The Great Democrat Salami Maneuver

The Great Democrat Salami Maneuver


A great irony occured last Wednesday. I was attending my graduate school class on the Cold War. During the break in the three hour class, I heard of the latest flatulence from the latest disgrace to bob to the top of the Democratic cesspool, Ronnie Earle. King Rat indicted Tom Delay in charges that aren't bogus or politically motivated. And Paris Hilton cherishes her virginity.

Back to the class. It is one of my endeavors to study the history of Communism. My family escaped to America from it, after all. But not only that, I look at the similarities between the Communists of yesteryear and the modern American Left. They are more manifold than one imagines. The lecture was on how Stalin took total control over Eastern Europe from 1945 to 1948. It was clever, if evil. The Communists allowed free and fair elections in the future Warsaw Pact countries, they just got into the coalitions. The Communists would get themselves made the head of Defense, the interior (police), Education (sound familiar?) and communications (eh?). You can guess what the Reds would do in the education department. The Army was being built up by the Russians and made loyal to Moscow's interest. On the radio and in the papers, only the Communist Party Line got out. It was as bad as the Liberal Media prior to FOXNEWS and the blogs. And then the Communist leaders of the police would lean on the non-Communist majority politicans with BOGUS charges of collaboration with Hitler. At this point, the coalition became a bogus coalition. the Democratically elected majority were bent to the will of the Communist minority in exchange for making the phony charges disappear. It was not long before the Communists would rationalize that there was no point to any party but their own and they then made a bogus coalition into a monolith.

The Hungarian Communist Minister of the Interior of that period was proud of the way he chipped away at his countrymens' freedom and made them slaves of Moscow. He analogized it thus- when one eats a thick salami, one doesn't take a big bite or cut off a big chunk. No, one slices a salami one thin slice at a time. The Communists sliced off Hungarian democracy piece by piece.

For those of you who believe that what goes around comes around, this Minister of the Interior was purged by his masters in Moscow who feared their running dog might turn and try to bite them.

Sixty years later, Stalin's kindred spirits in America, the Democratic Party, are using the same tactics. They can't beat Tom Delay in a debate, or an election. So they undercut him with him with bogus charges and try to build a bogus coalition. No one voted for Supreme Fart in the Wind, Ronnie Earle, so all he can do is fill the air with his stench and hope it sticks to a real leader.

It isn't just Delay. The lies of the Liberal Media and politicians against Bush in the War in Iraq, like mindless zombies chanting "No Blood For Oil" while their Liberal leaders profiteered off Saddam's "Oil For Palaces" program. The Democrats can't win against the Republicans in an open and fair debate. They'd get creamed. So they must compromise the Republicans with bogus charges and make their government bend to their will. I wonder how long it would take the Democrats, unoppossed, to determine that any Party other than theirs is pointless? Not too long, I am certain. They are carving our salami. And we need to fight back before it gets paired down to nothing.

Democrat Doublethink

As I look about the Liberal blogs and Liberal Media writings, I notice that, among them, the notion of Bush lying is an undeniable truth. *Sigh* oh here we go again!

Bush has not lied. For those of us who can remember all the way back that far, it was almost four years ago to the day today that President Bush adressed a joint session of Congress and laid out the plans for the War on Terror he told us plainly that this would be a long campaign, carried out in many countries, over a long period of time.

Bush said any regime that harbored terrorists would be considered a hostile regime. Iraq harbored many terrorists. Even if we accept Liberal rants that there was no 'al-Qaeda presence, and I don't, there was an undeniable Islamic Jihad presence there. These are the sweet fellows who are blowing up Israeli pizza parlors these daysand are responsible for the deaths of many Americans.

Now, what psychosis, you ask, enables someone, supposedly a rational person, to say that there was no 'al-Qaeda presence, and an undeniable Islamic jihad presence is ok, means nothing? It is called doublethink.

Doublethink is an old tradition on the Left. In the 1930s, Fascism was the enemy of Communism and was ever denounced in their propaganda. But in 1939 the USSR made a non-agression pact with Nazi Germany. Suddenly Fascists were brother (national) socialists with Imperialists as a common enemy. Most on the Left didn't even question this, they went right along with it and looked at Fascists as groovy. One Leftist of that time, a young Eric Blair, didn't buy this. He would later write "1984" under the penname George Orwell. Orwell's central character, Winston Smith, witnessed the totalitarian Left Wing state he lived in, Oceania, declare war on Eastasia and take Eurasia as an ally. Previously Eurasia had been the enemy and Eastasia the ally. Oceania pretended that Eastasia had ALWAYS been the enemy and expected its citizens to believe it. The believing of this is doublethink.

After 9-11 the president said he would go after terrorist states. He has merely done what he said he would do four years and three days ago. A majority of Democrats were on board. They protested how they so loved this nation and were with the war on terror as well as any conservative.

But then the doublethink kicked in. All of a sudden taking out the Headquarters of one of the biggest terrorist organizations in the world doesn't count. It distracts from the "real war on terror." This is also doublethink in opposition to the fact that terrorists are coming to Iraq to fight America and are getting killed in droves. This is DISTRACTING from the War On Terror? OHHHH-K!

We need to not let the Democrats get away with this blatant hypocrisy, we need to stand up and remind them of inconvenient moments in their pasts and point out their duplicity. We need to stop letting our good soldiers and cops die for their political correctness and hypocrisy! Let us ever remind them.

Marie Antoinette Watch

Greetings dear readers! I have decided to insert a new serial into the Republic of Utica, the Marie Antoinette Watch.

Who was Marie Antoinette? She was the Queen of France at the time of the French Revolution. She added impetus to said Upheaval with her famous gaffe. When told that the starving people of France had no bread to eat, she said, "let them eat cake." She was so divorced from the reality that she couldn't conceive that people would have NOTHING in their pantry.

The Republic of Utica will crown a deserving Marie Antoinette from the ranks of the Liberal elites who love to ride their private jets from the Hollywood Hills to the salons of Upper Manhattan, looking down their patrician noses at us dirty, bedraggled peasants in the Red States of "Flyover Country" with complete disdain. The ones who'd sigh and rather be at a reading of Karl Marx in a Paris Cafe than having a hamburger and freedom fries with real people in Casper, Wyoming, Nashville, Tennessee, or Chillicothe, Ohio. Their Rodeo Drive Ivory Tower lives have put them out of touch with Main St Real World. Red State soldiers preserve their pampered lifestyles, facing perils far removed from them that they can't fathom.

Thus, whenever it is warranted, and we see such a Liberal distinguish themself above all others in this regard, he or she will be crowned as Queen Marie Antoinette.

Our first Marie Antoinette is a distinguished lady. She loves to lecture us humble peons about energy conservation while riding around on a private jet. She has a lovely voice reminiscent of a cross between Zsa Zsa Gabor and Teresa Heinz-Kerry.

Who is our Queen who'll let us eat cake? None other than the incomparable ARIANNA HUFFINGTON.

What offerings does she give us? Well, Her Majesty first criticized President Bush for flying over New Orleans and for supposedly "not caring." I realize that she is well-acquainted with flying in a private jet over the Conservative Hinterland and thinking herself too good for us. I believe she was just transferring her own feelings onto the president. Liberals do this a lot. Transferrence is when you do a bad thing, or have a very sorry character trait, and, instead of facing up to it, they accuse someone they dislike of the very thing they are guilty of.

In her post on September 2 she says the President is "giving hope to Trent Lott" as if this was so funny. I do find it strange that our pedicured princess was saying "at least they were wearing their 'get down to business' khakis." Really. And what exactly has she done other than hurl droppings on everyone like a vulture? Has she put on her "get down to business clothes" ever in her life? Yes, I know, I'm laughing at the idea too. I think her idea of "getting down to business" is firing the maid for not putting enough of a foam on her latte. What does her majesty know of hurricanes or what is going on in New Orleans? Has she ever felt one? I was under Hurricane Hugo's 217 mph winds in 1989 and it was no joke.

Just like today, during Hugo, local Liberal politicians let us rot and Bush 41 was the only one who did anything for us, by sending in the Army. Of course the elder Bush got blamed for all the ills, just like his son is today. Creampuffs like Huffington, who've never been more than a mile from the nearest Starbuck's, have not done anything to help. They are only using the dead in this catastrophe to pick up a few Democrat votes.

It is most enjoyable to read our queen refer to "the unecessary suffering" going on in New Orleans. How gauche! They should eat cake and be happy with Arianna! But it's all George Bush' fault. He caused the hurricane and all its "unnecessary" suffering. Now Arianna is going to pout all the way to Rodeo Drive and shop for eight hours instead of four! One has to wonder how much "unecessary" suffering she has endured!

Well, we're very proud of our new Queen, Marie Antoinette Huffington. May she reign long and give us more gaffes to laugh at and ridicule! And I hope the real world never comes crashing in on her, like it did for the original Marie Antoinette! Life would be unbearable for her highness!

Time to Stand Up to Feminism

I never watch "Law and Order." I find most sit-coms and dramas that tv churns out to be so much garbage. There are exceptions, and I happened to have it on for its last five minutes before another program came on. One of the "men" in that show, obviously one of those eunuchs who praise every inane thing Feminists say as a great pearl of wisdom, said "women are still chattels." He got no disagreement from the nose-in-the-air Feminist lawyer, who exited the scene. And I thought, "are you serious?!?!?!?" They are really being so bold in propagandizing to brainwashing the tv audience?


For the record, the show did deal with rape and rape is a horrific thing. I have nothing but contempt for rapists. But the logic that because some women are raped that that means ALL women are "still" chattels is not logic at all.

Let's first address the issue of female chattelhood. In primitive cultures where resources were sparse and life was cheap- like among the Mongols, Arab bedouins and Vikings, women WERE treated very badly and undeniably WERE chattels. But the Judeo-Christian West? No.

Let's face it, in Medieval and early Modern Times, the life of a woman was hard and her efforts were surely underappreciated. But was this any less so for a man? Most men between 500 and 1945 AD were farmers. Farming WITH modern technology is endless drudgery. In Medieval and Early Modern Times, you don't want to even think about it. I'd really love to see the actress playing the feminist lawyer try and have a go at farming with the technology of 900 AD.

The fact is, in those days neither men nor women had much in the way of freedom nor rest from their toil. Men had to do hard labor that women were, for the most part, not strong enough to do, or not strong enough to do cost effectively. Women had four and five and six babies and didn't have an electric stove, a microwave, a washing machine, a vacuum cleaner or daycare. Women were not relegated to domestic roles because of some mythical evil male patriarchy. Rather they were relegated to such because of necessity for survival.

In the Middle Ages, even the noblemen, portrayed as having some easy life, lived a life of hard training for war, keeping up his castle as a strong point both for his king and his villagers and repelling vicious invaders like the Magyars or Vikings or Avars. The main thing that can be said for the local lord's life was that it was much, much better than the peasant's. But it was still a hard life.

In the factories of the 1800s and 1900s, it was a similar situation. It was hard labor mostly requiring the better upper-body strength of males. What's more, more than half the population at this time were still farmers living that hard life. from earliest times up to less than a century ago, most men led lives of endless hard labor and were as underappreciated for it as their women were for their sacrifices.

It's easy for some feminist sitting in a Starbuck's drying her pedicured toenails and sipping Madagascar Roast to criticize men in times past who had to work 14 hours a day in an Industrial Revolution factory or repel Viking invasions for a living. Tammy Bruce put a name to this term I observed in hardcore Feminists since I first regularly observed them many years ago. It is malignant narcissism. The Feminist thinks it's all about them, that every denial of what they want when they wanted it was the fault of the wicked white male patriarchy. Every rejection of their ridiculous ideas is sexism and mysogeny, not honest rejection of a ridiculous idea. Whenever someone gets sick of them and their constant demands, it's because "you can't handle a strong woman." In short the world revolves around them. I mean, they act like abortionists are heroes and that the children of their bodies are a white male plot to enslave them.

It wasn't always so. The Womens'Movement once upon a time was filled with Christian women who cared about the whole of society and were not stuck on themselves. They were Conservatives who closed down bars and brothels and cared deeply for their children. Many on the Left opposed womens' suffrage because they felt that such Godly people could never get what they were selling. The XIXth Amendment was passed in 1919. At that time the Republican Party dominated Congress and the State Legislatures by a greater margin than they do today. The five election cycles after womens' suffrage- 1920, 1922, 1924, 1926 and 1928 all had Republican landslides.

The self-absorbed Marxists who now dominate the Feminist movement came along during the '60s, fairly recently.

Malignant narcissism is no joke, it is a deadly thing. Remember Hitler fed the German people a steady diet of it during the 1930s. Modern "Womens' Studies" courses in our colleges are as full of excrement as Hermann Goering's "Aryan Studies" courses during the 1930s. But it's not something to laugh at and be dismissed. When someone believes that everyone is in on a plot to keep them down all the time, facts be darned, they can come to rationalize terrible things. People often marvel at how the everyday Germans could do the things they did to Jews during
World War II. Malignant narcissism. Only looking inside and seeing the world as a reflection of themselves. Feminists rationalize every bit as badly, given the 50 million abortions that we've had over the last thirty years plus.

Whenever anyone criticized Hitler, his followers would respond "you just hate Germany and want to keep Germans down." Just the same as Feminists saying, "you just hate women and want to keep them down" whenever they are criticized.

And you gotta hand it to them. Just as Liberals have been skilled at the propaganda war, Feminists have been doubly so in spreading their lies. Fifty million murdered babies are but one testimony to that. And if you express any concern about fifty million murdered babies, why, you hate women! Now, how did we allow the dialogue in this country to be thus defined?

I think it can be summed up in a scene from the movie "Born on the 4th of July" set during the Vietnam Era. The parents of the narcissistic, angry vet who was sinking deep into alcoholism turned on the tv. It showed protesters marching angrily on Washington DC, coming to shut the city down. The mother turned the channel over to Rowan and Martin's "Laugh-in" and forgot about it. They stuck their heads in the sand and hoped that the Feminists and other Leftist radical Useful Idiots would just go away. They had the numbers back then. Most people living in 1968 might as well have been living in 1958, even the young.

But feminists and the others on the Radical Left came forward with their big lies. they told them over and over. They had a willing Liberal Media which told the public that the Useful Idiots were "right on" morning, noon and night. And they defined the debate. And now we have a Feminist Reich in our courts and on our college campuses.

We must remember, appeasement never works to someone deep in the recesses of their own malignant narcissism. Every demand they make that we give in to will lead to five more demands, each more ridiculous than the last. The only thing that works is standing up to them and saying that they will not dictate to us. Even then we'll have to fight. But if every man not made a eunuch and every real woman were to stand up to them today, Feminism would be over in about fifteen minutes. I, for one, will stand. Will anyone also stand, or do I, like the mythical Hercules, have to slay all the Amazons by myself?