stand ready,if we must, do it again.

 Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
 If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>