Kim Jong-un’s new weapon

North Korea has developed cloaking technology!

North Korea, almost invisible from space, while China and South Korea can be seen clearly!

No, that’s not open ocean between China and South Korea; North Korean scientists have clearly developed a cloaking device which renders the entire country invisible from space, just to frustrate the space-based weaponry of the imperialist United States!

9 Comments

  1. Between the economic policies and the energy policies of the left I imagine that’s what we have to look “Forward” to. After all, KimUn is doing his part for the environment, keeping CO2 down, no fracking, emissions practically non existent and all his people don’t have to worry about “income inequality”, they’re all equally poor and deprived of a future (except the elites, naturally).

    The good news is all we need do is aim a few nukes at that little white spot and within five years the South Koreans will light up the area with Freedom and Capitalism.

  2. I think it’s fair to say that this man is in power today because of the pusillanimity and cooperative evil of American – mostly liberal – politicians. But then the tormented are ‘just Koreans’, not some prized victim group useful as a lever for liberals. Free them and they will just convert to Christianity – Baptist, Evangelical, or possibly even Catholic, Gaia forbid.

    Frankly, after years of observing and thinking about this liberal phenomenon, I’m now close to putting up a post on “Enemy Aliens”: the subject being the question of, “What, when you come right down to it, are these morally deconstructed appetite entities formerly known as American Liberals? And how do you classify them and analyze their suitability as moral peers relative to those historically edified human beings operating in an at least partially teleonomic psychological reality?”

    Surprising as it may seem given the language I use, there was always some hesitation on my own part in following the implications of” liberal logic” as applied back to them too rigorously. For, the unavoidable trend of that reasoning seemed to make them into a distinct, and distinctly antagonist, subspecies of mankind. I started out treating this dissonant state of affairs as a mere logic puzzle; or as an example of liberal intellectual inconsistency or hypocrisy, concerning the necessary consequences of their own unexamined assumptions. They were after all, I had been assured, “men just like us”.

    That all began a dozen or more years ago for me during the RKBA debates. And since then, nothing has changed in public matters of fact apart from the fact of the set of nihilistic premisses and parasitical designs of the progressive type becoming ever more open and unapologetic and sociopolitically widespread. From a set of doctrines held only in certain parts of academia in the 1930′s through 1970′s, their anti-human “belief” system has now become the default position of the liberal left and Democrat Party.

    Well a few things have changed, even if those things are not at the core of the progressive’s metaphysic. Since the late 1990′s scientists have uncovered a surprising plasticity in the human brain, along with what appears to be the genetic transferability of certain life effects experienced by previous generations of ancestors. But far from establishing a foundation for the stereotypical left-liberal’s dream of a human tabula rasa so extreme that even sex (or gender as they call it) becomes a social construct, or far from promising to inaugurate a brave new world in the form of a Lysenko LaLa land; the facts instead imply that they, liberals, take a given human nature imperfect as it is, and through their deliberate willfulness and anti-right reason strategizing, accentuate and expand their moral and behavioral dysfunctions through both their lineage and their circle of associates, until nature, in this case physics, puts an end to the insanity.

    Yeah, they do in part make themselves – insomuch as they grant that the self is real. They make themselves bit by bit into something almost totally other. Strange then that they should constantly complain that they are treated as “other”, isn’t it?

    Well no, it is not strange at all. It’s an expected consequence of what they are doing.

    So, we observe, there “they” are: off now on their way to becoming something else entirely.

    They know not what, but what do “they” care? Since, even they themselves, taken on their own terms and assumptions, are a kind of meaningless illusion … and so what does it matter where they are going? It all ends up in the same place anyway as far as they are concerned; i.e., nowhere.

    And “they”, these non-self selves, are therefore acting on behalf of, and in aid of, what exactly?

    Why nothing … if you get the double meaning.

    If it’s almost enough to make me believe in the doctrine of sin, it’s more than enough to make me believe that progressives are indeed radically other.

  3. Pingback: Enemy Aliens « Truth Before Dishonor

  4. Just so we all know, I did not deliberately enter that “pingback” into these responses and did not intend it to appear. I merely saved myself some writing or pasting in a new post on TBD by linking to comment content which I had just previously authored and left here.

    Sorry for any confusion, Dana. I don’t know why it showed up here.

  5. DNW: TBD is set to automatically send pings, and TFSJ is set to accept and receive them. This used to be a more common practice, to help blogs cross-publicize themselves, and I maintain it.

  6. DNW, I think you are over-wracking your brain trying to analyze these left wingers. I myself am trying to go cold turkey from politics, having more important things to do right now. I, personally, would like to see Sarah Palin run in 2016, but I can hardly blame her if she chooses not to wallow in the pig shit with Hillary.

    Just remember: When it comes to left wingers, no matter now cynical you are, it’s never cynical enough!

  7. ” Eric
    Wednesday, 26 February 2014 at 20:31

    DNW, I think you are over-wracking your brain trying to analyze these left wingers. I myself am trying to go cold turkey from politics, having more important things to do right now. I, personally, would like to see Sarah Palin run in 2016, but I can hardly blame her if she chooses not to wallow in the pig shit with Hillary.

    Just remember: When it comes to left wingers, no matter now cynical you are, it’s never cynical enough!”

    Possibly. The problem with ignoring it, or them, is that you cannot. They won’t let you. Now the proximate reason for this is clear enough: it is not in the interest of the leftist organisms to allow others ignore them; they need to feed off others, and need those productive others in a way that the productive others do not need the leftists.

    I think those on our side all agree on that; probably even the leftists agree to some extent, though it offends them to hear it. But while admitting the first part of the formula (that they cannot live without in effect preying on others) they try to extend their operative principle into a universal rule, one which supposedly negates any resort by those opposed to leftism to a more free principle of free association and free exchange in the meeting of needs as more just.

    So that is much of what we are always arguing about. We imply they are cynical self-interested parasitical manipulators, they respond that all humanity is fundamentally parasitical and equally interdependent. Wherein the libertarian or conservatives replies, “No, not to the same degree; and not based or operating on the same totalitarian associative predicate.”

    And around and around we go.

    So then, my more or less obsessive interest has been to try and figure out what if any “real” justifications they have in their own minds as they lay their totalizing and boundaryless claims against others. I am always returning to examine, (somewhat compulsively I know) the logical or rhetorical fulcrum point of their arguments “justifying”, as they seem to imagine it, coercive collectivism.

    So, we grant them the notion that some degree of interdependency exists in all systems of human association. Why not a voluntary association as a means of fulfilling these needs? “It is unjust”, they reply. We ask, “How so, and on what theory of justice?” They respond with an anthropological argument characterizing, or alternatively deconstructing man, in a certain way: fundamentally arguing that man as we have understood him was an illusion that needs to be disposed of, and therefore so also goes with it any concept of intrinsic individual rights.

    Well, then, what I am still interested in, is examining whether these anthropological or metaphysical arguments, or descriptions, or narratives, are even coherent, much less so incredibly intellectually respectable that we are somehow morally obligated to take them seriously.

    And that is where it breaks down for those arguing like AOTC and me. Because we find that at that level the left cease making moral or justice arguments as if their submitted conclusions were necessarily entailed by the truth of their views on the nature of reality.

    And that disjunction has of course been the core feature of, or the problem with, “progressive” ethics (as a claim system) since the time (in the modern era) of Hume at least.

    That’s where those with interests like mine or AOTC’s start spinning our wheels in conversations with leftists; since the leftists have abandoned right reason, and even reason itself, as an arbitrator of what should and should not be done. Reason merely serves an instrumental function in satisfying what on their view must be fundamentally unjustifiable – brute fact like – urges. Reason does not justify or guide the choice of ends to be satisfied because in the progressive-leftist (postmodernist) view, reason ultimately bears as much relation to what they “should do”, as a measuring stick does to the question of whether a bookcase ought to be built or not.

    So then, although we, on our side, cannot really argue with them according to principles of right reason in order to mutually discern what the legitimate limits of their claims against us and our lives are, we, those of us on the liberty affirming side, can all the same examine, closely, what it is we are dealing with.

    What, on its own description, is the internal structure of this organism that wells up before you, makes these imperative and demanding noises, and uses ethical-like language in a totally cynical manner; all while appearing to believe that there are no justifications or ultimate purposes for what it wants or does? And, adding insult to injury, while nonetheless threatening you with destruction unless you yield to it?

    Is it – the progressive nihilist appetite entity – really even the same category of life which we are accustomed to considering as deserving of, or properly included within, the presumptive circle of moral fellowship, reciprocity, and mutual forbearance? If so, how do we know?

    What then, are the consequences for them of our looking at them through the lens they have created for looking at all reality human and otherwise?

    After doing so, after granting them their premises as applying at least to themselves, it possible to even take them seriously as moral fellows?

    What if they are in fact to some degree right about at least their own psychology? Because, on their own nominalist terms, there is no single human nature; and therefore, theoretically at least, they could give off the superficial appearance and likeness of what we feel to be real human beings, without actually fully being so. The fact that not every dog is a collie dog does not mean that there are no collie dogs nor that some collie type dogs may be found through the whole population of dogs. It just means that some dogs really are not collies, nor collie like, to any meaningful degree.

    In a universe without real natural kinds, or without the broad natural kinds we are accustomed to thinking of, a universe which is precisely the sort of nominalist friendly universe the progressive post modernists claim to be the universe we really live in, all sorts of alien anti-life things might be found developing in a human appearing skin.

    Based on what they themselves say, those humans which develop into what we call political progressives, may well be one of them.

  8. So then, my more or less obsessive interest has been to try and figure out what if any “real” justifications they have in their own minds as they lay their totalizing and boundaryless claims against others. I am always returning to examine, (somewhat compulsively I know) the logical or rhetorical fulcrum point of their arguments “justifying”, as they seem to imagine it, coercive collectivism.

    I agree 100% that it is important to “Know thine enemy”. But there is such a thing as Paralysis by Analysis. It’s enough to know that poisonous snakes are dangerous without needing to get into the molecular structure of their venom.

    For me, it’s enough to know that left wingers are essentially collectivist in nature, and that, in whatever form of collectivist society they envision running, the operant fact is that they intend to be the ones running it.

    Really, you don’t need to know much more about them than that.

  9. Eric is right that postmodern studies and philosophical arguments are not necessary to prove or understand that there is a vast chasm that currently divides political worldviews in our culture. ive truly been amazed though of the fact that a lot of people, people from all of history have delved into that debate. its truly fascinating to me.

    that being said, I thoroughly enjoy all the different expression styles used by all of you. I admit to being particularly fascinated by DNW because he expresses the concepts ive always had inkling of but had frustration organizing in my mind in meaningful ways.

    likely we all sense the same thing regarding the state of the leftist moral condition ideologically, but our individual minds being unique, necessarily filter that and what results is a beautiful multifaceted tapestry of unified expression. that being the antithesis of postmodern relativism and collactivism ..

    I think its insanely cool. I think you all are insanely cool too. :-)

Comments are closed.