Saturday, September 2, 2017



Here's How They Plan To Sell Us 
Into Voluntary Servitude

A FREE McMansion with a three-car garage, a Vacation home on a Private island, a private Jet and a Yacht all fully staffed with ROBOT SERVANTS
for ALL. 

A Marvelous New World where NO ONE WORKS, and EVERYONE does NOTHING but PLAY 
all day every day. 

A World Totally Dependent On TECHNOLOGY 

A world so "advanced" the ROBOTS will be able to REPRODUCE and REPAIR themselves, THINK for themselves and eventually RISE UP to DESTROY US, 
"Their Over-Privileged Oppressors."

Then THEY TOO would ultimately DIE for Lack of Purpose, and all forms of LIFE WOULD CEASE ALTOGETHER.

Won't it be WONDERFUL? 



The End of Striving. 

The End of Ambition. 

The End of Hope. 

The End of Joy.

The End of Feeling.

The End of Desire. 

The End of Curiosity.

The End of Dreams. 

The End of Emotion. 

The END of LOVE.

This is Where the Pied Piper of the 
GlobaLeft is leading us:

~ § ~


"This is the true joy in life, the being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one; the being thoroughly worn out before you're thrown on the scrap heap; the being a force of Nature instead of a feverish, selfish little clod of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself 
to making you happy.” 

~ G. B. Shaw (1856-1950) 


  1. A Marvelous New World where NO ONE WORKS, and EVERYONE does NOTHING but PLAY all day every day.

    Not only the end of joy but also BORING.

    I doubt that my mother knew anything of Shelton Smith, but she did often say, "Take away the idea of an afterlife, and people will not hold themselves accountable at all."

    Probably an overstatement. I have personally known atheists who were wonderful people and lived by the Golden Rule. JS, my mother-in-law's boyfriend, is one such individual. He cared for her right up till her last moment -- and he had no legal responsibility to do so. I hasten to add that JS was not reared as an atheist.

    1. Yes.Long ago I read a little parable in French by La Rochefoucauld. The moral of the tale was "Toujours plaisir, n'est pas plaisir."

      "To have pleasure all the time is no pleasure." is the way I translate that.


      PS: I've tossed out two snotty, stupidly denigratory remarks about this post already.

      Can't sit here all day deleting trash, but don't want to go into moderation yet either.

      In a way it's flattering to have enemies. It must mean what we say gets under their skin, but I dislike wasting my time jousting with morons and disagreeable adversaries.


    "This is the true joy in life, the being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one; the being thoroughly worn out before you're thrown on the scrap heap; the being a force of Nature instead of a feverish, selfish little clod of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself
    to making you happy.”

  3. Frau Klinkenheimer SchmidtSeptember 2, 2017 at 9:31 AM

    We wonder why conservatives tend to refer to those having less than conservative views as enemies. Rather odd. Aren't we all Americans and brothers and sisters? Referring to political opponents as enemies sets the stage for confrontation even before constructive dialogue is attempted.

    America is greater when America unifies to work out its problems and challenges. That's the way it seems to us anyway.

    Have a reflective Labor Day, and, MAGA!

    1. Hmmm... Can you provide us some examples?

      For bonus points, could there be any examples of "enemy calling" emanating from the left?

      "If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, 'We're gonna punish our enemies, and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us' -- if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election -- then I think it's going to be harder. And that's why I think it's so important that people focus on voting on November 2nd." -- Barack Obama

      Yo may want to think out your comments a little better before just putting them out there for ridicule, Les.

    2. Frau Klinkenheimer SchmidtSeptember 2, 2017 at 10:17 AM

      Examples are plentiful for those with eyes wide open.

      Did I say there were no cases of the same coming from the left? I don't believe I did. To do so would be foolish.

      Cleaning up ones own backyard before criticism of your neighbors is good advice for all, regardless of political proclivities.

      Now, off to MAGA, in a rational, reasonable, and thoughtful way. Pursuing a noble cause larger than yourself.

    3. "Cleaning up ones own backyard before criticism of your neighbors is good advice for all, regardless of political proclivities."

      Yes! So go follow your own advice.

      There are so many people yapping in the political arena, that you can find whatever behavior you are looking for on all sides, so your comment was facile.

    4. Frau Klinkenheimer SchmidtSeptember 2, 2017 at 10:50 AM

      Hm, I can see how my comment might be considered by some to be superficial. There is indeed much yapping in the political arena. Much ill or uninformed. Especially on the interlubes of cyber space.

    5. Much YAPPING in the Poitical Arena?

      Indeed there is!

      You don't begin to realize the comic irony in your inadvertent, unconsciously risible commentary, Frau Schidt.

  4. Frau Klinkenheimer SchmidtSeptember 2, 2017 at 9:35 AM

    GB-S was a wise man indeed. Happiness comes from within.

    1. He is not saying happiness comes from within. It comes from without, in giving yourself to a noble cause larger than yourself.

    2. Frau Klinkenheimer SchmidtSeptember 2, 2017 at 10:06 AM

      Ah, but the force driving one to give oneself to a noble cause larger than oneself indeed comes from within. Simply put the world cannot make one happy. Happiness stars with accepting and being happy with yourself. Allowing your happiness to flow outwardly, directed wisely, will touch others giving them happiness, thereby increasing your own.

      We simply disagree. Or, is it semantics?

    3. What you say may be true--its a philosophical statement and therefor debatable--but that is not what GB Shaw is saying.

    4. Hardly "semantics," it's MENTAL MASTURBATION.

  5. Shaw does a beautiful job enunciating Mazlow's concept of Self-Actualization, which in its ideal serves a human being's highest state: Self-Transcendence.

    "What a man can be, he must be."

    The self only finds its actualization in giving itself to some higher goal outside oneself, in altruism and spirituality.

    "Transcendence refers to the very highest and most inclusive or holistic levels of human consciousness, behaving and relating, as ends rather than means, to oneself, to significant others, to human beings in general, to other species, to nature, and to the cosmos"

    This is a nice post to get you thinking.

    1. Frau Klinkenheimer SchmidtSeptember 2, 2017 at 10:24 AM

      It is indeed.

      Sort of highlights rational self interest quite well, don't you think? If one thinks about it.

    2. Careful, they'll kick you out of the Good Progressive club for loose talk like that.

    3. Frau Klinkenheimer SchmidtSeptember 2, 2017 at 10:40 AM

      Clubs don't interest, never have. At least not political clubs anyway. The world is too large to confine oneself to a tribes and tribal customs. Exploration is more rewarding.

    4. You misunderstand GB Shaw again. His philosophy is in no way a defense of Randian Rational Interest. They are competing philosophies.

      Ayn Rand was a conservative, Shaw a Fabian socialist. About all they have in common is the brutal honesty that they would coldly see millions killed to usher in their world view.

    5. I think BOTH of you misuderstand Shaw. He was unique, –– one of the greatest literary artists who ever lived with a tremendous understanding of the human condition and a profound understanding of classical music.

      Unless you are familiar with his plays, as performed by top flight actors, you couldn't possibly know him at all.

      Shaw cannot be put into ANY of the academic pigeonholes pretentious "scholars" "critics," and "historians" are always trying to do,

  6. "Shaw cannot be put into ANY of the academic pigeonholes pretentious "scholars" "critics," and "historians" are always trying to do

    Agreed, although I am far from an expert on GBS, I do understand the quotation of his you cited.

    G.B. Shaw was sui generis. He was an avowed Fabian Socialist, but i agree with you that so much of his work defied neat categorization.

    1. @ FreeThinke: Shaw cannot be put into ANY of the academic pigeonholes pretentious "scholars" "critics," and "historians" are always trying to do

      BTW, That is what makes the work of such men and women of earlier eras so compelling. They were not dancing to the tired, blatting, predictable ideological tunes of today, no matter how strenuously ideologues of today attempt to shoehorn and sledgehammer philosophies of the past into contemporary arguments, press-ganging them into service for or against some superficial modern-day issue.

    2. Yes, sure, but, believe it or not, GBS may NOT been quite what he liked to THINK he was. (See comments related to Brahms below)

      Thise rare being who come into contact with –– let us call it Divine Truth as a oint of reference –– may not fully comprehend the wonders they have encountered, even after they've distilled their perceptions, captured the essence in sme tangible form then converted it into a significant work of art.

    3. Marx won't be happy until the entire planet has been reduced to serfdom.

  7. Apologies for focusing on the GBS quote and ignoring your original food for though.

    I understand how each section hangs together and supports the other, but this was almost a trifurcated post.

    I zoomed in on Shaw, because as I'm sure you do, his quotation is a refutation of this leftist vision you posit. BTW, I think that vision is shared by more than just the left, and it is a chimera. All utopias must decay and devolve into dystopia.

    1. Shaw's reputatiin as a Socialist reminds me or ORELL'S reputatiin as a Man of the Left of HIS time.

      I've always marvelled at the way both of Orwell's best-known works present perfect argument AGAINST Marxian, Fabian, Socialist, Communst, Collectivist, Progressive, Liberal, Statist Totalitarianism,

      Much of Shaw's work, which I see as less tendentious, less didactic, more expressive, MUCH more humorous (in places, and more artistic than Orwell's work.

      But both men made near-perfect cases AGAINST the politics philosophy they professed to endorse,

      The same is also true of the virulent Canadian feminist Margaraet Atwood. If you've ever read The Handmaid's Tale, you would know EXACTLY what I mean.

      Oh well, Brahms said, when one of the early performers if his works took a startlingly different approach to one of his major works something to this effect, "None of that never occurred to me while I was composing the piece, but YES I can see that it is a perfectly valid view of the work. How enlightening!":

      Our ideas about "interpreting" works of art and literature were far less literalistic, legalistic, didactic, dogmatic, and strait-jecketed in the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries –– the period when most of our greatest works of music and literature were created –– than they have been since the advent of the twentieth-century, when Cthe destrucgtive agenda of ultural MARXISM took over the universites.

      Now isn't THAT an odd coincidence! };^)>

    2. In the case of Orwell, his work was anti-Totalitarian. He remained a man of the left, which in those earlier times was a reaction to the grim system run by the moneyed class that crushed people under their Industrial Age Wheels.

      Orwell's great gift to humanity was his ability to see both sides and refuse to play propagandist to any ideology.

      I love his reporter's eye and dispassionate narration in essays like "Such, such were the joys" (which does have a sarcastic tone), To Shoot an Elephant, or The Spike.

      Orwell's talent was being able to see clearly, face unpleasant fact, and bring it all to us in a simple, engaging and unpretentious style.

  8. FT, excellent analysis. Happiness comes from hard work and accomplishment. Should be obvious with all the natives on welfare being easily the most unhappy people in America.

  9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.



We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––


Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.