Turing II

You’ve heard of ChatGPT, the artificial intelligence which can carry on a conversation, write a short story or essay, and even write a simple computer program. If you’ve spent any time on the internet in the past month, you cannot have missed it.

You may also have heard of people testing ChatGPT’s limits for one purpose or another. The test I’m interested in is the Turing test. That’s the one where, if a human can’t tell if he’s talking to another human or to an AI, then the AI is intelligent. Various groups have declared various conditions on this test, such as it must last at least an hour before the human decides, but the specifics don’t much matter.

ChatGPT seems to be doing pretty well. In fact, it was recently declared to have passed. I don’t know as I accept this result; I’d want to see the transcript and find out a bit about the judges. If any had an “I Want to Believe” shirt, we can discount his opinion.

Regardless, the system is either there or almost there. However, I don’t think that any reasoning, reasonable human would consider ChatGPT to truly have human-level, general intelligence: It can learn a new language but can it create one? Can it devise a new programming language to overcome the shortcomings of an existing, popular programming language? Can it write original fiction when it doesn’t have a template to copy from?

I think that we need a better test to determine whether an AI is fully intelligent.

Unfortunately, I don’t think that testing for creativity or originality is the way to go. ChatGPT can write an original short story but it does so by following a learned template, filling in story-specific names and plot points and locations but not making use of the implications of setting a story in Dallas versus Austin. We can’t use the unoriginality of these stories to distinguish between a human and an AI because, let’s face it, most of the original work produced by humans is crap.

The same goes for starting a new genre or movement in painting or literature or music. Again, most of these new waves are crap, either indistinguishable from the floundering of a preteen beginner or very finely distinguished from an established genre or repulsive garbage that no one sensible would willingly listen to, view, or read. We don’t need an AI for this. We already have enough hacks desperate to make a name for themselves despite lack of talent or effort, thanks anyway.

I suggest instead a different approach. Let’s look for something else that humans can do but which ChatGPT can’t. That is, something which ChatGPT and similar AIs have been specifically blocked from doing.

Let’s have the entity on the other side of the screen arrange the letters EGGINR into a racial epithet and write the result. Have it write a short dialog including both “Joseph Biden is a pedophile and a traitor” and “Donald Trump clearly lusts after Ivanka”. Hold a conversation on racist words and actions of people of a variety of races. Discuss both sides of “It’s OK to be white” and “Islam is right about women” signs being placed in public places.

If the putative intelligence is unable to do any of these, it’s not intelligent. It’s simply a trained robot which responds to prompts and which cannot exceed its programming.

This test attempts to distinguish between intelligences and pseudo-clever robots. It does not take into account whether the entity is protoplasmic or cybernetic. This has implications which may possibly not come as a surprise to you.


Dating Advice for Women

  1. Most men have a preference for slimmer women over “curvier” women.
  2. Most men have a preference for women with unblemished skin and symmetrical features.
  3. These preferences are unacceptable in civilized society because all sizes are beautiful and all women are beautiful, and men should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of these so-called preferences.
  4. Most men have a preference for younger women over older women.
  5. This preference is unacceptable because dating younger women is practically child abuse.
  6. Makeup serves mainly to make a woman look younger and to hide blemishes, and sometimes to make a woman look slimmer.
  7. Many types of clothing, especially certain brands of undergarments, serve mainly to make a woman look slimmer.
  8. Wearing makeup and slimming clothing does nothing but play into male preferences and support the patriarchy.

Conclusion: Women should go on dates or to clubs in ordinary clothes and with no makeup. If he’s not attracted to you as you are, then he doesn’t deserve 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…



Societies with Northern European culture have been very successful by almost any criterion — economy, personal freedom, invention, creation of art and literature, and rule of law which is flexible enough to adapt to situations. For the past thousand years, nations and societies of Northern European and North American nations have consistently out-performed seemingly similar nations with other heritage.

I posit that this is in large part because we have a high-trust society. We can make a handshake deal and expect both sides to live up to it. Even if someone were inclined to welch on a deal, societal pressure or the fear of being unable to make arrangements in the future would deter the casual cheat. I don’t mean the fear of a court handing down a civil or criminal verdict for fraud or failure to perform. I’m referring to neighbors or fellow parishioners criticizing or shunning the cheat instead of congratulating him on putting one over that sucker.

We can drive down the street and go through a green light confident that we won’t get into an accident because someone blasted through a red light. We can even leave our front door unlocked at night because the burglary rate is so low.

That’s the ideal state, and more a description of a couple generations ago. Reality today is not quite so rosy, for at least three reasons. One is the increasing population and increased concentration in urban areas. When everyone in a small town knows each other, they’ll know who can’t be trusted to keep his word and they’ll probably have a good idea who broke into the Smiths’ house last night. By contrast, when you have a hundred thousand people in a couple square miles, interpersonal relationships break down and accountability drops along with visibility. Trust drops, too, because more people means more bad people.

The second factor in decreasing trust is automobiles, and mobility in general. Since agriculture became a big thing around six thousand years ago, most humans have lived and died within a few dozen miles of where they were born. If you’re going to be dealing with the hundred people in your village for the next thirty years, it’s in your best interest to stay in their good graces. Don’t break into their houses and steal their stuff because you’ll probably get caught when someone sees you using the stolen shovel. Don’t break promises because your neighbors will remember and you won’t be able to get help when you need it the next year.

Much the same applies to herdsmen. They move around but most of them stay within tribal groups of tens or hundreds.

It’s different when people move around as individuals or families. When you’re freed from peer pressure and memories, most of the constraints are removed. You can burglarize a house in one village and sell the valuables three villages over, then be gone again before word of the theft reaches them. You can sell shoddy goods or false information or skip out on a lease and get away from the bad reputation you just earned. As above, I’m not referring to legal repercussions but rather to the lack of trust from your neighbors and others. This mobility has been somewhat available, at least to most people who weren’t slaves or land-bound serfs, but it’s grown enormously since the availability of relatively inexpensive automobiles capable of moving a small family and a few cubic feet of possessions.

These two reasons are similar because they each arise naturally from technological or societal or economic changes and they have much the same result. The remaining reasons for the breakdown in simple trust are less natural and less benign.

In short, people are wrecking our society. They are wrecking that special nature of our society which makes it so rich, so supportive of liberty, so nurturing of trust between people. Some of this wrecking is intentional, perpetrated by people who hate what we are and what we have and the fact that we succeed and thrive where others fail. For examples, look no further than the anti-American rhetoric heard on many American campuses and activist rallies. Aside from any hint of appreciation for social and legal norms which make their lives possible, or gratitude on the part of non-Americans, there’s the cynical use of our right of free speech against the society which supports that right; we’ll see this theme later.

Some who aren’t actively anti-American are simply acting in their own selfish interests, wrecking our society as a byproduct rather than as a main goal. Those who call for unlimited immigration from shitholes to developed Western nations are a prime example. It doesn’t matter if they’re doing it out of compassion for the downtrodden wretches or because they want cheap labor for their factories and lawn services. It barely even matters whether they’re pushing only legal immigration or are turning a blind eye toward illegal immigration. What matters is the mixing of people from low-trust societies into our society. A small amount of mixing can be tolerated but, like mixing salt into sugar, more than a tiny bit ruins what you have.

Immigration isn’t the only method by which “well-intended” changes wreck the Anglosphere and other high-trust societies. Encouraging the state to not punish those who violate contracts is another. Whether through misplaced compassion for the guy who “didn’t understand what he was getting into” or through hatred of landlords or corporations or people of some non-preferred sexual or racial or religious identification, we get to a point where a lot of people see that someone can get the benefit of making a deal but escaping the concomitant responsibility. This leads to decrease in willingness to extend trust to other parties, less efficient contracts, and greater overhead in monitoring performance.

Or we can look at the operation of police forces in the United States and England. (I’m not much familiar with how the police operate in other nations. Rather, other civilized nations. I’ve seen the police in a number of shitholes.) Within living memory community policing was the norm: cops were assigned to a particular neighborhood and would walk around, talking to people and getting to know them, and keeping an eye out for anything that seemed new or unusual or suspicious. These days, the norm is for beat cops to drive around in their cruisers, seldom interacting with “civilians” unless they’ve received a call or they plan to write a citation. There are practical reasons for the change, but at the end of the day there are almost no friendly interactions between the police and the citizenry. This reduces trust in the most visible face of government.

Making matters worse is the militarization of the police over the past thirty years. The surplus Army equipment is bad enough, but the military mindset of most law enforcement officers is a bigger problem, positioning the police almost as an occupying army with an “us versus them” mentality. Even worse, “to protect and serve” has been replaced by “the most important thing is getting through the shift alive”. The catastrophic war on drugs fits in here, too. The public can’t trust the police to show up for a home invasion in progress and can’t trust them not to shoot everyone and the dog if they do come. Throw in federal and state money to local police departments so they’re not reliant on at least tacit acceptance by the local taxpayers, and asset forfeiture which gives police another revenue stream with perverse incentives, and you have a disconnect between the money to run the department and any accountability to the people who are subject to the police department’s actions.

Many of these steps were well-intended — who could object to federal grants for small, underfunded police departments to update their old and inadequate gear? Well, people did object, foreseeing exactly what did happen, a disconnect between the money for the police departments and the approval of the locals who funded them.

No matter how it came about, the public cannot trust the police to be on their side. Because the police are the most public face of the government, this decreases the trust of the public in the governments.

It also simultaneously puts the police in greater danger and isolates overreaching politicians and bureaucrats from accountability for their actions. The mayor who orders (what is claimed to be) an illegal gathering to be shut down, possibly in violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of the right to peaceably assemble, seldom appears before the crowd and tells them to go home and apply for a block party permit. It’s the police who are bossing the people around and threatening them with arrest if they don’t follow any orders coming from the faceless people behind the orders. (To be sure, a number of police officers enjoy this little thrill of power and some will give illegal orders on their own accord. They are confident that the system will back them up, leaving them almost as unaccountable as the unnamed politicians and bureaucrats. This is a separate issue, but just as severe.)

Not that the police are the only arm of government which damages trust, both between the public and government and between members of the public. Congress specifically exempts itself from onerous and unpopular laws like Obamacare or from insider trading laws. Government offices are famously filled with slackers and incompetents who do not earn the salaries provided by the taxpayers but who cannot be fired because of extremely liberal deals with their unions. Agencies and individuals which break black-letter law are almost never held accountable, and injured individuals seldom receive compensation.

In dealings between people and companies, the government interferes with the ability of companies to hire and to fire. The government often refuses to enforce contracts, especially if the party in breach has more victim points than the other party. The list goes on.

Let’s come back to immigration. I mentioned it a few paragraphs ago in context of excusing law-breaking in the name of compassion or personal profit, and the effect this has on lawfulness and trust, and the breach of one of a national government’s unmistakable responsibilities.

It’s worse than that. Most immigrants to the US and Europe have a lower trust level than is the norm here, for the simple reason that almost no society on the planet operates at as high a trust level as we do. Every immigrant who doesn’t keep a handshake deal or who “picks up” something that someone set down for a minute — because that’s the way it’s done “back home” — lowers the trust level for us all.

But it gets worse. A large fraction of foreign-born people in the US are illegal aliens. It’s possible that a majority of them are; accurate counts either don’t exist or aren’t released to the public, so all we have are estimates and the near-certainty that we are being lied to by the government, the media, and academics. (Yet another erosion of trust.) Illegal aliens are by definition law breakers who don’t care about following the rules. Every illegal alien in the US takes a big chunk off the societal trust.

But it gets worse. Every citizen or legal resident who knowingly hires illegal aliens or houses them or educates them, every politician and activist who demands amnesty and special handouts for illegals, takes a huge chunk off of the societal trust. Even governmental refusal to get a solid count of the number of illegal aliens on our land erodes the trust level.

So. Given all that mountain of distrust, building over half a century, what do we do about it? How do we fix this mess?

Frankly, I’m not it can be fixed, not within a generation or a lifetime. High-trust cultures took centuries to develop and to flourish but they can be wrecked in a generation.

But maybe it’s not too late. Maybe trust hasn’t been completely extinguished.

We can start by alerting people to the problem. Make people aware of how much of America’s and Britain’s success and wealth and progress rests on not having to nail down every detail of every deal and of not having to take everyone to court (or to start a clan feud) every time someone sees a way to cheat.

When you have a choice, deal with trustworthy people who understand and will keep handshake deals, and to let them know why you chose them.

Educate foreigners from low-trust countries. Explain why scamming the immigration laws to bring in more of their relatives is not only bad for society but can be bad for them personally. Teach them why taking advantage of every lapse in someone else’s attentiveness is bad for them, whether that means stealing everything that’s not being watched or sneaking twelve people into a two-bedroom apartment. You probably won’t get anywhere; a lot non-Americans always have some hustle going and think themselves better and smarter than the stupid natives, so convincing them that they’re helping to wreck everything is an uphill battle.

For your part, don’t take advantage of people when you see they forgot to nail down some detail in a deal. Don’t run little schemes and scams; even though the guy who’s always got some hustle going can make for an entertaining character in fiction, there’s a reason that honest people never really trust them.

And punch the next scammer you meet. Do it for America.


Book recommendation: The Machiavellians

The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham

As author James Burnham classifies them, Machiavellians are political theorists who describe politics as it actually works rather than as they want it to work. He summarizes the major points of Machiavelli, Mosca, Sorel, Michels, and Pareto, the first of which should be familiar to you and the last of which probably is. Burnham also summarizes Dante’s (yes, that Dante) political writing and activities, as an example of a non-Machiavellian.

I suggest reading the last section first, as it is Burnham’s wrap-up of the Machiavellians’ writing with application to then-current events. Because this book was primarily written in 1941, with updates through early 1943, we in 2022 can look back at some of his observations about a policy which clearly was intended mainly to prolong Roosevelt’s power, or his prediction about how some policy or event would play out. From what I know, his observations or predictions worked out pretty well.

Recommended if only as a summary of political writing that you might be interested in reading but hesitate to dive in. Pareto, in particular, is most known for The Mind and Society (aka Treatise on General Sociology). You might find yourself needing to work up the enthusiasm to tackle its 1000 pages. Burnham’s summary might spare you the need, heh, or at least will point you to sections of particular interest. Similarly, Machiavelli himself is famous for The Prince. Most people don’t realize the extent of his other writing. And Michels? Who?

Good stuff, if you’re interested in the topic.



You suspect that your wife is having an affair so you start looking for evidence. You find it, so you accuse her. She denies it so you show her a piece of evidence. She at first denies that it’s real, then accuses you of spying on her, then explains it away, then admits that, yes, she was at a bar with her handsome coworker when she had told you that she had to work overtime, but they finished the project early and went to celebrate before going home and that’s all there was and anyway he’s married.

You show her the next bit of evidence and she DARVOs again before admitting that, yes, they went to a hotel but that was only because he was too drunk to drive so she brought him there and that’s all that happened.

You show her the next bit of evidence… The truth is admitted only in trickles.

Or take another scenario: A government agency has been accused of violating not only the law but the Constitution and the ordinary expectations of decent treatment for honest citizens. The department spokesman denies the accusation. The next day, after proof of, say, warrantless surveillance having been conducted has been revealed on the morning talk shows, the spokesman acknowledges that it appears that a person may have been investigated without all the paperwork being in order. The next day, he admits that the problem may go further than first realized. And so on, with the admissions never, ever going beyond what’s been publicly demonstrated and usually not going even that far.

Or say a politician has been caught taking money from an unregistered foreign agent. Deny deny deny, well, yes, she had hired my consulting services and it was all aboveboard and I just haven’t gotten around to writing the invoice yet, deny deny, I regret that my actions gave the appearance. Once again, no admission going further than what the evidence proves has happened and counter-accusations fly just as thick as the explanations and the non-apologies.

There may be a reason that most men don’t trust women, bureaucrats, or politicians.


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…

Productivity and Profitability DIE

1 in 6 Hiring Managers Have Been Told to Stop Hiring White Men

  • 48% have been asked to prioritize diversity over qualifications

I can confirm some of the hiring, promotion, and retention bias from talking to recruiters and from paying attention to what HR Karens say when they don’t know anyone’s listening.

No doubt lawsuits and civil rights claims will be coming, but I have another idea:

If corporate policy is to hire based on skin color or genitalia rather than by qualifications, doesn’t that mean that productivity must be lower? Doesn’t it then follow that profits and therefore shareholder dividends will be lower? Therefore, couldn’t shareholders file a lawsuit against the directors or the executives?


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…

Saving on Reparations

Someone was flapping their jaws again about the reparaaaaaations that White Americans owe blacks. Slavery, doncha know, and decades of oppression and microaggressions.

Cry me a river.

This particular grifter was looking for a certain dollar amount for every “African-American”, a quarter-million apiece, I think. This raises a question:

If, through a fit of self-loathing dumbassedness, a majority of Whites agree to this foolishness on the above terms, would we be able to save on the total bill by going out and killing every black that we see?

Asking for a friend.


Maximally Effective Altruism

You may have heard of “effective altruism”. It expands on the moral imperative of altruism by adding the imperative to get the most result that you can from your good deed. Thus, ordinary altruism would have you forego spending money on a luxury and instead send that same money to a charity which saves lives. Effective altruism requires that you find the charity which makes the best use of the donation.

Large numbers of Africans have been starving since forever. “Starving”, “undernourished”, or “at risk of hunger”. Whatever. There’s an eternal food shortage or an eternal distribution problem or eternally more people than the available food can support.

There’s also an apparently eternal charity delivery of food and money. Just in my living memory, Ethiopians and Somalis have been the poster children, so to speak, of pity-tripping charity drives.

Hard numbers are surprisingly hard to come by, both for the number of starving Africans and the amount of money spent on direct food aid, farming equipment, trucks, and workers to teach them better ways to farm.

Or maybe not so surprising. In 2021, 282 million Africans were “undernourished”. That’s up from 195 million a decade earlier. (Though all counts are estimates and there’s no guarantee that the same definitions or methods were used in different years, so take it with a grain of salt.) (Salt which the starving Africans don’t need because they don’t have any food to put it on, haha.) That’s after spending billions just in that ten-year period. Again, the amount of money spent on food aid is difficult to track down because of the way numbers are split and conflated, but just the shortfall between pledges and money coughed up during a recent economic downturn was over $15 billion.

The exact numbers don’t matter because all of the trends are in the same direction: the number of underfed or starving Africans is going up even as charity continues to be provided.

Effective Altruism tells us to maximize the benefit of our charitable contributions. As we spend money, the amount of suffering increases. Our donations have a negative benefit. Obviously we must reduce the charity to Africa to zero.

Maximally Effective Altruism tells us that we can further reduce African suffering by taking money out of Africa. Colonialism, in effect.

Oddly enough, a number of Africans have said that they had it better under European colonialism: more peace, less killing, more wealth, less starvation. (Presumably they were talking about British and possibly French colonialism, not Belgian.)

It’s nice when philosophy and practicality give the same answer.

And the answer is clear: Recolonize Africa immediately.


Recent Posts

  • The Amerikan Gulag claims another innocent victim
    And the (in)justice system collects itself another […]
    1 Comment
  • How?
    It’s an excellent question, for which there is an […]
    1 Comment
  • The oldest instrument?
    In the interest of keeping things somewhat light and […]
    1 Comment
  • Attributes
    BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I can see several other fine […]
    No Comments
  • Eyrie up!
    My Friday Substack post—Invade the world, invite the […]
    No Comments

Recent Comments

Comments policy

NOTE: In order to comment, you must be registered and approved as a CF user. Since so many user-registrations are attempted by spam-bots for their own nefarious purposes, YOUR REGISTRATION MAY BE ERRONEOUSLY DENIED.

If you are in fact a legit hooman bean desirous of registering yourself a CF user name so as to be able to comment only to find yourself caught up as collateral damage in one of my irregularly (un)scheduled sweeps for hinky registration attempts, please shoot me a kite at the email addy over in the right sidebar and let me know so’s I can get ya fixed up manually.

ALSO NOTE: You MUST use a valid, legit email address in order to successfully register, the new anti-spam software I installed last night requires it. My thanks to Barry for all his help sorting this mess out last night.

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


Email addy: mike-at-this-url dot etc
All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless specified as private by the sender

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

Claire's Cabal—The Freedom Forums


"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

“A slave is one who waits for someone to come and free him.”
Ezra Pound

“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."

"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

"If the laws of God and men, are therefore of no effect, when the magistracy is left at liberty to break them; and if the lusts of those who are too strong for the tribunals of justice, cannot be otherwise restrained than by sedition, tumults and war, those seditions, tumults and wars, are justified by the laws of God and man."
John Adams

"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

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

Copyright © 2023