Archive for the ‘Philosophy’ Category
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”.
…to grasp this logic:
Whatever one thinks of Trump, the revolution has already started, and the election will not end it. Pick a side… ◄Dave►
…to me. I always celebrate March 9th, because on this date in 1973, was the last time I ever wore a silly necktie. 🙂
Forty-three years ago today, I abandoned my reasonably successful high-tech corporate career in Silicon Valley, to become an entrepreneur. During my farewell speech at my going-away luncheon, I removed my necktie and gave it to a colleague, promising to never again put such a ridiculous thing around my neck. I have faithfully kept that vow to this day, even though I have occasionally been turned away at fancy restaurants and night clubs. To me, one’s principles are inviolable. 😀 ◄Dave►
I spent this past weekend watching 2 grandsons compete in baseball tournaments. As is normal in present America, all the emphasis was on winning. Indeed, apparently winning is all that counts these days.
In the case of total war, I cannot help but agree. In most other cases, I am increasingly skeptical.
As my grandsons “won” some games and “lost” others, I could not help but study the obvious effects these two outcomes had on the young people playing and, to a lesser extent, on the parents watching… almost insanely euphoric in the first case and a hang-dog, give up attitude in the second.
This is the problem with a win/lose dichotomy. While it produces some winners, it always produces an equal or greater number of losers. And this in a game where NOTHING is actually won or lost except one’s very temporary pride, esteem and self confidence. Might it be better to put the emphasis on performing the best one can? Then, all who put forth a good effort can finish the day feeling good about themselves – while those who did not try would know who they are without some artificial win/lose structure.
As I have mentioned before, I was appalled by the ridiculous statement by Jerry Falwell explaining 9/11 to Pat Robertson. He stated that obviously God had removed his divine protection from our country, because of our increasing tolerance of homosexuals and the gay lifestyle. I was so disgusted that I swore I would never listen to another thing he ever said. From then on, every time I saw his pudgy face on TV, I immediately either turned it off or changed the channel, and kept my vow for the rest of his miserable life.
As long-time readers know, I was once was an avid Glenn Beck fan and supporter. I was an ‘Insider’ member of his radio program long before he ever got the gig on Fox News. I loved his TV program, which I must admit had a major impact on my thinking regarding Islam and Middle East politics. I bought and read all of his books. I was an early adopter of his ‘Blaze’ news site. I even subscribed to his new internet TV program, for the first couple of years after he left Fox.
I was as tolerant as I could be, of the increasing religious nature of his endeavors, until such insufferably became the primary focus of his existence. Now I only bother to visit the Blaze when following a link to a news item there, which has nothing to do with Beck himself. Several months ago, I even unsubscribed to his free newsletter, which I had received daily for many years.
The French term ‘laissez faire’ doesn’t just apply to economics. Literally, it translates to ‘let the people do as they wish,’ or a refusal to interfere in other people’s affairs. E.g. I take a laissez faire attitude toward other’s religious proclivities. As long as they don’t pester me about them, or try to get government to impose their dogma on others, what they believe and how they worship is their business, and none of mine.
It also makes a great synonym for the basic original meaning of anarchy – the absence of control by rulers of any sort, would be a laissez faire society. Since the term ‘anarchy’ has been corrupted in the minds of most, to now be synonymous with ‘chaos,’ perhaps I could find readers more willing to consider a government-free society, if I employed the French term, which is considered a positive attribute, by most who are at all familiar with it.
I have found there to be ample valid arguments, to counter all the trepidation usually expressed, by those arguing that at least a minimal government is required to maintain a civil society. Yet, unfortunately, as soon as the word anarchy comes up, most minds snap shut, as they envision ruthless brutes and gangs taking over their communities. The degree to which most sheeple are willing to forego Liberty, for the promise of a little security, is downright shameful.
If I thought that there was the slightest hope that the Federal government could ever again be downsized, and constrained by the intent of the original Constitution, I could live with that hope and work toward those ends. Alas, any rational person would have to agree that will never be. Thus, hereafter, when I use the term laissez faire, it will be my ‘dog whistle’ for expressing my blatant desire to completely abolish the Federal government in America, and replace it with nothing… i.e. anarchy. 🙂 ◄Dave►
Today, I venture to opine on a subject this has been over opined about by people far more qualified to offer opinions than yours truly.
Still, I will offer my own opinions with the hope that my use of simplification and common language might be more palatable than that typically used by the over educated.
In theory, a Free Market, operated in an environment of laissez-faire, is the best, most reliable and most equitable economic model available. So, how could such a system possibly fail? IMHO, partly due to its own accumulated success.
What could I possibly mean by such a silly statement? How can accumulated success lead to systematic failure? Simple, it does so when the economic model (the Free Market) attempts to operate in a vacuum. Said differently, when the economic model operates as if it alone is responsible for long term societal prosperity.
Secondly, this socioeconomic model fails when it is overburdened from without.
Thirdly, a state of “general prosperity” is anathema to those among us who, seemingly unable to control themselves, seek to control everyone else instead.
Still sounds a bit silly, does it not? Not to me.
In the case of the United States of America, a mostly free market economy (what I see as a “free enough” market economy) took a fledgling nation from a condition of national non-entity to super-power status so quickly that it gave us all a mild form of collective whiplash. It also gave us a level of general prosperity never before seen in the world and, by many, thought to be impossible to attain.
Then, almost suddenly, it all seems to be unraveling at the seams.
I have suggested 3 basic reasons for this:
→ Accumulated success
→ Overburdening from without
→ The desire to control acerbated by unbounded greed
Let us now discuss these individually, in simple terms and using common sense language:
As previously stated, I am essentially dropping out of political commentary because the political situation is beyond the ken of rational discussion. Yet, I still have the urge to amuse myself via diarrhea of the keyboard, hence a journey into new fields of discussion.
Today’s rant was inspired by a billboard I saw the other day while riding down the highway. Now, I had seen this and similar billboards for years but, for some reason, this particular sighting rather slapped me upside the face when the idiocy of its message actually got through. The message:
LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION
Now anyone with ¼ of a brain knows that life, as we currently understand it, actually began several billions of years ago.
I am a longtime fan of the writings of the late Dr. Carl Sagan. Among other insights he offered us was that while the universe seems likely to spontaneously produce new life on a grand scale, by processes we do not yet fully understand, there remains the possibility that the universe got the process right ONLY A SINGLE TIME. And, in Dr. Sagan’s opinion, on the mere possibility that spontaneous life was a singular occurrence, we should treat it as a miracle beyond mere reverence. I find myself in total agreement with Dr. Sagan’s viewpoint.