Don't Use Theire Made Up Words... Much

One of the major FAIL points we find in the average human being is the propensity to play the game of one's enemy. It never ceases to astonish me as I witness this phenomenon. We humans are like sponges in that when something - an idea, a WORD, is put out there, most of us are quick to adopt it and nearly all will do so in time. I, for one, make every effort to avoid this, save when speaking of a specific term.

Consider the abuse of the word "awesome".  Dopey "millennials" took a perfectly good word and semantically mangled it all to crap through their obscene ignorance such that today I feel constrained to avoid its use for fear that people will misunderstand my meaning.  And I will readily admit my annoyance when I hear some bubble-headed youngin' tell me "awesome" when I tell them something that they like to hear.

The use of the terms of one's opponents and enemies, as those adversaries would use them, is a manner of playing their game.  It is a loser's move, no matter how one tries to slice that mold-laced pie, unless one does so with great skill and a rather oblique strategy.  Sadly, both are skills well beyond the ken of the average man.  The moment you begin such usage, it is likely that you have already lost any argument you may have with them precisely because such use tacitly validates their terms and all that they carry, most of it tacit, vague, and ultimately wrong for any of a number of possible failings.  

Let me once more emphasize the importance of how such terms are used.  To use them as the enemy does, and would likely have you use them, is badness.  To use them in the manner of dismantling those words and exposing them for the frauds that they are, is just fine, and indeed at times necessary.   A key element in exposing and demolishing the Stupid in the arguments of others, is to expose their made up, phony baloney jargon.  So when a "progressive" or some similarly misguided sort comes at you with shrieks of "social justice", for example, it behooves you to get right to the root of such nonsense by dismantling the very notions that such terms connote.  Once you obliterate the conceptual foundation of the string "social justice", the rest of the demolition work should be comparatively simple and even easy... assuming of course that one is dealing with rational, intelligent, and decent human beings on the other side of the issue in question.  Naturally, that is a bit of a sticky wicket because more often than not, the rational man finds himself in opposition to ranting, shrieking, flailing balls of emotion (mostly raw terror and its attendant venom-laced hatred) that care no whit for truth, fact, or logic.  In such cases, arguing tends to rapidly become a fool's errand, so be careful in choosing those with whom you spend time in debate.

Using the terminology of the left like this is a very big mistake as it aids in normalizing their mental and moral cancers. The "left" makes up such nonsensical terms (and they are not the only ones, but the most egregiously guilty of it) such as "ableism" for several very effective reasons. One is that they always seek to run simplistic in their conceptual peddlings. This is absolutely essential to their success, because to use properly structured sentences to express their idiocies would expose the nonsense for what it is. But compressing a concept into a one-word slogan, or a simplistic phrase, enables them to deliver emotionallly-charged messages through obfuscation and innuendo, courtesy of the limited minds to which those messages are targeted. They plant the seed, the dullard filling in the blanks. This is a central pillar of Bernays' so-called "public relations", what we now know as "propaganda". This grosteque mockery and abuse of language is key to the gross manipulation of large populations' perceptions, and thereby their opinions on any matter one might wish to consider.

Therefore, I would highly recommend that people refrain from using the terms of one's enemies (and they ARE enemies, make you no mistake), for they were contrived with no other objective than to destroy those who would prefer to live freely.  

Tempting as it may be to do otherwise, I would refrain from taking the enemy's bait.  Don't play their game, but force them to play by YOUR rules.  With some learning and practice, taking command of inferior minds is really not that difficult, and if here I sound a mite stuck-up, I say so what?  The simpletons of the tyrannical progressives are typically not the best and brightest among us, but they are vast in number, live in strict lockstep with each other, and are by those virtues very dangerous creatures.

Teach yourself the principles of the psychological games employed (on ALL sides, because the so-called "right" is also not clean of hand), learn to recognize when someone is attempting to play you, and what you can do to neutralize and countervail their actions effectively.

Don't be anyone's chump.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

The Polidiot

Yes yes, I've graced the world with yet another extraneous word that nobody needs.

Polidiot n. :  A functional idiot where anything political is concerned.

Polidiocy n. :  Thought and other behavior consistent with being a polidiot.

Polidiotic a. : That which is consistent with polidiocy.

Why, you ask, have I contributed to the noise stream of contemporary life?  Because.  Hell, everyone else is doing it.  

The mean American is a polidiot.  I hate to have to put it that way, but it is an observable fact.  I have witnessed polidiocy in a broad spectrum of political bents.  The per capita rate of polidiocy is all at once astonishing, deeply depressing, alarming, distressing, and just plainly pathetic.  The rank ignorance that American polidiocy represents is precisely that which the Founders of this still-great, but rapidly declining nation warned us.  People cannot at once be free and stupid/ignorant/morally degraded.  Polidiocy is founded upon all the latter and is repellent and abhorrent of the former.

America is drowning in polidiocy.  To the rest of the world who would snicker at this, I say "not so fast", because you are in the exact and selfsame boat.  

Polidiocy is a cancer of mind, attitude, and morals.  It is a terminal condition,  most especially for those who proclaim to be free, for even if they are (which they aren't, for there are no free people on the planet we call "earth"), they will not remain so for long, and for all the reasons that have been pointed out over endless repetitions, to no apparent avail.

There was a time when polidiocy might have been excusable - ancient times when valuable information about proper human relations might have been sparse, or easily perverted by tyrants for all the standard reasons.  But today, what with a global information network t our fingertips, not only is there no longer any excuse for being a polidiot, the risks of becoming and remaining polidiotic are far higher than in the not-so-distant past.

Tech-enabled tyrants pose a greater threat to liberty than any frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic king of the past could ever have hoped.  Now more than ever is it imperative that people give their polidiocy the heave-ho and come to sense about what is good and right between men.  Ignore this warning at the peril not of just your own self, but of everyone you claim to love and have affection.

All is yet not lost.  Awareness is the first step, and a necessary but insufficient one.  One needs to become properly educated as well, but most important is the shift in atitude, which is absolutely essential in order to become a Freeman.  Attitude is the single most important factor, the insufficiency thereof resulting in no hope for the individual.

Dispense with polidiocy.  Don't be a polidiot.

As usual, and until next time, please accept my best wishes.

One Thing The Left Almost Got Right

While I generally reject the left/right paradigm due to its nearly meaningless character, I use it at times as a conversational expedient.  I use it for that purpose here.

Broadly speaking, the left has brought forth a vast plethora of ideas either intellectually bankrupt, morally depraved, or both.  There is, however, one notion they have floated which at its conceptual core is valid: that of sexual liberation.  The strictures of the old world regarding sexual behavior may have been appropriate for ages past.  They strove to guard against unsupportable pregnancies, as well as the far more serious circumstance of sexually transmitted pathogens.  In the times prior to cheaply available contraceptives, the spectre of becoming pregnant stood as a very real and often terrifying concern for women, especially the unwed.  

The ravages of diseases such as syphillis were well known, the constraints set forth in those technologically less-capable times making very strong sense from the purely pragmatic point of view.

Of course, one must also consider the less beneficent motivations for such narrow tolerances, the first that comes to mind being that of political control.  But let us not dwell on those motives here.

Then there are the misapplications of the otherwise reasonable rules of conduct regarding such matters.  Over time, human practices generally tend to become distorted as the original reasons for their establishment become lost.  This is especially so when the practices and the reasons for their application are poorly understood.  Generations add their notions of what a given tradition or law or edict means in terms of purpose, and let's face it, the average man has far too strong a proclivity to becoming the taskmaster where such "laws" are concerned.  What may have once been a very reasonably administered cautionary rule of thumb for one's conduct pursuant to a goal of remaining safe from some real danger, gets twisted into an  authoritarian fiat, replete with punishments and other consequences that often dance right past the line of the draconian.

Having grown up with one foot in the old world, I am well familiar with what I considered the grossly distorted views on sexuality by the "west"†.  Even as a teenager my feelings on the matter were that this was some sort of terrible misapprehension of the sexual function in human beings.  Bearing witness to the bitterness and bile with which the topic was held by a shocking plurality of people left me with the unmistakable sense of something being deeply amiss there, but what did I know when I was 15?

As a young adult, however, my opinions on the matter began to become more clear, viewing the old ethics as some form of malevolent presence in the world.  I did at times blame the religious establishments for what I saw as a dolorous circumstance centered on one of the most basic of all human instincts.  With further time, I came to the understanding that the original purposes of these behavioral chutes may have been pure enough, as noted above, and that they may have been corrupted in time, as similarly noted.

In the course of those years, the so-called "sexual revolution" lit off and was charging forward as a mighty juggernaut of societal change, and it was a good thing to my eyes.  The basic idea that human beings should be free from shame and guilt in the exercise of their sexuality was, and remains, valid.  We no longer have quite the same level of concern regarding the risks of sexual activity, though even now overly promiscuous behavior can precipitate some very unpleasant consequences in some cases.  

This re-thinking of human sexuality came to us from mostly scientific advances in both medical technologies, pharmaceuticals, and our understandings of basic human sexuality from both the physiological, sociological, and psychological standpoints.  But the real impetus of change came from the so-called "left" in the form of books such as "Sex and the Single Girl", bra burnings, and so on down a well known list of events and activities that began to turn the cultural tide away from attitudes that had come to fail in serving humanity well.

To the degree that all this helped people go from muted, and perhaps shame-ridden huffing and puffing in jet-black darkened rooms, to far more ease- and joy-filled interactions between individuals and even groups thereof, the left indeed did the world a very big favor.  But as is so common a human error, the "left" wandered from the path of basic sense, continuing to push the envelope as they came to advocate for ever more extreme practices, choices, and notions that may never have otherwise even come into the thoughts of the average individual.

For example, the original and ostensible goal of the "gay movement" was that the world tolerate them such that they would no longer have to live in fear of being beaten, jailed, punished, and so on - a reasonable wish.  With the achievement of that goal, rather than being satisfied and living their lives, the next step became the expectation of acceptance, and from there approval, and nowadays, the demand that they be worshipped for what they are and what they do. 

Of late, the "left" has expanded upon what was once the "gay agenda" by adding innumerable, made-up orientations, void of meaning or validity, the purpose of which one may only guess.  Transexuality, gender fluidity, queerness, and all other manner of utter nonsense is now peddled as reality and everyone is expected to play along with raving idiocies, those refusing to be branded as "threats" to which the "law" appears to be inching toward some measure of punishment.

What began as a well-considered reformulation of general attitudes toward sexuality, has now been distorted in the usual human manners into something unhealthy, and I daresay dangerous in many respects.  The physical maiming of children, for example, pursuant to the "correction" of "gender dysphoria", is now in full swing; a burgeoning practice that stands to reap disaster for countless children whose well-meaning, but dangerously and perhaps feloniously ignorant parents, accede to the biochemical, anatomical, and psychological destruction of their own children.

In typical human fashion, the left has wreaked yet more harm by taking a fundamentally sound idea and mangling it into pure harm, perhaps for want of knowing when to stop.  Had they wisdom and decency, they'd have halted their advances decades ago after widely establishing the notion that sex wasn't "dirty", but that might yet lead to unwanted consequences in spite of our technological advances.  Is this malice or good intentions gone awry?  It matters no whit, as the results are the same: the normal and healthy functioning of humans being turned morbid with various taints such as violence, gratuitous homosexuality promoted as a validly virtuous lifestyle choice by those who, had they not been so indoctrinated, would have proceeded into normal and healthy heterosexuality.

Therefore, not quite everything brought the world by the left has been pure disaster, but only very nearly the case.  Credit where due, as with criticism.

Be well, be aware, make good decisions, and as always, please accept my best wishes.

† The "west" is by no means the only broad cultural tradition with "hang ups" about sex, but it is the only one to which I feel I can speak with any valid knowledge.

The Common Perceptual Sphere

When I mention the "common perceptual sphere" is is to the vulgar reference frame to which I refer.  There is a psychological "ether" of sorts that exists.  It is very difficult to pin down in terms of its precise qualities, as well as how it works in the gory detail.  But there are readily observable generalities of which most people are aware, if even only tacitly and vaguely so.

Media, especially news outlets, seem to hold an inordinate level of influence in determining the shape of this sphere - of molding the forms of statistically measurable "public opinion" on any of a seemingly endless menu of issues, the vast majority of them ultimately political in nature.

This is the art and science of propaganda, and it is the common perceptual sphere to which it addresses its efforts.  By altering and shaping the statistically relevant proportions of mean perception, which is the realm of the sphere, vast power is wielded.  Where mind goes, Brother Ass follows.

One is well behooved to afford due respect to this aspect of widespread human experience.  It is a village commons of sorts, only far more significant in its raw power to alter the courses of human events.  It would serve us well to pay close attention and form our opinions in accord with basic sense.  In this case, awareness is at least half the battle.  When one is aware he is being manipulated, he is able to take corrective measures in his thinking, and thereby his actions.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Why Identity And Other, Properly Constructed Anchors, Are Important

When people know who they are, as well as other notions such as right from wrong, they cannot be messed about, save with the most strenuous and risk-laden effort.  That is because people have an anchor point - a reference frame or standard - from which to judge the actions of others.

They cannot be cowed and commanded; they may remain closely free, assuming the right standards.

Similarly, when the reference frames are muddled, or just simply wrong, it can be nearly impossible to pile enough dynamite to get people to relinquish the death-grips they maintain with such stubborn faith to even the most blatant idiocies.

The modern tyrant has discovered that pooching the meaners' senses is precisely the way to get then to go along with whatever tyrannical thing the would-be lord might have in mind. If you don't know right from wrong, you will not be able to effectively assess that which you are being commanded to do. If you don't know who you are, you can be lead to believe nearly anything. Why do you think the globalist/communist/totalitarian sorts rail against "nationalism" so wildly? If you know what it means to be American, or French, or British, the tyrant can go only so far in getting you to kow tow, beyond which you are likely to take a good poke at him.

The more lost the individual, the more easily "authority" can get him to do what he is told.

I was an independent consulting engineer for 20 years. At a new engagement, my standard practice on first meeting was to unzip, place my greatness on the conference table, and ask "any questions?" I was NEVER ONCE challenged, and so I was always in charge to the degree that my presence required. THAT is humanity in a nutshell. The meaner is almost always willing to cede his own authority to anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who will arrogate that very authority to himself through mere assertion. Furthermore, the more an idiot you can make of the meaner through the now tried and tested means of corrupting influences, the more easily you can cow him into doing your bidding. People handed tens and sometimes hundreds of millions of their dollars to me because I put on the air of authority, even when I had absolutely no idea what in hell I was getting into.  Being well capable, I always figured it out, of course.  But had my clients known the truth, they'd have had strokes.  But this is really the case in all such endeavors, but making the false appearances of being all-knowing experts has become de rigeur out of the necessity that arises as a result of what human beings have become.  All too often, we WANT people to lie to us so we are free to stop thinking about whatever might be the issue at hand.

This is how the "state" operates. They set conditions that lead to artificial Stupid in as many people as possible - ENOUGH people - and the rest is easy, so long as you are fast and willing, eager even, to show a willingness to apply brute force, if pressed. People just back down, most of the time. But I know the trick and I rarely back down, but I'm one guy in a sea of billions, so the tyrants can afford to ignore me, as well as those of a similar stripe.

The flaws of the human animal are easily exploited by any human animal with eyes to see, and the nerve to act appropriately for the sake of power. It's been this way since humans have been writing things down for posterity. As of this writing, it appears it will remain that way in ever intensifying character, well into the blue future.

IOW, we are most likely hosed in the most distressful way, the worst of it being that we have done all this to ourselves. We could break the tyrant's back in a day or two, were we determined to do so. But that takes a stomach which we apparently lack, because being actually willing to disobey, much less kill them, are the only solutions at this point that remain to us.  In a similar vein, a grim intolerance for any violation of one man by another seems a fundamental requirement for Freemen that the average Joe is simply unwilling to adopt.  Too much work; too much risk, potentially too messy, and so forth.   Humanity is so lost, it makes infinity look small. We are done, almost certainly.

I hope to be proven wrong, but my confidence is low at this time.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

A Catalyzing Moment?

As to the notion that we stand at a "catalyzing moment"in human history, I say that there is that potential, but as yet it has not been realized. The scent, however, seems very definitely on the air. What is clear, however, is that without follow-though to the bitter end, a so-called catalyzing moment becomes meaningless. Consider the catalyzing moment of 7 December, 1941. The failure of Japan to finish off America in Hawaii very literally lost them them the war, cost them their culture, as well as countless lives, and wild destruction on their home turf.

In this particular case, we are speaking of the reaction of the Dutch farmers to the globalist Tyrant in having been ordered to destroy huge percentages of their dairy and meat herds.  It was suggested in another forum that we, humanity that is, are witnessing a catalyzing moment.  While I agree that the protests of the Dutch farmers hold that potential for the entire human race, it remains only that until we the people follow through.  Thus far, nothing.

THAT is the problem with humans. For example, all the Dutch tyrants need do is back off just a wee bit from their aggressions, and chances are good that the Dutch farmers will go back to sleep. Same in all locations because that is the human proclivity. The usurper takes 100 units of whatever it is to which he is in no way entitled, you rage and arm up for war, he backs off 25 units, you go back to sleep, and the tyrant just got 75 units absolutely free of charge. You should have charged him and killed him and his entire clan, but failed to follow up because he backed off, and you misinterpreted that act as the cessation of the threat, and worse yet, as victory. Hooboy...

And for those of you who chafe at my idea (not really mine, but I am the only individual I know saying it aloud) of killing even the children of tyrants, of stamping from the earth an entire genetic line, you need to quit being so weak-minded and squeamish about such things. Using "unjust harm to innocents" as the excuse for dereliction of one's duty to the preservation of not only one's own liberty's, but those of his fellows, cannot be validly forwarded, much less sustained in reason. And be clear: I do not in any way relish such notions, but have come to realize that insane people understand very little, but they almost universally understand the threat of genetic extinction.

To be clear, the condition should be as follows: when you are choosing to assume the mantle of the public trust in service to that trust, you do so with the understanding that your entire family is brought within the circle of the responsibilities you assume when you give your oath. That is, your spouse and your children all become directly liable for your actions as a public servant. If those conditions are not acceptable, then do not step up. Otherwise, you place all the heads concerned into the noose along with your own when you raise you hand and give your solemn word of good faith and competent service.

It is only through the clear and present dangers of risk that your poor and felonious choices bring, do the free and sovereign men of the earth stand so much as even the least chance to hold the scoundrel tyrants at bay. When their genetic lines stand before the threat of immediate annihilation by rope and lead with every choice they make as agents of governance, only then will they have the clear incentive to keep things very real, upfront, and proper. No decent man would want to kill a child, but if that be the only threat that keeps the Maos and Stalins of the world on their properly foreshortened leashes, then I assert without equivocation that that is the price we must all pay to gain and keep our liberty, particularly in the face of the fact that we have indulged our individual corruptions to the extent that we so foolishly allow "government" to exist even to the least extent.

If you're not willing to accept such necessities, then I submit that you are not serious about liberty, but only like to talk as if you were.

Freedom ain't free, and there is ALWAYS some joker willing to commit the most heinous acts against the liberties of those over whom he presumes to lord. If the self-fashioned Warrior will not take whatever measures needed to ensure his liberty, regardless of how grim those may prove necessary, including the killing of a tyrant's entire genetic stock, then he is in fact not a Warrior at all, but a haughty-talking Weakman with mere pretensions that fold like cheap suits the moment his bluff is called. Thus far, we have all proven ourselves as the latter and shall not advance our statuses even a whit until such time as we alter our wills and begin harvesting those whose livings are made in shackling their fellow men.

In this way, most people who claim to love liberty are in principle no different from the Weakmen of the progressive left, in that they want all the perceived benefits of liberty without having to bear any of the burdens of being free. That dog don't fly and that plane don't hunt. This is FAIL^FAIL and anyone who says/thinks that they are liberty lovers need to come to terms with the truth of what it means to be a Freeman, who is a peaceable warrior ready to commit the most grim acts of physical violence when called upon to defend the Altar of Liberty of which the great Patrick Henry spoke with such poetic grace and eloquence.

Guard with jealousy, indeed.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

The Problem With Bitcoin is not Bitcoin

The problem with bitcoin is not with the technology itself, but with people. Because the problem lies with people, "government" in particular, there IS no remedy. So long as people kowtow to the tyrants and choose corruption over honor, we humans will cotinue to have the sort of chicanery from which we now suffer daily and in ever growing measure. 

Bitcoin is weak NOT because of bitcoin's inherent design, but because the entire class of such solutions cannot sail beyond the metes and bounds of human corruption.

That said, if ALL governance could be reliably put into the hands of an AI, and assuming said AI was sufficient in its knowledge, intent, and all other relevant capacities, AND it acted perfectly pursuant to proper human freedom, keeping its silicon nose out of your business, specifically your financial and other transactions in this case, then bitcoin would be strong... and irrelevant. The whole purpose of BC is to circumvent tyranny, but it cannot because it operates in a context that is controlled by tyrants who have the defacto power to alter the rules to suit their whim. 

The network is the lifeblood of what I will here call the "bitcoin class".  And who controls the network?  Themme.  Therefore, if and when Theye see fit to hamstring bitcoin transactions, it is as good as done.  It is possible that certain policy and technological changes would be required, but make no mistake about it that those changes are readily made.  I know this because I was up to my eyeballs in network engineering for long years with the telecoms, and have forgotten more about this sort of thing than most people will ever know.

This situation is what we shall characterize as the house having the deck stacked in its favor. The AI solution, were it practicable, might remove the relevant issues from human hands, thereby placing them beyond the reach of human corruption, once again obviating BC, though it might still prove convenient as a way of processing transactions, even if the security would be no longer necessary as a part of bitcoin persé.  The security would likely be better placed under the direct auspices of the AI.  But the privacy/freedom/rights issue would be rendered moot, all else equal.

Well, we don't have an AI that can do this, nor would I ever trust one to have my naughty bits in its hands, so we're back to all-too-fallible humans. Until human beings pop their heads from their backsides and decide they are going to be better men and women, nothing is going to change, save that we continue on the merry stride down the death spiral. I wish things were better than this, but they are not. WE are the problem, and only WE are the solution. We've foisted all this nonsense upon ourselves by allowing a tiny minority of well-motivated and well-heeled jerks steal away our liberties, the truth of which openly reveals our individual corruptions.  I maintain that we should begin with mass civil disobedience while simultaneously endeavoring to educate ourselves on the basics of Proper Human Relations, all the while screwing up our courage for the fights that such choices must perforce invite. We must be ready and willing to kill and possibly be killed for the sake of those liberties. This is what the 3% were all about. They were afraid as are we, but they fought anyway. That is called courage and I will never forget those men and women for the good they did in the face of overwhelming odds and the 97% who sat on their fat asses, fenceposts firmly inserted.

Looking to tech such as the bitcoin class is folly of the first order.  It is a nice-to-have solution that, in the face of bettered humanity, approaches irrelevance.  We are the seat of all human troubles, save those few extraordinary accidents of men and nature that occasionally wreak havoc... tsunamis, building fires, and the like.

We're in the shape we're in because we don't want to do what is required to improve our predicament. We want "freedom" (what we envision it to be, which is weak tea in the case of most people), but are unwilling to do that which is necessary to get it and keep it, the latter being the more difficult task. 

Without an alteration in our attitudes toward that of utter, and dare I say potentially VIOLENT intolerance for trespass of any form, in any degree, at any time, for any reason, we remain in a state of screwèdness.

The bitcoin class solutions are just more shiny objects dangled before men's eyes to distract them from the deeper and more important issues tat invariably revolve around and depend upon a better class of human being as the norm.  Thus far, precious few of us want to become that better class, and so here we are, flailing our arms wildly as we proclaim this new technology, or that, as the new wave of human salvation. It is all a very sick and sad joke that causes us to dishonor ourselves, our children, our posterity, and everything that is good between men.

Until we decide to change, you can wave all the trinkets you like before the world.  It will render us little improvement, if any, and the varlets will always find ways around those obstacles.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Nice People

One of the more irritating and most often used items in the toolbox of the willing serf is his reference to the fact that there are so many "nice" people in the world.

Let us hearken back to some basics, namely that in life there are those things that are essential, such as food, water, shelter, and so on.  Then there are "nice to have" items, like that BMW, so very specifically in the teal paint scheme.  If you don't have a teal BMW, your world will not come crashing down around your head, despite the fact that some of us react as if it were the case.

"Nice" in terms of characterizing a human being is decidedly not an essential quality.  It is very much a "nice to have" element, and it is so only if the essential characteristics are present.

But what are those essentials in terms of human specifications?  Sadly for us, there is no standard list, but I will hazard a guess at a few with which I believe most will agree.  To wit:

• Trustworthiness

Well looky here.  Surprisingly, I find myself at a loss to go further with the list at this time, but the one thing with which I have managed to dredge from the vaults of my mind, is a whopper.  Seriously though, I could put up more, but this one alone is enough to subsume most of the rest, because almost all human interaction revolves around and is founded upon trust.  Without it, the world falls into chaos, stops dead, and people begin going terminally hungry in short time.

And so I ask the question: what value is my being "nice", if you cannot trust me?  "Nice" is nice to have.

From my perspective, I would rather as a friend an irritating, obnoxious stooge in whom my trust is comfortably placed, than the nicest person on the planet in whom I cannot be sufficiently certain that they will not shiv me one day while my back is turned.

In my world, and I would recommend this for yours as well, "nice" buys a man nothing whatsoever until he proves worthy of trust.  All else equal, would I prefer one be "nice"?  In some cases, yes, but in others, no.  "Nice" tends to cause people to soften truths for the sake of niceness, the core aim of which is to avoid upsetting others.  There are times when this is a prudent and kind approach to a situation.  There are also times where this is the absolute worst possible thing.  For example, a child's parent is dying or has died.  Do we lie to them for the sake of not upsetting them with the grim reality?  There may be exceptions, there usually are, but in general I suggest that the answer is a firm "no".  The child will learn of the fate one day.  Leaving them in the dark, so to speak, is detrimental from several viewpoints, not the least of which is the issue of, <AHEM>... trust.  

Imagine lying to the child in question only to have to tell them the truth eventually.  Imagine teelling them mommy is going to be fine and will be home soon, when in fact she has short time to live. Perhaps it's December and mom died in August.  You have lied to the child and they know it.  How will that effect trust?  Nobody can predict it, but chances are far better than any reasonable man should want to risk that the effect will be highly negative.  And so we see that niceness is not just mostly superficial and basically irrelevant to the affairs of the human world, we also see that it is potentially detrimental to what may be the single most prevailingly important factor between individual human beings.

Beware the Ides of Nice, for it is a multiply-headed serpent and deceiver of men.  It buys little, yet costs much.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

What Does It Mean To Be A Warrior?

It has been my assertion that the only path to long-standing liberty is to take on warrior culture, and I maintain this position on the matter.

But what does it even mean, "warrior culture"?  More pointedly, what does it mean to be a Warrior?  Let us begin once more by repairing to the various dictionaries to see whether we may find help there.  But first, we need the right words - those that define the qualities of a warrior.  To wit, and in the broadest terms, a Warrior bears the following characteristics and qualities:

1. Courage
2. Generosity
3. Clear intellect/magnanimity
4. Industriousness
5. Honor
6. Impeccability

There are several other list items, but they all stem from these, more or less.

Courage, n. : Bravery; intrepidity; that quality of mind which enables men to encounter danger or difficulties without fear or depression of spirits; boldness; resolution.  It is a constituent part of fortitude; but fortitude implies patience to bear continued suffering.

Generosity, n. : The quality of being generous

 Generous, a. : 2. Noble; honorable; ...

3. Liberal; bountiful; munificent; free to give; ...

Intellect, n. : That faculty of the human soul or mind which receives or comprehends the ideas communicated to it by the senses, of by perception, or by other means; the faculty of thinking; otherwise called the understanding.  A clear intellect receives and entertains the same ideas which another communicates with perspicuity.

Perspicuity, n. : 2. Clearness to mental vision; easiness to be understood; freedom from obscurity or ambiguity; ...

 Magnanimity,  n. : Greatness of mind; that elevation or dignity of soul, which encounters danger and trouble with tranquility and firmness; which raises the possessor above revenge, and makes him delight in acts of benevolence; which makes him disdain injustice and meanness, and prompts him to sacrifice personal ease, interest, and safety, for the accomplishment of useful and noble objects.

Knowledge, n. : 1.  A clear and certain perception of that which exists, or of truth and fact; the perception of the connection and agreement, or disagreement and repugnancy, of our ideas.

Impeccability, n. :  -> 

impeccable, a. : Not liable to sin; Not subject to sin; exempt from the possibility of sinning.

Honor,  n. : True nobleness of mind; magnanimity; dignified respect for character, springing from probity, principle, or moral rectitude; a distinguishing trait in the character of good men.

Industrious, n. : 1. Diligent in business or study; constantly, regularly, or habitually occupied in business; assiduous; as opposed to slothful and idle.  3. Given to industry; given to diligence; as, an industrious life.

Applied to an individual, these standards set a high bar for any man.  The Warrior is, after all, the superior man.  However, his superiority arises not based upon his perfect attainment of these characteristics and qualities, but in how well he aspires to them, repairs his errors, and learns from them.  We are all of us fallible men and cannot be reasonably expected to be without flaw or error, but knowing right from wrong is well within the reach of even lesser men, and so it is well expected for nearly all individuals to act in accord with that knowledge.

Lesser men might be be expected to copulate on the street like dogs, but this is never possible for the Warrior, whose sense of proper comportment keeps him right at all times.  Let us be clear that we are not speaking of the proverbial Boyscout, for even the Warrior may have a sense of humor and of the harmlessness of petty sins committed on occasion with a wink and nudge.  But he is always firmly and centrally aware of the slippery slopes that exist in the committing of such exceptions, and is keen and determined never to allow himself to fall into those traps, which so stealthily sneak up on a man, the next thing knowing that he has fallen into dishonor and perhaps even gross criminality.

The Warrior retains self-control and shows the dignity and responsibility of a man who is able and willing to judge every situation for himself, knowing where reside the lines which must not be crossed.  None of this is easy and much of the practice constitutes the high art to which all decent men endeavor to apply themselves with diligence and fortitude, pursuant to the honing of one's skills at the highest levels possible.

Warriors fear no adversity, their will to move forward in spite of fear lending the very definition of what it means to be a courageous man.

Magnanimity and generosity stems not so much from how widely they open their wallets to those needing help and care, but rather in their will to allow others their lives, just as he wishes his own.  Sincerity over hypocrisy is the way of the Warrior.  Recognizing the equal, just claims of his fellows, he honors those claims as he wishes his own to be respected, regardless of whether he agrees with another's choices.

The Warrior is in possession of himself and is immune to the ill-considered words and gestures of ill-sentiment of others.  His sense of strategy leaves him thankful to his adversaries, who give themselves, their opinions, sentiments, and at times their intentions, freely away to him with their harsh expressions of mockery, disdain, and threat.  Those expressions comprise invaluable information as to where he stands in relation to other men, and when the words are disagreeable, he knows how to react in order best to avoid trouble.  Compare with the mean man who becomes upset and raging over the intended insults of other men, foolishly responding with sweat and shaking fists.

Becoming a Warrior is an endeavor toward complete self-control rendering others powerless to force one's hand, even when life and limb come to threat.  He chooses his responses, rather than the other way around, which is the way of the Weakman.

A Warrior treasures intellect and strives to make the most of that with which he was gifted.  This is as much an issue of attitude as it is of those gifts, such as they may be.  The Warrior develops his powers of intellect, and in accord with his journey to self-control and ever greater knowledge, strives to learn when logic and reason must shorten the reins of his passions, that he not run amok, head-first into gross error.  This is all part and parcel of knowing who you are, what you want, and what is right versus what is easy.

Unlike the Weakman, the Warrior knows when he is best served by industry, his bent to self-control cracking the whip against the hind quarters of his lassitude, thus propelling him into action, pursuant to all good diligence.  He is indolent when it profits him to be so, for we all need our rest.  But when the duty of good and necessary labor beckons, the Warrior answers the call promptly and with good cheer.

The Warrior loves freedom above all things and will place his honor, his fortune, and his very life on the line to preserve it against threat, whether it be his own liberty, or that of his fellows.  To defend the rights of others, is to defend one's own.

The Warrior is a student of strategy and tactics, for each is needed in the treatment of all threats to common liberty.  He must exercise the courage to do what is required in defense against the evil machinations of the manifold tyrants who would see all men set to chain and manacle.  The Warrior understands that freedom is at least as scary, and at times utterly horrifying, as it is exhilarating and joyful, for the world is replete with all imaginable hazards, most of those issuing from other men.  The Warrior accepts these hazards as part and parcel of freedom, embraces them, and prepares himself as best he is able, always with the full understanding that this world offers him no guaranty of his continued survival, much less of health or prosperity, or even justice.  He accepts reality and girds himself for all contingencies to the degree his will and ability allow.

The Warrior's greatest gift and weapon is his attitude, for it is by that instrument that he retains (or relinquishes) the ability to be captain of his own life, regardless of circumstance, fair or foul.  One cannot always choose his conditions, but he can always choose how he will meet them in terms of his attitude.

Warriors are strong, self-reliant to the greatest possible degree, self-possessed, courageous, generous, honorable and worthy of trust.  They are good for their words, taking responsibility for the things they say; the promises they make; the contracts into which they enter.  They hold skills of real value to the world and are unabashed to render service.  They are adult enough to judge and assess people, things, and situations for themselves and stand responsible for the choices they make pursuant thereto.  They own their errors and endeavor to learn from their mistakes.  They expect nothing from those who owe them nothing, but are always thankful for whatever kindness comes their way from the hands of a fellow, regardless of how seemingly meager.

The Warrior is a good man that anyone of reason and decency would eagerly accept as a friend.  A Warrior's path is arduous more than it is easy, and it is this precise circumstance that lends his good character, for no man of questionable composition would be likely to make so difficult a journey.

The question for every man who considers himself of reasonable character is whether he is up to the fatigues of the Warrior's journey.  When considering that at the end of it all, we all end up once again as the dust whence we came, it seems to me that the difficult path is the one to choose.  But as with everything else in life, the choice is yours to make for yourself.  May I gently suggest you choose carefully, for regret can be the bitterest of all things.

Be well, and until next time, please accept my best wishes.

 

 

Implications Of Rights - Part Deux

 

Though I have written on this topic priorly, I feel that given the gross ignorance of the general public on a concept so centrally important to our liberty, repetition is in order.

Years ago I expounded, however modestly, on the qualities and characteristics of "Rights", where we discovered the definition of the term, as well as the fact that there exist two basic categories: inherent and synthetic (or contractual).  If you feel your understanding of the term may not be quite up to snuff, I would suggest reading at the link, above.

All rights carry implications.  There are no exceptions, for it is in the very fabric of a right from which its concomitant implications arise.  If there is no other implication arising from any given right, there is always that of the right of exercise.  If you hold a right, you then by direct implication also hold title to exercise that right.  Were it otherwise, the right in question would not be a right, but rather a privilege.  Rights and privileges do not even live on the same planet.  Mr. Apples, meet Mr. Oranges.  This truth is inherent to the very structure of a right.  Anyone who claims to the contrary, speaks pure nonsense.  Imagine, if you will, opening a door to find a man over a struggling body as he stabs it in repeatedly vicious fashion with a long knife, blood spurting everywhere while turning to you and with a straight face proclaiming that he is not stabbing a struggling body.  That is the brand of absurdity of which we speak when someone asserts that while you may hold a right, you do not hold the authority to exercise it, much less the means of doing so.

One of the iconic examples of this is the old "you can't shout 'fire!' in a crowded theater.  I hate to break it to you, but you can, and you may, no matter what any statute to the contrary might say.  This is not to suggest that one ought go out and test my assertion, because we already know that the police will come and take you away in bracelets, most likely, if you do.  But there is an important distinction to be made here with regard to the manner of exericse.  

If someone waltzes into a theater, unceremoniously begins shouting "FIRE!!!!" and the crowd panics, stampedes, and people and property are damaged, then the utterer of those words is indeed guilty of a tort at the very least, if not a crime, in that the exercise of his right resulted in such damage.  Such an act with such a result could be said to have been an incorrect exercise of his inherent right, much the same as my right to keep and bear arms would be exercised incorrectly, were I to enter a bank, draw a pistol, and try to commit a robbery.

But if prior to the show I were to get the attention of the audience, beg their indulgence to yell "FIRE!!!!", get it, and then do so, resulting in no damage done, the "authorities" would have no valid basis for molesting me in response to my actions.  The theater manager, however, might be within his authority to ask me to leave the premises.  After all, if during a play one of the cast has a line wherein he repeatedly shouts "FIRE!!!!", are the police to be summoned, with said cast member to be dragged off to the hoosegow in manacles and cuffs?  Once again, context is king.

And so we see a problem with the prohibitionists: not only do they often fail to understand the differences between proper and improper exercise - at least in any explicit fashion - but they also are of the habit to advocate for prohibition on the deeply tacit assumption that all exercise is wrong or even criminal in certain cases.  This is as absurd as claiming that all injections with syringes are wrong, just because once every three generations or so, some murderous lunatic kidnaps someone and kills them using a syringe and some poisoning agent.  Nobody makes such claims because they understand the difference between proper and improper use.  Similarly, when some maniac uses his automobile to mow down dozens of pedestrians, nobody calls for a ban on all such vehicles.  And yet, there are those who refuse to acknowledge this quality of reality along certain lines.  

Firearms are the quintessential example of this.

The anti-Second Amendment people largely dismiss the right to self-defense.  They deny this, yet their self-contradictory beliefs, as publicly professed, clearly indicates otherwise.  One can see endless examples of this in the news media where the bereaved mother tearily proclaims to the camera that her baby didn't need to be shot.  Tell that to the defender who was facing a nearly seven-foot tall, 300 pounder, coming at him with a machete in his hand and murder in his eyes.  To those mothers, there is no evil to which their children might have applied themselves that would have justified a defender opening fire.  This, of course, is pure insanity, but that makes no end of the practice of some people proclaiming that self-defense with a gun is not a valid response to clear and present threats to life and limb.

Do also note the back-channel implication of the assertion that a man holds no authority to exercise his right to self-defense: you as a living, breathing human being are obliged to hand your life over to anyone who demands it.  Some will rebut with, "I'm not saying that at all.  You can always call the police and shout for help."  Excuse me while I stuff my eyeballs, which have just rolled out of their sockets, back in.  The rank absurdity of such arguments defies words.

At the very least, you are obliged by implication to assume the risk of your own life at the hands of one who is apparently attempting to do you great harm, for the sake of not bringing them to harm.  This fails to so much as rise to stupidity.  No decent human being wishes to bring others to harm, but equally valid is the desire to avoid being harmed.  No man is obliged to risk his life for another.  That so many do so is a credit to the generosity of men, but under no circumstance are they so obliged.  Therefore, then one man threatens another, the threatened party stands centrally within his rights to take whatever defensive actions he may deem necessary to the preservation of his existence and his health, such as it may be.

If I hold title to my First Property, which is to say my life, then I may be said to hold the Right to my life, those terms being semantically interchangeable.  The first implication of this is that my life is my own, and nobody else's.  If that be the case, then it directly follows that nobody holds the least right to take my life from me in any manner or measure without my consent, all else equal.  Some would go so far as to proclaim that even I hold no authority to surrender my life to another, much less that they may take it without permission.  It has been long said that God enjoins all creatures to preserve themselves from harm and death.  Whatever the ultimate cause, it is clear that all living things struggle to remain alive because it is better than being dead.

If I hold title to my life and nobody else may rightfully take it from me, whether through murder, maiming, or by casting me into involuntary servitude, then it further follows perforce that I hold every authority to defend my First Property from any and all such threats.  If this be the case, then I hold the right to exercise the right of self-defense when I am threatened with violation of my First Property Rights, and if I am entitled to exercise that right, I am perforce entitled to obtain the means of exercise.  Such means may include empty-hand martial arts training; it may include the acquisition of various weapons such as knives, swords, firearms, sticks, billies, staffs, stones, explosives, automobiles, etc.  It would include the right for me to build a fortress-like dwelling, to furnish it with the accoutrements of defense, and that of making their use when a threat surfaces.

Several years ago a truck driver threatened to kill me with a pistol he had brandished at me on I-64 just outside of Lewisburg, West Virginia.  The moment his hand touched the hood of my car, I stomped the throttle and ran him over.  He was caught in Virginia and taken to jail.  I was cleared of any wrongdoing because I'd properly exercised my natural right to defend my life from the threat of extinguishment at the hands of one with no valid authority to do so.

So what about self-defense vis-á-vis an attacker's right to his First Property?  This is, after all, the very argument of the grieving mothers for the lost lives of their angelic, gang-banging issue.  The answer is simple: the moment you initiate an unjust action against another human being, you have effectively repudiated your claim to life.  By unjustly threatening the welfare of another, you have placed yourself at their mercy precisely because they are in no way obliged to grant you license to bring them to harm, whether great or small.  They are, therefore, fully authorized by Nature itself to take whatever actions they may deem necessary to preserve their existences.  

This isn't rocket surgery.  And yet, there are those who attempt to obfuscate the clarity of these truths with all manner of obliquely architected language that is rotten and impacted with all manner of tacit implications which have served them well in ensnaring the unwary who fall for one of the most commonly used fallacies: the appeal to emotion.

But do not allow yourself to be fooled.  LEARN what your rights are and what they imply.  If you gain that knowledge and hold it well, nobody will be able to rob you of your sovereign authority as a living and free individual.

The basics may be summarized with a list:

1. A right implies a concomitant right of exercise
2. A right to exercise implies the attendant right to validly obtain the means of exercise
3. A right must be exercised properly, lest a crime or tort be committed
4. An act of violation of another's rights may place your own claims in jeopardy
5. Want your rights respected?  Then respect those of others.  Don't be a hypocrite

The basic principles of proper human relations are simplicity itself, and yet we humans appear to find them ever so difficult to put into practice.  This is most especially true of the political class, that cancerous vestige of the Age of Kings, the members of which far too often believe themselves entitled and rightfully empowered to circumscribe and even deny the natural prerogatives of free men.  These upstarts have wreaked endless havoc and misery on the lives of those to whom they swore oaths of good faith and competent service, thereby revealing themselves, prima facie, as the scurrilous bounders and felons that they are in glaring  word, deed, and consequent fact.  

Never allow anyone to cow you into believing that your inherent rights are somehow conditional, or into surrendering them to others.  They are absolute and should never be allowed to yield to the aggressions of those who would strip you buck-naked of everything you should be holding most dearly in your life.  

Resist.

Refuse.

Rebel.

Mors omnibus tyrannis, vel magnis, vel minimis.

Until next time, God bless America, humanity's last hope, and please accept my best wishes.

A Constitutionally Limited Republic

America was founded as a "constitutionally limited republic". Forgetting the fact that a vast plurality of Americans  today do not even know this fact, all too commonly getting things grossly wrong by referring to America as a "democracy", many of even those who know the proper appellation still do not understand what it means with any sufficiency.

What, then, does it mean to be a constitutionally-limited republic?   Let us take a quick look and divine the true meaning of this term which seems to have evaded so many, myself included at a time.

The "republic" part was intended to enable the discharge of certain aspects of governance PURSUANT to the maintenance of the individual freedoms of the people as recognized, enumerated, and guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Beyond that, "government" was to have absolutely no role in the lives of the people because the people were recognized as INHERENTLY FREE and morally beyond governmental touch. 

Stay with me now, for this shall become clear in short order.

The most basic premise upon which America was conceived was the innate, inherent, and most naturally obvious state of freedom that is the birthright of every human being to take breath.  That assumption was the foundation upon which the Founders of this nation intended to affect humanity's escape from the boot-heel of the endless litany of tyrants who had taken humanity by its throat with iron fists.  This was the cardinal assumption of the Framers of the Constitution upon which America was architected for the sake of offering humanity a fighting chance to exercise those liberties which the infestations of world tyranny has had for so long diminished, disparaged, denied, and so brutally and criminally violated.

That was the intent.

Pursuant to that intention, the Framers cobbled up a constitution whose purpose was to institute three basic functions of protection to best ensure the individual freedoms they recognized as being innate to our human fabric.  These functions were the national defense, the passage and enactment of Law, and the courts to adjudicate issues of crime, and civl contention.

In my considered opinion,  the Framers did a pretty good job of it, especially considering that nobody in written memory had ever really done so before; an indication of how temporally extensive has been the tenure of the Age Of Tyrants.  They did well, save in one respect: the formation of Congress and the grant of powers thereto.  It is clear in our 20/20 hindsight that the Framers of our Constitution grossly overestimated the moral character of those who would occupy the seats of the legislatures, as well as that of the people at large, whose job it has been to ensure that those in Congress comported themselves properly.  Perhaps the Founders cannot be faulted for having failed to sufficiently prognosticate the depths of the manifold corruptions to which the American people would plunge themselves so eagerly as we see everywhere today.  But if nothing else,  they knew that the power to tax was the power to destroy, so my ability to excuse their architectural missteps is tempered thereby.

Yet another way in which the Founders failed most deeply is in having not been more explicit in the expression and specification of the authority of the People to take immediate procedural control of any institutional element of governance that has run off the rails with respect to their duties to those to whom they swear their oaths.  Furthermore, the Constitution remains devoid of specifications for the holding to account of those who violate those oaths, the punishments for which should be draconian.  Finally, the oath of service is itself lacking in specificity and completeness and, in my opinion, should be rewritten to a far more correct, complete, and exacting standard to which any Freeman should be able to hold those in "government" in cases of betrayal.

Back to the more salient point, the "republic" aspect of the nation was supposed to be so minimal as to be of vanishing perceptibility in terms of the daily lives of the people.  The major, primary, and most forceful quality of the American nation was supposed to be the very innate freedoms of the people to which the Constitutional document refers, the rest existing but to reinforce those freedoms and ensure they were respected by all, for every breathing soul in the land.  The raison d'être for the establishment of "republic" was not so assume powers not granted in the document of ordain and establishment.  And yet, we sadly see how utterly that intention has failed.

We have run afoul of the Founding Intention so widely as to leave thinking men in abashed awe and appalled disgust at what we have all allowed.  Our "government" has gone from ostensible guardians of freedom to the very worst sorts of tyrants against which the founding of this land was intended to hold at bay.  But we the People lost our ways, having allowed ourselves to be corrupted with the seek of material comforts, regardless of cost and to accept as truth those stupidities and evils that made us "feel" better.  We have traded our most sacred gifts of innate liberty for the sake of having cell phones and net.pornography.  We have literally sold our souls for not even thirty pieces of silver, but have in fact given them over most freely to the devils in whose hands our world now rests.

The Constitution limits the REPUBLIC, which is to say the form of governance, and not the people to whom it is supposed to answer.  It is governance that is supposed to be limited to a very narrow spectrum, and not the other way around.  And yet, how many people do you know who see the "government" as some all-powerful authority whose edicts may not be defied?  Are you one of them?  If so, do you now believe that you should remain as such, or is it perhaps time to reconsider your views on such matters?

It is all up to you, and him over there, and her over in the other corner.  It is up to every one of us to get ourselves right in our thoughts and views with respect to the actual, objective, and demonstrably correct principles of proper human relations.

Our Republic is supposed to be all about our freedom, and not the powers of madmen running amok with pen and sword as they pile-drive our sacred freedoms into the dust.  Our "government" is supposed to be all about protecting us from violation, rather than being the primary source thereof.

Protect our freedoms from external threats with the militia.  Protect our freedoms from internal threats with the courts.  Remove nearly every power from Congress which it has so feloniously usurped and arrogated unto itself.  Leave people to live as they please, with the usual restrictions against bringing damage to one's fellows, and leave the rest to us.  We neither need the other ministrations, nor should we be wanting them, much less accepting them.

The English had it right when they established the common law, whose tenets are but three:

• Be good for your word
• Bring no unwanted harm to others
• Make whole those whom you damage

It isn't rocket surgery, and yet when men's hearts have been tainted with the four corruptions of Fear, Avarice, Ignorance, and Lassitude (FAIL), they find every means of, and excuse for complicating things such that they get what they want, no matter who gets hurt.

It is time this all came to ends.  Leave us to freedom and to the governance of self and the defense of that which is a man's rightful property.  Get off our backs, for we will not tolerate you for much longer.  Our technologies are offering means of liberating minds that tyrants will not be able to overcome, save that we allow them to defeat us by pure force of our own wills.  We, the Freemen of planet earth, are not obliged to return to slave status, but will do so if we allow it.

This is all on us, now.

Mors tyrannis.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

The "Destruction" Of The West

Earlier today I viewed a video by Jordan Petersen.  It was a string of discussions with various people regarding the rise of totalitarianism in America, as well as in other places once deemed as the "free" world.

Early on, and speaking to the warfare that has been waged against him, Petersen opined that the assault never ends, and essentially asked why it is so.  To that question I responded in the comment section as follows:

"It doesn't stop because you are pissing in Theire cornflakes. Theye seek the removal of western civilization from the hands of the Mean Man. This makes it appear as though it were being destroyed, but it is only being stolen and squirreled away for the Worthy. Theye will keep it for themselves, of course, because it is powerful, and power is the whole point of all this Machiavellian churn. Western "values" empower the individual, which is anathema to the authoritarian who would be king despot. There can be no rival and competition begins with thought. Therefore, the destruction of powerful thought skill is paramount for broad and unquestioned dominion. This explains virtually everything we see these days. We are in the midst of a revolution. This revolution is the most dangerous ever, setting those of Russia and China to pale precisely because they were not subtle, but rather blood-soaked. Despite the conflagration of Portland, this one is far more nuanced, insidious and I daresay, pervasive. The base of this revolution is not a comparatively small raft of wildly violent "freedom fighters" acting out as the other 99.989% stand idly agape. This one has the support of a vast plurality of young people whose minds have been turned to functional pudding through the wildly powerful mechanisms of the public school systems, in concert with choice and specific corporate collaborators (think "MTV", for example), all of whom have erected a structure of perceptual indoctrination sufficiently coherent to steer millions of young minds away from the tenets of freedom and basic human decency, toward one that superficially appears as those things (Brave New World appearance), but is actually something very different (rotten heart of 1984).

That plurality who have drunk the koolaid of envy, resentment, entitlement, and the naturally resultant rage, are legion, and wildly eager to see the changes that promise what they think is the Utopian paradise to which their world view will give rise. Anyone with a lick of sense knows that those things with which the young minds were inculcated and lead astray from basic sense, is naught but the cancerous beginnings of a nightmare which those stilted and stunted minds cannot imagine, much less accept as the fate to which they have committed themselves. These are the perfect stooges, engineered by those who have used the very values of the west to contrive the framework and methods for achieving their goal of utter domination. Part and parcel with this whole notion of a global despotic hegemony, one must consider the possibility of a program of broad liquidation of "undesirables", at the very least. The world view that is now being promoted and peddled to the young strongly suggests a program of mental preparation for the eventual cull of a large subpopulation. As insanely evil as this notion appears to people who retain some shred of sense and humanity, it must nevertheless be considered as a possible element in the overarching architecture for dominion. Those who can and WILL think independently pose an intolerable threat to the technology-enabled tyrant. There is no degree of independence that can be regarded as innocuous. Therefore, I would have to reason that those who are "not of the body", so to speak, must be eliminated.

Acclimate the young, who shall then become your allies - partners in crime if you will - to the notion of the desperate global circumstance, and they will "understand" (i.e., blindly accept) even the idea that those billions HAD to be sacrificed in order that the lucky survivors would have a future. This is rioting evil, and it is marching toward victory as the race of humans stands and watches, and does nothing.

If all of this is viewed through the lens of one whose ultimate objective is the final acquisition of absolute power over the entire globe, then everything to which we bear daily witness makes perfect sense. What we are witnessing, *living*, is a highly tuned, technologically-enabled, scientifically-based revolution intended to be the final realization of something very big - something on a global scale.

Raise a new crop amenable and perhaps even demanding of your whims and caprices, eliminate the thought-competition (mostly the "old" people, as well as the statistical outliers), and you shall truly be master over all that can be observed from any point on the globe. This is the fundamental transformation of the human condition for which tyrants, despots, and other conquerors have striven since Sumer. It is in a very real sense a TRANS-HUMAN mental metamorphosis that, if pulled off, will leave western thought in the hands of the ruling elite as Theire most powerful instrument of acquisition and maintenance. What will be left for the dregs over whom they wield their largely bootless gestures of material power, is a state of functional intellectual castration which the hobbled will embrace and indeed demand as their blessèd status quo. Brave New World will have been made real. The top tier will be the true alphas. The Betas will be their wholly obedient front-line administrators and the rest will be the effectively mindless Gammas, whose raisons d'être will be to do as they are bid, without question. As in BNW, there will be "soma". Phones, drugs, mindlessly obsessive sex with no love or deeper feelings are already in place. We all see directly how effective they have been, and stand with tuning to become even more so with the generations. One can only wonder what other traps our technologies will contrive to ensnare and coddle those who will come long after we are dust.

I am afraid there is little hope in all this. I may be mistaken, and pray that I am, but it seems clear that some dimly lit threshold has been crossed where the character of the mean man has been so compromised with corruptions subtle and blatant, that as these megalomaniacal loons continue to close the noose around humanity's neck, we will do nothing but watch, fret, and wait for a non-existent knight to come with his legion to save us all from the boogie man.

Dire is the circumstance, as are the prospects. I have tried to sound the clarion's call, but to no apparent avail. Perhaps that is for the better. I no longer can tell with any certainty. But I suffer the defects of my virtues, namely that I am stubborn and believe in hopeless causes. Press on, regardless, I say, for to do otherwise is to dishonor oneself and all he may claim to esteem and love."

The instrument of western thought built the world we now know.  The material world stands as non-equivocating testament to the power of the western mind, which has in many ways far outstripped all rivals, certainly in terms of those material results.  Our technologies and moral principles are all the products of the western mind as it has evolved over the past several thousands of years.  All other modes of civilized thought-architecture long disappeared in the west's rear-view mirror.

The rights recognized by and the morals derived therefrom are all the products of the western mind.  No other cultural tradition has so much as approached the qualities of western civilization's philosophical underpinnings.  Most ironically, those who curse the west as racist, homophobic, and so forth down the dreary list of Regressive talking points, do so from the standpoint of that which they condemn.  More sadly amusing yet, they think that their moral positions derive from something other than the wester philosophical tradition.  Nothing could be further from the truth, but when you point this out to them, the most frequent response is rage-soaked denial, replete with the usual wishes that you die of cancer and that your children are kidnapped, raped endlessly, and then slowly murdered in the most freakishly agonized and prolonged manners possible.

Similarly, they curse "capitalism" using means and methods that only the capitalist west has provided them, and could have provided.  Would that I might live to see the looks on those faces the day they twig to the truth of that for which they so stridently clamor.  By that time, of course, it will be too late to retrieve, so much juicier the raw anguish of realization.

Recognizing the vast capacity of the western mind, Theye now seek to remove that power from the hands of the common man, seeking instead to replace it with a toddler's sphere, such that when provided with a minimal set of vapid diversions, babies in adult bodies will remain content with their status as slaves, a truth which will remain opaque to them for all their days.  It is a brilliant, if obscenely evil, plan that as of this writing appears to be coming off quite well.  Well enough.

May we find our way out of this nightmare quagmire.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes. 

We Are All To Blame

In another forum, I've been admonished to trust God, prompting me to respond:

"The problem lies not in whom one may place trust, but with those in whom trust must be withheld. God isn't the problem, people are, and it is people with whom we must daily deal. It is people who disparage, violate, and trespass against us.

Trust God, DEAL with people.

I've never cottoned to the idea that trust in God necessitates passivism in men, which is to say that we sit idly, expecting God to do it all. Furthermore, I've never had cause to believe that God micromanages our lives. After all, what would be the point?

We have been gifted with brains and the capacity to judge.

"Judge not, lest ye art prepared to be judged" is not an admonition against using one's ability to assess, but is rather a warning to employ one's judgment with humility and great caution, for it is ever so easy to run afoul of propriety in the process.

God gave us everything we need to live good, happy, prosperous, and healthy lives worthy of the motions.

That there is so much disease, poverty, and misery in this world rests squarely and solely at our feet, not because evil men make it that way, but because good men do nothing sufficient to stop them.

Every last one of us who have attained his majority is to blame for the evils that now gallop roughshod over face of the earth. We have been remiss in our duties to basic sense and propriety and have much for which to atone. That is at least in part the reason I write these lines, though it is not enough.

I admit my shortcoming in all of this.

Will you admit yours?

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

1984 Or Brave New World?

When I was in high school, we were required to read both "1984" and "Brave New World".

When we were done, the teacher asked which of the two do we think most likely to make itself real. Most of my classmates felt 1984 was the likely candidate, whereas my answer was "both". Being the odd man out, the teacher demanded I defend my position. I'd come to the suspicion that our immediate future was to have the face of BNW, but that its black heart, which was precisely the same as that of 1984, would become less candy coated, and thereby more 1984-like, with time.

At the time I was unable to articulate why it would be so, but I believe my instincts have proven themselves correct over the decades since. The face has mutated from that of a bright future full of wonder, to that of a vacuously inane clown where the superficiality of life becomes caricatured in itself. This is reflected everywhere we turn in the outward behaviors of far too many young people these days. Huxley's depiction of the idiotic mantras of BNW's dopey "alphas" are made manifest in the meme culture that has arisen as one result of the network technology we now "enjoy".

The standards of assessment for what it considered knowledge is now so low as to leave me wondering at times how it is that the human world does not come flying apart, though we appear in some ways to come closer to it by the day.

The emphasis has run wildly away from the classic virtues of individual freedom, learnedness, mutual respect, honor, love, and self control, to that of utter self indulgence. The manifestations of this are everywhere made apparent, particularly on the network, which has become a major source of influence in the ways that young people come to see the world, and their places in it. Aided and abetted by "media" and the so-called "educational" system, all former senses of the world appear to be slipping away as the fog of what was once pure relativism has been transmogrified into what I will call the New Absolutism. This has taken place either by the wildest set of coincidences, unimaginable, or by some very clever artifice. It mirrors most perfectly the absolutism of our religious past, and against which it continues to rail and shriek to this day. Anyone failing to subscribe, subordinate, and prostrate themselves to the new Absolute Truth as doled out by the Oracles of Eternal Progressive Wisdom, is to be condemned for heresy. This is most literally the case now.

Could anyone of a now-older generation have imagined a time where "men" who swear that they are not homosexual, publicly proclaim, nay brag, that their girlfriend's "peg" them? If you do not know what that is, look it up. It's hilarious and miserably sad and pathetic all at once.

What passes for knowledge in what seems a vast horde of humanity, is something at which one can only marvel whilst shaking his head as if to wake himself from a goofy dream of killer klowns, soon the turn into a black nightmare.

As I suspected, the cancerous heart of this innerly rotten apple, has become ever more apparent in time, with the once nearly latent tyrants now having made their presence and position most painfully apparent to anyone taking but a moment to notice. In 1984-style, we are seeing a reversal of everything. Good is bad, evil is virtue, up is down, yet the candy-coating of BNW persists, even if it becomes more gossamer-like with each passing year.

It's the old stick-and-carrot act. People have been bent toward the weakness that arises through excessively indulgent self-centeredness and the pleasure seeking that arises most predictably therefrom. The ready availability of the most base forms of self-seeking, namely that of the sexual variety for example, is universal in the "west", with porn sites more popular than ever, acting as a primary source of indoctrination of the young. Make no mistake, I am not on a diatribe against sex - far from it. But when it is made a focus out of proportion such that other life considerations of equal import take a far back seat to it, it requires no feat of rocket surgery to figure out that something is not quite right in the world.

Concomitant with the carrot of strongly advocated self-worship and gratification, is the stick of ever more draconian results for those who fail to adopt the new orthodoxy of obedience to naked, bald-faced evil. Do not question anything, lest ye be stricken from Facebook and Twitter, heaven forbid!

And so in time, my suspicion that with the years we would see an ever expanded edging of encroachment upon the rights of the individual has come to pass and continues to wreck its way through the lives of every man on the planet, the exceptions representing a vanishingly small subpopulation. My perception of the tyrant's nature proved close enough to correct in that he cannot contain and control himself, such that he is no different from those over whom he presumes to lord, save in the dint of his having landed into some seat of power that enables his rot and corruption to be realized in ways the mean man will never know for himself. The tyrant is ill-disciplined in his apparently insatiable lust to exercise ever greater management authority over increasingly minuscule details of the lives of those over whom his tyranny reigns.

The question that arises is whether the tyrants, having perfected their system of domination, will be able to contain themselves over the longer term to the metes and bounds of prudence in the administration of that system. Or will they themselves fall to the perennial human failing of never being satisfied, thus creeping or even leaping over that hazily defined line that would give the now utterly cowed dullards cause to rebel? My suspicion is the latter, if left to their devices. But our technologies stand as the wildcard predicators in that question, and here I speak very specifically of artificial intelligence. If Theye (those in material social power) are smart, and I cannot with certainty attribute their successes thus far to intellect, versus pure determination, they would endeavor to cause the contrivance of an AI sufficient to the task of general, central governance. Were Theye to hand their prerogatives largely over to such a system, elevating it to the effective status and function of an oracle, they might be able to hold on to power indefinitely into the blue future.

The problem with tyrants has always been a lack of self-control in the respects to which I here refer. Having the correct measures programmed into a system which would then be trusted to maintain the proper balances between tyrannical interest and the boiling point of the proletariate, could become the near-guarantee of dominance with no foreseeable end.

Only time will tell, and we old geezers will likely not live to see the longer term outcomes. But it would be quite interesting to be a fly on the world's wall, witnessing how this all pans out over, say the coming century or two, assuming we don't send ourselves to hell in a nuclear fireball, the prospects of which have been recently revived from their former states of rest.

But if you defocus your gaze and zoom out to a broader view of things, the one thing that stands out in all this is the eternally immutable principle of change. Things always change, and so bearing that in mind, it is no wonder that that which we knew and accepted as right and proper is swept away in the currents of time. This may be the only real hope remaining to us: that the need for change is so embedded in the very fabric of our existences, even the most technologically enabled tyrannies must eventually transform, replacing themselves with... well, what exactly?

It seems I have wandered adrift from my original purpose... or have I? You decide.

Be well, be prosperous, and until next time, please accept my best wishes.