Saturday, March 4, 2017

Could the Left actually be Right?

The left is screaming, crying, foaming-at-the-mouth crazy in their opposition to Donald Trump.  It's kind of fun to watch, but there's a kind of misgiving forming in my mind.  A misgiving not about the left, but about Trump.  First of all, what does it take to reduce the left to the dysfunctional disarray we're witnessing?  Never in my 67 years have I seen pervasive evil really ousted by good.  It just doesn't happen here in this vale of tears.  So why is Trump succeeding so astoundingly?  Something doesn't pass the smell test here.

And NO, our defeat of Hitler and Tojo in WWII doesn't count.  Remember, we had FDR and his thuggery on our side.  And remember,we were some of the biggest admirers of the eugenic idea before its logical outworking was thrown in our faces.  And remember, as Smedley Butler said, "war is a racket".  There was a lot of money made.  And remember, we succeeded in getting the world's wealth to flow our way through the Bretton Woods agreement.  And remember, it was that murderous thug Joe Stalin who did a lot of our dirty work for us.  So we weren't exactly pure as the driven snow.  That's what I mean.  It usually takes a bigger, more devious, more subtle evil to defeat a lesser, in this sorry world.

Now, with that as preface, how's Trump doing it?  And is it possible the left might be right about Trump?  A pastor named Nathan Leal is publishing a series on Trump which gives some really convincing evidence that The Donald may have entered into some kind of agreement with supernatural powers to get where he is today.  I highly recommend your checking Leal's work out.

So, as I suspected even before reading what Pastor Nathan had to say, it's possible that Donald Trump may not be the man he appears to be.  He may be something very dark, very sinister, and very lawless. So--how is it that a lawless bunch like the left all have their panties in a wad about him?  Something's not right here.  Some possibilities come to mind:

A.  It's all theatre.  They're all playing parts in a good-cop bad-cop scam to deceive us schmucks in flyover country.  Their idea is to create such chaos that we eventually experience some sort of societal breakdown which leads to martial law, which leads to the imposition of an international order, which is the endgame of the "elites", whoever they are.  OR,
B.  The left is mistaken about Trump.  They think he's something he's not.   They hate him because they think he sincerely holds the values of the people who elected him.  Their real enemy is the people in flyover country, whom they hate with a passion.  And the thought that Mr. Trump might actually do the will of those troglodyes has them in fits.  OR,
C.  The left is really righteous in their condemnation of Mr. Trump; they really see that he's evil and want to rescue us all from his evil plans.
Haha...just kidding!  Choose A or B.


Wednesday, February 1, 2017

The State of Evolutionary Theory

In response to Steve, who wrote in response to an article in The Daily Bell entitled, "Increasingly, Evolution Has No Proof":

"The authors of this piece need to not only read about the theory of punctuated equilibrium that addresses the main issues raised but also be aware that 'proof' is only relevant in mathematics and jurisprudence, not science."

I wrote:
"Punctuated equilibrium" theorizes that evolution took place in the "gaps", that is, the gaps in the fossil record.  According to the theory, that's why we don't see all the intermediate forms that Darwin predicted we'd find if his theory was correct.  All that macro-evolution took place in between depositional episodes!
This is pretty pat, I think.  It also turns the idea of slow, gradual uniformitarianism on its head for the sake of saving evolutionary theory.  In other words, they used to say, "evolution happens so slowly you can't see it", now they're saying, "it happened so fast we missed it".
Combine this with Stephen Jay Gould's "hopeful monster" idea--which postulates that every once in a while something really outlandish is bred, with a very very small, vanishingly small, percentage of these aberrations proving viable and granting evolutionary advantage to the next generation--and you have a theory that's grasping at straws.  Gould's theory was constructed to overcome the problem of irreducible complexity; that is, in living systems, everything has to be fully formed and functional for the organism to be viable.  Intermediate forms just won't cut it.
When I consider just how much of the scientific edifice is built upon the idea of evolution, and how much that idea has been extrapolated out of the scientific realm and into the realms of sociology, politics, economics, et al, I'm simply amazed.  It appears that the idea is so attractive to many that they're willing to overlook its many flaws simply because they're enamored with it.

Saturday, January 14, 2017

Gold Price Rigging

This is in response to an editorial by Money Metals Exchange entitled "Gold Prices Are Being Hacked!" (Jan. 9, 2017):

 "The civil courts appear to be metals investors' best shot at recovery of some of what has been stolen from them in these rigged markets"

Perhaps. IF they get a fair hearing by a completely oblivious and ignorant judiciary. Then there are some questions that come to mind:

Q: Whatever happened to the criminal courts? Q: What if the outcome is the same as it was for MF Global and John Corzine? Q: What if the courts just basically tell litigants to go pound salt, like they did when Blanchard sued Barrick Gold (proxy for the FedGov)? Q: What if, the government being the real defendant, litigants actually win a claim? Wouldn't they just be paid in infinitely-producible fiat? And Q: If that's the case, how much skin would it be off any of the real perps' noses?

If the markets are rigged, it's GOT to be the case that the primary beneficiary is the government. This is just the logical conclusion. Otherwise, would--COULD--these banks possibly be have been able to get away with what they've been getting away with? And if that's the case, what possible recourse could investors have? There's not enough public awareness to really give the government a hard time in this matter.

Having said all that, I'm not one of the defrauded ones, since for years now I've seen what was going on and decided to be a beneficiary rather than an injured party by buying physical cheap rather than documents dear. I urge others to do the same.

Thursday, June 16, 2016

Thoughts on Orlando

The left's response to the horrific shootings in Orlando is perverse, but predictable.

Here we have:
--A Muslim man, Omar Mateen
--With ties to ISIS
--Who has in the past made comments on Facebook pledging himself to ISIS
--shooting around 100 people in a gay nightclub
--whose widow apparently knew of his plans but said nothing
--etc. (need I dig any further?)

So what's the left's response to date?

--Of course, there were calls by the President on down for disarming Americans
--Hardly any mention of the fact the shooter was Muslim
--emphasis on the fact he was born in America, so he was "American" (read, white)
--A Catholic bishop blames "religion"(code for Christianity), especially Catholicism for the shootings
--Protesters gathered outside a gay bar here in Sodom where I live with shirts saying "Stop Killing Us"
in order to indict heterosexual America for the crime

So, a follower of Mohammed (CBOH) decides to slaughter people in a public venue and succeeds beyond his wildest dreams.  The response by the left is to use the occasion as an opportunity to demonize and pound on gun owners, heterosexuals, and Christians.  Makes perfect sense.

BTW, re his wife keeping quiet--this is something Muslims do very well when they want to.  My wife and I had a friend who was assassinated in a women's clinic in Lebanon by what was probably a hired hit man, probably for the crime of giving her Christian testimony to women who came in.  My guess is that the entire community knew who the culprit was, but--Surprise, surprise!--the police were seemingly unable to obtain any clues as to his identity.  (The police themselves probably knew who the hit man was.  It's possible it was one of them.  After all, they're the professionals.)  This, despite an outward outpouring of sympathy from said community for the bereaved husband, who afterward wrote a book about the experience and his need to forgive the killer. Muslim killers disappear into their communities like sugar disappears into coffee. 

Sunday, June 5, 2016

Morality of the Left

I'm thinking now about the protest riots and thuggery at the Trump rallies, and how much the police and media are giving the violent protesters a pass.  And I'm asking myself why.  Why do they get handled with kid gloves like this?

The thought occurred to me that it might partly be due to the fact that they're so morally self-righteous.  Leftist protest is always about moral, righteous (or self-righteous) indignation.  The left and its henchmen (the brownshirts in the streets) are calling Trump and his followers the worst kinds of pejoratives, characterizing them as morally lacking and utterly without redeeming social value.

The media, who share this self-righteous point of view, mostly are privately or not-so-privately cheering them on.  The police, who are government bureaucrats, are captive to the PC which has entirely infected the government at every level.  I know.  I work for the post office.

But wait!  Isn't this the same Left that basically repudiates the idea of moral absolutes, moral CATEGORIES (like good and evil, right and wrong) even?

Aren't these the people who gave us:

--Situational ethics
--Relative morality
--"If it's right for you, it's right"
--"If it feels good, do it"?

In light of this,

Why aren't they being challenged on being so morally self-righteous?

But as it is, the left recruits, and wages war against society, by means of MORAL arguments.  What utter cynicism, what hypocrisy.

If a true diehard lefty is challenged on a moral point, and he senses he's losing the argument, he'll look you straight in the eye, spit in your face, and say,


Why don't we call them on this?

Just wondering.

Welcome to America

A thought just occurred to me, regarding the influx of muslim "refugees" into Europe.

Here we have:

--A large, unassimilable minority
--Of a very different ethnicity and culture
--Who, in many cases, have entered through extra-legal means, but
--Who feel perfectly entitled to stay as though their host countries were obligated to them
--Whose worldview and standards are very different from the majority's
--Who largely or entirely live off government (that is, taxpayers') largesse
--Who have a tremendous sense of entitlement
--Who have little or no interest in the cultures of their host countries
--Who not only don't have the best interests of their host countries at heart, but,
--Who are even actively involved in tearing down the host countries and their cultures, and
--Who fully intend, with the help of the Left, to remake said countries and cultures in their own image
--And whose levels of all kinds of crime are way out of proportion to their numbers, but
--Who are vigorously defended and apologized for by the PC establishment, and
--Who are now, because of their numbers, getting a great deal of political "clout".

All I've got to say is,

                                NOW YOU KNOW HOW IT FEELS, EUROPE!

Friday, June 3, 2016

Hillary and Scarface--A Reprise of Sorts?

In an earlier post I noted the irony that Al Capone ("Scarface") was finally nailed by the IRS on tax-evasion charges, because the FBI couldn't seem to get enough evidence to indict him otherwise even though he was connected to dozens, perhaps hundreds of murders.  Not to mention all the other mayhem and illegality he was involved in.

Now we have the spectacle of Hillary Clinton's (finally) being very close to indictment by that same FBI, at the end of a very long trail of corpses, rape victims, money laundering and securities fraud for...using an unsecured private email server!

Do I detect a pattern here?

Am I correct in suspecting the Gov puts its own interests WAY, WAY above the interests of the mundane citizenry?  I mean, blow a few people away, steal a few million (or billion), dishonor a few unsuspecting women, and if you've got enough clout, the investigators and prosecutors will look the other way.

But you'd better NEVER, EVER try to scam, steal from, threaten, or lie to the US GOVERNMENT.  Don't even think about it.

Makes me think of the provisions the Gov has in place for "Continuity-of-Government", or COG.  Look it up.  They're just making sure that in a worst-case scenario, the FedGov will survive, even if all the citizens of this country perish.  They're not important, don'tcha know?  It's a question of priorities.

Less money than TPTB have spent on COG would protect our electrical infrastructure from an EMP, whether by nuke (think, North Korea and Iran) or solar flare (which we're overdue for, the last big one being in the 1850s).  Such an event would result in the deaths of 90% of the US population within a year.  But that's not important.

BTW...the Hillary Clinton saga isn't over yet.  It wouldn't surprise me if she got off.  She's got way more clout than Capone ever did.