Archive for the ‘Debate’ Category

PostHeaderIcon Ants & Gods

The subject of Artificial Intelligence and the future of mankind arose in discussions on the previous post. Here is an excellent TED talk on subject, by Sam Harris last year:

 

 

…pretty sobering and thought provoking, no? The analogy comparing ourselves to ants works rather well. His last line about constructing a new god was incredibly profound! Any discussion?

PS: Especially for Chris… be paying close attention to the visual at 4:08; but try not to lose your train of thought.  😉 ◄Dave►

PostHeaderIcon Privacy & Paranoia

On the previous thread, I mentioned to Steel that I had recently acquired an Amazon Echo device, and was having great fun playing with Alexa. He replied with this apropos cartoon:

LOL… Sure, before ordering it, I experienced the old kneejerk paranoia about my privacy. Yet, before I could ask Alexa to spell antidisestablishmentarianism (she did!) or play some Beach Boys, the only time I ever spoke here in my hermitage was to my little dog, or the occasional rare telephone call. I have always assumed that my telephone conversations are being recorded somewhere anyway. Even if I never turned the microphone off, or unplugged her, and Alexa was actually recording every sound here 24/7, those tasked to search through the recordings for my transgressions would be bored to death, unless they shared my nostalgia for the popular music of my youth, and enjoyed the sound of rain, a babbling brook, or ocean waves playing while I am sleeping. 😊

Until one experiences it for themselves, it can be hard to imagine the sense of relief derived from escaping the stultifying paranoia of Big Brother, which is just another weapon in the oligarchs’ tool chest, for maintaining their dualistic society. The ubiquitous ‘us against them’ mindset is designed to keep the sheeple at each other’s throats, rather than their own. All that is required to reacquire personal freedom, is to opt out of their cruel game, as an individual refusing to choose sides. If one concludes he has no need of a ruler, or even a political leader, then it becomes ludicrous to consider sanctioning their authority, by participating in the obnoxious process of choosing one.

Several months ago, it occurred to me that, now in my dotage, I am no longer a threat to the powers that be. If they have nothing to fear from me, I see little point in fearing them. Frankly, at my age, were they to haul me off to prison as a subversive, it would represent a marked improvement in my austere lifestyle. Air conditioning; pest control; three hot meals a day; regular hot showers; laundry service; free medical attention; gym; library; cable TV; internet; armed guards 24/7 to protect an old man from terrorists, gangs, flash mobs, muggers, and lonely widows. No wonder so many codgers who are released, soon deliberately re-offend to get back inside, and resume the carefree lifestyle to which they had become accustomed. It sure sounds more appealing than a retirement home, populated predominantly with addled dementia patients, no?  😉

Since this epiphany, I switched back to using Google as my search engine, and have found I much prefer Google Chrome to Firefox for several reasons, so it is now my default browser. I even stay logged into it and YouTube, with my real identity. I notice that the ad blocking extensions do such a good job, that I have not experienced any of the targeted advertising that is supposed to be so off-putting about allowing Google to collect data on my surfing habits. I do not even experience advertising on YouTube, and appreciate the way it tracks my tastes to offer new clips that might interest me. So, with nothing to hide, what exactly have I lost by relinquishing my privacy? ◄Dave►

PostHeaderIcon More Red Pills

After watching the following excellent video:

…I was perusing the 1700 comments, when I encountered an intriguing entry by ‘Daedalus Occidentalis,’ which itself had 45 replies:

Here’s a Red Pill for you… Search the following phrases on Google Images and look at the results:

White woman with children

White couple

White American Inventors

European history people

Happy American couple

European people art

White man and white woman

Using copy/paste, I went through the whole list and was stunned! I’ve turned them into links, to make it easy to try it for yourself.

By the time I got through ‘White American Inventors,’ I figured the search algorithm must be just ignoring the term ‘white,’ so I changed it to ‘Black American Inventors.’ You guessed it – huge difference!

The final one is pretty damn specific. Can anyone explain to me why the results are so absurd?

One of the 45 replies to the thread nailed it:

It’s like watching the ads on TV here in the UK; if you were an alien watching those transmissions, you would be absolutely convinced that the majority of human families consisted of a black guy, a white woman, and asian kids.

It is truly fortuitous that I no longer care a whit about the future of Western civilization, or even mankind itself for that matter. If the Jihadists or North Koreans don’t manage to destroy the internet first, the upcoming Ice Age should cure such utter nonsense rather nicely.  😉  ◄Dave►

PostHeaderIcon Finally, A “Crisis” I Know Something About

Since the Trump announcement, it is official – we are in an opioid crisis.

Thank you very much Mr Trump but I have my own personal opioid crisis – like what if I run out, or, what if I can no longer get it.

The lame-stream-media assures us that there are many unnecessary deaths each year because of easy access to opioids. I sure wish I knew where these easy access points are because I have to jump through hoops to get mine. Oh yes, I am an abuser. On average, I take 2 oxycodone pills each day. Why? Without them (or something stronger), I would kill myself to stop the chronic pain. Do they make me “high”? No. They make me itch if I take too many. In fact, I have yet to meet anyone who takes these things who feels euphoric as a result. Instead, they only feel a bit less pain for a few hours.

I hear that some 9 million oxycdone pills have been shipped to a town of 400 in West Virginia. I agree that this seems odd at the least. So, why don’t the authorities descend on small town WV and leave me the hell alone? And, if some stupid know-nothing kids want to use them as a means of suicide, my only reaction is that I hope they do it before they reproduce. Why is any large scale method of suicide a “crisis” in a world that has several billion more humans than it needs. Sounds more like a solution to me.

But then, maybe my “addiction” has made me mean. Isn’t that what these chemicals do – make us into something worse than we are without them? I don’t really think so. I think there are inherent losers in every society who will find a path to self destruction and government’s only legitimate role is to try to prevent them harming others on their way to the oblivion they seek. If opioids furnish a relatively painless path to oblivion for the losers and some temporary relief for us old arthritis sufferers, I say, “bring ’em on”.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson


Users who have LIKED this post:

  • avatar

PostHeaderIcon Countless Questions

 

Tucker has some really good ones, and more are arising daily. Don’t we deserve at least a few answers?

Mexico? I still think Campos looks suspicious with that Jihadist styled beard. Most important questions are: what are they hiding… and why? ◄Dave►

PostHeaderIcon 30 Video Mashup

This mashup isn’t from conspiracy theorists; it’s from the NYT:

Listen carefully to the audio. Notice how much of the time the shooter is firing single shots, or not at all. Note: they counted a couple of short consecutive bursts individually, which I had counted together when I found only ten episodes of automatic fire, approximately once a minute.

Their count of 900 rounds fired at the crowd comports with my own estimate of 1000 rounds or less. In any case, 900/12=75. The only way to fire an average of 75 rounds per burst with an AR-15, would be with drum type magazines. I have heard nothing regarding such magazines being at the crime scene, and the leaked photos do not show any.

I still think that many of the sustained ~100 round bursts were probably from belt-fed weapons, such as the M-249. This would also make a lot more sense out of the time and effort expended to set up tripod tables. Although designated a ‘light machine gun,’ which can be shoulder or hip fired, the M-249 still weighs over twice that of a M-16. Then again, I suppose firing 1100 rounds (counting the 200 fired through the door) offhand with either weapon, would be a bit daunting for a pudgy 61-year-old besotted gambler.  ◄Dave►

 

PostHeaderIcon Two Shooters!

Uh oh… We have been musing over the mysterious Vegas massacre a bit hereabouts; but I have deliberately avoided chasing the various conspiracy theories, involving multiple shooters. I had assumed that all of the reports of more than one gunman were the result of confusing echos. That just ended:

This sure strikes me as sound science (pun intended) and common sense. Now, what exactly are they hiding, and why? ◄Dave►

PostHeaderIcon Classical Liberalism

Politics managed to sneak back into the previous thread’s ribald attempt to evade such. Chris eventually explained why he thinks of ‘liberals’ as left-wing ideologues, and how outdated it is of me to omit the qualifier ‘classic,’ while employing the term outside of the modern Left/Right political paradigm. While composing a response, it occurred to me that this discussion probably deserves its own post. So, I fleshed it out as a more fulsome reply. The block quotes below are from his referenced comment

The dictionary is awash in Orwellian distortions of the English language. The venerable term ‘liberal,’ like ‘Liberty,’ is derived from ‘Liber,’ meaning ‘free’ in Latin. Liberal political philosophy was developed by 17th & 18th century philosophers during the enlightenment, known as the Age of Reason. Thinkers like Adam Smith, David Hume, Voltaire, John Locke, et al, and all manner of Liberty loving, anti-tyranny, radicals like America’s founders, would have proudly worn the label ‘liberal’ in their day. Thus, I had always assumed that the Left had deliberately co-opted and inverted the term, as typical Orwellian Newspeak. That is, until I finally took the time to look up the word.

As is not at all unusual, the muddled definition I had been carrying in my head for decades, I had originally surmised from context and common usage, rather than consulting a dictionary. I suppose this is how and why language evolves over time. I would bet that most Americans have only a vague notion that ‘liberal’ means one or more of: left-wing; altruist; collectivist; socialist; communist; Marxist; atheist; Democrat; or simply the opposite of ‘conservative.’ The way it is used so often as an expletive by conservatives, suggests as much. Yet, none of those terms are used to define it, by any dictionary I have checked.

The term is used differently in American politics as I’m sure you know. Liberal and conservative now pretty much refer to attitude regarding adherence to the meaning and intent to the constitution and rule of law.

I reckon Chris’ attempt to define it by one’s attitude toward the U.S. Constitution, is much too parochial. That would only further confuse anyone trying to make sense of politics in other countries, which have conservative political parties called, “Liberal.”

Currently, the Oxford dictionary definition of liberal is simply: “open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.” I really like the simplicity of that, and it describes me.

The Free dictionary offers: “Favoring reform, open to new ideas, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; not bound by traditional thinking; broad-minded.” That sure doesn’t sound tyrannical to me; quite the opposite.

My thesaurus suggests as synonyms for liberal: open-minded; broad-minded; moderate; freethinking; tolerant; laissez-faire; and noninterventionist. These are all positive values to my mind. Wouldn’t it require a rather staid dogmatist to reject them?

It turns out that all of these current definitions and synonyms, fairly describe my own attitudes and outlook on life. So, the only reason I ever need qualify my liberal bent with the prefix ‘classic,’ is to disavow the collectivist and altruistic nature of most Leftist social justice warriors, who are routinely labeled and disparaged as simply ‘liberals,’ by cultural warriors on the Right. Surprisingly, nowhere have I found the bugaboos of altruism and/or collectivism, mentioned under the heading of liberalism. This would suggest that in this case, the corruption of the English language was likely done by the Right, rather than the Left. They are the ones misusing the term.

More tutoring from Chris:

“I know it’s hard to accept but there will always be government. Always has been. Human nature doesn’t change like that.”

It depends on your definition of ‘government.’ By mine, in terms of systematic ‘rule,’ and ‘rulers’ employing armed enforcers to govern a population, there certainly has not always been. There have always been ungovernable frontiers on this planet, and there still are. E.g. the Pashtun tribal no-man’s-land, between Pakistan and Afghanistan. There are several others in that part of the world. Afghanistan itself is largely ungoverned, despite being considered a nation state.

You might not like the conditions extant in such frontiers; but there is nothing preventing those who choose to live there, from moving to the more ‘civilized’ areas of their countries, where they would be subject to the rule and rulers of the state. How many of us would move to a Galt’s Gulch in a heartbeat, to escape the tyranny of ubiquitous government rulers, tax collectors, and enforcers, if such a frontier still existed in America? I sure would.

“The single document in the world that comes closest to guaranteeing the liberalism you would desire is the constitution of the United States.”

Poppycock. Setting aside my rejection of your premise that a constitutional government is somehow required to maintain Liberty, the U.S. Constitution has obviously done no such thing, and never will. The only way such a document could ever hope to constrain a nation state’s tyrannical rulers, is if the citizenry were indefatigably ready, willing, and able to effectively revolt against their jackbooted thugs if necessary, and summarily hang the offenders without mercy, to strictly enforce it. With the passing of our generation, such will definitely no longer exist among the largely docile, dumbed-down, domesticated, sheeple that remain in America. More the pity… ◄Dave►

PostHeaderIcon The Blame Game

So, some nut case in Las Vegas collects an arsenal in his hotel room then uses said arsenal to kill and wound hundreds of people.

And, we-the-sheeple demand to know why.

Well, there are the usual suspects… the NRA, the 2nd Amendment, the GOP, Donald Trump, etc.

I beg to offer another very different point of view.

For years, the progressive movement in the USA has repeated the mantra that nobody is personally responsible for the outcome of their life. It is all the fault of THEM.

From all accounts, the Las Vegas nut was distraught over his massive gambling losses. (Can one assume that the NRA, the 2nd Amendment, etc. forced this nut to gamble and lose a fortune? Of course not.) But, according to the progressive mantra, the gambler himself could not have been responsible. Nope, it was all due to THEM.

So, our nut case does the only logical thing… he kills and wounds as many of THEM as he possibly can.

In a sick way, doesn’t this actually make some sense? THEY cause these awful things to happen to you so you strike back against THEM as best you know how.

That should teach THEM!

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson


Users who have LIKED this post:

  • avatar

PostHeaderIcon NFL Solidarity

I recently mentioned that I rarely even turn on my TV anymore. That is primarily because, as a political news junkie, that is all I have ever watched for the past 40 years or so. It hasn’t always been that way. As a young man, I was hooked on football. It began long before TIVO, when I couldn’t miss a pro game on Sundays. When it advanced to the point of not wanting to miss a college game on Saturdays, it finally occurred to me that I was wasting my weekends, watching other people have fun. I went cold turkey in the mid ‘70s. Now, I only ever watch the Super Bowl, and half the time I DVR that.

Now that I am effectively boycotting cable news, for loss of interest in partisan politics, and am probably getting too old to enjoy much exercise, I just might become a football fan again. My prime motive would be to support the NFL, in the face of the state’s call for sheeple to boycott their games. Whatever one might think of their personal motives for doing so, the players’ open defiance of nationalistic rituals, needs to be encouraged by right-thinking Liberty-loving individuals.

The notion that those dissatisfied with the state, can just stop waving its flag or standing at attention for its anthem, is certainly to be encouraged. It wouldn’t do if the NFL had to knuckle under to the state’s economic pressure, so the least I can do is help keep their ratings up. I think I’ll set my DVR up to record all NFL games, even if I don’t bother to watch them.  😉 ◄Dave►

PostHeaderIcon Free Education?

Profound: “My education was not free – I paid for it with my mind!” -Candace Owens

Start here:

 

 

…to watch the last 15 minutes of this remarkable interview. If you find her as inspirational as I do, then when you have the time you’ll want to go back and watch the whole hour from the beginning.

BTW: Here is her hot YouTube channel.  Her clips are all short and powerful. Enjoy… ◄Dave►

PostHeaderIcon Tribal Narratives

Furthering my jihad against all forms of collectivism, including careless use of collective pronouns, a TED talk offers some profound food for thought regarding origin myths and tribal narratives:

We all have origin stories and identity myths, our tribal narratives that give us a sense of security and belonging. But sometimes our small-group identities can keep us from connecting with humanity as a whole — and even keep us from seeing others as human. In a powerful talk about how we understand who we are, Chetan Bhatt challenges us to think creatively about each other and our future. As he puts it: it’s time to change the question from “Where are you from?” to “Where are you going?”

 

Be yourself. I am. All that is necessary is to stop caring a whit what other people might think of the authentic you. 😉  ◄Dave►

PostHeaderIcon Why Not Redefine The Problem?

How long has the war between western culture and Islam been going on? In round numbers, 1,000 years. Our own modern, active participation has been going on for over 20 years.

Are we winning?

The answer is a simple NO.

Why aren’t we winning?

Could it be that we either don’t know or refuse to admit who/what we are fighting?

I think so. If this is true, or even somewhat true, would this not be a good time to refocus and try one or more new approaches? If so, what keeps us from doing so?

First is a mistaken understanding of our own Constitution. Said Constitution does state that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion”. However, it does not say “Congress shall make no law protecting said Constitution (and the Republic it established) from destruction by group or system of thought that clearly states its intention to do just that”. Such a Constitutional clause/statement would be paramount to insanity. Yet, there are those among us who try to pretend that it says just that – and, to convince the rest of us, particularly those among us whose brains are still in the plastic state. So, are we insane? To a frightening degree, yes.

Second is a “hate America and everything it once stood for” group, embedded among us, that will support any cause, no matter how insane, so long as it promises to damage or destroy western culture. To this end, we now have a near majority of citizens who think that somehow the statue of a Civil War leader or Founding Father is a symbol of white supremacy or neo-Nazism. Can anyone truly believe that the pen that wrote “all men are created equal” really belonged to a man who did not think that Negros were human? Even though he lived much of his life with one of them playing the role of spouse? Yes, Jefferson owned slaves. Yes, he knew it was wrong. He understood it to be one of those wrongs that have no really good way to make right (“But, as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.”) Can anyone truly believe that George Washington was an early Nazi? Such is absurd. Yet, there are serious discussions about tearing down the Washington DC and Mount Rushmore monuments to these two people (among others).

But I diverge. My topic is about another approach to our war with “radical Islam”. Here I offer a suggestion that, IMHO, would alter the existing “war” instantly and in our favor… Our government (the President) should simply (and publicly) announce that, lacking any REAL evidence that there is a form of Islam that does not support (at least with its silence) the actions of the supposedly “radical” form, we (the USA) will consider ourselves to be at war with Islam and will act accordingly until such time that evidence of meaningful disapproval of the acts of the “radicals” by this supposedly “other” branch of Islam.

That is to say, we will outlaw the practice of Islam within our own borders and will cease to give aid, comfort and weapons to any nation/state that supports Islam. Further, we will respond with every weapon at our disposal to every nation/state that harbors and/or supports terrorism in any form or fashion.

Our next move should be to discover why so many American Jews seem to support a movement (Islam) that is vowed to destroy all Jews. Something about this simply has never smelled right to me.

Would the “left” have a cow over such a declaration? Of course. But, they are already trying to destroy the Republic as we know it so who really cares how many cows they have.

Am I a bigot? No, I think I am simply realistic.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

PostHeaderIcon The Big Lie

What would happen if all the useful idiot SJW sheeple, rioting across America under the banner of “Antifa,” watched this while actually sober?

 

 

These college indoctrinated fools couldn’t have read Jonah Goldberg’s ten-year-old book “Liberal Fascism,” which explained this subject well. Better yet was John Taylor Gatto’s earlier book “The Underground History of American Education: A Schoolteacher’s Intimate Investigation Into the Problem of Modern Schooling,” which not only covered extensively the subject of the collectivist nature of fascism; but explained how we have all been deliberately dumbed down by the Progressives (link points to free PDF of this remarkable tome – probably the most important book I have ever read!).

Alas, red pills are generally unappetizing for anyone under 30 or even 40, so they are unlikely to read  Dinesh D’Souza’s “The Big Lie” either. I suppose I should; but I already know the subject all too well, and am of the ineluctable opinion that it is far too late to do anything about it. ◄Dave►

PostHeaderIcon Why The Silence?

Why is it so quiet here? It can’t be because there is nothing going on. After all, there is a Russian hacker under every bed (You do have one, don’t you? I’m sure I have several but they are so quiet I don’t notice them.)

Meanwhile, the establishment refuses to give up a single iota of its power (and they say there is no bipartisanship in Washington!)

I sense there are more people than ever ready and willing to fight back but we somehow lack organization. Trump has turned out better than I dared imagine but he is NOT a leader. Despite his often ill-advised “tweets” on whatever riles him at the moment, he does not try to engage the people in any form of resistance. For sure, he tweets about the evil media and the like but always from a personal point of view rather than their obvious determination to harm the nation and its principles – Trump simply being an easy target for the larger objective.

Are there no potential leaders out there in the wings? Please don’t suggest Ivanka and Chelsea or I will surely find a way to digitally vomit on you.

Better yet, where is Dave? (Hello Dave – are you there? I’m sorry I criticized your stance on anarchism. Please come back.)

Please, somebody say something sane. I feel like I am in solitary confinement. Plus, misogynist or not, I miss Bill O’Reilly on Fox. Tucker Carlson just argues for the sake of arguing with little logic to back up whatever he is trying to say (usually, it is not clear to me and I am not sure it is clear to him either). On a recent episode, he seemed to be arguing with a fellow who was trying to agree with him.

Have we all simply given up?

Don’t even think it.

Troy L Robinson

PostHeaderIcon Bastiat Knew The Answer All Along

Readers of this blog will know that I have long thought universal suffrage to be a recipe for national ruin. For a change, time and history seem to be proving my point. It turns out that such an idea (restricting the franchise) had occurred to a real thinker years ago – in 1850 to be precise.

I had read Frederic Bastiat’s masterwork, The Law some years ago but some of the finer points did not stick effectively in my mind. Yesterday, on the long drive home from The People’s Republic of Austin (TX), we listened to a reading of The Law on CD. This time said finer points hit me square in the brain. I had previously suggested some ratio of taxes paid versus government benefits received as a yardstick to determine eligibility for the voting franchise. None of my suggested schemes seemed viable (because they were not). Then, listening to Bastiat’s words again, I realized the obvious.

This Republic has never practiced universal suffrage. Originally, the franchise was restricted to “freeholders” (property owners). Later, after some initial enlightenment had broadened access to the franchise, women and children were still denied the vote. Why, one might wonder? Was the Republic anti-woman until the 1920’s and anti-child to this day? Not at all. The objection to these, and other groups, was the general lack of sufficient formal education to make an informed choice in the voting place. For sure, a few American women were well educated before the 1920’s (and, no doubt told their husbands how to vote) but it was not until women were universally given the same primary education as men that they were (finally) extended the franchise.

This actually makes sense. We don’t really want our elections to be a random game of chance do we? So, why not continue that notion today? That is, extend the “privilege” (it is not a “right”) of the franchise only to those with sufficient education (no matter whether formal or self taught) to make an informed choice? Yes, I realize that the literacy tests once used in parts of the South were declared unconstitutional but that was pandering nonsense. Our original Federal Constitution did not speak to voter qualification because, among several other good reasons, our Federal Constitution did not empower the Federal Government to conduct elections. This power, rightly, remained with the several States (as it actually still does to this day although one would hardly know it what with the constant interference with the Federal Government when the States try to take actions to curb voter fraud).

So, I hereby propose the re-institution of some manner of test to establish that each proposed voter understands the English language and has sufficient literacy and information to understand the issues and/or candidates subject to the upcoming vote. Details to be worked out by smarter people than me – and the federal courts told strictly to piss off as this is not within their jurisdiction! (The English language part of this proposal should be enacted as part of a law establishing English as the one and only official language of the United States of America.

What to do about those supposedly educated snowflakes being produced by our secondary indoctrination system I leave for others to ponder. I seriously doubt that my solution (shooting them and their professors) would be widely accepted.

On another topic, Bastiat opined that the United States of America (in 1850) was a nearly perfect Republic, stained only by slavery and tariffs, either of which might eventually destroy us. IMHO, slavery actually did. Aside from the obvious death and destruction of the Civil War, national guilt over slavery and the subsequent institutionalized bigotry (for instance, the so-called “Jim Crow” laws) opened American hearts to the notion of relaxed standards and welfare payments to Black citizens – soon expanded to any “affected” group (read – any group with enough numbers to invite political pandering). This has ultimately led (again IMHO) to a nation of “victims” and “cry babies” who are generally neither self sufficient nor dependable (or actually educated for that matter). I see no good path back to where our Republic was in its glory days.

Bastiat also opined that socialism, which The Law was written to defeat in his native France, depended on a foundation of legalized and institutionalized plunder such that the law became destructive of its own original purpose (to protect life, liberty and property). I especially admired one idea from the book – “if you want people to respect the law, then make the law respectable”. I continue to be amazed how many thinkers (such as Jefferson, Franklin, de Tocqueville, and Bastiat), way back then, could clearly see and understand the causes of our eventual demise.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

PostHeaderIcon A Reasonable Democrat

I totally agreed with this outspoken and principled lady:

I have always been somewhat impressed with her, and having the courage to face Tucker just took it up a notch. Then, Tucker gets an attaboy for not even trying to flay her.

All of the Republican Trump sycophants praising his attack need to wake up, and Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon Cultural Suicide

Isn’t it only a matter of time before this mindless cultural suicide begins in America? Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon Even Deeper Reflections

My frustrated comment to the previous post by Troy, caused him to reply with a thoughtful comment, regarding my increasingly serious flirtations with anarchy. My efforts to compose an equally thoughtful rejoinder, outgrew that somewhat off-topic comment section, so here it is as a new post specifically addressing my perspective on the subject of anarchy.

One of us is surely mistaken.

Perhaps we both are at this juncture, Troy, and now just living with very different illusory movies running in our heads, which we mistake for reality. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

some government is needed

As you well know, I spent the first 70 years of my life convinced of exactly that; but that in no way obligates me to be submissive to any so-called authority, or support the tyranny into which the Federal government has devolved. Madison particularly despised the concept of democracy. How then, did we end up with mob rule? Why is it so readily accepted by the sheeple?

Can we agree that mankind deserves at least the level of individual Liberty he and his contemporaries enjoyed? Would you not also agree that the odds now of retrieving that worthy goal, through any nonviolent political process, are essentially nil? Must we abandon it entirely then, perhaps out of some errant sense of patriotism, or is another violent revolution inevitable?

At a quick glance, anarchy may seem to have a lot to recommend it. But, upon deeper reflection, it soon becomes apparent (to most of us) that anarchy provides a sure and consistent path to some manner of “strong man rule”.

Troy, you have had a front row seat to my slow, cautious, careful, and deliberate investigations into the philosophical underpinnings of anarchical thought. This was in no way a causal “quick glance,” and I can assure you that after reading several books, numerous scholarly essays, and countless articles on the subject, I have given it considerable ‘deep reflection.’ Interestingly, the notion that it would inevitably result in “strong man rule,” is still not at all apparent to me. With all due respect, from my perspective, reaching such a conclusion appears to be the result of distinctly shallower thought than I have invested in the subject.

As for strong man rulers, try to convince me that the average citizen Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon What A Reversal

Just a few months ago, it seem certain the GOP was headed for certain destruction. Now it is the Dems that are hanging by thread (a thread they seem determined to break).

Even though I thought I was paying attention, I am still not sure what happened (although I am pretty sure the Russians did NOT do it).

Can it really be that a majority of Americans are simply tired of being lied to and treated like incompetent children? One can only hope.

As all of our readers know, I did not support Mr. Trump and I am still wary of him today – although I will credit him with at least trying to do exactly what he promised during the campaign.

As I predicted, sadly with some accuracy, a large portion of our citizens simply will not accept the outcome of the election and seem determined to cripple the elected government in any and all ways possible. The evidence following the 2 Obama elections suggest the same would NOT be true had the election gone the other way. For sure the losers grumbled after Obama’s wins but they did get out of the way and let him govern – however badly he did so.

If we are to continue to function as a free Republic, it is past time that the progressives do the same. If office-holding progressives cannot or will not accept the outcome of a free election, then they are in violation of the oaths they took upon accepting their offices and should be held accountable accordingly. Indeed, at what point does this behavior rise to the level of treason? Read the rest of this entry »

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Political Spectrum
Political Circle
Archives
Blogroll
Internal Links