Buyer’s Market

“Women control access to sex. Men control access to marriage.”

The first part of that modern homily is mostly true, at least in Western, non-shithole countries. Almost any straight woman who wants to get sex can get it by walking into almost any bar and announcing her intention to get laid. A man wishing to do the same faces anything from laughter to arrest.

The homily’s second part is also mostly true. Maybe not as true as the first part but still mostly true when it comes to forming a marriage or other strong commitment. Men are mostly content with hookups, maybe exclusive, maybe not. It’s usually the women who want the bended kneew, the ring, the ceremony, and legal status, and the security.

Riddle me this: When a couple moves to marriage, why does the man have to make the move? Why is the man expected to buy a diamond ring?

The woman benefits more from the marriage. This is certainly true in the US. It appears to be true in the rest of the Anglosphere and northwestern Europe but in this essay I’ll be focusing on the US.

Marriage is a contract, a promise which can be enforced by the government. Each side needs to give something and each side needs to get something. The husband traditionally provided security, both financial and physical, and chores which were easier for a man’s muscles or skills. The wife traditionally made a home and provided him with sex and children.


Nowadays, the husband almost always works and the wife probably does. Most of the financial security comes from the husband, as before, between greater income and the probability of women spending more than they bring in. In most families the wife has more say over spending than the husband does: more “me” money from the joint bank account, stuff for the house which she wants and the husband doesn’t care about, probably a newer car than the husband drives, and even getting the family to move to a more expensive house or apartment because the wife isn’t satisfied with the old one.

Most married couples have children, though that’s on the decline, with almost a majority of young adults not wanting children. If a couple has small children and the wife works, there’s a good chance that the wife’s entire paycheck goes to childcare and expenses related to her working.

(This does not address the issue of the couple having married only because the woman was pregnant, either because someone was careless or because she baby-trapped him.)

Financially, men continue to perform their traditional role.

Making a home? What does that mean anymore? It used to mean making meals, keeping the house clean, taking care of the children, and providing peace and comfort when the husband came home from work. Now, the husband is expected to do half of the cleaning (and all of the mowing and snow shoveling). Get up in the middle of the night for the baby or “I heard something downstairs” even when he has to go to work the next morning and she’s on maternity leave. The wife providing “peace and comfort”? That’s a joke, right? “Happy wife, happy life” means that most wives feel no obligation to provide a peaceful home environment for their husbands and many take offense at the suggestion that they should. Worse, if a woman is unhappy or stressed, she’ll generally take it out on her husband because he’s a safe, acceptable target.

As for sex, it’s more than just a joke that sex declines within months of the wedding and drops like a rock after the children are born. It appears that 20% of marriages in the US are sexless. (Though “sexless” can mean anything from “less than once a month” to no sex at all for a year or more.) It doesn’t matter whether it’s her choice because she’s too busy or is punishing him or just isn’t interested, or it’s his choice because she gained a hundred pounds or because of her personality. Sex is one of the major lures to get men into a committed relationship and almost no men get as much as they want and some get none at all.

OK, sure, looking at it from the wife’s side, some husbands don’t provide income or don’t do anything around the house or bully their wives. Wives are justified in leaving an abusive husband and may be justified in leaving a non-contributing husband.

Here’s the thing, though: A wife who leaves an abusive husband will have full societal approval and full legal support. The same for a wife who leaves her husband because he doesn’t provide her with money or because he doesn’t help around the house. And the same even for a wife who leaves her husband because she’s not happy or thinks she can do better.

Switch it around: If a wife spends so much on herself that the power bill can’t be paid, how much support would the husband get if he stopped the shared credit card she’d been using and cut her off from the bank account? None, and he could be accused of financial abuse. If a stay-at-home wife does nothing around the house and tells her husband that if he wants supper he can make it himself, what would neighbors, friends, and coworkers say if he told his wife that she had to start doing something or he’d leave her?

Financial and legal aspects of divorce go in the same direction as the societal approval and can’t be as easily ignored. I sure that I don’t need to go into detail on the numbers: In a divorce or other breakup, expect the woman to get the kids and the child support and at least half of the cash (that which she didn’t pull out just before filing for divorce) and half of the retirement and most likely the house though not the mortgage.

It doesn’t much matter who filed for divorce, nor the reason. The wife having committed adultery — wives in the US commit adultery more often than husbands do, now — and gotten pregnant by the affair partner — an estimated 10% of fathers named on the birth certificate in the US did not father the child — has very little effect on child custody, child support, or division of marital assets.

One should never enter into a contract with someone who will be rewarded for breaking it.

It should come as no surprise that in the United States, women initiate around 80% of divorces. Even without social pressure or postulated innate female nature to always try to get something better, women have a lot of incentive to divorce and very little incentive not to.

Given all of this, let’s return to the riddle posed above: Why is it the man who is expected to save thousands or tens of thousands of dollars to buy an engagement ring? A few centuries ago the valuable ring was something of a surety that he wasn’t wasting her time and wouldn’t walk away, before or after the marriage. Women had something to lose, some of their innate value of youth and virginity, and insulating them from the potential loss made sense.

These days, men have much more to lose from a failed relationship. Men deserve some form of surety against spousal betrayal or abandonment.

Women want commitment and marriage at least as much as men do, especially when the woman gets around thirty years old.

It’s time for women to step up and pay for what they want. Most men won’t want something basically useless like an expensive ring, but instead something durable and practical. A garage full of tools would be good.

Do the math, gentlemen, and know your worth. Don’t settle for a woman who doesn’t value you.


The Daily Donnybrook

Welcome to Ye Olde Colde Furye Blogge’s shiny new open-comments thread, where y’all can have at it as you wish, on any topic you like. Do note that the official CF comments policy remains in effect here, as enumerated in the left sidebar. All new posts will appear below this one. There will be blood…

Cheaper to Reap Her

Every man in the Western world is aware that his family, his career, and possibly his freedom can be taken away on the unsupported word of almost any woman. Wife, ex-wife, coworker, random woman he comes within twenty feet of, doesn’t matter. All she has to do is tell the right people that he was emotionally abusive and he can be fired or kicked out of school without even having a chance to deny the accusation. Family and friends and neighbors might cut all contact if she spins a convincing enough tale. He can be hauled off to jail if she attacks him, he calls the police, and the police by policy assume he’s the aggressor and the criminal.*

If any of this happens, it’s likely that the man’s relationships, career, criminal record, and bank account will never recover. The legal fees to bring his accuser to court to justify her claims are out of reach of most men, especially if they’ve lost their jobs. (I’ve seen estimates that Johnny Depp has spent over $7M in suing Amber Turd for defamation. Dream on, Bob Working Stiff.)

On the woman’s side, there’s no cost to making the accusation and spreading her sob story. Even if she’s found out to have lied, there’s very seldom any real cost. It makes the news when a woman is jailed after being found guilty of making a false rape accusation. It’s rare for a woman to be ordered to pay compensation to a man whom she got fired by a false accusation and exceedingly rare for her to pay it.

Women in the Western world know this. It’s not uncommon for a woman to threaten a man with a call to the police or his employer if he doesn’t do what she wants.

Look at it from the man’s perspective. If he just walks away or insists on seeing his kid during the court-ordered visitation weekend or whatever else inspired her to threaten him, he’s almost certain to lose, financially or legally. But if he stops her from calling the police or writing out a sob story on Facebook or making a complaint to HR… Well, it depends on circumstances, but a one-off murder is unlikely to be solved.

I’m not actually advising men to kill their wives or girlfriends or female coworkers. Instead, I’m wondering if the feminists, female bullies, and assorted delusional women have really thought through their words and actions. When they make their own murder a better option than allowing them to use the lopsided legal and social systems to attack a man, then an objective viewer might think that they are not acting in their own best interests.

* I’m not bothering to provide links for any of this. If you can’t think of half a dozen examples off the top of your head, either you’ve been living under a rock or you’re a historian reading this blog post a century from now, after the societal backlash has put an end to this nonsense.


The Daily Donnybrook

Welcome to Ye Olde Colde Furye Blogge’s shiny new open-comments thread, where y’all can have at it as you wish, on any topic you like. Do note that the official CF comments policy remains in effect here, as enumerated in the left sidebar. All new posts will appear below this one. There will be blood…

A Sensible Proposal

If we’re going to let a bat-shit crazy drunk, who’s always saying random things, be Speaker of the House, can’t we at least give the job to Mike Hendrix?

(Adapted from something I saw on the internet.)


Catch and Release

The federal government of the United States has abrogated its responsibility to secure the land borders of United States territory. The few illegal aliens who are caught are released on their own recognizance and the attorney general recently showed that he’ll scrounge for any excuse to avoid deporting even convicted criminals.

Well, “catch and release” can work for our side, too.

Sheriffs can enthusiastically look for illegal aliens to arrest. Aliens who commit violent crimes against Americans would be best, of course, but illegals who take jobs from Americans and illegals who consume social services paid for by Americans will do, too.

Once an illegal is in custody, the sheriff gets up and announces that he’s not going to bother with the paperwork to charge him because the federal government has corrupted the system to the extent that it would just be a waste of taxpayer dollars. No, he’s simply going to release the illegal at a few minutes past midnight tomorrow, at 10010 County Road 46, and that his deputies will immediately leave the area because they have other things to do.

And let nature take its course.


Sweet Baby Jesus!

Artwork pulled down from the internet, what with me sucking at it. All I drew were the mouths and eyebrows. See what I mean about sucking at it?

Posted in Art!   

Constitutional Interpretation

The Constitution of the United States of America is a living document. We have been assured of this by any number of Constitutional scholars with a list of credentials two feet long. Under the aegis of this “living document”, the Second Amendment has been interpreted to mean that state militias under the control of the government may be armed but that private citizens may not, the commerce clause has been interpreted to prohibit a farmer from growing grain to feed his own herd, and the preamble has been interpreted to allow any government action if it’s said to be for the general welfare.

Well, sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. It’s time to interpret this living document to suit our needs for a change.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…
— Constitution of the United States of America, Article IV, Section 4

Get that? A <em>Republican</em> form of government. Not a Democratic one. Capitalization matters, and capitalized Republican refers to the political party, not to the political philosophy.

One could make a good case that the Constitution authorizes the banning of the Democratic Party and their fellow travellers, whether they call themselves Communists, Greens, or the Working Families Party.

If “shall not be infringed” can be interpreted to allow a ban on pornography or automatic weapons, then “Republican Form of Government” can be interpreted to allow a ban on Democrats.

The sooner the better. To promote the general Welfare.

Not the Worst that Could Happen

A number of people are in a tizzy about the possibility of Kamala Harris — Heels Up, Kneepads, the Sloppy Seconds in Command, or whatever you want to call her — being declared President if the Joetato dies (naturally or otherwise) or is found to be unfit (which would be nothing more than an acknowledgement of something which has been obvious for over a decade) or even is impeached and removed (unlikely but not completely impossible).

Here I am, messenger of joyous tidings that I always am, to tell you that such an occurrence wouldn’t be all that bad. Bad, yes, but not as bad as all that.

For one thing, it wouldn’t really matter. Do you think that the Drooling Imbecile in Chief is really in charge of anything more significant than choosing what flavor pudding he gets for dessert? The diseased hyena will likewise be a figurehead or she’ll be removed just as easily.

For another, the witch drives people away at a rate matched only by other incompetent, screaming tyrants — Hillary Clinton and Andrew Cuomo come to mind. Any chiefs of staff, agency heads, and anyone else with anything on the ball will turn in their resignations in a hurry, leaving only inept chairwarmers. This would leave the machinery of government in the hands of the bureaucrats, not ideal but better than what we’d see with a handful of energetic, capable, charismatic progressives in charge.

Finally, and most importantly, Harris sliming her way into the oval office would give her the title of First Female President, taking away that prize from any number of mostly progressives, some of whom might have some shred of competence in carrying out their destruction. Even better, Harris would taint the idea of a female President as thoroughly as Obama tainted the holy goal of a black President. It’s even possible that she’d kick off the long-awaited backlash against progressives and their goals.

So: not good, but it could be worse.


The Daily Donnybrook

Welcome to Ye Olde Colde Furye Blogge’s shiny new open-comments thread, where y’all can have at it as you wish, on any topic you like. Do note that the official CF comments policy remains in effect here, as enumerated in the left sidebar. All new posts will appear below this one. There will be blood…

Idiocracy on the Horizon

This is a long essay, about 3700 words, so I’m putting a summary on the front page and the main essay “below the fold”.

Modern, first-world society needs a lot of bright people to keep everything working. Because of a number of social forces, average intelligence in the Western world is declining and can be expected to decline to the point that the modern infrastructure cannot be maintained. Some solutions are proposed for averting this fate.

Continue reading “Idiocracy on the Horizon”

The Daily Donnybrook

Welcome to Ye Olde Colde Furye Blogge’s shiny new open-comments thread, where y’all can have at it as you wish, on any topic you like. Do note that the official CF comments policy remains in effect here, as enumerated in the left sidebar. All new posts will appear below this one. There will be blood…


Let’s say you have a friend. A smart friend who knows about a lot of things. He has good suggestions for getting little kids to eat politely in public, he’s able to get your car running well enough that you can drive it to the shop, and he knows why the supermarket shelves still have gaps. But your friend has some crazy ideas, like saying that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote or that race is more than a social construct or that the borders should be closed to immigration for a generation.

The question is, should you listen to him on these things? On the one hand, he’s smart and he keeps his eyes open and he thinks a lot. On the other hand, nobody really believes that stuff, do they? And anyway, he’s just a guy. It’s not like he’s famous or won a Nobel Prize, right?

OK, let’s say there’s a Nobel Prize winner who is also a war hero, a progressive reformer of corrupt bureaucracies, and a respected historian. A man whose many inspirational sayings are still being quoted approvingly more than a century later. A man who firmly believed in American exceptionalism and that it was driven by the superiority of White Americans of northern and western European descent. A man, Theodore Roosevelt, who said “The most vicious cowboy has more moral principle than the average [American] Indian.”

Or take another Nobel Prize winner, in the hard sciences this time, who helped to discover or measure aspects of the universe that were essential to developing our current understanding, helped to develop anti-submarine technology during WWI, and led the way in transforming Caltech into one of the leading research institutions in the world. Robert Millikan believed that Nordic civilization was the best in the world and was a founder of a eugenic society which encouraged the less capable not to have children.

Or take any number of other geniuses in the scientific or artistic realms, or visionary businessmen, or philanthropists, or founders of now-widely-approved social movements, people whose vision, brainpower, and achievements are viewed as something special, something that puts them above the norm. People who also held views that aren’t mentioned in polite company these days. William Shockley, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Margaret Sanger, and Cecil Rhodes each changed the world. Each was recognized during their lifetime. And each held views on race or religion or eugenics which are not allowed today.

Riddle me this: If a man is widely regarded as a genius, extremely intelligent and knowledgeable and capable of great feats of logic or intuition, why do you reject his opinion when you don’t like it or, worse, when you think your neighbor won’t like it?

You might counter that a man can be a genius in one field but just as much of an idiot as anyone else outside of his specialty. That’s fair; there are certainly a lot of people fitting that bill. However, Millikan and Roosevelt and Albert Schweitzer were hardly one-trick ponies. Each was accomplished in many and diverse fields, each of them well versed in meeting with people and evaluating them and gaining their support. Roosevelt and Schweitzer in particular probably met more people in more walks of life than anyone today who is judging them.

Why, then, would you dismiss them without a thought if they say that, based on their observations, blacks are generally less intelligent than whites, or that women in general will get less done in the workplace than men, or that Jews in general will look out for the interests of other Jews rather than the interest of the society they live in? Isn’t it possible that these geniuses are more observant than you or more able to find patterns in what they observe?

The geniuses are not always correct. They are a product of their times and the people they observe. They can be wrong. The question is why their ideas are not given even a cursory study. Is it because they go against what you’ve known your whole life? Because they raise questions about your own goodness or value as a person? Because they give you an ick feeling?

If those questions aren’t challenging enough, consider this: Times change. Mores change. The unspeakable idea of today could have been the common wisdom of yesterday or vice versa.

Alan Turing was as great a genius as has ever lived. He was also a homosexual. This was not acceptable in mid-twentieth-century England and he was charged, convicted, and chemically castrated for it, which led to his suicide. Today, of course, his homosexuality not only would not be a crime or a bar to professional advancement, it would actually be a leg up for professional advancement in any university in England or the United States. True, these days homosexuality is mostly viewed as “born that way”, but seventy years ago it was viewed as a choice and Turing’s “choice” tainted all of his work in the eyes of the contemporary leaders and populace.

Bottom line, if a very intelligent and capable person has an opinion that goes against what you believe, at least consider the possibility that you are wrong. And, whatever you do, don’t “cancel” him because he didn’t mouth today’s shibboleths.

Afterward: This doesn’t fit the flow of the main essay, so I’m sticking it down here.

You’ll note that the derided ideas mentioned above tend to cluster around a few areas, basically coming down to one group being better than another or else wanting to improve the species. That’s an artifact mainly of other people getting upset over such ideas. It may also be a product of manipulation of search engine results. There are plenty of other unpopular ideas espoused by intelligent, accomplished people: Computing pioneer Richard Stallman was cancelled because he found it ridiculous that sex with a willing 17-year-old female “child” was called rape because the age of consent in the Virgin Islands is 18.

I started thinking about the topic of unacceptable ideas from otherwise lauded figures because of a rapid series of unfavorable mentions in podcasts and articles: Dr James Watson, despite his genius and his foundational accomplishments, “had to be” cancelled because of his views on female scientists. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B Anthony, lauded by some for their efforts in getting women the right to vote (and criticized by some for the same reason), have been derided by others for decades because they prioritized female suffrage over black suffrage. (On the flip side, Frederick Douglass was criticized by some at the time because he prioritized black suffrage over female suffrage.) Albert Schweitzer, despite (or because of) spending most of his life helping blacks in Africa, viewed blacks as less intelligent and capable than whites, which has led to him being posthumously cancelled on several college campuses, and a disavowal of his racism apparently is obligatory whenever his name is mentioned in a BBC science podcast.

Once the subject caught my attention, I was inspired to search for inventors, scientists, originators of social changes, and broadly-defined geniuses who had “mostly good ideas but…” Search engines gave me little but complaints about anti-semitism, racism, sexism, and eugenic beliefs. I found a few unacceptable ideas in other categories but that was more a matter of stumbling across them than of being directed to them.


Not Evil, Just Baffling

Researchers Make Non-Alcoholic Beer Taste Like Regular Beer

The researchers are pleased to be able to contribute to a much healthier lifestyle and hope that their new invention will help more people cut down on alcohol because now they will have equally delicious alternatives.

Maybe the researchers have missed this, but most people drink beer for the alcohol. Whether to numb the drudgery of their lives, to loosen up and laugh at a party, or in order to get laid, the alcohol is the whole point.

People who drink beer only for the flavor should stick to juice boxes. And juice boxes have a straw!

The article told me one thing I didn’t know:

aroma hops are mainly farmed in the west coast of the U.S.

Given that hops are high in phytoestrogens, I wonder if this explains some of the oddities of Washington and Oregon? The people who flock to Portland aren’t exactly manly men, if you know what I mean.


The Daily Donnybrook

Welcome to Ye Olde Colde Furye Blogge’s shiny new open-comments thread, where y’all can have at it as you wish, on any topic you like. Do note that the official CF comments policy remains in effect here, as enumerated in the left sidebar. All new posts will appear below this one. There will be blood…

All Black, All the Time

In honor of We Wuz Kangs n Sheeit Month in the US and the obligatory full-time applause, here’s a Black, Blacker, Blackest news roundup.

Women of color most affected if abortion is banned

I’m pretty sure it’s the babies of color who will be most affected.

But setting that aside, this sounds a lot like “Rising seas will destroy all cities; people of color most affected” or “World ends; women and children most affected”. Take responsibility for your life and be prepared for setbacks and downturns.

Judith Browne Dianis, a racial justice expert, says it is important to have a someone who has the lived experience of being a Black woman make decisions on the nation’s highest court.

What’s a “racial justice expert” other than someone with a big mouth demanding “gib me muh gibs”?

And what’s this “lived experience” thing, a way to sidestep the modern nonsense of “you are whatever you claim to be”?

But there’s bad news for the campaign to put a black woman on the Supreme Court: 76% of Americans are racist haters and probably in the KKK or something.

So, about that “lived experience of being a black woman” thing, what part of that gets distilled down into the wisdom of a young black woman, successful and a former MissUSA, committing suicide? She’d complained about having to trade her time and work for money. She’d complained about the nature of the legal profession. She’d complained about people calling her too old for the beauty contest which she won. And then she killed herself. This had the benefit of putting a stop to her complaints but does not give a clear path to “we need a black woman on the Supreme Court”. (Sorry, no link for an article listing her complaints. I saw a video of someone reading and mocking the litany but couldn’t find it myself.)

That’ll do for now. I need to get back to work. I have people to support.


A Thought on Compliance

Something occurred to me a few minutes ago, prompted by a comment on another site. (All of my thoughts lately are in immediate response to something happening. I’m too tired and busy to have thoughts of my own.)

For decades, certainly since I was a small child, we in the US have been told by teachers not to fight back if someone hits us. Instead, we’re supposed to run and tell a teacher, and if you dare to fight back you’re likely to be suspended for just as long as the kid who was bullying you. Police under the best of circumstances do not distinguish between the aggressor and his would-be victim and arrest both. (Except that if there’s a scuffle between a man and a woman, the man will almost always be arrested and the woman will not, regardless of who physically attacked first.)

Those situations are covered by simple laziness on the part of the police, teachers, or parents. The situation is worse when there’s a confrontation between people in a large group, whether a peaceful protest or a “peaceful protest”, and people outside of that group. Depending on their orders from City Hall, the police may attack and arrest members of only one side every time there’s an altercation.

Put it all together and Americans have been trained not to resist bullying.

Now we come to sanctioned bullying: You can’t earn a living unless you accept repeated shots of this untested medicine. If you walk around without a face diaper you’ll be screamed at by unhinged women. You can’t walk into a government building without revealing your health status to anyone who asks. None of this has any science behind it. Oh, there are claims that every demand is backed by “the science” but the definitions had to be changed to shoehorn the studies and the requirements into the “science” box and even so they keep Poppering out.

Lifelong training might not be why more Karens aren’t getting punched in the mouth, but I can’t think of a better explanation.

I’m not addressing non-Americans here. Different cultures, different laws, different genetics to the extent that genetics plays a role here.


Comments policy

Comments appear entirely at the whim of the guy who pays the bills for this site and may be deleted, ridiculed, maliciously edited for purposes of mockery, or otherwise pissed over as he in his capricious fancy sees fit. The CF comments section is pretty free-form and rough and tumble; tolerance level for rowdiness and misbehavior is fairly high here, but is NOT without limit. Management is under no obligation whatever to allow the comments section to be taken over and ruined by trolls, Leftists, and/or other oxygen thieves, and will take any measures deemed necessary to prevent such. Conduct yourself with the merest modicum of decorum, courtesy, and respect and you'll be fine. Pick pointless squabbles with other commenters, fling provocative personal insults, issue threats, or annoy the host (me) won't. Should you find yourself sanctioned after running afoul of the CF comments policy as stated and feel you have been wronged, please download and complete the Butthurt Report form below in quadruplicate; retain one copy for your personal records and send the others to the email address posted in the right sidebar. Please refrain from whining, sniveling, and/or bursting into tears and waving your chubby fists around in frustrated rage, lest you suffer an aneurysm or stroke unnecessarily. Your completed form will be reviewed and your complaint addressed whenever management feels like getting around to it. Thank you.



"Mike Hendrix is, without a doubt, the greatest one-legged blogger in the world." ‐Henry Chinaski

Subscribe to CF!

Support options

Shameless begging

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:

Allied territory

Alternatives to shitlib social media:

Fuck you

Kill one for mommy today! Click to embiggen

Notable Quotes

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." — Daniel Webster

“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.” – Frank Zappa

“The right of a nation to kill a tyrant in case of necessity can no more be doubted than to hang a robber, or kill a flea.” - John Adams

"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." -- Bertrand de Jouvenel

"It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged." - GK Chesterton

"I predict that the Bush administration will be seen by freedom-wishing Americans a generation or two hence as the hinge on the cell door locking up our freedom. When my children are my age, they will not be free in any recognizably traditional American meaning of the word. I’d tell them to emigrate, but there’s nowhere left to go. I am left with nauseating near-conviction that I am a member of the last generation in the history of the world that is minimally truly free." - Donald Surber

"The only way to live free is to live unobserved." - Etienne de la Boiete

"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." — Dwight D. Eisenhower

"To put it simply, the Left is the stupid and the insane, led by the evil. You can’t persuade the stupid or the insane and you had damn well better fight the evil." - Skeptic

"There is no better way to stamp your power on people than through the dead hand of bureaucracy. You cannot reason with paperwork." - David Black, from Turn Left For Gibraltar

"The limits of tyranny are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." - Frederick Douglass

"Give me the media and I will make of any nation a herd of swine." - Joseph Goebbels

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.” - Ronald Reagan

"Ain't no misunderstanding this war. They want to rule us and aim to do it. We aim not to allow it. All there is to it." - NC Reed, from Parno's Peril

"I just want a government that fits in the box it originally came in." - Bill Whittle

Best of the best

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS feed

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

Copyright © 2022