Archive for the ‘Philosophy’ Category
Although one of my favorite sites is The Objective Standard, I rarely share links to the excellent content there, because much of it is behind a pay wall. While I have been a subscriber for years, I can’t expect others to be. However, today’s article, “9/11 and America’s Failure to End the Jihad,” is openly available to all, and worth considering:
The anniversary of 9/11 is here, and another year has passed without America naming, much less eliminating, the cause of the attack.
The cause of the attack on 9/11 and, more broadly, of the jihad against the West is the fact that Islamic regimes—most notably those in Iran and Saudi Arabia—take Islam seriously and thus seek to convert or kill everyone who doesn’t. Toward that end, these regimes materially and spiritually support jihadist groups such as al-Qaeda and Islamic State, who, in turn, attack and murder Americans and others who refuse to submit.
That, in a nutshell, is why al-Qaeda attacked America on September 11, 2001. And it is why jihadists and their supporters are constantly planning or sponsoring more attacks. Everyone paying attention knows this. But the U.S. government refuses to acknowledge the cause and thus refuses to eliminate the source of the problem: the Islamic regimes that sponsor jihad.
Like he said, we all know this; but it is not considered Politically Correct to say so out loud. A very good question is why? Read the rest of this entry »
One frequently encounters the sentiment that people get the government they deserve. This is usually found in the context that those suffering tyranny in foreign lands, should rise up and overthrow their rulers. I must admit that I have in the past been persuaded by this logic, especially during debate over the notion that we somehow have a moral obligation, to go abroad seeking dragons to slay, on behalf of oppressed people.
I am pretty clear in my assessment that we have no such obligation; but is it even true that oppressed slaves deserve their masters, for lack of will to depose them, violently if necessary?
In a comment section here the other day, CT referring to Hillary said:
It boils down to CHARACTER … who has it and who does not.
I am not talking about CHARACTER of the candidates I am talking about character of the American voter who clearly is about to get exactly what they deserve.
From my increasingly anarchistic perspective, I was tempted to quip that this would be their just deserts, for legitimizing the oligarch’s Kabuki dance by voting at all, regardless of the winner of their sham election. The “Deep State” could care less who wins an election; because normally they control both candidates. The jury is still out; but this is the first time in at least a generation that this may not be true.
I have just finished reading probably the most important essay of this political season, which concluded with:
The election of 2016 is a test—in my view, the final test—of whether there is any virtù left in what used to be the core of the American nation. If they cannot rouse themselves simply to vote for the first candidate in a generation who pledges to advance their interests, and to vote against the one who openly boasts that she will do the opposite (a million more Syrians, anyone?), then they are doomed. They may not deserve the fate that will befall them, but they will suffer it regardless.
The pseudonymous author was referring, of course, to the #NeverTrump faction of the conservative intelligentsia, which he repeatedly excoriates with the delicious metaphor, of comparing them to the Washington Generals. Read the rest of this entry »
First, I would like to point out my “Cultural Bigotry” essay, which I wrote a few months back, before I ever heard of the “Alt-Right.” Since Hillary’s speech introducing the term to the rest of us, much is being made of the alleged ‘racist’ or ‘white supremacist’ nature of some of those associated with it. The research I have been doing, has revealed that multicultural challenges, are seen as much more important than race to these young folks. For one thing, they are actually intelligent enough to understand that terms like ‘Muslim’ or ‘Mexican,’ do not refer to the race of those they label. However, here is a short discussion of the diversity within the movement, by one of its founders:
Certainly not PC; but I find his positions reasonable, and certainly worthy of open discussion in the marketplace of ideas. I also note his push back, regarding whether either Breitbart or Trump, Read the rest of this entry »
This is the modern Internet at its best. A world class philosopher at home in Canada, and a world famous cartoonist at home in California, sharing an utterly fascinating discussion over Skype, with the whole world via YouTube:
Don’t be dissuaded by the title; surprisingly little of their thought-provoking conversation is about Trump himself. Still, if he accomplishes nothing else this election season, I will always be grateful for the impetus he provided for me to discover the mind of Scott Adams, and for these two intellectual titans to get together for this entertaining debate. Read the rest of this entry »
Recently on the “Eliminating Authority” discussion thread, Chris offered an enigma:
Just to throw out a bit of a muse that I can’t quite figure out yet. In this day and age anybody can carry in their pocket the wisdom and knowledge of all recorded human history and every technology known. All the great philosophers, leaders, and critical minds works are at our finger tips. Yet we remain so stupid.
…that deserves its own topic for discussion. First, I would suggest that information ≠ education. All the information in the world, is useless to anyone not willing or able, to access and learn it. It is certainly not PC to say so; but there are a significant percentage of people in the world, for which what we might consider as ‘educated,’ is simply beyond their ken. Ever meet someone with an IQ of 100? Now, ponder the unavoidable fact that fully half the world’s population, are dumber still! Read the rest of this entry »
In the previous thread “Globalists vs Americans,” while replying to Chris’ comment, I mentioned:
Of course, from my own perspective, the real dichotomy is the Collectivists vs Individualists, which basically eliminates all the statist Incumbrepublocrat politicians, including Trump. This explains why as a sovereign individualist, my only viable option is to vote ‘None of the Above,’ by the simple expedient of not voting at all.
As is her wont, CT then asked a question that requires a thoughtful answer:
Dave as a sovereign individualist, do you live happily in the framework of what is today?
This deserves more than a quick reply; hence the new post. First, a few clarifications, regarding the natural rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, as well as Individual Sovereignty.
For me, the entire purpose of life is the pursuit of happiness. Thus, if I chose not to allow myself to be happy, there would be little point in doing the things I do for my health, to perpetuate my life beyond my 70+ years.
Liberty, I define as the opportunity to live my life as I choose to live it, as long as I do not forcefully interfere in the rights of others, to live their own lives as they choose. Read the rest of this entry »
I have watched as much of the RNC as my stomach can take without my dinner coming back up and I have little doubt that what we are watching is actually the Republican National Collapse.
Not that I would be sad to see either of the major duopoly parties go away but I can’t help but wonder if 4 to 8 years of president Hillary Clinton is not too steep a price to pay.
Several years ago, before Obama’s reelection, the great thinker Thomas Sowell opined that our Republic could not survive another Obama term. It seems we may have, although by the slightest of margins. (I am among those who think the ultimate reality of a given administration’s policies does not fully appear until several years after the fact.)
Having said that, I am fairly certain that there is no way our Republic can possibly survive even one Hillary term. Would there still be an entity known as the United States of America post Hillary? No doubt. Would it have any similarity to the Republic described in our Founding documents? Again, no doubt there would be none.
Aside from getting us into more unnecessary wars, as Hillary is bound to do, she will get to oversee the entire makeover of the Supreme Court – an action that will cause problems for generations. I have no doubt that the kind of people Hillary will appoint to the Court will quickly destroy what little is left of our Constitution. Hillary’s election will also prove that a person can violate any and all of our laws and still be awarded the best prize we, as a people, have to offer. That alone is cause enough to condemn our Republic. Read the rest of this entry »
Scott Adams has done it again. He has provided something worth seriously pondering: “The FBI, Credibility, and Government“:
The primary goal of government is its own credibility.
That notion needs some explaining.
Governments do many things, including building roads, providing social services, defending the homeland, and more. But no matter what the government is trying to accomplish, its macro-responsibility is to maintain its own credibility. Governments without credibility devolve into chaos. Credibility has to be job one.
That is profound! I had never considered it this way before; but upon reflection, he is absolutely right. I would say that this is particularly important in a state like the USA, which claims to be a self-governing, Constitutionally limited, representative republic, where citizens voluntarily accept the rule of law, within the concept of a participatory democracy.
Whether any of that is in fact true, is somewhat beside the point, as long as the sheeple believe enough of it, to accept the legitimacy of the state to rule over their lives. Somehow over the years, the American sheeple have been brainwashed, Read the rest of this entry »
In all I read today about the FBI refusing to prosecute Hillary, I thought Karl Denninger said it best:
The Rule of Law was officially burned and buried today on live television by the Director of the FBI.
You therefore no longer have any moral requirement to adhere to same; your entire analysis must now rest on whether you are sufficiently afraid of being shot — and nothing more.
America, as envisioned and fought for by the founders, died today at 11:00 AM ET, 7/5/2016.
240 years and one day from birth to death.
Or, as Trump tweeted: #riggedsystem. I have argued that this was obvious ten years ago. So did the immortal George Carlin:
…who continues to make more and more sense, the older I get. There is simply no way in hell to restore this country, by voting for the lesser of two evils offered up by the oligarch’s Incumbrepublocrat duopoly. ◄Dave►
Before I get into the main theme of this screed, a random question… How can it be that an American citizen who tells less than the whole truth to an agent of the U.S. Government (say, for instance, Martha Stewart) can be imprisoned while an agent of the U.S. Government (say the head of the FBI) can lie to American citizens with total immunity from prosecution?
So, on with the screed.
Mrs Hillary Rodham Clinton, then acting in the role of Secretary of State in the U.S. Government, finds a compelling need to have an electronic communication system that is totally under her own control rather than that of said U.S. Government – and proceeds accordingly.
Later, some agents of the U.S. Government, pretending to be shocked at such activity, demand an investigation. Said investigation is placed under the FBI and off we go. Surely truth and justice will prevail? Oddly, no sane person in the nation really thinks so.
Now, were I to be leading such an investigation, my first question would be “WHY”. What advantage/benefit/etc. can Mrs Clinton derive from having this “private” system? The obvious answer, as noted above, is “CONTROL”. That is to say, control over what might be seen by whom and under what circumstances.
My next question would then be, what might she need to hide. Oddly, the FBI asked, instead, asked “was there any intentional mishandling of classified information”. Asking such a question is a technique known as dragging a red herring across a trail – with the intent of sending the tracking dogs off on a useless tangent.
I could never be fairly accused of being a racist. I have comfortably lived among natives in Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania, and all regions of North America. I couldn’t care less about skin pigmentation or facial features, when evaluating the worth of another human being. Yet, like it or not; PC or not; it is impossible not to at least notice such obvious variations in humanity.
While the police can be ordered not to ‘profile’ subjects based on physical appearance, there is no way for the rulers to ever prevent the rest of us from doing so. As an example, when I lived peacefully as a decidedly minority Caucasian, among the predominant Asians and Pacific Islanders in Hawaii, even the bankers wore Aloha shirts as daily business attire. Anyone seen wearing a necktie in Honolulu’s balmy climate, was immediately considered suspect, by me and most everyone else, because they were undoubtedly either a lawyer, a politician, or a salesman from the mainland.
Were we ‘profiling’ and making perhaps inaccurate, or even unfair judgements based on physical appearance? You bet. Was that a form of prejudicial bigotry? Yes, of course. Was it irrational or wrong to do so? Not at all. The same Progressive snowflakes, who get their knickers in a twist over the very mention of profiling, get the vapors over the mere sight of bikers, armed citizens, KKK or Neo-Nazis protesters, Trump hats, and even riot police.
Prejudging others can be a rather significant survival skill, no matter how often we are exhorted not to be prejudiced. The police can be well-paid to risk not profiling for PC reasons; but the rest of us are not. Since doing so frequently elicits bogus charges of ‘racism,’ even when race itself is not even a factor (e.g. Jihadists), it is worth sorting out what it is that we really are all bigoted about. I submit that the common denominator of prejudice, intolerance, bigotry, tribalism, xenophobia, etc. is culture, not race. Read the rest of this entry »
I have frequently shared my favorable opinion of Camille Paglia, as my favorite feminist. I have just discovered a worthy competitor for that covetable title. She may not be quite as irreverently feisty; but Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers, is every bit as intelligent, outspoken, and critical of modern feminism and stultifying campus culture. She has the further advantages of being heterosexual and way easier on the eyes. 😉
If you appreciate strong intelligent women, take a break from politics and enjoy this conversation:
One need not agree with all they said, to enjoy the repartee; yet I am in substantial agreement with most of it. I was inspired to look Sommers up in the wiki. She has quite a CV. As an unapologetic male chauvinist, I can’t help but find this sixty-five-year-old lady rather charming, and imagining what she must have looked like as a California girl / ’60s flower child. 😉 ◄Dave►
The lame-stream-media’s ignorance-based and intentional falsehoods concerning Islam are becoming intolerable. Ergo, yet another attempt on my part to simplify, clarify and render truthful the real facts about Islam…
Impremis: Islam is not a religion in the classic sense. It is an all-encompassing system intended to direct and control every aspect of the lives of its adherents. That is to say, it contains a belief system (a religion), a legal system, a governmental system and a cultural system. Therefore, to find some aspects of Islam, for instance Sharia Law, intolerable and incompatible with American values, does NOT constitute religious intolerance. Nor does outrage against killing innocent people in the name of Islam.
Item: The United States Constitution, first amendment, forbids the (federal) Congress to make any law respecting the establishment or free practice of religion. It does NOT say that we the people are somehow legally bound to tolerate the intolerable in any form or respect.
Item: The koranimal that shot up the bar in Orlando; the koranimals that shot up the party in Santa Barbara; the koranimals that attacked Burssells; the koranimals who attacked Paris; the koranimals who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon; indeed, violent koranimals everywhere, are practicing Islam exactly as intended by their prophet and as prescribed by Islam’s sacred documents. It is the so-called “moderate Muslims” who are practicing a “perverted” form of Islam. Read the rest of this entry »
There was so much steam coming out my ears yesterday that it almost destroyed my relatively new hearing aids.
Why, you ask (not really caring)?
Because I was listening to our Traitor-in-Chief trying to disassociate the Orlando terrorist from anything to do with Islam!
Then an obvious truth occurred to me…
Our once great nation is so far gone that an obvious traitor can serve as POTUS and that WTS and our elected representatives in the Congress are too damned stupid and/or scared to even whimper about it. That is why I have shown so little interest in the election farce currently being conducted for our entertainment.
Then an even more obvious truth occurred to me…
It really matters not who is elected (appointed, designated, etc) president because the problem is not with our so-called leaders. They only reflect the attitude and incompetence of WTS. Ergo, the problem is US and we will still be US no matter who is elected POTUS, to Congress, to local dogcatcher or whatever.
Nothing has happened to this nation that WTS did not willingly allow to happen. Read the rest of this entry »
In my continuing research into what I refer to as a Laissez Faire Stateless Society, I have encountered a lot of new terms attempting to redefine anarchy, which has such a negative connotation in the minds of sheeple. One of them is ‘Voluntaryist.’ I have discovered an interesting and informative website, with the simple URL of voluntaryist.com. Friday evening, I was perusing a section of it entitled, “How I Became a Voluntaryist,” which consists of personal testimonials. While reading Ben Speers’ biographical, “Conscience of a “Former” Conservative,” I encountered:
This idea, that people should be free to do whatever they want apart from initiating violence, crystallized in my mind. Soon I realized that there could be no ethical justifications for exceptions to this rule. This immediately led me to a conclusion that shocked me to the core, for I had never considered it before. The conclusion that I came to was that there was no moral justification for any violence-based government, which is to say any government at all based on the popular definition of government. Logically, the only road left to me was anarchism.
Bingo… welcome to my world! Read the rest of this entry »
As you may have noticed, I have had little to say on this topic lately. That is because it did not seem worth the effort. Then it dawned on me why… I have been focused on what SHOULD be done when the real question is, what CAN be done.
Said another way, what might a few people like ourselves actually suggest that would motivate others to get involved? A list of my initial suggestions follows:
That’s about all I have. Sorry.
Troy L Robinson
Recently, in objections to my interest in exploring anarchy, or what I prefer to call a laissez faire stateless society, James Madison’s famous quip that “if men were angels, no government would be necessary” has been mentioned a few times. The implication being that since we are not angels, we absolutely require rulers and a coercive state to make us behave, or society would quickly devolve into total chaos.
I decided to pen a rebuttal to this common belief, and did a quick search to find Madison’s exact quote, and the precise context in which he made it. It was in “The Federalist No. 51,” where he was expounding on the necessity of the separation of powers, with checks and balances, in the Constitution:
“The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
Thus, the context speaks for itself. Madison was far more concerned with mechanisms to limit and control the government, than how best to control the people. Read the rest of this entry »
Dave and I have suggested a series of articles addressing the subject: What Should The New America Look Like?
This is based on the collective analysis in this blog that the current America is essentially an historical artifact that will soon degenerate into total chaos unless some new, possibly radical approaches are tried. Said another way, there is no viable path back to what we once were – and were intended to be, ergo there is no rationality in wasting the time and effort trying to do so.
Since only two of us currently have editorial privileges here, and, so that we can have multiple threads so that the discussions remain navigable, I propose to post a series of topical “stubs” to which all participants can equally contribute. What I need you folks to do is suggest a starting list of topical stubs to get the conversation started.
It is no secret that my participation in the very active discussions here RE the current election have been minimal. This is for the simple reason that I do not think the current sham process is worthy of much serious consideration. Having said that, I do have several comments to share, some of them repeats from previous blogs:
→ While I seriously question whether Donald Trump would make an effective president, I do thank him for making the “establishment” begin to show its true intentions. And those intentions are NOT pro-democracy, pro-republic or pro anything other than the absolute control of the nation by a small elite cabal of the wealthy, mostly in the financial sector, and not nearly all American. (The are the same people who pretty much “own” the FED.).
→ Speaking of the “establishment”, I have heard several pundits opine that the “GOP establishment” would prefer a president Hillary to a president Donald. To refer to a “GOP establishment” or a “Democrat establishment” is simply incorrect. While they both seem to exist, the fact is that there is so much overlap that it is more accurate to refer instead to “THE establishment”.