Bill Bucko

Is it rational to HATE those who threaten your loved ones?

37 posts in this topic

Yes, let us avoid such *mean* words, and learn from the Bible to *love* socialists and turn the other pocket while they pick one, and pray for a speedy entrance to Heaven after they kill us as well, as well as forgiveness for their sins! Amen, Mr. Austin, I have seen the light!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, let us avoid such *mean* words, and learn from the Bible to *love* socialists and turn the other pocket while they pick one, and pray for a speedy entrance to Heaven after they kill us as well, as well as forgiveness for their sins! Amen, Mr. Austin, I have seen the light!

Yes, let us avoid such *mean* words, and learn from the Bible to *love* socialists and turn the other pocket while they pick one, and pray for a speedy entrance to Heaven after they kill us as well, as well as forgiveness for their sins! Amen, Mr. Austin, I have seen the light!

This is another on of those "Go ahead" moments.

If certain people want to make asses of themselves with rhetorical overkill, go ahead. Be marginalized. Objectivists will simply have to repudiate them.

I, of course, said nothing about loving socialists. Those with average or above reading comprehension skills know that I regared the appropriate emotion was contempt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... So, go ahead, fight, and possibly get your ass shot off. ...

You make several unwarranted assumptions about me and my position; as well as about the future of the country. To assume that U.S. armed forces would violate their oath of office and side with a dictatorship rather than the people, is insulting to them

In any insurrection, the first responders would be the FBI and/or BATF. Such an insurrection would most likely go the way of the whackos at Waco or Ruby Ridge.

In other circumstances, first responders could be state National Guard units. Experience in the 1960s indicate a tendency to be somewhat trigger-happy.

In terms of the attitude of America's military personnel, their's no evidence that they regard the current government as a dictatorship. All evidence is that they consider our government righteous and are willing to put their lives on the line for their commander in chief.

... So, go ahead, fight, and possibly get your ass shot off. ...

And it is simple-minded (to say the least) to assume there is only one way to FIGHT.

American patriots were fighting against British tyranny in a variety of ways, long before the 18th of April, 1775.

Yes. They destroyed private property. They physically assaulted individuals. They rioted. Some got their asses shot off.

Your fixation on projecting violence is entirely your own. No one is advocating a Waco or Ruby Ridge standoff or anything like it. You made it up. Your continued accusing Bill of advocating violence are a gratuitous smear based on your own imagination and has no place here. There is no excuse for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JIm,

I can just about promise you that you'll gain nothing, and educate no one, by constantly citing Rand so broadly. We get it -- believe me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand also wrote in terms of "fighting for the future". It did not mean that she advocated violence, which -- like Bill Bucko -- she opposed.

When Rand wrote about "fighting for the future," she definitely meant advocacy: writing books, articles, letters to the editor, speaking up on any available forum.

However, Bucko wrote about it being "necessary to deal with the tyrants in Washington NOW," about our government being a "dictatorship." Under such tyranny and dictatorship, advocacy is not much of an option. Tyrants suppress opposition advocacy. Violence is required to overthrow a dictatorship, as in insurecction, uprising, rebellion, revolution.

If Bucko didn't really mean it, if he really opposes violence, then it must that his references to tyranny and dictatorship is just so much rhetorical overkill, which itself isn't all that helpful.

Ayn Rand, like Bill Bucko, also acted and urged action in "the now", which normal people do if they expect to be effective. This included political action, as for example in her urgent call to defeat McGovern. We have an election coming up, and political action to fight one's enemies is always possible. "Now" does not mean violence. The urgent does not mean "insurrection". Everyone else here knows what it means for Obama to be a tyrant and what the current political options are.

You have no evidence for your accusation and Bill has repeated here that he is not advocating violence. It is not up to Bill to repeatedly and defensively deny your false and baseless repeated accusation of advocating violence to convince you that he "really means it". You made up your accusations. You owe Bill and the Forum an unqualified retraction and an apology.

As Bill wrote on this very thread:

As some of you know, for a year and a half I've been viciously smeared by a clique of phony alleged Objectivists who accuse me of advocating violence, merely because I HATE the bastards who are forcing Death Panels on my loved ones, because I brand them as criminals, and because I say they are evil -- more evil than, say, a gunman who shoots people. [Ayn Rand, of course, made that same comparison in "Collectivized Ethics." And she was speaking merely of Medicare, not of Death Panels!]`
More recently, Harry Binswanger viciously and gratuitously smeared me as an alleged advocate of violence, on his HBL list. I warned him that he had made himself legally liable for defamation and libel; and I have not heard of any further attacks from him.

Bibswanger might well have decided not to risk litigation with someone who has already marginalized himself.

Whatever Harry "Bibswanger" "might" have decided, you ignore that this is one of the statements by Bill which contradicts your repeated false accusation.

These continued personal attacks through accusations and insinuations by Jim Austin against Bill Bucko as allegedly advocating violence are worse than smears inappropriate on the Forum. They are libelous accusations of a felony, which is itself a crime.

It's just a matter of taking Bucko at his words, particularly his latest submission

It is a matter of you misrepresenting him. You are falsely accusing him of a crime with no evidence. Your imaginative re-interpretations and repeated insistence are not evidence.

Likewise, Austin's personal attacks against him as being allegedly "eaten up by hatred" and engaging in "hateful rhetoric" are baseless, personal accusations against Bill for defending and fighting for his values.

Bill started this thread in praise of Michael Hurd's article When What You Love is Under Attack -- Of Course You Hate, and quoted:

I'm making a psychological point here. I'm talking about the necessary psychological basis for a free society. It's crucial to developing and maintaining self-esteem to grasp what I'm saying. A humble society will never be a free one. If people continue to bow their heads in humble uncertainty, and become ashamed when told not to disagree with authority (when authority is so clearly wrong), then freedom, liberty—and all we hold dear, and most of us take for granted—are surely doomed.

Austin's echoing liberal 'anti-hate rhetoric' is anti-value, moral intimidation. As Hurd wrote:

They throw around the word "hatred" as if it's supposed to intellectually and morally disarm you. It's not only Obamacare, but a lot of issues. You're supposed to think, "Oh, no. Somebody said I'm hateful. I better stop opposing Obamacare, then."

I call this an attempt to morally and psychologically disarm you. It won't work with me, and it need not work with you, either.

Like the liberal contingent, his guy has fallen into the habit of using standardized thought patterns regardless of context. I was not the first to use the word "hate." That was in the title of this thread. I merely pointed to the psychological consequences of continuous and chronic hatred, to which Bucko responded "True."

In a different context, like Germany during the 1920s and '30s, hateful rhetoric was practical. It worked. It won adherents.

Nowadays, not so much. People in America believe political leaders should be benevolent, benign, and, dare I say it -- nice! Mean spirited, strident and shrill rhetoric turns people off.

Your personal attacks against a sneering "this guy", equated with Nazis and "falling" into "thought patterns" and "continuous and chronic hatred" are disrespectful and baseless accusations that do not belong on the Forum.

Defending the appropriateness of hating or despising those who destroy or threaten one's values because they destroy or threaten values should not be necessary here at all, but apparently is because a clique of "Objectivists" have made a campaign out of appeasement on principle in personally making false accusations.

Neither Bill nor anyone else here has advocated or practices "hatred" as a political tactic, or advocated that political leaders engage in it, or supported wallowing in it "continuously and chronically". Stop making things up in personal smears.

The left confuses the deserved hatred, loathing, etc. against them for what they are doing as 'violence' because they are anti-value and can't tell the difference between raw hatred and denunciation of attacks on values. The left has a long history of falsely packaging thought and action: they commit violence themselves in the name of 'free speech', and they assume that anyone who denounces them must be threatening 'violence'.

Forum members are supposed to know better than to be cowed by this nonsense.

Forum members should consider consequences of hate -- both personnal and practical.

The consequences, both personally and practically, of appeasement failing to pass negative judgment against those responsible for destruction have been more than "considered". That was part of the Hurd article in defense of values which Bill cited in his own passionate defense of values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much, evw, for your eloquent words.

Since some people (innocently or otherwise) are misinterpreting/misrepresenting my views, let me set the record straight:

The current political situation in America is one of extreme gravity: of aggravated usurpation on the part of executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government.

There are countless signs of this usurpation, including numerous instances of ignoring or bypassing the Constitution, and of rule by decree; to quote the Declaration of Independence,” all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”

The most vicious attack against U.S. citizens is obamacare, surpassing by far the British “Intolerable Acts” of the 1770s. Its Death Panels threaten us with murder. Let us not mince words: they threaten us with murder.

Strenuous resistance is necessary to avoid collapse into dictatorship (which is clearly the goal of the current president, a lifelong Marxist who consistently demonstrates a virulent hatred for America and for freedom). Observe that the current regime openly encourages voter fraud, and openly attacks state governments when they legitimately attempt to guard against it.

Only one thing can bind us to the government in Washington: the Constitution that created it. But since the current regime in Washington has discarded the Constitution and the rule of law, in doing so they have absolved us of all allegiance to them. It is no longer a legitimate government but a gangster regime, in a state of unlawful rebellion against the U.S. Constitution. Its members are criminals, guilty of perjury (in violating their oaths of office) and sedition (in overturning constitutional government and making government our master, rather than our servant)—as well as, in some instances, a vast range of further crimes (theft, bribery, conspiracy, corruption, obstruction of justice,.etc.)

If you need any further evidence of the regime’s attitude toward us, observe that it has forcibly divided the nation into two classes: the rulers and the ruled, the former who are exempt from Death Panels (as well as many other “laws”) and the latter who are even denied the right to appeal against Death Panels in a court of law.

We must act as the Founding Fathers intended, and FIGHT BACK, to restore limited constitutional government. It is the regime that is in a state of revolt, not us.

Citizens who respect individual rights are currently justified in resisting the gangster regime by all peaceful means: education, protests, attempts to vote the criminals out of office, passive resistance, a general strike -- above all by clearly and explicitly denying the regime the moral sanction it has so blatantly forfeited.. Its members have earned our righteous hatred and unstinting resistance.

My principal means of fighting back, right now, is by spreading the above ideas. Toward that end, I support a number of organizations morally and financially: the Ayn Rand Institute, Tea Party Patriots, the Tea Party Express, Americans for Prosperity, the Tenth Amendment Center, and Oathkeepers. The latter is a group of military and law enforcement professionals who pledge to obey no unconstitutional orders.

In spite of the grim situation, I am optimistic. As Dr. Hurd stated a year or so ago, the age of big government is coming to a close: they are running out of victims. I am greatly encouraged by the economic slowdown caused by business owners, most of whom have not read “Atlas Shrugged,” “going Galt” to one degree or another on their own, as a natural reaction to tyranny.

I have never advocated acts of violence against the members of the gangster regime. But I most certainly do advocate putting them on trial and punishing them to the full extent of the law for their crimes. They have earned harsh punishment indeed.

I strongly support state governments that are resisting the imposition of obamacare, just as I approve of those state governments in the 1850s who acted against federal tyranny by resisting the Fugitive Slave laws.

And I certainly support rights-respecting individuals arming themselves. We are not yet at the point where individuals would be justified in taking up arms against the regime; but we are not terribly far removed from that point, either. And the regime seems hell-bent on reaching that point and going beyond: they want no limits on their power. But as far as I can see, there is currently enough resistance to the regime to vote the principal culprits out of office next November – as the saying goes, “they can’t steal the election if it isn’t close.” If that does not suffice to remove the criminals, then let all good citizens “go Galt.” We have the means to, as Ayn Rand put it, “put an end to this once and for all.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A firm show of manly resistance NOW, rather than cowardly appeasement--plainly showing those criminals in Washington that we WILL RESIST, we will NOT be “raped quitely”—isn’t that the best way to avoid violence (if that is your first priority)?

Psychopaths like obama and pelosi, drooling for more power, will never be stopped by anything less. You will certainly not stop them by making excuses for them—by crying that obamacare was foisted on us by a “legally objective vote,” or claiming those who forced it on us are not criminals—as though perjury, sedition and conspiracy are not crimes, and they have a blank check to commit them!

Would-be dictators take advantage of every sign of weakness, every failure to stand up to their depredations. Real Americans will FIGHT them, every step of the way. If you don’t care for my choice of words, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have specialized in violence of one sort or another for almost 50 years now. It is a necessary tool to have in your box, for certain, when dealing with some people and some animals. But it must be judiciously, appropriately applied, or you become an animal just like they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill and those of us who have supported him here have not been advocating specializing in violence. That is not the point of the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't let it percolate/fester in me, but I've got a list, and if the chance ever comes to deal with that list, you can bet, with 100% security, that I will do so, in whatever way presents itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't let it percolate/fester in me, but I've got a list, and if the chance ever comes to deal with that list, you can bet, with 100% security, that I will do so, in whatever way presents itself.

If that's really your plans, then you shouldn't be broadcasting it on a public forum read all over the world. It endangers both yourself and those of us who are trying to remain peaceful, knowing that violent revolution is not a moral, practical way to try to live. The statists have already made it clear that they regard all of us as "terrorists" who morally repudiate and speak out against their impositions. They do not tolerate lack of obsequiousness, let alone dissent, and look for every excuse to rationalize physically cracking down on their enemies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites