During the famous – or infamous – Canadian Truckers Convoy, that bastion of clear and honest thinking, The Washington Post printed an opinion piece that declared that the expectation of individual freedom “is a key component of white supremacy!” Never let it be said that the Post ever disappointed its “hard left” readership! However, it is also interesting to note that even our enemies acknowledge that truly great concepts arise from Whites. Yet, the Post’s rather odd interpretation of the blessings of freedom and liberty was challenged by one internet publication, The Blaze. That worthy group opined that, “expecting individual freedom is a ‘key component of white supremacy’ is the latest in the effort to undermine our constitutional republic.” Well, certainly it is that, but it also illustrates that even these mental midgets recognize that really good things come from whites! The column referenced was written by Taylor Dysart, a Ph.D. candidate at the Department of History and Sociology of Science at the University of Pennsylvania. Apparently, academia is no more reasonable or intelligent than our current leftist journalists. Mr. Dysart began his “reasoning process” (if anything so unreasonable could be identified as a “reasoning process”) by attacking the Canadian Truckers Convoy that attempted to end the tyrannous Covid-19 vaccine mandates placed on truckers by Canada’s own communist regime. Dysart derided the truckers as “explicitly racist” and said that the convoy’s stated effort to restore their – the truckers’ – constitutionally guaranteed freedoms is “a key component of white supremacy.” The author also charged that the convoy’s motives were rooted in Canada’s settler-colonial history: ”The convoy has surprised onlookers in the United States and Canada, both because of the explicitly racist and violent perspectives of some of the organizers and because the action seems to violate norms of Canadian ‘politeness . . .'” but Dysart claimed. “. . . the convoy represents the extension of a strain of Canadian history that has long masked itself behind ‘peacefulness’ or ‘unity:’ settler colonialism.” Of course, the convoy came about to protest vaccine mandates on truckers, and even the leftist mainstream media reports indicated it was a largely peaceful protest. Neither did Dysart cite any violence on the part of the truckers, but he still attacked the organizers for failing to be “obedient” to the “well intentioned” [!] efforts of Prime Minister Fidel – ah, Justin – Trudeau and his bully boys. Dysart opined, “While the convoy’s supporters have characterized the protest as a peaceful movement, uninformed by ‘politics, race, religion, or any personal beliefs,’ many supporters have been associated with or expressed racist, Islamophobic, and white-supremacist views . . . (the) primarily white supporters of the Freedom Convoy argue that pandemic mandates infringe upon their constitutional rights to freedom . . (t)he notion of ‘freedom’ was historically and remains intertwined with whiteness, as historian Tyler Stovall has argued.” According to The Blaze, In Tyler Stovall’s book “White Freedom: The Racial History of an Idea,” – the basis for Dysart’s conclusion – he, Stovall, contends that the Statue of Liberty “promised both freedom and whiteness to European immigrants.” The book allegedly “provides vital new perspectives on the inherent racism behind our most cherished beliefs about freedom, liberty, and human rights.” In keeping with Stovall’s contentions, Dysart alleged that, “The belief that one’s entitlement to freedom is a key component of white supremacy. This explains why the Freedom Convoy members see themselves as entitled to freedom, no matter the public health consequences to those around them.” Of course, the fact that there were no true legitimate public health consequences involved was never addressed by Dysart. He accepts out of hand, the same propaganda that has been handed out by the bio-weapons purveyors and their political allies from the beginning, propaganda that has already killed and crippled millions of people around the planet. Conservative supporters of the convoy’s month-long protest were quick to respond, as reported by The Blaze. Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) made the true point regarding the whole stupid argument: “Why do conservatives want to keep critical race theory out of schools? Because it leads to the insane belief that ‘one’s entitlement to freedom is a key component of White supremacy.'” Movie producer and political commentator Dinesh D’Souza pointed out, “If freedom is a white supremacist notion as this Washington Post article insists, what should we be aiming for instead? Unfreedom? Incarceration? Slavery?” Reason.com Associate editor Liz Wolfe reasoned that, “When you call everything ‘white supremacy,’ the term ceases to have any effect whatsoever.” And so it does. Just as those who use the phrase cease to have any effect or importance whatsoever as well. Soon any efforts to remain alive and healthy will also be seen as "racist."

It is interesting to note that how a question is framed usually indicates what is desired in the answer. While there are “simple” questions that leave the person responding great latitude, quite often the query severely limits any response to a particular attitude or viewpoint. When this occurs, the “question” can become self-defeating as it no longer seeks an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the issue, but rather, a validation of the questioner’s own solution or answer. Of course, this, as noted, is self-defeating of any attempt to address the matter under discussion. I have noticed that the questions appearing in the three “contests” sponsored by Thinkspot are of this nature. In other words, the question asked, immediately limits the writer’s response to a conclusion desired by the site albeit, it does provide different means of reaching that conclusion. The first contest concerned efforts to deal with “freedom of speech” on various national and international opinion sites regarding certain sensitive subjects. As I looked at it, I realized that the foundational document had already admitted to the need to alter speech in these instances, the only question being asked was how best to go about it! Of course, as an American, the premise itself was wrong. Constitutionally, speech cannot be “altered” or “limited” by virtue of any platform’s “rules.” A platform may choose not to entertain a particular subject. That is its right as a private enterprise. But once the subject is open to debate within the platform, barring personal threats or limitations on obscene or profane language, the platform cannot prevent inclusion of viewpoints that may be considered “offensive” to some of the other participants for that reason. That is what freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is all about! Yet, the contest question obviously entertained the understanding that such censorship was acceptable, the only question being is how best to do it! Thus, I found that even answering the question as it was posed, according to our own legal framework, was wrong and nothing I could do in response would change that. I did note that other countries – as this was an international matter – had different rules and regulations, but as an American, I could not make suggestions on how to thwart the 2nd Amendment! Nevertheless, realizing that I was not responding to the contest question as posed, I sent along my response hoping that at least it would be seen as arising from a different understanding of the question; that is, that the question itself was, as I put it, “questionable.” The second contest presented the subject in a way very similar to the first, that is, “immigration” or mass numbers of people moving across the planet and into countries other than their own without the proper legal barriers established to control such traffic. The question involved how best to do this – another example similar to the question how best to censor speech! In my research of the matter, what was happening was not immigration but invasion and I don’t know of anybody who looks upon an invasion into their homes as something they wish to facilitate! Naturally, I responded accordingly but, in this case, I openly denied the “assumption” presented by the question, pointing out that I did not want to facilitate the destruction of my nation and my culture by people who had neither the legal nor the moral right to do so. Of course, as with my first response, I knew that I had no chance whatsoever of being acceptable to the judges. Again, I did not – indeed could not – respond to the question as asked because, to my mind, it was without legitimacy. I was being asked to respond to things to which there can be no response if one continued within the understanding of the original subject. It was akin to answering questions such as “what is the number of the color blue?” or “in which continent does one find unicorns?” In other words, one had to abandon reality in order to participate, at least with any hope of success. Now we have another contest, and the question here seems to follow the general pattern: What core values should form the foundation of Western democracies, regardless of the political ideology in power? How can these principles be protected to ensure the stability and vitality of democratic systems, especially in the face of reactionary political agendas? These questions are increasingly relevant as many Western nations experience a shift in policy priorities and governance approaches. The first sentence is itself astounding. It speaks of “Western democracies” though they are usually not “democracies” at least as they were conceived. America is supposed to be a representative republic, not a democracy but we’ve lost so much understanding of language, I suppose we must allow that word to be used since most people don’t even understand what it means. However, even accepting the word, how can anyone then add, “. . .regardless of the political ideology in power?” You cannot have either a republic or a democracy if the proper “political ideology” is not in power, so what’s the sense in asking what are the “core values” of what doesn’t exist? Now, you can ask that question if you define what type of government is in power, certainly. Look at Communist China and compare that to what once was the United States. True, the two are much closer than they used to be, but at least anyone can see that we have not yet reached the tyranny of Red China! But an even greater evidence of the required response is that magical word, “reactionary” as in “reactionary political agendas.” Gee! Guess what those are! According to the dictionary, the word means a person or a set of views opposing political or social liberalization or reform. It is never a positive word, and it is always used for those who are against the agenda of the left. Nobody speaks of a return to communism as being “reactionary” when it is attempted in previously liberated nations, but anything that stops the liberal agenda anywhere is always termed “reactionary.” The mere fact that this contest uses that word gives me more red flags than a May Day parade in the old Soviet Union! And, like the other “questions,” one must begin one’s acceptable answer with the understanding that what the “question” has provided is the truth, reality, the way things are – as did the other two questions. Therefore, whatever is submitted begins with that understanding and must end with it albeit there will be different “conclusions” within each response. This is counterproductive in that it does not develop the ability of the writer to actually deal with the circumstances in such a way as to produce answers to very serious questions, something I believed that this site encouraged. All of these queries could have been presented in such a way as to allow the participants to look at the matter under discussion and present their understanding of how best to deal with it. For instance, the first question could have asked how best to permit all intelligent and well considered opinions to appear on those platforms that engage in dialogue in the public square rather than how those platforms might censor that speech to make everybody happy about what is being said, a matter that is impossible on its face! The second question might have asked about the involvement of governments in the movement of peoples across the globe, something that is obviously not the sort of displacement that occurs after massive natural and man-made disasters such as wars. What are the motives behind these actions such as “illegal immigrants” being actively moved by the United States government away from the border and into far distant states and cities! Certainly, this isn’t “natural,” so it must have a cause for we all know its effect! Questions determine answers. Polls are useless as indicators of public opinion because usually the questions are targeted to produce certain answers. Of course, it is possible to produce truly revelatory questions, but these only happen when the questioner wants facts and truth rather than a validation of his or her own viewpoint. I shall continue to look at Thinkspot’s contests in hopes of finding one that seeks such a response but so far, alas, I have not found any.

In May this year, the Federal Health Department called a meeting of key men’s health organisations asking them to prepare a pre-budget submission for Treasury, making the case for increased men’s health funding. Our major men’s groups were all on board – including Men’s Sheds, Movember, Dads in Distress, Australian Men’s Health Forum. They beavered for months producing their carefully analysed funding strategies. Finally, the government called a zoom meeting to announce the outcome. The men eagerly came on board, waiting to see what on their wish list would win the big bucks. The moment arrived. The government spokesperson unashamedly announced the Labor government’s decision. Zero new funding. Not a single dollar to add to the pittance already received by a couple of the key organisations. A few months later, when the 2024-25 budget was announced, it emerged the government had allocated over $160 million to women's health. That’s exactly what we would expect from Albanese’s anti-male Labor government which has spent the last two years pushing through legislation and regulations designed to promote women and damage men. Endless money for feminist projects – like the $4.7 billion just announced for family and sexual violence projects demonising men. There were the draconian changes to the Family Law Act which removed children’s rights to care by both parents after divorce and the new legislation, currently before parliament, giving more family assets to alleged victims of violence. Men make it onto Labor’s agenda only as targets for social engineering – witness the new push to wipe out toxic masculinity with a $3.5 million project to “combat harmful gender stereotypes online.” Surely this feminist-led mob might now be considering whether this male bashing might one day bring them undone. Look at what happened to the Democrats. The male vote played a major role in Trump’s historic victory – with big swings from Hispanic and Black men, and also younger male voters. Kamala Harris appears to have failed in her efforts to win the Presidency; at least in part because American men have had enough. For months leading up to the election, the media was full of stories about the Democrat’s Man Problem, as polls revealed what was widely touted as the biggest gender gap in history. It was mighty entertaining to watch the panic as Democrats realised the men they had ignored and denigrated for decades might rob them of the chance of retaining power. They hadn’t a clue how to deal with the problem. We saw former president Barack Obama sneering at black men for not being man enough to accept a woman as president. Vice presidential candidate Tim Walz embarked on a media blitz designed to woo male voters, only to attract widespread derision when he struggled to load his gun in a pheasant hunt. And Kamala Harris’ husband Doug Emhoff’s efforts to “redefine masculinity” were derailed by revelations he had an affair with his kids’ nanny and had been accused of hitting an ex-girlfriend. Then came the cringy Man Enough political ad denigrating outdated masculine archetypes, dudes in cowboy hats, bearded bikers and the like. The very perceptive Newsweek editor, Batya Ungar-Sargon, commented on X that the ad wasn’t designed to convince men to vote for Harris but to “reassure her base—college educated women—that the Democratic Party is truly theirs.” The amazing thing is that even though the Democrats did everything they could to pander to women; here too they lost support. Perhaps many American women were sensible enough to reject Kamala Harris because they regarded it as offensive to be bullied into voting for this “empty pantsuit’ – a vacuous DEI (“diversity, equity and inclusion”) candidate who demonstrated that she was not chosen on merit. Trump has declared war on DEI - his campaign promised, for example, to eradicate both public and DEI policies. As he said in his victory speech last night - “Promises made, promises kept.” “The possibility, therefore, now exists for an administration to approach our dysfunctional federal government in the same way Javier Milei approached Argentina’s since his election as president a year ago—with a chainsaw,” writes historian Niall Fergusson on Substack this morning. What great timing for all of us in Australia who are desperate to get rid of our current anti-male government. The forthcoming Australian Federal election will now take place in the shadow of this rebellion by American men. Those men have given an emphatic two-fingered salute to the mighty coalition of sneering mainstream media, and liberal establishment fuelled by a billion dollars in election funding – who are sobbing into their soy lattes this morning, complaining about misogyny. We need a major political campaign, exposing Labor and the Green’s antagonism to men and urging opposition parties to finally step up and prove they will govern for all, rather than continuing to pander to the feminist lobby. The Federal Opposition has promised to restore support for fathers in the Family Law Act. Let’s hold them to that. But we must also embark on a campaign to expose how politicians have been selling men out and why this must change. Please contact me if you have experience in political strategy, good political contacts or relevant connections. We need to seize this vital moment. I’ll be seeking help from all of you in making this happen. We must warn men that Labor and the Greens are out to get them! Meanwhile, elsewhere there’s ample evidence that the male vote is already making a difference…. “A chill wind swept through Europe this summer. On the continent, far-right parties rose triumphantly in the EU elections, hoisted not just by the grumbles of older xenophobes but on the shoulders of young men,” sneered The Guardian, claiming that the nationalist right is rising on the tides of gelled-backed hair and Nike swooshes. Young men are increasingly disenchanted by the woke politics of the left. The Guardian article included this Gallop Poll graph showing the growing gap in political ideology of young men and women. As I described in an earlier article, a key aspect of this disenchantment seems to be rebellion against feminist policies which discriminate against men. A 32-country survey found a majority of world citizens – 54% — believe that “when it comes to giving women equal rights to men, things have gone far enough in their country.” These views are especially strong among persons under 40 years of age, in countries such as China, India, the Netherlands, Spain, Mexico, Chile, Argentina, and Peru. Political leaders in such countries are discovering that challenging feminist policies can be a sure vote winner. Take Argentina, where Javier Milei won a landslide victory last year with policies which included waging a "cultural battle" against socialism and feminism. He has stuck to his word with a blistering attack against radical feminism at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland last June, charging that feminism has become a noxious force because it engenders conflict between men and women. “The first of these new battles was the ridiculous and unnatural fight between man and woman. This radical feminism agenda has led to increased state intervention, hindering the economic process. It provides jobs to bureaucrats who haven’t contributed anything to society, whether through women’s ministries or international organizations promoting this agenda,” Milei charged. Milei has defunded and disbanded its Ministry of Women, Gender and Diversity and has a bill before the Senate to impose civil penalties on false accusers. The Argentinian Vice President Victoria Villarruel recently charged that false allegations against men are made “without consequences for lying, breaking the principle of equality before the law, of innocence and defence, destroying the ties of thousands of families, and the many parents who can’t see their children.” Justice Minister Cúneo Libarona has announced a bill to address the problem: “False reporting of gender violence will be punished under the new Penal Code. If this gender-based complaint caused harm to intra-family relations, for example, the father was unable to contact his minor children, this will be another aggravating factor.” Despite feminist meltdowns and political damage caused by painful spending cuts, Milei has retained his popularity – suggesting majority support for agendas based on fair treatment for men and women. Whatever concerns one might have about some of the more extreme policies supported by these “far right” countries, it would be foolish to ignore this successful challenge to the feminist ideology still capturing so many Western countries. Look at South Korea where 58 % of men in their twenties voted for Yoon Suk Yeol in 2022, who stood on an overtly anti-feminist platform. During his 2022 presidential campaign, Yoon Suk Yeol emphasized that structural discrimination against women does not exist in modern society; rather, that social differences between the sexes are a result of gender preferences. Nearly 80% of men in their 20s report they are discriminated against in South Korea. The President is still committed to his promise to abolish the Ministry of Gender Equality and has vowed to promote tougher penalties for those making false accusations of sexual misconduct. The list of countries taking a similar stance is growing:El Salvador: Earlier this month, president Nayib Bukele announced he is removing “every last trace” of gender ideologies from the schools in his country Mongolia: Last December, the crisis of men and boys was brought to the attention of the United Nations when Mongolian Minister of Foreign Affairs Battsetseg Batmunkh announced her government’s “She for He” initiative aiming to address the challenges faced by men and boys. In Mongolia, the life expectancy of men is nine years shorter than for females. Romania: This country has just passed an anti-parental alienation law. This law now includes “parental estrangement” as a form of child abuse or neglect and resident parents will also be required to pick up and deliver children after visitation, rather than the non-residential parent having to provide the transport. Turkey: In 2021, Turkey released a Presidential Decree announcing its withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention on violence against women – a blatantly anti-male propaganda device. This year, the senate of the Czech Republic took a similar stance. And look at what’s happening even in progressive Denmark, where the Danish Ministry of Digitalization and Gender Equality recently announced the decision to assure equal support to male victims of domestic violence. Danish Minister for Equality Marie Bjerre announced, “The time has come to ensure that abused men and their children receive the same help as when a woman reaches out for help. Equality is for both women and men.” Breaking down the stranglehold of feminism on domestic violence funding is key to challenging their power. And it’s significant this is starting to happen not just in more conservative countries. Others, like Australia, have a long way to go. In the UK we have Keir Starmer, who in his former role of Director of Public Prosecutions, worked relentlessly to promote the feminist goal of locking up more men. He’s now intent on ensuring unproven violence allegations have even more impact in the family court. And his Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper is including “extreme misogyny” in Britain’s counter extremism programme – making teenage boys a target. Australia, New Zealand, the UK and Canada remain strongholds for feminist power. But with Trump now in control – and having control of the Senate and most likely the House – America is due for a reset. Finally, here’s a government that might be willing to address the desperate state of so many boys and men in America and give them new hope. That’s where the Democrats really got it wrong. Both men and women deserve a future.

I just finished watching Lords of Chaos, the cinematic dramatization of the destruction caused by the members of the seminal Norwegian black metal band, Mayhem. It's complicated story of a young man named Øystein Aarseth who called himself Euronymous. The name "Euronymous" is a reference to "Eurynomos," a figure from Greek mythology described by the ancient geographer Pausanias as a daimon or spirit of death who resides in the Underworld. Euronymous played with dark imagery to shock and impress. He was essentially larping for the devil but what that invited into the world lead to his brutal murder. Amongst other things it attracted Kristian Vikernes, reinventing himself under the name Varg, meaning wolf. Varg began turning Euronymous's dark speech into dark actions, leading to a spate of church burnings across Norway. Eventually, in feeling he was losing face as the supposed leader of the movement, Euronymous indirectly threatened to kill Varg. But Varg was a man of action. Euronymous's last words as he was violently stabbed to death were "I just talk". "Exactly" said Varg. "You're an embarrassment. That's all you do is talk. That's why you're gonna die." About 4 weeks ago I was having a friendly chat with a human resources professional. She was in her mid 50's, extremely bright and highly accomplished. As I sipped a delicious coffee her lovely assistant had made me, sitting in her cozy office, I stared out at the mountain on that beautiful sunny afternoon. Somehow I mentioned that there was some growing tension in the world. She looked at me with a thoughtful smile, rolled her eyes and said, referring to Trump's assassin, "he only had one job to do." Two days ago I was relaxing in a sauna that was unusually busy with some older guys in their 60s and a younger French guy. I know some of them. They're reasonable, friendly people - hard-working tradesmen and the like. They were talking about Trump's election victory and within a few sentences were agreeing that he should be killed. Last night I saw the long compilation of posts on X calling for Trump's death. As someone who has been to the edge and back, my thoughts are, "you guys have absolutely no idea what you are inviting in." In the darkest period of my life, I could be consumed by white hot flashes of anger. I would think a thought about punching something and then, in a blinding rush, my fist was through a door or smashing into the granite counter-top. It felt both incredible and unsettling. One day my miserable new wife was berating me over something in the kitchen and I glanced at the carving knife on the counter. The following day I connected the obvious dots and went to see a psychologist. Lounging back in her knee-high boots, she seemed less interested than I expected but then I described having a shower and feeling the presence of a large menacing wolf on the other side of the shower curtain. She say bolt upright. "Tell me about the wolf." We might feel physically far from the epicenter of the American politics here in Australia but the Varg is never far away. Be very careful with your words.

God cannot change, or else the universe would be unstable. A coherent universe must be predicated on an unchanging, unifying principle. This is the Logos. If God cannot change, God does not have potentiality in his nature. If God does not have potentiality — and is therefore pure actuality — God is immutable. Or static. But if God is static, God cannot create. Order is incapable of bringing anything into being without the presence of potentiality. And because God lacks potentiality, he is incapable of creating the primordial soup of Chaos out of which he creates. If God cannot create Chaos, it must exist outside of God. God is Order, and Chaos is his creative counterpart. But… If we must insist that God is singularly above all things, then we must consider this: God is not just a God of Order, but also a God of Chaos. He holds both forces, both realities, within himself. He is not immutable — he is dynamic. He changes within reason. Variability with coherence. Only in this case can he produce Chaos from himself while possessing the orderly force that shapes it. So what’s the difference between the two ideas presented here? In the former, God is only orderly, he doesn’t induce change, and bringing about order is the only thing he does. In the latter, God is capable of both building and destroying, he can establish kingdoms as well as demolish them, and he wields both Order and Chaos as dual scepters to bring balance.

I live in eastern Pennsl-tucky, that rural stretch between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. It's the beginning of Flyover Country, that great expanse of the country that has more farms than shopping centers and more land than people. Yesterday, I made my two-mile trek to the local Community Church to cast my ballot. I've been following this routine since I moved here many years ago. After all these years, I know what to expect, and I like that. The Democrats, with their familiar umbrellas, welcomed everyone who walked by. The Republicans also offered donuts and coffee from Dunkin Donuts if you cared to indulge. Both campaign groups were the prescribed distance from the actual poll so as not to violate Pennsylvania Law. But as I walked to the poll, I could already tell that this year, something was different. Oh, the usual neighbor greeting neighbor is always there: people who haven't seen each other catching up: "How's the family?" "Did you see the Jones' new horse barn?" That sort of thing. But there was also an earnestness that I hadn't seen before. People wanted to ensure that everything was copacetic - that this election did not have any of the skulduggery of 2020. The people of Pennsl-Tucky were well aware of the scandals surrounding Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. While many of those accusations of vote fraud were never proven, people in this part of the state would ensure that this election was above reproach. So everyone was on their toes, and you could almost feel it in the atmosphere. Everyone concentrated on doing their very best. This was especially true for the young mother ahead of me in line. With her three small children in tow, she got last-minute instructions from the poll watcher on how to fill out the ballot. "Now, fill in each "bubble" completely, or the machine won't read your ballot. Oh, and you cannot just vote on a party line. You must vote for each candidate individually." She thanked him, picked up her daughter, and headed to the main room. Tension seemed to increase as people silently picked up their ballots and headed across the room to mark them. The young mom leaned over to the poll monitor. " It's my first time voting," she said."Oh, today's the first time for many people," said the poll worker. "We just had a couple in their 80s vote for the first time ever." That was my first indication that the Amish and the Mennonite communities were coming to vote. I grew up in a religious tradition that thought "worldly" pursuits, like voting, should be avoided. But here was vivid proof that tradition was being overcome. The Pennsylvania religious communities saw that the stakes in this election were too high to ignore. They were voting to bring America back on track, a track that included fundamental Christian values. Increasingly, it felt like the entire national election was playing out here, in a few small miles of Pennsylvania. The day before the election, Donald Trump held his last campaign rally at Santander Arena, just a short drive away in Reading. With fewer than 100,000 residents, Reading may be the nation's smallest "big" city. Its population represents almost all of the country's minority communities: Black, Hispanic, Arab, and Asian. Many of the big brands of consumer products come to Reading to test-market their latest offerings. So, it was no accident that President Trump chose Reading for his final campaign stop. As I'm writing this article, the Pennsylvania Election website shows Trump winning Berks Country (Reading's home) with 56% of the vote. An overwhelming victory. And one powered by Pennsl-tucky's urban voters. Twenty-seven years ago, I moved from California to this part of the country. It's rural yet close to many of the major urban centers. It's an area that's easy to overlook, flyover country. And yet, I've found that this is the home for a proud people, steeped in tradition and anxious to leave a lasting legacy of freedom. The past four years have been difficult ones for Pennsl-tucky. Money has been hard to come by, as rising prices have impacted all the local small businesses and farmers. Their core values have been denigrated. The long arm of government regulation is an ever-present threat. By nature, these are quiet people. You'll not see them on social media or speaking at the local service club. They stay to themselves and never, never proselytize. They only seek the freedom to live as they choose. That's why Pennsl-Tucky came out to vote.

Why the NSA and CIA Hate Each Other Recently in the news, there has been some discussion of the new head of National Public Radio (NPR), a Ms. Katherine Maher. She is renowned for her somewhat controversial resume and a series of potentially troubling comments. Here is one example: “Truth is a distraction” — Katherine Maher, head of NPR Ms. Maher previously held positions at a number of organizations like: - The Council on Foreign Relations - UNICEF - National Democratic Institute - World Bank - Wikipedia - Atlantic Council - US State Department Reportedly, Ms Maher also apparently used to run "psyops" for the US Central Intelligence Agency (i.e., the CIA, which my friends refer to as the "Culinary Institute of America") in Syria from Turkey right before the Syrian civil war.[1] At Wikipedia, Ms. Maher seemed to push a left wing agenda, and also was responsible for creating a permanent fund-raising campaign there. Many are not that pleased with the direction that Wikipedia has taken, as a result. Ms. Maher has said in speeches that Wikipedians were not guided by "truth", but instead are attempting to represent our best present information. This is correct.[2] I have previously written essays here on Thinkspot exploring different standards and "epistemologies" for determining truth in various fields and contexts. However, many are wondering about Ms. Maher's attitudes about "truth" as the current head of a partially government-funded news and commentary organization. Certain elements of the IC (intelligence community) sort of nurture and foster this viewpoint that the truth is malleable, or should be. Obviously, if a government espionage agency is attempting to subvert an election, or overthrow a government, or engage in propaganda [3] or engage in assassination [4] or other "dirty tricks", truth and the law and ethics kind of get in the way. And Ms. Maher exhibits exactly the kinds of opinions that are necessary for success in some parts of the "black world". I remember numerous conversations I have had with a friend who was the former head of security an entity related to the US military. He told me, that there are friendly countries, but no friendly intelligence agencies. And that includes intelligence agencies within the same country. I have observed this through my neighbors in a major metropolitan area in the Southwest. The 'Culinary Institute of America' (aka 'Christians In Action', or the CIA) and 'No Such Agency' (NSA) are two sort of extreme examples in the US intelligence community (IC). The CIA and the NSA do not get along with each other very well. They have very different cultures and mindsets. The first and most obvious reason that comes to mind is who they recruit. They both look for reasonably intelligent people, but in different areas.[5] However, the CIA will mostly draw from people who were the head of the High School or College Student Council, or the Prom King (or Queen; no pun intended these days) or the homecoming couple or athletic stars or whatever. The CIA recruits from high school and college "royalty", for the most part. On the other hand, almost all of the most highly sought-after recruits for NSA were on the math team or the chess club, or something akin to these. They are almost exclusively "on the spectrum" and "neurodivergent". They might work odd hours and come to work with food caked on their clothes. They are "boffins" and oddballs and brainiacs. They are problem-solvers, who have no qualms about devoting hours or days or months or years or decades to an attempt to solve seemingly impossible quantitative and technical problems. These two groups are like oil and water. They do not mix. One group were the elites in high school, and beloved and skillful in social circles. The other group is completely awkward around other humans and more like gnomes or trolls. They do not get along, and they do not understand each other. They do not like each other. Both groups can do things the other cannot hope to accomplish. They both have a role in national security. Another reason that these two communities do not mix well are the mind-sets required for success in each. One is completely truth-based. The other is the opposite. A person cannot succeed in mathematics or science or engineering without coming face to face with the difficult realities presented by natural law, or logic. If you are unwilling to recognize the constraints presented by uncomfortable truths, you will fail, completely. No one could make or break codes or build surveillance technology without subscribing to this viewpoint. On the other hand, the HUMINT intelligence people, represented by those at the CIA for example, have a very different set of rules they play by. Their work is all about subterfuge and manipulation and misrepresentation. Truth barely enters into their work except as an inconvenient afterthought. They have a goal to reach, and the truth is just an irritation they want to sweep aside, or are even required to ignore. So, one can see why Ms. Maher subscribes to some of the positions she does. She might be inclined that way naturally, of course. But it might have also been encouraged by the kind of work and experiences she has had. People like myself, and Elon Musk (who is a fierce critic of Ms. Maher), belong to the other camp. Truth, or at least a certain kind of truth, is very important to us. Without some respect for truth and reality, we would accomplish nothing whatsoever. Notes [1] https://x.com/Indian_Bronson/status/1860711077379539252 [2] I write as a previous fairly active contributor to Wikipedia, before it started to head off into the weeds, where it seems to be now. [3] Barack Obama famously signed an executive order allowing the US public to be subject to propaganda by the media and US government agencies. Previously, this was illegal. [4] Also known, "charmingly", as "wet-work". [5] I do not particularly subscribe to the notion that some advance, that all forms of intelligence (in this context, meaning mental acuity) are equivalent, and general in nature. I think some have more gifts in one domain than another.

As the debates raging in this country go on, I have noticed something that I’m sure others on “my side” of these debates have also noticed; that is, that most of those on the Right or conservative sides are believers in Voltaire’s sentiment, “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!” Of course, there are those on the right who, tired of lies, threats and insults no longer hold that viewpoint. Why? Because it gets tiring when all attempts at dialogue and/or debate end with name calling on the part of your opponents! And we all know the standard Leftist “comebacks,” that is, those who disagree with their viewpoint however inane or insane those viewpoints, are either a member of the “far right” — a term indicating anyone to the right of Stalin — or, more usual these days, one is a “racist.” This term, interestingly enough, is also used on conservative blacks, a fact that only goes to show the term is a standard – and mindless – weapon in the hands of the Left, without any real meaning other than as an attempt to silence their opponents. In the end, this mindset removes any attempt at not only discourse, but compromise. You cannot compromise with people who see you not as having an opinion with which they disagree, but someone who is intrinsically EVIL. And, of course, that also ends any attempt at discourse for how can one have discourse with evil? Parenthetically, that is something that we on the right have been trying to do for a long, long time only to learn that this leopard at least never changes its spots. I remember learning from former Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson that at the time to criticize Black Lives Matter — a hate group if there ever was one! — the person involved could and did lose his or her job. One man was fired because his WIFE wrote a letter to a newspaper critical of the group! People were being advised to openly support and even financially contribute to BLM — OR ELSE! In the past, such horrific denial of fundamental constitutional rights would have resulted in a lawsuit and big bucks proceeding to the injured party. Today, however, the courts are as liable to uphold the actions of the employer as sustain the rights of the employee given the topic. We no longer have a viable legal system. It now seems to depend upon the ideology of the judge trying the case. And, of course, the unhappy consequence of the political success of our WOKE culture with its “liberal” leaders are ever more leftist judges and prosecutors. Alas, while many Americans are concerned about losing the Second Amendment, we may have already lost the First and with it our rights of freedom of speech and expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion. Once those are gone beyond restoration, the Second Amendment is easily nullified. As well, we also seem to have, in many instances, lost the protection of the civilian police who, we are told, made UNNECESSARY the Second Amendment. If this becomes the rationale, there will no longer be anywhere to seek justice in a world gone mad.

I'll try to address this topic being aware that I have not lived and do not live in a Western democracy and even if I could move and live in such a state, I still would not be able to fully understand what it really means to live in such a socio-political structure. The country I live in is a relatively young state, having been founded a little over 100 years ago (1918) and since its foundation it has gone through two dictatorships, a world war, fascism, communism and a bloody revolution. The family I come from was fully impacted by these events. Below, I will post a text that I composed together with my son and which obtained First Mention in a Treasure Hunt - History in My Home contest, organized by an association with a historical profile and whose jury also included the Faculty of History and the Society of Historical Sciences in Romania- all information must be supported by evidence: documents, photos, testimonies, etc. The Resilience of Identity In 1856, Barbu Știrbei, Ruler of Wallachia, abolished slavery, and the mother of the one who would be called Bădița Stanca was liberated from Pătroaia Vale Monastery, the place where in 1750 the first village school in Muntenia was established and which was later dissolved through the Secularization Law, initiated by Ruler Alexandru Ioan Cuza. Shortly after, under circumstances that remain shrouded in history, Bădița Stanca was born and she was to become the wife of Mayor Manole Minculescu, a representative of the Peasant Party, with whom she had 9 children, of which 5 survived. On December 8, 1915, a year and a half after the beginning of World War I, Ioan Minculescu, my great-grandfather was born. Ion (Ioan) Minculescu completed primary school in Pătroaia commune and high school in Găești town, walking 14 kilometers daily on foot. His determination stemmed partly from competition with his brothers and partly from the need to establish an identity around his passion for history. In 1934, he finished high school and, due to financial constraints, had to wait a year before starting university courses. During his student years, he balanced studying with tutoring to secure his means of subsistence, also completing military service at the Reserve Officers School in Ploiești between 1936-1937. In 1939, Ion Minculescu obtained a license in philosophy and letters - history section with the "Magna Cum Laude" qualification. During his university studies, Ion Minculescu formed a friendship with Professor Nicolae Iorga and simultaneously met his future wife, Aneta (Ghiță) Minculescu, my grandfather Octavian Minculescu's mother, through and at the insistence of Professor Nicolae Iorga. Between 1939-1941, my great-grandfather completed pedagogical seminary and his doctorate, working as an archivist at the Central Institute of Statistics in Bucharest and as a substitute teacher at "King Mihai" Commercial High School, Boys' Normal School, "Spiru Haret" High School, and others. From 1939, he participated intermittently until 1945 in various military campaigns, with different missions. In 1940, upon learning that Professor Nicolae Iorga had been removed from the ranks of University of Bucharest professors and was under house arrest in his home in Vălenii de Munte, my great-grandfather sent him a letter expressing his dissatisfaction. One month before Professor Nicolae Iorga's murder, specifically on November 27, 1940, my great-grandfather received a response: "Dear young friend, you are the only one who felt that my forced departure from the University, being expelled like an unworthy servant, would mean a loss for education. You are the only one who wrote to me... What happens at the University after me concerns those who are there now. I cannot choose between people who have worked openly or against me and who a more just time will morally condemn, in whose coming I believe. Please accept my farewell. Nicolae Iorga" In 1941, while stationed at Strejnicu, Ion (Ioan) Minculescu paid for the construction of a cross in memory of Professor Nicolae Iorga, which he planted at the place where he was killed, with the inscription: "Here Professor Nicolae Iorga was killed - Raised by a grateful student." In 1942, my great-grandfather, as editor of the "Glasul Nistrului" gazette, focused on the morale of soldiers on the Tiraspol front. His articles highlighted the resentment of the entire young Romanian society regarding the 1940 context, the moment when Bessarabia and Bucovina were ceded to the Soviets, 22 years after the Great Union; nationalism and Christianity being the propaganda line observable in the content of all articles published in the gazette, regardless of their author. In 1948, Professor Ion Minculescu was subjected to a home search, during which various anti-Soviet brochures, newspapers, and books were found at his residence, writings he had kept as a memory and historical source from the war period. From the file of the National Council for Studying the Intelligence Archives, regarding Professor Ion Minculescu, he was arrested for 4 months and tried by the military tribunal, ultimately being acquitted due to the impossibility of establishing a clearly anti-Soviet political line by my great-grandfather, and thanks to numerous testimonies in his favor from professors, priests, and his acquaintances. It is worth mentioning the superhuman efforts made by my great-grandmother, his wife, who, being a member of the P.R.M. (Peasant Renaissance Party), did everything possible to prove his innocence. The experiences my great-grandfather went through during his detention cannot be proven by writings, nor do I consider it appropriate to attempt to do so. The situation of political prisoners, the psychological and physical trauma, and the torture they were subjected to from a visceral hatred are well-known, prophesied both by Feodor Dostoevsky in the volume "Demons" and by Friedrich Nietzsche, who predicts that the inversion of values creates the premises for a bloodbath: "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, murderers of all murderers? What was the most holy and most powerful of all that the world has possessed has died under our knives: who will wipe this blood from us? What water do we have to cleanse ourselves? What atonement festivals, what sacred games must we invent? Is not the magnitude of this deed too great for us? Must we not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?" This prophecy became a reality that everyone in the Soviet space in the post-war period experienced in one form or another, and whose monstrosity was revealed to the entire world by Alexandr Solzhenitsyn through his book, The Gulag Archipelago, a book written in his mind while in one of the Soviet gulags. In 1952, Ion Minculescu was arrested again, and history repeated itself. During this time, my great-grandfather worked as a teacher at various high schools in the country: Ploiești, Găiești, and Bucharest, from which he was consistently fired. From the Intelligence tracking file, it emerges that he was constantly monitored and persecuted until 1961 when he was recruited to be an Intelligence informant. From that moment, my great-grandfather's socio-professional life normalized, but in terms of family life, according to my grandfather, Dr. Octavian Minculescu, he lived an existence seemingly taken from Ivan Matveich, the main character of Feodor Dostoevsky's volume "The Crocodile". Ultimately, between 1964-1965, with the expulsion of my grandfather Octavian Minculescu, son of Ion Minculescu and Aneta Minculescu, from the Faculty of Medicine at Iași University, my great-grandfather divorced my great-grandmother, Aneta Minculescu, sold his share of the house, and moved to Bucharest, completely cutting ties with his family. Five years later, my grandfather managed to re-enroll at the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Bucharest, where he continued his studies, becoming Dr. Octavian Minculescu. In 1976, Ion Minculescu ended his collaboration with the Intelligence, following his retirement and inability to provide information about high school teaching staff, but repeatedly refused to resume family connections, showing a visceral aversion to everything this entailed My grandfather never spoke accusingly about his father. Dr. Octavian Minculescu was not a party member and suffered persecution during both the Communist period and the Antonescu dictatorship. At the death of my great-grandfather's brother, Constantin Minculescu, memories were shared, in which my father also participated, and about which he tells me that those present were amused talking about how the two brothers had managed to escape communist prisons by providing information to the Intelligence about each other. Lawyer Constantin Minculescu died on the day he was chosen as a candidate for the National Peasant Party in the parliamentary elections, which were supposed to take place in 1996. From my father, I also know that Aneta Minculescu's cousin, a history professor and a university studies colleague of my great-grandparents, whose name I will not mention, met her fiancé through my great-grandfather. The aunt never married because her fiancé was a political prisoner who served 18 years in prison. My aunt waited for her fiancé throughout this time, hoping for a reunion. Six months before his death, the fiancé was released, and my aunt brought him to her own home. The former political prisoner's health was precarious, both physically and psychologically, spending hours in bed with eyes fixed on the ceiling, and the only person he recognized was my father, whom he confused with my grandfather and whom he taught to make paper balloons. A few months after her fiancé's death, my aunt's house was demolished. My father, Florin Dragoș Minculescu, son of Dr. Octavian Minculescu, between 1995-1996, while a student at "Spiru Haret" High School in the history class, was invited to follow the courses of the National Intelligence Institute, for which he prepared intensely until a few weeks before the admission exam, when he was called and told that he had no place at the National Intelligence Institute with "your family's past". The passion for history, as a thread of identity, was transmitted through my grandfather to my father. Observing the appetite for history that Mircea Eliade focused on, my grandfather introduced my father to Mircea Eliade's nephew, who lived in the house from which Mircea Eliade left Romania, a house located just a few dozen meters from where we still live today, with whom he often had discussions about Mircea Eliade's life and work. The identity of a nation cannot be separated from the identity of the individuals who form that nation, regardless of the curves that historical context imposes and which are felt much more intensely by a nation like ours, the Romanians in the Carpato-Danubian-Pontic space. My father had only one meeting with his grandfather, Ion Minculescu, on which occasion the history professor made sure his grandson would not forget the following phrase: "Child, not even the Black Sea is our friend." Drama and tragedy generally characterize the history of Romania and the universal history, these representing the salt and pepper as ingredients, alongside customs, traditions, and language. The identity of an individual is also the sum of the experiences of their ancestors, and a well-defined identity cannot be constructed without knowing the history of family and national identity. A nation whose members do not know their history and therefore do not have a well-defined identity is destined for dissolution. Education is the only way through which a child can constructively build their identity, and this must begin early because: "He whose vision cannot cover History's three thousand years, Must in outer darkness hover, Live within the day's frontiers." - Goethe

The Election Of Trump Posted on November 6, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, with the evident election of Trump, the deep state is conniving a way to get rid of him. A plan that will eviscerate his ability to change anything for the better. Like they did before. The real problem with Trump, for the elite, is that he’s a patriot who loves America and the American way. Which is the antithesis of the way the elites feel. They loathe America and the American way. But most of all, they hate you and I. They hate our culture.. our freedom to speak up, our liberty to carry weapons, and our Right to privacy. All of which infuriate the elites. Because they see the US as the single biggest stumbling stone to their new world order. A globalist state where we will own nothing and be happy. Even as they own everything and will remain perpetually angry. Control of the administrative state gives the unelected elites great power to do evil in the world. An ability they use to great effect. Trump’s election threatens that monopoly on power. Unlimited in scope, reach and law, the bureaucracy is the real force behind the throne. The administrative state is our version of the Praetorian Guard. They choose who will take the figurehead position. Now their choice has fallen, they’ll be livid. Power is the single goal of those in the oligarchy, that is the bureaucracy, otherwise called… the administrative state, or deep state. The ultimate destination for them is more power and on a global scale. Trump stands in the way of that dark vision for humanity. As you read this the unelected powers that be will connive to undermine him and get rid of him. The elite will try to trick him into abandoning the people and policies that got him elected… like last time. They managed to get Trump to shunt to the side people like Newt Gingrich, in favor of deep state actors, who undermined Trump’s first presidency from start to finish. The message will be clear, RFK and those like him, are a danger to our republic. Because of their “radical” ideas. Trump will be inundated with demands to hire backstabbers like Amy Comey Barrett. Since folks like her are reliable elitist scum. Any choice like Rand Paul will be met with outrage in the Senate. Even a republican controlled senate. Because most of the republicans are controlled by the deep state. As Chucky Schemer said… “The intelligence community has six ways to Sunday to get you.” Expect another frame job. A frame they hope to stick Trump in this time. By the time I finish this article the progressive faction will be brainstorming ways to destroy him. With the backing of the traitorous media, the unelected elites will have an unobstructed path to build it. Who knows what they’ll come up with this time. It may be difficult to claim foreign interference though… what with the Iranian, CCP, British and other foreign governments openly backing Harris, with money, intelligence, propaganda and election workers. The hypocrisy maybe a bit much even for the hypocrites that run the world. Then again… maybe their void of self awareness will win out. So I expect the frame job to have something to do with his campaign, businesses or personal relationships. There will be violence. The progressive faction will burn down DC during the inauguration… again. In an act of blind rage. Which is perfectly acceptable since the progressive faction is above the law. In fact, they see law as a means to power, not a way to enhance personal safety, facilitate economic actions or smooth interactions between men. So, without past consequences, the left will riot in the streets. Perhaps some drug dealer will OD again, that they can somehow pin on Trump… then they’ll use it to justify more violence. Expect the left to use the same playbook they used before. Because it’s the only one they have. Lie, cheat, and beat downs are the progressive globalist play. Hopefully Trump has been inoculated by his last term so is wiser this time. I pray he has. For all of our sake’s. Sincerely, John Pepin

Now that all eyes are focused on AI and the revolution this technology will bring to our lives, we come to consider that this will represent a fundamental threshold for human existence. It may be, but from the perspective of what science represents, the scientific branch that will truly revolutionize our lives will be neuroscience. I often joke saying that one day, researchers will announce that they have discovered researchers, and through neuroscience, this is exactly what's happening. If we were to conduct a "thought experiment" and imagine that humanity would reach the point of knowing everything there is to know about the universe, our existence wouldn't change much, because this third-person perspective approach isn't sufficient - there still remains an unknown dimension: ourselves. The problem of knowing what we are has always accompanied humanity, the inscription on Apollo's Temple "Gnothi seauton" - Know thyself - testifies to the importance of this type of knowledge. The fact that those people had functional thinking, thus different from ours (as we have systemic thinking focused on categorization), doesn't minimize but rather highlights the necessity of self-knowledge. However, the problem lies in the fact that self-awareness is inextricably linked to anxiety. Every time we direct our attention toward ourselves, we become insecure, and this is, or should be, an indication that we're looking into a dimension about which we have very little information or none at all, because anxiety is a neurobiological system that activates when we come in contact with the unknown or are exposed to a large information flow, which is the same thing as the unknown. Neuroscience tells us that our brain functions as a manager of our energy budget, and from this understanding, we can deduce that anxiety is the way the brain notifies us that it doesn't have enough time and/or energy to adapt to the novelty we've exposed ourselves to, because adaptation involves neuronal reconfigurations and thus significant energy consumption, as our brain is itself a major energy consumer, normally consuming approximately 20% of the human body's energy needs. Exposure to information is therefore accompanied by considerable energy effort that must be optimized accordingly, but when conditions are met and exposure to information is staged and happens in an optimal framework, the signal we feel from our brain is what we call laziness. Laziness is a soft variant of the alarm systems through which the brain brings into our consciousness the fact that we're about to consume energy. As with anxiety, because we don't understand what we're feeling, we reject and want to flee from the context that activated that experience, that feeling, and out of ignorance, we end up pathologizing, becoming anxious about the possibility of experiencing anxiety or laziness, thus ending up rejecting our very neurobiological nature, being frightened of the very nature of our nature. Neuroscience will help us better understand what we are, and I believe it will be the scientific branch that will rebuild the connection between religion and science. Picture by my son Andrei aka Orun: https://www.instagram.com/0orun00

Everyone is aware that there was a fire on the Hawaiian Island of Maui in an area called Lahaina. The fire has been (rightly) designated as “horrific” and was the result (we are told!) of “deadly brushfires” fueled by the winds of a hurricane (cyclone in the Pacific) many miles away from the site. The problem is this: first, residents in the area affected were not warned of the proximity of the fires that, we have also been told, were considered “contained” by the Lahaina fire departments. Later, those same firefighters abandoned the area – again we are told! – because the water needed to fight them had run dry or one guesses, the means of bringing the necessary water to those involved, failed! Meanwhile, those same firefighters simply left without making mention that the fires were no longer “contained!” Questions as to why the warning sirens were not sounded have been answered with the claim that people would run into the fire to escape what they believed was a tsunami (that’s what the warnings usually signal in Hawaii!) but then, one would think that folks might notice huge fires and turn back. But then, perhaps the Hawaiian government believes its own people too stupid to notice that they were burning to death! Oh, and there are so many other questions, such as, why was the only paved road out of the area blocked by the police? We have first-hand evidence that such was the case! And then, how did boats, a considerable distance out in the ocean catch fire when the Governor’s home and a very large expensive hotel located within the burn zone itself were untouched? The photo below also adds another very interesting “take” on a fire so hot that it incinerated cars but left trees alive and damaged buildings still standing as well as the asphalt paving untouched with the white traffic lines still visible. Hmmmmmm….. curioser and curioser! To understand the above, realize that the melting point of asphalt is between 130 and 343 degrees Fahrenheit. Tires can melt at lower temperatures but when you see untouched asphalt with melted tires in wildfires such as these (supposedly) were, you are looking at temperatures of between 1,472 degrees and 2,192 degrees Fahrenheit – or more! In other words, when we see cars in the above conditions, we should not be seeing leafed trees, standing building remains or virtually untouched asphalt roads retaining their painted traffic lines! As for deaths, the “authorities” talk about the number reaching over 100, but it is admitted that thousands of people are missing including large numbers of children who have not returned to schools in the area! I believe that eventually the list of dead will be well over a thousand, something that is being played down in the media. Finally, there was talk of an oncoming hurricane that (again supposedly) provided the 80 mph wind that drove and intensified the fires, but while there was a wind, there have been other conclusions with regard to just where it came from and these origins are anything but “natural!” Dane Wigington's latest from Geoengineeringwatch.org report contains some possible answers. He noted a headline about the Maui conflagration from Fox News: "Maui residents jump into ocean to escape raging Hawaiian wildfires boosted by Hurricane Dora and atmospheric high pressure." But according to Wigington, “While keeping that headline in mind, let's ask – and answer – key questions that should be considered, indeed, that must be considered. First, about the up-to-80-miles-an-hour winds that helped facilitate the incineration of Lahaina – they weren't just from Hurricane Dora to the South, as the Fox News headline admits. There was also an extremely strong dome of high pressure to the north of Hawaii. The combination of the counterclockwise rotating low pressure system that was Hurricane Dora and the clockwise rotating winds around the high pressure dome to the North in effect creates a wind tunnel in the region between the two opposite rotating pressure systems. Hawaii was a bullseye in this wind tunnel corridor.” Above: views of the “wildfires” that show a remarkably defined structure for something that we have been assured was “natural.” To go along with any questions regarding the possibility of deliberate and intentional origins of the Maui fire(s) we, as concerned citizens must ask, has the US military been engaged in hurricane manipulation operations since 1947, that is, for over 76 years? The answer is yes. Project Cirrus commenced in 1947. Is the U.S military's involvement in weather warfare operations a verifiable fact? Yes. Project Popeye conducted in Vietnam is one stunning example. Climate engineering operations are fully capable of eliminating or augmenting precipitation over vast regions. To carry this question even further, can extended periods of landscape-drying-drought be created by climate intervention operations? Again, the answer is yes. Was the region of Hawaii where wildfires just occurred experiencing extended drought? Yes. Has the U.S military ever promoted, on the record, using wildfires as a military weapon? Yes. Search geoengineeringwatch.org for the document "wildfires as a military weapon" and examine the 140-page document for yourself. Does this U.S military document specifically address years-long atmospheric operations in order to dry out a targeted region before initiating incineration operations? Again, the answer is yes. Can climate engineering frequency transmission technologies, a/k/a ionosphere heater facilities like HAARP, induce an atmospheric high pressure zone? Yes. Has the U.S military historically viewed remote Pacific Islands as a strategic location for its operations? Yes. Has the U.S military strongly expressed its interest in utilizing the weather as a covert weapon of war? Yes. The U.S military’s document entitled "Owning the weather by 2025" is but one glaring example of this strategy. No friends, you’ll be told a lot of things about this “natural disaster” but many people knowledgeable in the ways of our country’s “guvmint” and its military entertain very grave suspicions that there was far more to this “natural disaster” than we are being told! Post Scriptum: A quick look at “coverage” of this event by the “media” is virtually uniform in its presentation. Few are any questions about what happened and those are quickly “answered” by reports that many of those reported “missing” have called into the authorities to announce that they are safe. Really? I guess those missing schoolchildren will also be found eventually. . . . Learn More: https://twitter.com/bambkb/status/1694706585069596908 https://naturalnews.com/2023-08-21-maui-government-deprived-lahaina-water-resources-loss.html https://naturalnews.com/2023-08-20-hawaii-government-to-confiscate-lands-burned-by-wildfires.html https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/nation-world/national/article278513634.html https://www.bitchute.com/video/xdUypiwWuhyU/ https://robertmorningstar.substack.com/p/the-maui-massacre-part-ii

This week’s arrest of Alan Jones shows just how we have strayed from the principles of justice, with our media and police heavyweights flagrantly ignoring the rules we have in place to ensure a fair trial. This has all the earmarks of a hit job, led by feminist journalists determined to take down the man who for decades was king of the airways, hugely influential, with a massive following. Centre stage is SMH journalist Kate McClymont revelling in her ongoing #MeToo campaign targeting prominent men. She was glowing as police acknowledged that her four-year vendetta against Jones had prompted the police campaign to go after him. In classic trial by media, McClymont published an article last year full of graphic allegations of sexual misconduct. The NSW government followed up with a task force, which has spent months beavering away digging up dirt, with the help of McClymont’s efforts to recruit more “victims”. Do taxpayers really approve of the spending of hundreds of thousands from our police budget trying to prove some decades-old claims of gropes of bottoms or other bits of husky young men by this 83-year-old man? If Jones was not such a prominent figure, would police have expended these resources on allegations of this nature? For the #MeToo mob, Jones is the biggest scalp of all. “The left has long despised Jones for his contempt for progressive politics, uncompromising social attitudes and influence over national and state politics,” wrote Aaron Patrick in The Nightly. “The Get Jones campaign is nothing new in my life,” commented Jones last year, as he emphatically denied the allegations when they first surfaced. The presumption of Innocence? What a joke. This week we saw the media alerted in advance of Jones’ arrest and public shaming, which allowed the feral journalists and photographers to go on the rampage, staking out his apartment and police station where he was ultimately charged with 24 charges of indecent assault and sexual touching. There have been press conferences, with the Assistant Police Commissioner commenting the bravery of the “victims” and the Commissioner Karen Webb keen to encourage more: “There is no better time to come forward.” Even The Australian descended into the gutter, leading their news with a tragic video of Alan Jones pursued by the media scrum. And now he is out on bail - but under house arrest, which is a most unusual, draconian move, my legal friends inform me. At the heart of it all is this extremely popular man who has spent much of his life getting up the noses of the chattering classes by campaigning for causes they despise, while endlessly putting himself out to help charities. Alan Jones first interviewed me over 40 years ago, and he’s supported me and my work ever since. He was one of the very few to give me a platform after attempts to cancel me. I’m incensed at this gleeful targeting by the State and the media of this decent, principled man. And the underlying message makes me shiver. We are being shown that no one is safe in a system where accusers are celebrated as victims and allegations suffice for evidence. The bigger they are, the harder they fall; and the louder the celebration. It was timely that just this week I interviewed a former NSW police prosecutor who contacted me because he was concerned about our dysfunctional justice system. Richard McDonald spent 22 years in the police, mainly working as a legal consultant in the sex crimes squad. He’s now a lawyer in private practice in Sydney. Richard revealed a system captured by ideology, where police are discouraged from properly investigating sexual assault and domestic violence claims. “Let the court decide” is the adopted philosophy, as even the most dubious allegations end up before overworked magistrates, judges and juries who often aren’t presented with the evidence they need to properly assess the validity of these very serious complaints. I’ve made two videos with Richard, the first talking about sexual assault claims and the next domestic violence allegations – the two crimes now dominating our criminal justice system, largely due to feminist tinkering with our laws to try to ensure more male convictions. Here’s our discussion of sexual assault. Fabricating rape But back to my riveting conversation with Richard McDonald. His revelations blew out of the water some myths being promoted about these crimes – such as the notion that false allegations are rare. In his initial letter to me, Richard explained that, in his role as a legal consultant to the sex crimes squad, he analysed hundreds of sexual assault matters to determine whether there was a reasonable prospect of a conviction. His startling conclusion: “I provided advice in the range of over 90% not to commence proceedings because of the complicity of women involved in sexual relationships with men and their motives to lie.” In the video you will see Richard talking at some length to me about women’s motivations to concoct or fabricate allegations: including embarrassment after regret sex, saving face when a casual hook-up runs counter to the woman’s cultural beliefs, or the “scrum down” when female friends help rewrite the history of what happened. Richard is a man who has never been afraid to stick his neck out. Asking around, I discovered he had quite a reputation for fearless advice in his role as police prosecutor. He refused to support applications for AVOs which he felt were just to assist family law matters. Domestic violence has taken over In the second part of the main video, on domestic violence, Richard tells the story of turning up at the scene of a domestic violence dispute and finding the man in handcuffs. He asked whether anyone had interviewed the man to learn his side of the story. Surprise, surprise. No one had bothered. As we know, this is standard practice. But as Richard points out, official domestic violence policy requires police to determine “whether sufficient evidence exists to support criminal charges.” That is simply not happening. The system has been totally perverted, he told me, bemoaning the fact that most domestic violence matters end up with the man in court without any attempt to examine his evidence, facing overworked magistrates who basically rubber stamp the AVO application. Even with alleged sexual offences, he reports it was an uphill battle to try to ensure both sides of the story were properly heard before the accused was charged. Like the man who was up on child pornography charges, based on photos of naked children. Richard discovered the photos in question were of the man’s own kids, amongst many taken as part of normal family life. They were innocently produced. But the police hadn’t bothered to put these photos in context and ignored the fact there was a lawful defence. He’s pessimistic about the chances of changing the system, given the disproportionate influence of feminist stakeholders, including the many domestic violence support groups. We discussed a story I heard last week from a man who achieved a miracle in getting his ex charged with making false allegations – with the help of a very senior police officer. But then she went along to the Domestic Violence Service Management who, even when presented with evidence of the criminal charges against her, still choose to help the woman and child hide from the father. Richard confirmed this bias is commonplace. It says a great deal that this experienced former police prosecutor has chosen to speak out about his concerns that the system is out of control. He was shocked by the antics of his former bosses in relation to the Alan Jones case this week, posting on his Facebook page his concerns about senior police commenting publicly about live cases, and referring to witnesses as “victims”. “The police just seem to want to keep reversing the onus of proof,” he wrote. But many current officers of the court no longer appear to sufficiently adhere to the principles and traditions underpinning our justice system. The NSW Chief Prosecutor Sally Dowling is fighting a mighty battle trying to restrain judges who, fulfilling what they perceived to be their duty to the proper administration of justice, chose to speak out about cases being sent to trial unsupported by sufficient evidence. She’s made three complaints about judges to the state’s judicial watchdog. And only last week, Lucy McCallum, Chief Justice of the ACT Supreme Court, spoke at a legal conference about not understanding why jurors “find it so hard to believe” allegations of sexual assault. If the Chief Justice is pushing a believe-all-women line, what hope is there for the accused man appearing before her? And then there’s the state of our family law system. Those of you who attended our Restoring the Presumption of Innocence conference will remember Nadine Taylor, who took part in our final Call to Action session. Nadine has spent 20 years advocating for family law reform in the UK, working recently as a professional “McKenzie Friend”, providing support for people representing themselves in court. Here’s a little of her speech: For the past year she’s recently been helping a friend in Australia who’s fighting a massive family law battle, complete with the usual onslaught of false allegations of domestic violence. She wrote to me summing up this experience: “I never thought I would say this, but the Australian family court process makes our UK court process look positively caring, compassionate and efficient.” She mentioned particularly the AVO system “sought with alarming frequency and lethal application in what appears to be pretty much most cases, issued by police officers without any background checks or evidence, and then exploited to prevent contact with children.” Nadine concludes that even though the UK system has problems “I would rather be a father in that system that the Australian one, and I would use every breath in my body to fight against the UK implementing such a system. The Australian family court process is far more complex and unnecessarily drawn out than it needs to be, unless of course the purpose is to wear you down to the extent you give up and walk away, financially and emotionally bankrupt minus your children and sanity.” It is not an overstatement to say that our system of justice is under serious threat in Australia. It is so very important that we make our voices heard about where this is all heading. Before it is too late.

The Female Narcissist Certainly, the term narcissist floats in society like a hot air balloon as we seek to compartmentalize behavior. I recently discovered that the personality expresses itself differently depending on sex. Here is a list of observable behaviors that DESCRIBE attributes of a female narcissist. No single attribute can answer the question, "Are you a female narcissist?" but they were close enough to home for me to want to share them and solicit your comments. Your participation is integral to the design of Thinkspot, and that is how it thrives! FM stands for female narcissist. 1) The FM does not have the ability or desire to self-reflect or take any responsibility. She cannot see anything overtly wrong with what she did. She focuses fault in her husband's reaction. The core assumption is that every ailment was caused by the husband because, to her, there was no problem with her behavior until he reacted. At her core, she believes that the husband (not necessarily his behavior) is the problem, and she uniquely holds the role of victim. 2) When an FM begs a man to stop his behavior, she pushes him past his limits to make her point. When he predictably snaps, she acts disgusted (among other things) at his reaction and justifies her victim role. She embellishes the victim role at any future opportunity to reiterate her claims that the husband is the root cause of the problems. 3) When an FM gets her husband to snap, she will use it as emotional fuel to turn colder and meaner in an attempt to make him doubt and hate himself. She will accent the desired outcome by ceasing to touch him or allow for intimacy. She is attempting to get him to subconsciously believe that he is the problem, not his behavior. This one resonated with me. 4) The biggest sign that a man had yoked himself to an FM is the changes that he makes after the breakup. He stays single, doesn’t party, and starts to take care of things he has always wanted to do. He transforms himself to erase parts of the version of himself that he had been coaxed into believing was core to his identity and back into the version of Himself that God sees. I personally have a big AMEN to this one. 5) The FM will go out of her way to appear generous and thoughtful, especially to strangers, neighbors, and peers. It is a very carefully curated image in an attempt to conceal the cruel nature that she put on display in private when she ended the relationship. It is ironic that for many men, the FM created an environment that can trigger suicide, yet they overwhelmingly conclude they did nothing wrong. 6) Nearly 80% of divorces for people over 40 are initiated by women. When these women are asked when they ended their marriages, they often state their primary reason, which is that it is time to start prioritizing themselves instead of the family. Although this point isn’t exclusive to FM, it remains a disturbing trend of placing self ahead of others. 7) The FM is an excellent actor, excelling at pretending that they did nothing wrong in the demise of a relationship, even when confronted with their behavior. Their behavior choices always remain connected to their husband’s previous behavior. She uses selective storytelling to seek affirmation that he was and is the problem. The behavior profiles had more items that described the FM, but I had a personal “Yes, sir!” for these seven. As I take a look at the biblical perspective on the role of a wife, I think it appropriate to start at the beginning. God noted that it was not good for Adam to be alone, and he offered to make him a “helper.” He uses a word for helper that appears 20+ times in the Old Testament that God typically uses to describe himself. Note that he made this claim this long before he made Eve or even before Sin entered into the world. It is a design characteristic of a healthy pairing. God states the obvious when he says that a man needs a helper, yet it breaks my heart to see how far the perception of what that helper looks like has devolved. It is sad. The discovery that an FM has been quantified and researched does provide some explanation, but it doesn’t address the problem. I am open to ideas that don’t extort “toxic masculinity” as a root cause.

1 - Survival | Reason: Preservation | Survival is the fundamental drive to sustain life and protect oneself from harm. It encompasses not only physical health—such as nutrition, exercise, and safety—but also emotional well-being, ensuring a stable environment. The instinct to survive is deeply ingrained and manifests in behaviors aimed at securing resources, avoiding danger, and maintaining safety. In contemporary society, this force might also involve the pursuit of financial security and the establishment of a supportive social network, which contribute to a sense of stability and preservation of life.2 - Desire Reason: Fulfilment Desire represents the intrinsic motivation to seek pleasure, satisfaction, and emotional fulfillment in life. This driving force includes the pursuit of personal happiness, love, and experiences that bring joy. Desire fuels our ambitions and dreams, prompting us to engage in relationships, pursue goals, and explore passions. It is an essential element of human experience, as the quest for fulfillment can lead to personal growth and a deeper understanding of oneself and others. In its absence, individuals may feel disconnected or unmotivated, emphasizing the importance of desire in driving engagement with life.3 - Power Reason: Definition Power refers to the ability to influence, control, and shape one’s environment and relationships. It involves asserting identity, establishing boundaries, and cultivating a sense of agency. This driving force allows individuals to define themselves and their roles within society. Power is not solely about dominance; it also includes empowerment and the ability to advocate for oneself and others. Healthy expressions of power lead to self-confidence and leadership, while the lack of it can result in feelings of helplessness or disempowerment.4 - Meaning Reason: Purpose Meaning embodies the search for significance and direction in life. This driving force encourages individuals to connect with their core values and beliefs, helping them navigate the complexities of existence. The quest for meaning is often tied to larger questions about life, morality, and individual contributions to the world. Understanding one's purpose can lead to a profound sense of fulfillment and motivation. Engaging with meaning fosters resilience during challenging times and encourages individuals to pursue goals that align with their values.5 - Expression Reason: Connection Expression highlights the need to communicate thoughts, feelings, and ideas, fostering connection with others. This driving force encompasses various forms of expression, including verbal communication, artistic endeavors, and non-verbal cues. Healthy expression facilitates emotional release, enhances relationships, and nurtures community. When individuals share their experiences and emotions, they build empathy and understanding, creating bonds that enrich life. The inability to express oneself can lead to isolation and emotional distress, emphasizing the importance of connection through expression.6 - Knowledge Reason: Understanding Knowledge represents the pursuit of information, insight, and wisdom. This driving force encourages lifelong learning, critical thinking, and exploration of new ideas and perspectives. The quest for knowledge helps individuals make informed decisions, navigate complexities, and adapt to change. It enriches personal growth and enhances one’s ability to understand oneself and the world. Knowledge fosters curiosity and creativity, leading to innovation and discovery. In contrast, a lack of knowledge can result in misunderstanding and stagnation.7 - Imagination Reason: Possibility Imagination embodies creativity and the ability to envision new ideas and potential futures. This driving force encourages individuals to think beyond the present, explore possibilities, and innovate. Imagination inspires hope and fosters the willingness to take risks and challenge boundaries. It plays a critical role in problem-solving, artistic expression, and envisioning new realities. Without imagination, the capacity for growth and change is limited, underscoring its importance in driving personal and societal evolution. The Drivers of Existence govern our actions, influence our decisions, and play a crucial role in the development of our character. These intrinsic drivers—survival, desire, power, purpose, expression, knowledge, and imagination—interact to shape the way we engage with ourselves and the world around us. Each force contributes to our motivations, guiding us through the complexities of life and informing our responses to challenges and opportunities. By recognizing these drivers, we gain valuable insight into the underlying motivations that drive our behavior and shape our identity. They remind us that our choices are not made in isolation; rather, they are influenced by these fundamental drivers that reflect our deepest needs and aspirations. Understanding this dynamic allows us to cultivate a greater awareness of our actions and their impact, empowering us to make more intentional decisions that align with our values and goals. In essence, the Seven drivers of Existence illuminate the intricate web of motivations that define the human experience. By engaging with these drivers, we can navigate our journey with purpose, resilience, and creativity, ultimately shaping our character and enriching our lives. (note: this was written with ai assistance)

In an article by one James A Bacon, carried on the website of The Jefferson Council, a group that presents itself as “preserving Thomas Jefferson’s legacy at the University of Virginia, we have been given a glimmer of hope in these present days of moral and ethical darkness. Under the title “DEI is Dead at VMI,” with a sub-title that says, “Huge news from the Virginia Military Institute with implications for the University of Virginia. . .” Mr. Bacon discloses, “The Youngkin administration has just unloaded a HIMARS rocket attack on Virginia Military Institute’s Diversity, Equity & Inclusion program. Speaking Friday in a session of mandatory ‘inclusive excellence training,’ Martin D. Brown, Youngkin’s chief of Diversity, Opportunity & Inclusion, left steaming rubble where VMI’s DEI program had been standing.” Brown went on to make very clear, “Let’s take a moment right now to kill that cow. DEI is dead. We’re not going to bring that cow up anymore. It’s dead. It was mandated by the General Assembly, but this governor has a different philosophy of civil discourse, civility, treating — living the golden rule, right?” VMI recorded the speech and made it available to Washington Post reporter Ian Shapira who proceeded to consult a half-dozen DEI supporters and quote them extensively to suggest that there is widespread concern about the Youngkin administration’s position. Mr. Bacon went on to point out, “It is difficult portraying Brown as a racist, as Shapira’s sources have done to conservative white alumni critical of VMI’s implementation of DEI. Brown is African-American. But Shapira did squeeze in criticism of his invocation of Jesus in an opening prayer. How, he reported one attendee as asking, could Brown claim to support inclusiveness if he opened with a Christian prayer?” This particular statement makes clear that the only thing unwelcome in our present leftist society is Christianity. The idea that a Christian prayer somehow “cancels inclusiveness” is proof positive that what these people want is not “inclusiveness” per se, but only the inclusion of their own particular agendas whatever they may be and however dangerous and counter-productive they are. Bacon continued, “While Governor Glenn Youngkin has worked behind the scenes to appoint members to public-university boards of visitors across Virginia willing to fight for diversity, opportunity & inclusion, he has not publicly taken sides in university disputes. Brown’s intervention in VMI’s contentious DEI debate represents a first. And it could be a signal that the Governor intends to be more assertive in the future.” Well, of course, we can hope! Considering that the whole “inclusive agenda” bans more than it includes at least as far as American cultural values and constitutional rights are concerned, we certainly need our elected officials stepping in and stopping the whole cancel culture. According to author Bacon, “Said Brown, as quoted by Shapira: ‘VMI’s in a unique space … You’ve been at the tip of the spear in serving our country in sending warriors to battle, but in a way, you’re at the tip of the spear in this cultural war as well. Generally, when you are focusing on equity, you’re not pursuing merit or excellence or achievement. Not all the time, but you’re looking at equal outcomes .… What we’ve done is we’ve made diversity the mission. Wrong mission … The challenge is keeping your eyes on the mission rather than the attendant challenges that we experience trying to complete the mission. And when we focus on those challenges, what happens is the mission is undermined … One of the things we want to focus on is whatever the goal of the organization is, that goal is paramount, and diversity and inclusion supports whatever the goal is.’ The author goes on: “At various points during his talk, Shapira wrote, Brown suggested that race relations in the country have dramatically improved over the last several decades. ‘Because they’re better, we can’t ascribe perpetual victimization or even motives because they’re different. Acknowledging those truths frees us up to deal with the issues, the real issues, of today.’ “In an email response to a question, Brown added: ‘It’s proven that institutions achieve more with a more diverse and inclusive workforce. However, equity has become a tradeoff for excellence. Our aim is to expand opportunities but not guarantee equal results.’ Bacon then went on to point out that “[O]ther than Brown, Shapira quoted DEI proponents exclusively. One professor conceded that the culture of DEI had not taken deep root (at VMI). “Other colleges have had DEI embedded at their schools for a long time, but at VMI, it’s new and not fully supported by alumni and staff,” he said. “It’s a place where you can stomp it out.” Frankly, the fact that a VMI “professor” seemed not at all concerned by the failure of DEI to “take root” and spoke about the ability of the Governor to “stomp it out,” suggests that Youngkin’s actions were not at all counter to the mindset of the instructors and the cadets at VMI – thank God! Who knows? There may still be hope for us!

Have you ever stood at a point where you are able to agree (to some extent at least) with two opposing sides of a debate? It’s a strange place, uncharted and raw, a land scattered with ideas that you’ve seen from afar but never had the nerve to wrestle down. To walk this line—timidly at first, dipping just a toe into that unknown—is a thrill like no other. The easy road is to dig deeper into what you already know, to fortify your arguments for the side you’re already on. Lately, I’ve been straying into that strange terrain myself, turning over ideas that clash with my own, stretching them out, writing through them. This piece is one such endeavour, and the idea I’ve been contemplating on — capitalism. I suppose, before all else, I should square with where I stand. As someone entrenched in the corporate world, it would be hard to argue against the very framework that sustains my livelihood without sounding like a hypocrite hacking at the branch I’m sitting on. I work in a field that wouldn’t exist as it does without capitalism’s promise of profit, a force that fuels both innovation and competition. I’m inclined to believe capitalism is the most fitting economic system we have. There’s a certain allure to its promise, a belief that the best rise through merit, that opportunity is there for the brave and resourceful to seize. And isn’t it true that many of the comforts we now take for granted—electricity, indoor plumbing, computers, vehicles, refrigerators, air conditioners — are the fruits of a market-driven system that constantly seeks to outdo itself. These aren't just luxuries—they are the standards by which we measure our quality of life. And capitalism has been the most fertile ground for this innovation to grow. Even the critics of capitalism, who lay at its feet problems like environmental degradation, income inequality, poor workplace conditions, and rampant consumerism, are its beneficiaries. Few, if any, would willingly relinquish the comforts of our modern, developed, and thoroughly technological societies—the luxuries, big and small, that capitalism’s engine has afforded. Critics of capitalism are aplenty; I’ve debated with several and pored over the writings of others. What I rarely see, though, is a critique of capitalism that doesn’t rush to present socialism or communism as the alternative. The goal isn’t necessarily to discard capitalism just because it has its share of flaws; rather, it’s to sit with those flaws, to study them long enough that we might carve out solutions. As for the common grievances often pinned on capitalism, I won’t dwell on them here. Heaven knows there’s been enough ink spilled on those already. My complaint with capitalism, one that I feel often slips through the cracks, is the sense of detachment people feel in their workplaces under its demands. Sure, some might argue it’s naïve to attribute this to capitalism’, as people are predisposed to feel discontented with their work now and then. But this detachment isn’t just a byproduct—it’s a structural issue. When profit becomes the sole driver, the value of human experience can get lost in the shuffle, and workers may feel like mere cogs in a vast, unfeeling machine. Capitalism, with its talk of opportunity and self-made success, has an implicit promise —that the individual, through hard work and ingenuity, can find a place where they not only earn a living but derive a sense of purpose. Yet, so often, this promise falls short; instead of a fulfilling vocation, many find themselves caught in a relentless cycle of profit-driven tasks, feeling little connection to the work they do or the people they do it for. So, while capitalism has undeniably lifted the material standard of life, it leaves this question lingering: is there a way for it to serve both the pocket and the soul, to create not only prosperity but genuine fulfilment? We might catch glimpses of restlessness now and then—perhaps in the quiet of a long commute, or in that fleeting moment between tasks. Perhaps we fear that, if we looked too closely, we might find ourselves more entangled than liberated by the very system promising us opportunity and happiness. Still, there’s dignity in a hard day’s work, some structure to the day and savings that will likely get us through retirement, so corporate workers find much to be thankful even in a career path that may not be their ultimate dream. And it’s not as though companies are oblivious to the discontent and detachment their employees experience. Corporate offices, like those I’ve encountered, can be quite remarkable. Many feature buffet-style meals, meditation centres, gyms, lounges filled with video games and ping pong tables, and coffee bars—all aimed at crafting an enticing work environment. At times, it seems these perks are designed to encourage employees to linger longer within the office walls. Companies don’t just market their products to consumers; they also sell their workplace as an attractive lifestyle to their employees. Capitalism leans not only on the visible market economy that drives consumer demand, but also on an unspoken, shadow economy that subtly shapes its producers, drawing them into cycles of labour and loyalty that sustain the very system they serve. The job becomes rebranded, transforming from employment into a complete way of life. I have friends who clock in over 12 hours a day at the office, with little room left for a social life outside of work. Their weekdays revolve around the job; they exercise at the office gym, and on weekends, they unwind with colleagues over beers or participate in office sports leagues, playing cricket on Sundays. This trend seems particularly pronounced among unmarried men and women, who often find their social circles wholly intertwined with their workplace. One might argue that working in such an office is far more enjoyable than toiling away in a place where the only focus is on the grind, where the atmosphere is as drab as the fluorescent lights overhead. Surely, one could contend that at least these companies show some care for their employees’ entertainment and well-being. But should offices really take it upon themselves to fill the void in their employees' lives? Shouldn't the workplace serve its purpose and then step back, allowing employees to reclaim their leisure hours? Imagine if offices operated with fewer demands on their time, granting employees the freedom to cultivate their lives outside the workplace—spending time with family, engaging in social activities, pursuing hobbies, and gathering experiences that enrich their souls. I’ve witnessed colleagues pour their lives into the office culture, yet when conversations shift to their dreams outside of work, there’s a palpable hesitation, as if they’re unsure how to articulate what truly matters to them. I’ll steer clear of commenting on the overused notion of “work-life balance,” a phrase that’s sparked countless heated discussions in corporate circles. Truthfully, I even suspect it’s sometimes stretched too far, serving as a crutch for fresh graduates who feel entitled to high-paying, fulfilling careers without much perseverance or sacrifice. My concern isn’t whether companies overwork their employees; rather, it’s whether these companies should become both the “work” and the “life” of a professional. I don’t particularly challenge the belief that team-building activities and office perks boost productivity over time. Instead, I question whether maximising productivity should eclipse the maximisation of purpose. In the end, the responsibility of finding purpose rests squarely on the individual, as it should. After all, why should the burden of personal goals, creative pursuits, or the search for meaning fall on the shoulders of a profit-driven enterprise? Such enterprises are, by nature, self-serving—whether by crafting a product that few truly need and convincing people otherwise, or by inspiring a sense of grandiosity in their employees, coaxing them into believing they’re part of something monumental, while distracting them with superficial rewards and distractions, and banking on their complacency to stifle any inner voices yearning for something more. For the first time in the history of the human race, work is, for many, no longer a means to an end, but an end in itself, and perhaps, we don’t know how to live with this new reality. “What is the solution?” one might impatiently ask. If there is one, it’s far from foolproof. Perhaps it lies in nurturing our ability to introspect. To read the fine print, if only to avoid the disappointment of waking up two decades later with only faint recollections of neglected hobbies, lost friendships, or those small dreams we once promised ourselves we’d chase someday. Or by making our jobs a smaller part of our lives and our identities, so that we might want more for ourselves. Ultimately, the answer may be simply to want more. More meaning, more purpose, more depth in existence. Image Source: His Girl Friday (1940)

Because we are conscious beings, and we are conscious of the fact that we are conscious, and awareness as a process of realizing biblical meanings is essential to have an embodied rather than merely conceptual understanding, I thought to approach the beginning of Genesis from the perspective of awareness. The first aspect that seems interesting to me is that of the beginning. What does the beginning actually mean? From an etymological perspective, the word Bereshit (בראשית) is made of three elements: - The prefix ב [be] which means "in" - The root ראש [rosh] which means "head", "start" -The suffix ית [ith] which means "ing", "ness" Literally: In_head_ness. The suffix "-ness" means "state: condition: quality" and is used with an adjective to describe the state, condition, or quality of being that adjective. Therefore, "in-head-ness" suggests that creation is a product of the head, God's head. But God is immaterial, God is a spirit, The Spirit - could this mean that God is a mind? If so, that would mean that Creation is God's imagination, and we exist as His thoughts - thoughts endowed with free will, which can choose to reflect something other than God. And we indeed do this, and when we do, we suffer unnecessarily. Then, after heaven and earth were created, a lack was observed, and God said, "Let there be light." What is this light, especially since the light-bearers ( The Sun and The Moon) were created much later? I propose a thought experiment: Imagine we are standing in front of a plot of land and don't know what to do with it. We observe it, see the sky above, and notice the lack of order and meaning above the earth. We wonder about the potential utility of this plot of land.Suddenly, an idea comes to us, and our entire being is illuminated. This is a revelatory act, a moment of awareness where knowledge is separated from nescience - "And God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness." I prefer contemplation to take its place instead of a certain conclusion.

The Seven Drivers of Existence By Hasith_AshanThe Trade-Off in Capitalism By Sadhika PantI'M AS MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE By Akira The DonEven Our Enemies . . . By LadyValUnderstand Your Path Early and Commit to It By AmericanDadWinning against the feminist machine By Bettina ArndtNotes From The Epicenter: Election 2024 By ValueSide I just watched a man die today and it can't be for nothing. By nursingaround

The world changed last Thursday. That's the day Russia launched a missile they call the Oreshnik, the "Hazelnut." Utilizing never-before-seen technology, the "Hazelnut" can reach speeds of Mach 11, which is 8,370 mph. The missile contains six multiple independent warheads, each warhead containing six sub-munitions, for a total delivery of 36 explosions on target. On Thursday, the Oreshnik took out one of Ukraine's principal missile and rocket production facilities, the PA Pivdenmash. This plant has operated since 1954, when it was one of the Soviet Union's chief makers of rockets and missiles. Russia believes that Ukraine is preparing to domestically produce short—and intermediate-range missiles analogous to the American ATACMS missiles, which recently struck Russia directly. The purpose of this strike was threefold: first, to retaliate against the American ATACMS missile strike of the week before; second, to eliminate any future Ukrainian missile production; and third, to demonstrate Russia's latest missile technology. On Thursday, US Defense Department Spokesperson, Sabrina Singh, reported: "I can confirm that Russia did launch an experimental intermediate-range ballistic missile...This IRBM was based on Russia's RS-26 Rubezh intercontinental ballistic missile model. In terms of notifications to the United States, the United States was prenotified, briefly, before the launch, through nuclear risk reduction channels." She went on to say:"It could be refitted to certainly carry different types of ... conventional or nuclear warheads." https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3975321/russians-launch-new-missile-at-dnipro-us-provides-ukraine-with-new-tactical-wea/ Perhaps revealing more than she realized, let's unpack these comments. First, Ms. Singh indicates that Russia "prenotified" the United States that the missile was being fired. Other reports are that the US and Ukraine had a half-hour lead time. Yet, even after being placed on notice, US and Ukrainian anti-air systems were unable to intercept the Oreshnik. Later that same day, Russian President Vladimir Putin said flatly in a televised address that the Oreshnik could not be intercepted by any existing anti-missile systems. Russia vividly demonstrated that point when, in spite of a half-an-hour warning, the missile struck its target. Finally, and perhaps most concerning, Ms. Singh points out that the Oreshnik was developed from the Russian RU-26, an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile capable of striking the United States. We can assume then that while the Oreshnik represents a direct threat to Europe, the RU-26 would threaten the American heartland. Both likely possess the speed and maneuverability that makes them impossible for current Western anti-missile systems to intercept. Perhaps most regrettable is that all of this was anticipated by the leaders of the two nuclear superpowers 37 years ago. In December 1987, Mikhail Gorbachev of the then Soviet Union and Ronald Reagan of the United States signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), which effectively outlawed just the type of missile that the Oreshnik represents. For 32 years, the production of any Intermediate-Range missile by either country violated the Treaty. That all came to an end in 2019, during President Donald Trump's first term in office. Then, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper reported that the United States was withdrawing from the Treaty. "This withdrawal is a direct result of Russia's sustained and repeated violations of the treaty over many years and multiple presidential administrations." https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/1924779/us-withdraws-from-intermediate-range-nuclear-forces-treaty/ Whether Russia failed to comply with the Treaty is a matter of continuing debate. But one thing remains: the US withdrawal has put us in a nearly untenable position today. Although America, and for that matter Europe, would prefer that Russia not build such devastating weapons, the current reality is that there is no international provision to prohibit such a missile as the Oreshnik. Today, the Russian Federation has raised a "Sword of Damocles" above the heads of both Europe and the United States. For Europe, the Oreshnik could devastate many of its major cities within a 15-minute flight time. For the United States, much of the East Coast could be in ruin within an hour. Let us pray that the American and Russian leaders will have the good sense to return to the negotiation table we left five years ago.

Where I come from, a corner of urban India nestled within the educated, middle-class fold, there’s an implicit understanding: it’s seen as almost wrong for young people to marry in their early twenties. Not every family thinks this way of course, and neither does every social class or state. India has variations, not least because it is a developing country and some parts develop faster than others. There are states where marriage comes early, places where it’s expected, and others where a young woman nearing her thirties, still unmarried, invites random people to speculate why she has still not tied the knot. This, though, has not been my burden to carry. My friends and I, we're the lucky ones, spared the same weight of expectations that pressed down on our mothers, or on others our age. But lately, I’ve found myself questioning whether this is an entirely good thing. All things considered, I'd say it's a step in the right direction that young people from urban, educated families in India are under less pressure to marry than their parents were a generation ago. That being said, there is another side to this. The idea of marrying in one’s early twenties isn’t just dismissed—it’s often ridiculed, sometimes even by elders, which strikes me as an odd and counterproductive way of looking at marriage. There's this notion, especially among the older generation, that by postponing marriage, their children will naturally spend those years climbing the career ladder, gaining financial independence, and gathering all the wisdom that will somehow make them financially more prepared and more mature when the time finally comes. And sure, that does happen sometimes—but it is often not the case. It’s very likely that these young people, who don’t even see marriage in their twenties as a valid life choice—on par with pursuing a second degree, starting a business, or landing that big promotion—end up pushing it away with such disdain for the institution that they never feel ready for it. By the time they hit their mid-thirties, their parents are left feeling hopeless, wondering if their children will ever “settle down” and start families of their own. Many get so accustomed to the bachelor’s life, the freedom of answering to no one, that the thought of giving it up for the next stage of responsibility and commitment seems like a self-imposed sacrifice. Folks from the West might wonder why I’m bringing parents into this, isn’t marriage supposed to be between two people? But in India, marriage isn’t just a union of two individuals—it’s a joining of two families, especially in arranged marriages. And parents, for better or worse, stay deeply involved in their children’s decisions and lives well into adulthood. That has its upsides and its downsides, like most things do. The trouble with this way of living is that privacy and the right to choose your own path often get crowded out by the voices of too many others. A young person’s life isn’t their own entirely; it’s shared, debated, and shaped by the family. Sure, you can push back—strike out on your own if you’ve got the money to stand firm—but that kind of rebellion doesn’t come cheap. It buys you freedom but costs you peace, leaving behind quarrels and the weight of guilt. Still, there’s something to be said for it, this system. A marriage here isn’t just two people trying to make it work. Its success is not left upon the strength of love, strong as love might be. It’s the hopes and ties of many, all pulling to keep the thing together. In my view, it's a bit shortsighted to encourage young people in their twenties to see marriage as something that will hinder their fulfilment or achievements, and then expect that they’ll somehow want to settle down when the time is right. I propose we shift how we perceive marriage, presenting it as a valid option for those in their twenties. Yes, it comes with responsibility and sacrifice, but it also imparts valuable lessons—lessons that my generation conveniently avoids until their thirties, if they marry at all. These are lessons that earlier generations learned much sooner. Our adolescence is drawn out, leaving us self-centred and immature for longer than we should be. I work in the corporate world, surrounded by people who earn well. After paying rent, insurance and other bills, and setting aside money for monthly investments, many are still left with a good chunk of disposable income, which gets funnelled into an endless cycle of consumption—alcohol, clothes, cars, video games, travel. Just the other night, I found myself unable to sleep and, on a whim, ordered two different types of coffee on Amazon. A minute later, I was filled with disgust. We don’t even think twice before indulging these fleeting desires, something our parents, at our age, could hardly afford. They spent more on their children than they ever did on themselves. I remember the first time I bought cinnamon, 100 rupees ($1.19) for 50 grams. It struck me then why my mother had always said it was expensive and to use it sparingly. Suddenly, I realised that back when she and my father were managing a family’s entire expenses, cinnamon was an extravagance, one of the many things that couldn't be taken for granted. It is not lost on me that if young people choose to marry in their early twenties, they might not get to travel as much or have wardrobes as full as we do now. It’s also true that a married couple in their twenties would face more compromises if they decided to pursue a master’s degree or take risks like starting a business after tying the knot. But I’m not convinced that marriage rules out small mistakes or risk-taking altogether. If anything, marrying young gives you a longer road for making mistakes and learning from them. Making the same mistake at the age of 25 is different from making it at 35. By then, the costs are greater, the expectations are higher and the responsibilities are much more. Marriage shouldn’t be seen as something you only enter after life has been fully lived, all of your mistakes have been made, and all the wildness is behind you. Youth, with all its risks and missteps, can be woven into marriage, and perhaps it’s even better that way. The mistakes will be smaller, and subordinate to the higher purpose of nurturing a family and building a home. Sure, you can’t sleep with whoever you please if you’re married, but you can still go on the occasional reckless shopping spree. You might not go on solo trips or clubbing with friends as often, but you can still save up for a family vacation or enjoy a quiet date night with your partner. Fewer hangovers, yes—but that doesn’t mean no fun at all. Encouraging young people to consider marriage—or at least not dismissing the option altogether—could also offer a more thoughtful solution to the challenges posed by birth control. In recent years, we've begun to understand the far-reaching effects of the pill, not only on women’s bodies but also on brain chemistry and even partner selection. Studies have revealed that hormonal contraceptives can influence attraction and relationship dynamics in ways we’re only beginning to grasp. At the same time, we’re seeing a generation that is having less meaningful sex than ever before. So what’s the alternative? Barrier methods, perhaps. But alongside that, shifting the narrative around marriage could be part of a broader, more balanced approach. Marriage, for those in their twenties, need not be seen as the loss of freedom, but as a step that offers both emotional intimacy and stability. It might just be a saner, more human option in a world where deeper connections are becoming increasingly rare. In the end, marriage is not merely an obligation. It is, at its heart, an opportunity—an invitation to grow, to build something enduring. It’s a chance for adventure, for romance, for discovering meaning not just in another person, but in the shared life you create together. It’s a call to take oneself seriously. Somewhere along the way, we seem to have let this truth slip through our fingers. It’s time we remembered. Image Source: Fiddler on the Roof (1971)

There is an old saying that nature abhors a vacuum, the belief being that when something abdicates or abandons its place in the natural order that place does not remain empty; something else rushes in to fill it. Sometimes, it isn’t even a matter of abandonment, but of the replacement being too strong to be held back. Anyone who has ever seen efforts to strengthen a levee with sandbags can understand this particular displacement scenario. But whether it is a matter of abdication or elimination, simply put, the nature of things tends toward maintenance of the status quo in general if not in the particulars. It would be hard to find many educated people who, with the opening of a new millennium, would have predicted the rise of the medieval Crescent not only in the Middle East but in Europe and even North America. The last time Islam posed a threat to the West, men wore knee britches, silk stockings and long wigs while the Ottoman Empire still inhabited the map of the world. Yet, here we are, little more than two decades into the 21st century and there is a very real threat of a world-wide Caliphate and the victory of the Prophet and his “religion” in every place in the world from Morocco to Mexico and Nigeria to Norway. The Christian Church, once the foundation of Western Civilization and gaining converts in nations that never knew the Roman Empire is fast becoming a ghost—and not a very Holy One at that! If one were to ask Westerners in Europe, Britain and the United States (and Canada), what happened?! most would find no words to describe how the civilization of Plato and Aristotle, Cesar and Charlemagne, the Sun King and Thomas Jefferson could find itself sinking ever more rapidly into oblivion while those openly proclaiming their murderous intentions against everything Christian and Western are protected by the very governments of the West using political correctness and the concept of “hate speech”—which, by the way, only applies to those who resist. If the cultural institutions of the West fail to recognize their danger, much less fight back against that danger, it is even more incredible that the main victim of jihad—the Christian Church—seems equally oblivious to the danger posed to its adherents. Using the pretext of Christ’s admonition that we are “to love one another,” many Christians and their churches fail—or refuse—to understand the peril that so-called “radical Islam” poses not only to the Church, but to the West. As noted, in many instances, the governments of Western nations are no longer even resisting the institution of the Caliphate. They have abandoned their own people to an invasion of Third World revolutionaries who have already killed tens, perhaps hundreds of thousand of non-Muslims and even their own “brethren” in their mad crusade to raise the Crescent over the graves of Christianity and Western civilization. One of the things that many in the West cannot fathom is why so many especially young Westerners embrace Islam. They do not come from the ethnic and racial backgrounds that might explain their conversion, but it would seem every day more and more ordinary Americans and British and French and Norwegians embrace the Prophet. Why? And here we must return to our opening point; that is, that nature abhors a vacuum. At some point in the 20th Century at least Western Christianity determined to try to increase interest among youth by reaching out and making it easier to be a Christian. Fasting, prayer, tithing, moral absolutes and church attendance were considered in many instances a barrier to the acceptance by young people of church membership. This was especially true during the 1960s when much of what before had been accepted cultural norms were not only scrutinized, but often abandoned. The Church tried to deal with this situation by adopting more worldly viewpoints in hopes that the disillusioned (and narcissistic) youth of the West would not abandon what many saw as too restrictive to their chosen lifestyle. In some instances, this worked. For example, the institution of Saturday night Mass in the Catholic Church has permitted young Catholics to participate in Sunday morning sports while maintaining at least some association with their “faith.” But how permanent that association will remain once those involved are no longer concerned with soccer, football and lacrosse remains to be seen. The problem with this easing of standards is not for the minimally involved, but for that young man or young woman who seeks meaning in his or her life; that is, that individual who wants a belief system that challenges and, by doing so, fulfills his (or her) spiritual needs. Very little of this kind of rigorous spiritual exercise exists in the West’s tepid Christianity which is often more secular than religious. For such seekers, Islam presents an all-encompassing way of life that promises rewards—and punishments—for the believer. Very early on in the war in Afghanistan after 9/11, a young man from the “left coast” was found fighting with the Taliban. He was an example of the failure of modern liberalism having grown up within a belief system that offered nothing of consequence or value. This young man was a seeker. At a different time and with a more robust Christian society, he might have become a priest or a pastor or a missionary but in today’s America, he had to adopt a 12th century moral monstrosity in order to find any meaning in his 21st century life! The fate of this young man is a seminal example of a moral and spiritual vacuum being filled by an aggressive moral and spiritual movement. Furthermore, it does not matter that those of us who retain some connection with Western Civilization find that movement demonic and immoral! All that matters is that it provides what is needed to those who cannot abide a moral and spiritual vacuum. There was a study done some years ago regarding an endangered waterfowl. Conservationists hovered about the nesting grounds of these birds to see what could be done to increase their numbers. As they watched the young hatch, they noticed that the poor little things spent virtually hours pecking their way out of their shells only to lie exhausted in the nest for a considerable time afterwards. The naturalists gathered together to discuss this situation, and it was determined that they would go and carefully, while the mother bird was off the nest for a few moments, weaken the shell at the time of hatching. To maintain a scientific balance, however, it was decided to do this with only 25% of the hatchlings. The plan was quickly put into effect and sure enough, at the time of the hatching, the weakened eggs gave way much more quickly and the young hatchlings were far less exhausted by their labors. Great were the expectations of the naturalists until they discovered a few days later that all the young birds so assisted—were dead in their nests! At first there was some thought that the “helpers” had somehow contaminated the eggs and that the birds died as the result of infection, but examinations of the dead chicks proved that such was not the case. In the end, it was determined that the very struggle by the young to escape their calcium prison hardened and strengthened them so that they were able to survive those vicissitudes they were all fated to experience in the wild. In other words, what those naturalists discovered to their dismay was that struggle is a part of life and necessary for the development of both body and spirit! This is something that today’s Christian churches need to rediscover while there is still time, or rather, if there is still time.

One thing that always amazes me about Jesus is how He is able to avoid the traps and tricks of the Pharisees and other religious leaders. Time and time again Jesus sidesteps their logic and shares an even greater truth. This passage doesn’t have a clear “Pharisee Trap” present, but Jesus does take the perspective of those present and redefines it. Like most interesting dialogs, some people bring Jesus a statement or question and wait to hear His response. Luke 13 begins by saying, “Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.” (Luke 13:1 NIV) These people may have wanted to simply inform Jesus about something bad that had just happened, or perhaps they were warning Him to consider moving His ministry to a different location, but in either case, they were asking for Jesus to give a response to this information. Like Jesus usually did, instead of responding directly to the surface statement, He responds to the underlying concept and perspective. The subtle trick that is present here is not seen in the statement, but instead in Jesus’ response. One thing those present were trying to pin Jesus into saying is that how one dies is more important than how they lived. The thought among those present seemed to be that one’s type of death, especially if they were killed while worshiping, would overshadow any wrong they had done during their lives. The other big thing that those present were trying to get Jesus to say was that the type of death that someone experienced was directly a result of the type of life they had lived. It stood to reason that those who died early, especially if it was an “accident” like a tower falling, must have been hiding worse sins that only God knew about and that He determined it good to punish them for it. These are the two sides to this seemingly innocent piece of news – and Jesus sees right into the preconceived ideas and into the trap. So Jesus takes the opportunity to shift the perspective of each side of the trick. Continuing in verse 2, we read, “Jesus answered, ‘Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.’” (Luke 13:2-5 NIV) First Jesus steps in and brings the implications to the surface. Is how one dies a revelation of how they lived? Does the type or time of death matter? Then Jesus gives us the big truth: How one chooses to live from this point forward determines their ultimate destiny. Unless repenting, which means turning away from sin and towards God, is a part of your path forward, you will face the same fate. The amount/level of sin in our lives is not as important as the one we put our faith, hope, and trust in to deal with the sin that has stained our past. This post first appeared on ReflectiveBibleStudy.com What do you think? Do you agree/disagree? Leave your thoughts below.

Wall Street Analysts are scrambling to revise this quarter's Corporate Profit projections, as the Bureau of Economic Analysis (the Government's chief economic data keeper) announced that Profits were unchanged last quarter. This was a complete surprise, as most analysts thought US Corporations would increase their profits by 3% in Q3 2024. Not so, said the BEA. Corporations are beginning to really struggle as profits essentially disappear. The hardest hit were the financial companies themselves, home to those Wall Street Analysts. After earning $42.5 billion in Q2 2024, fin profits fell to a negative $2.6 billion in Q3. That's a swing of over $45 billion and one of the most significant declines we've seen in quite some time. Non-financial companies' profits increased by $30.8 billion, which is a solid accomplishment, but it was still only about a third of the increase they had the quarter before. Finally, what the BEA calls the rest of the world (all specialty companies that don't fit into the Financial or Non-financial category) saw their profits decline by another $38.8 billion, on top of an $18.8 billion decline the quarter before. All in all, this was not a positive report for investors. Corporate Profits include all corporations in the nation and are, therefore, a broader group than Corporate Earnings, which include profits for publicly traded companies. Nonetheless, this shows that the business environment has turned decidedly sour over the last quarter. Investor beware. Overall, this second estimate of the nation's GDP was estimated to have increased by 2.8%, driven principally by the $175.9 billion increase in personal income. Although this was slightly lower than the BEA's first estimate for the quarter (the first estimate was a 3% increase), today's report shows that salaries and wages continue to drive the economy. In other news, this morning, there was a worrisome development in Durable Goods Orders, those major capital investments; the Street was looking for a 0.2% increase in Durable Goods (and some estimates were as high as a 0.6% increase). However, actual Durable Goods Orders came in at a very tepid 0.1% increase. A deeper dive revealed that Defense Spending was the chief drag on Durable Goods. Isn't that interesting? I thought that Senator Lindsay Graham and others said that all these wars we're involved in were supposed to be good for the economy, but apparently not in Q3. Finally, PCE Prices, the Fed's favorite measure of Inflation, came in at just 1.5%, down from 2.5% the quarter before. Perhaps the nation's central banker's interest rate cuts weren't as harmful as some supposed. Have a wonderful Thanksgiving!

It was a cold, drizzly morning at LaGuardia Airport. My plane had just been pushed back in preparation for our short ride to Washington, D.C. Just then, beside us on the Taxi Way, appeared a white, shiny plane emblazoned in big red letters with the name Trump. It’s my first memory of a man who has become central to the history of our country. Just days before Donald J. Trump managed to carve out one of the few profitable parts of a failing Eastern Airlines: the New York to Washington Shuttle. It was quite a coup for the young businessman, who proved he was much more than a real estate developer. There was a New York Financier who could ink one of the most significant transactions of the day, and The Art of the Deal was born. To many, President-Elect Donald J. Trump personifies the brash New Yorker. He is often outrageous, and controversy surrounds him like a cloud. And yet, Trump is a collection of seeming contradictions. While it’s true that Trump is brash, he is certainly not loud. His soft-spoken style belies a thoughtful person behind all the bravado. Having spent much of my career on Wall Street, I’ve known my share of brash New Yorkers, yet I’ve rarely met anyone with Trump’s talent. While the Eastern Airlines deal was a business coup, the bold Trump branding stood out. It wasn’t ego that made Trump paint those planes so distinctively; it was the recognition that his new airline needed to be distinctive from all the rest if he wanted to gain market share. Trump’s ability to point us in one direction, only to introduce us to an entirely new “Trump-centric” reality. In building the Trump Shuttle, he created a new brand to compete with the existing airlines. I remember the buzz in the office when people I worked with took their first flight on Trump’s Airline. As Trump’s new airline delivered, what appeared to be Trump’s pure ego became an all-new Shuttle experience. The Trump Shuttle was more comfortable and dramatically cleaner than the competition. Trump is using the same playbook that he used 35 years ago in building the Trump Shuttle: He points people in seemingly one direction, only to have them reach a new destination when all is said and done. Trump is not afraid to appear to be one thing while he’s actually playing from a very different script. Today, Washington denizens and political commentators are up in arms about Trump’s Cabinet nominations. They assume that Trump is using a conventional strategy of appointing conventional bureaucrats to head the Federal Government’s vast Administrative State. But, if you’ve followed Trump, you recognize that’s not what’s occurring. Trump is setting the stage to reveal just what the Administrative State and our political leaders really are. Remember, above all, Trump is a showman. His “reality television” program was one of the most popular of its time because Trump understands how to put on a show. The “show” he is putting on now will be the US Senate Confirmation Hearings and the debate leading up to them. The Trump Cabinet appointments take on an entirely different perspective when viewed in this light. If Trump is to be taken at his word, he believes that the US Military is troubled and that recently imposed “woke” policies have jeopardized our nation’s defense. So, Trump appointed Pete Hegseth, the Fox News commentator and the country’s most vociferous wake critic, Secretary of Defense. Trump is now in the driver’s seat. Should Hegseth be confirmed, he will undoubtedly implement the anti-woke policies that Trump seeks. On the other hand, should Hegseth be rejected by the Senate, it will only be after Senators have revealed themselves to be just the sort of “pro-woke” politicians that Trump has railed against. Moreover, Hegseth is an extremely capable public speaker who will provide a juicy “sound bite” that will play well on the nightly news. Trump will win again by exposing the policies that he opposes. We’ve already seen Trump’s strategy at work in the nomination of Tom Homan as the new “border czar.” Homan has been the past head of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE). Videos of Mr. Homan’s past testimony before Congress are going viral on the internet, as he promoted Trump’s vision of border control. Before the Confirmation Hearings began, Homan was already playing his role. Trump wins. We can expect the same sort of high drama and thus highly visible reactions to the appointments of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for Health and Human Services and Max Gaetz for Attorney General. RFK Jr. will battle against the politically entrenched Pharmaceutical and Ag Industries, while Gaetz, himself the victim of what Trump likely sees as “law-fare,” will be tasked with making the case against an overreaching administrative state. Perhaps the most vivid example of Trump’s advocacy appointments is Lee Zeldin to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In his 2022 Campaign for Governor of New York, Zeldin proposed allowing fracking in upstate, which would turn the EPA upside down. For 50 years, the EPA has prioritized protecting the environment. Trump proposes a new Secretary who would prioritize energy production, albeit within existing environmental constraints, as the agency’s top priority. This is in line with Trump’s promotion of economic growth. We can expect major fireworks surrounding this nomination. In each of Trump’s nominations, we see the dual role of the conventional Cabinet appointment and the advocate for critical Trump Policies. Gone are the all-star bureaucrats who will go their own way. Instead, Trump introduced a new group of Cabinet Secretaries assigned to promote a specific Trump plan. They will undoubtedly be carefully coached and prepared for their Confirmation Hearing. Whether their role will continue beyond using the Senate Forum to make Trump’s case remains to be seen. The Senate may reject some of Trump’s nominees, and their roles will end in just weeks. However, most will, no doubt, be confirmed. It doesn’t matter what each nominee’s fate will be. Trump will have carefully prepared each nominee to perform their designated role precisely, one that will promote the new President’s policy positions. Whether confirmed or not, Trump will have changed the nation’s debate, a true win to begin his second term. **

It wasn’t illegal when it happened, and with time the image of a middle-aged man running at my buttocks, armed with a 4-foot piece of bamboo as I clutched my ankles, certainly appears increasingly, disturbingly wrong. But that was the price I paid for keeping my trap shut. It was 1987 and corporal punishment was still a thing in New Zealand schools, although sometime before graduation it had disappeared from the repertoire of disciplining techniques. But in hindsight I consider myself lucky to be able tell my kids how tough school was ‘back in the day’. It did not matter that I was undeserving of such punishment. I had been accused of throwing sawdust in people’s faces which was not accurate. The fellow on the other side of my workbench had blown a handful of sawdust in my face when I had leant down to examine my work and I was the one who had sawdust in my eyes and I had returned the favour by sprinkling a handful on his back when he wasn’t looking, which wasn’t nearly as bad as what he had done. Mr Rodgers caught me in the act and deemed it a serious risk in the woodwork room and took it one step further and suggested I had been throwing it in people’s faces. When he asked me if there was anything more I’d like to say I had only moments to decide my fate. I could lay the blame at my co-worker’s feet. He did deserve it and we were not friends and would eventually come to blows, but by the age of thirteen and only in my first year of high school, I knew that we weren’t supposed to tell, aka ‘nark’ or ‘dob’ fellow pupils in. I explained that I hadn’t thrown anything in anyone’s face but Mr Rodgers had made up his mind. Safety was paramount and I deserved six of the best. Many teachers were infamous for their caning techniques but Mr Rodgers was known as the most vicious due to his years working with wood and metal. He had big calloused hands and biceps where the veins stood out like the body builders had, and could swing a cane harder than anyone else. As if being struck by the strongest teacher at school wasn’t bad enough, he made me stand at one end of the corridor while he took a running leap at my butt. I didn’t cry but the intensity of the pain does make your eyes water, but fortunately I didn’t have to receive the full six strokes as the cane broke on the third strike, which was just as well as I could feel a trickle of blood drip down my legs. When I went back to class for a brief moment in time, I was deemed a hero. I had taken my punishment and kept my trap shut. I hadn’t spilled the words that would have condemned a fellow student to a public beating. I could probably have simply left this chapter with the words ‘Keep your trap shut’ and left the following pages blank because we all know the power of words to pardon, condemn, or clear our name, but not so much the value in silence. We’ve all had moments when we regret the words that escape our lips, sometimes instantly and other times at a later date as they come back to bite us days, weeks or even years later. In today’s climate of viral success I should add that keeping your trap shut also applies to stopping your wandering fingers from doing the talking, and avoiding making things worse with hasty Twitter and Facebook comments. But keeping silent or saying less is nothing new and even our ancient texts advise it. From Mohammed Ali, Frances Bacon to King Solomon (purportedly the wisest man who ever lived) they all agree there is value in silence, although one of my favorites is from King Solomon - ‘The more words, the less the meaning.’ Some believe King Solomon to be a myth, and that’s ok, because my goal is not to prove or disprove anicent figures, but to help us appreciate and hopefully apply the words of the wise that have withstood the test of time. But if ancient texts don’t interest you, take my dad’s advice because it just so happens that he’s usually right and he says something similar: ‘If you’ve got nothing nice to say, keep your trap shut.’ I wish I’d paid it more attention in my younger days, especially at school, which I’ll get to in a bit. But if you’ve never opened a bible, pondered the words of Confucius or know nothing of philosophy or great thinkers, then you’re just like me, well, at least the sort of me I was for the first 40yrs of my life. Even our childhood rhymes talk about words and their power or supposed lack of, and I’m sure you’ve all heard the following rhyme: Sticks and stones May break my bones But words will never hurt me The thing is, as a kid I wanted this to be true, but as I’ve gotten older, I’ve realized how utterly inaccurate this rhyme is. Words may sting like a mosquito that we brush off or wound us deeply to our very core and last a lifetime. I can recall every fight I had in school. I remember blood pouring from my broken nose when the class bully - whose dad was a boxing coach - decided to rearrange my face one day in my first month at high school. I got over it in a few weeks time, and eventually over the course of the year we let it go and were able to (if not be best friends) get along. The scars disappeared. It’s surprising how quickly you get over the physical stuff that happens to you, but what hurt the most, and took years to work out, were the words uttered on my first day, all because of my ‘homogrips.’ It turns out the tufts of hair hanging in front of my ears were handles that men used to hold onto as they took me from behind. As a result my name for the first two years of high school was ‘homogrips’ or ‘gripper’ for short. It would have been tough enough if I was gay, but it’s pretty much the worst insult to give a 13yr old kid on his first day, especially in an all-boys’ high school. The name stuck, but the venom with which people used it varied. I would happily take another caning, punch up (with broken nose included) if it meant I didn’t have to put up with those words for two miserable years. Words have power, to wound or heal, and so often less really is more, although I discovered this when I wrote my first book. When I wrote my first book, I had no writing experience at all. I’d pieced together a collection of vignettes based on a lifetime of work as a nurse, but in my naiveté thought it would be only a matter of time before I’d find a publisher and begin selling millions of books and becoming rich. By the time my first editor was finished with it, my 400-page book had been cut down to 100 pages. It took me 6 months to motivate myself to write again. In the case of my writing skills, the harsh words were couched with good advice and made me a better writer – and here I am at your mercy putting my words to the test. All throughout history people have been moved by words, by powerful speeches, for good or ill, from Lincoln’s Gettysburg address, Churchill’s ‘Fighting on the beaches’ to Martin Luther King’s ‘I have a dream’. Such words move people and wielded the right way, can touch the heart of a nation, or harden it. Great speakers can turn words into weapons, or swords into ploughshares. When words are cradled in poem or song, they come alive. Rarely do I see a teenager walking down the street who doesn’t have something plugged into his or her ears as the lyrics are embedded into their minds to the beat of a drum. This is nothing new and Andrew Fletcher, a seventh century Scottish writer and political activist famously wrote: ‘Give me the songs of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.’ In more recent history, most of us have heard the story behind Eric Clapton’s ‘Tears in heaven’ as he asks if his four-year-old son, who died in a tragic accident, would know him in heaven. I suspect some of us have cried at these words, especially if we’ve experienced such loss. I don’t think there’s a person on the planet who hasn’t been hurt or healed by words. We sometimes pause and appreciate the power in them, but we rarely give thought to the power in silence, and the art of keeping your words to a minimum.

Have you ever found yourself in a moment that, even as it unfolds, feels like one of life’s rare, complete fulfillments? I had one of those on a cool November morning, the 8th, right around 8 a.m. It was at a place called Char Dukan in Landour, a hill-town just beyond Mussoorie, which still carries the quiet grace of old British days. My boyfriend and I were ten days into a long trip, and, as we often do, we’d risen early to greet the dawn. We sat on the balcony in silence, watching the sky’s palette shift as the sun climbed, casting its warm, gentle light over the hills from new angles with each passing minute. When that tranquil half-hour had passed, we felt the pangs of hunger, and so, like pilgrims with a shared purpose, we set off down the road, hoping to stumble upon a breakfast as perfect as the morning. Char Dukan—meaning, simply, "four shops"—is what passes for the main market in Landour, though calling four shops a market is a stretch. Back in colonial days, it really was just four humble stalls serving tea and snacks to passersby. These days, it’s grown to six, but the spirit remains. Most folks who make it as far as Mussoorie rarely venture further up to Landour. It’s a steeper climb, and those who come usually navigate its narrow road in small cars or on two-wheelers. Having called Dehradun home for almost two years, I know this place as well as any local, and, given the choice, I’d take Landour over Mussoorie without a second thought. Back to that moment—when we arrived, not one of the four shops at Char Dukan was open yet. But fortune had a hand in it, as there was a park close by, so we settled on a bench, huddled together, breathing in the mountain air and letting the soft morning sun dapple over us. Four friendly dogs trotted up, tails wagging, and took their places at our feet, as if they’d been expecting us. While we waited for the shops to stir, we watched the town wake up—a few locals sharing early-morning laughs, a milkman rattling by on a motor scooter (a bicycle wouldn’t do for these hills), a father dropping off his children to school, and a handful of mischievous monkeys heckling the dogs from a safe distance. Around eight, the shutters of the shops finally clattered open, and we crossed the road to settle at an outdoor table. We ordered aloo-pyaaz parathas (potato-and-onion flatbreads), and two steaming cups of chai. The shop owner and his wife bustled behind the counter, putting together our breakfast, while a troop of monkeys, sly and hopeful, watched from a branch overhead. There’s nothing especially rare about aloo parathas and chai—it’s one of India’s simplest, most beloved breakfasts. But what made it extraordinary was the fullness of the moment: the crisp morning air, the birdsong that gets swallowed by the city noise back in Delhi, the tangy homemade achaar (pickle) that added a sharp note to the hot, crispy parathas that singed our fingers, the chai that chased away the chill, and the dogs, nuzzling our knees, hoping for a taste of our breakfast. And, of course, the best part of all—the company of one another, sharing a quiet, golden morning. What a morning it was! Just across from us, a group of locals sat at another table, savouring their own parathas and chai, their noses buried in the morning papers. The difference was, for them, this was the routine—another easy start to the day. For us, though, it was something not so ordinary, something we had travelled over 300 kilometres to experience—this quiet, beautiful moment of harmony. Image (self-clicked): The Himalayan Range, as seen from Landour.

Our story began over half a century ago. Then, US President Richard Nixon achieved his lifelong goal to open the doors of China. It was Nixon who would bring "Red" China into the family of nations and make it an equal partner to the rest of the world. Until Nixon, the United States considered the "real" China to be the Taiwanese, a tiny island that lies 81 miles off the mainland. There, Chiang Kai-shek retreated after the Chinese Communists had taken control of the continent. For Nixon, this was the apex of a long career in Washington. History records that it was he who opened the door to the most populist nation on earth. The famous picture (reproduced here) of Nixon and Premier Zhou Enlai toasting was top-of-the-fold headline news across the world. While it was a seminal event in geopolitics, its impact on the American Economy has been nearly as significant. As China gradually became America's principal trading partner, it changed the American way of life. Over time, "made in China" became a major component of the items that fill our shopping carts. As has been noted many times, walk down a Walmart aisle, and many, if not most, of the items you'll find come from Chinese Manufacturers. All are shipped across the Pacific Ocean—from home goods to electronics and even pharmaceuticals, all made abroad. It was no accident that things would turn out this way; rather, it was the natural evolution of a strategy first initiated by Nixon (and his able Secretary of State Henry Kissinger) and later exploited by a shrewd group of Chinese leaders. While Nixon's goal was to open China to the rest of the world, in reality, he opened the American retail market to a very capable country of merchants who had been exploiting local markets for far longer than the United States had been a country. The Chinese merchants are legendary throughout Asia, Nixon merely brought them to our shore. Nixon set the stage for a 50-year run of prosperity for the American consumer: cheap Chinese production costs, especially labor, would be combined with aggressive Chinese pricing, selling goods sometimes at or below cost, would ensure that the Chinese brands would capture the American markets. Thus, low-priced Chinese goods would often drive out American businesses; entire industries would move to China. Nike was the first American company to recognize the incredible Chinese production advantage. The sporting goods "maker" took a short hop across the Aleutian Islands from Washington State to China. And just like that, Nike had a competitive price advantage over all the American companies, each of which had to decide to meet the new lower Nike prices or go out of business. For many, it became a simple choice to follow the "Nike Model" and move to China. Of course, as consumers, Americans were blind to the transformation that was taking place in our economy. While it is true that the few who were directly affected, like the Nike workers who had their jobs moved "offshore," most of us were oblivious. I, for one, was late to the party, not realizing how profoundly this move to offshore production was having on the country.It was often difficult, if not impossible, to determine where an item was made by looking at the label. There was a brief effort to have all items tell their country of origin on their labels, but that has now fallen by the wayside. Today, it is rare to find an origination label, except for those few goods "made in the U.S.A."At this point, we come to the divide between citizens and consumers. As citizens, we all recognize that it's in our best interest to have as many goods as possible made in this country. Local production means local jobs and a growing national income. But the consumer in us wants the best price possible. And as we've seen, that's often found offshore. I'm writing this on "Black Friday," the day after Thanksgiving and the most important retail shopping day of the year. So, here's an exercise: What price would you be willing to pay to ensure that the goods you buy are made in America? Would you endure a 5% increase? 10%? 25%?It's an interesting question. What's fascinating is that the more uncertain our own financial future, the less likely we are to bear any price increase. After all, when times are tight, we need to pinch pennies with every purchase we make In less than two months, President-Elect Donald Trump will be inaugurated. Although, like any new Presidency, there are many questions over his future policies, one thing is clear. In term II, Trump will undoubtedly continue to make offshore goods more expensive. Just as he did before, he will likely use tariffs. It's his effort to "even the playing field." His goal is to bring manufacturing back to this country – something that all of us can agree on. We all want to see more jobs in America. But at what cost? Let's go back to our question: Are we willing to see an increase in prices of 5? 10? or 25? It's critically important that we ask that question now before the tariffs begin. Remember, this cycle started when Americans gladly accepted the lower Chinese-based prices, not realizing that offshore production cost our fellow Americans their jobs. Now, we come to the other side of the coin: Increased tariffs may bring American jobs home, but only through higher prices. Today, as we celebrate Black Friday Sales, let's ask ourselves if we are ready to pay higher prices for American jobs.

From an early age, I was interested in knowledge—not knowledge for its own sake, but for the effect it produces: awareness, and more precisely, the state of wonder that accompanies awareness. About knowledge, over time I understood that there are three levels: theoretical, experiential, and ultimately contemplative. Theoretical knowledge informs you by offering a conceptual perspective, but it is followed—or should be followed—by putting into practice what was previously conceptualized, which means that experiential knowledge is superior to theoretical knowledge. The highest form of knowledge is contemplative knowledge, and it does not exclude other forms of knowledge, being thus a form of existential knowledge in the sense that this type of knowledge is simultaneously experienced in all its forms. We, humans, are beings who, beyond physiological and social needs, also have needs of consciousness. Material poverty is not the only form of poverty that a person can suffer from, because there are also cultural poverty, spiritual poverty, vocational poverty, and even poverty of consciousness. Being aware that we are conscious, we are inevitably in a state of thirst for awareness, and this hunger for novelty is, in my view, the essence of our existence in existence. Recently, I received a gift from my children of Dr. Jordan Peterson's latest book, "We Who Wrestle with God," and at the same time, the first episode of "The Gospels" series appeared. I will end with these verses: Consciousness shape They said billions of years, Since its beginning, Matter has traveled, To its morning. Sleeping light is awakening, Through flesh and blood, Is making its way, To its rising. The heaviness of stone sleep, Through inner Sun's grace, Is gradually removed from eye, To its clarity. They called it the matter, But little do they know, That matter is pure.. Unaware awareness! by Florin Dragoș Minculescu

I know that “thinkspot is an online refuge for serious thinkers and quality discourse”, but I believe that what just happened in the past 24 hours in the USA, has a deeper meaning than the title may offer, and the issue must be addressed as such. First of all, it should be mentioned that a definitive and irrevocable rupture has been highlighted between the purpose and role that the mass media should have in society and the society to which it is addressed and whose interests it should protect, and this situation is a fact present not only in the USA, it is a global phenomenon. Thank God, this place has been filled by the positive side of technology, because people need information and social media platforms have proven their efficiency once again. Another aspect that is worth mentioning is that related to the existence of a social dimension that is not ideologically involved in political life and that seemed to no longer exist. I think they are wrongly called undecided, because there is a distinction between having left-wing orientations and being socialist, just as there is a distinction between having right-wing orientations and being ideologically committed in this sense. Finally, I want to highlight a clear recalibration of the value system that society is moving towards - God, family, and quality of life ( peace and wellbeing ) have once again become the focus of political discourse and it is likely that this aspect will be reflected in all of our lives. God bless us! P. S. Thank you America!

In Jesus’ prayer on the night He was arrested, He prays for His followers. The followers Jesus prays for are not just the small group of disciples, but all of His followers who live throughout history. A big theme of Jesus prayer is connection and unity. Just like Jesus is one with the Father, He wants to unite His followers into being one with both Him as well as God. We can see this theme clearly throughout a number of the sections in Jesus’ prayer, but as Jesus begins to wrap His prayer up, we see a picture of oneness that is a little unique from some of the others. In His prayer to the Father, Jesus says, “I have honored my followers in the same way that you honored me, in order that they may be one with each other, just as we are one. I am one with them, and you are one with me, so that they may become completely one. Then this world’s people will know that you sent me. They will know that you love my followers as much as you love me.” (John 17:22-23 CEV) It is amazing to me that Jesus tells us that He honored His followers in the same way the Father has honored Him. Some translations say glory instead of honor. This idea is powerful because it reveals how God’s nature is to step down. When we give someone or something glory, we lift it up, and by doing so, we place it above us. While it might not technically be worth more than we are to someone else, honoring something or someone is more in the eye of the one giving the glory or doing the honoring. As an example, if I give honor to a friend for something they accomplished, I am lifting them above me (or perhaps up beside me if it is something I had also accomplished). Honor and glory lift others up. My friend in this example might not feel as though he is worthy of the honor because he might be focused on someone or something else who is even better than he is. This means that honor is in the eye of the one giving honor – and Jesus says He has honored His followers like God had honored Him. God the Father lifted up Jesus, and Jesus lifted up His followers, and we are called to continue the cycle of honor by returning it to God. We complete our connection and unity with God by giving honor to Him for everything He has done for us through the Father, through Jesus, and through the Holy Spirit. When we close this circle by returning honor to God, we become one with Him and this oneness becomes a witness to those living around us that God loves us. While God’s love doesn’t always mean that we are protected from bad events, it does mean that we have Someone who is willing and happy to walk through life with us as we continue to live, learn, and grow towards being the person God created us to be. This post first appeared on ReflectiveBibleStudy.com What do you think? Do you agree/disagree? Leave your thoughts below.

Transparency, Accountability and Consequences Posted on November 22, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, a novel concept of governance is, to increase transparency, accountability and consequences on people, depending on their ability to harm the nation, society and the culture. While at the same time lowering surveillance on people with low ability to harm. Which is the opposite of the way things are done today. The elite argue that they need total surveillance to protect us from each other. While they don’t need any oversight or limitation. Because they’re such great people. So the paradigm we live under is, the more power to harm, the less surveillance, accountability and consequences applied, while the smaller someone is, the greater the surveillance, accountability and consequences for actions. The jack boot that kicks the little guy… protects the big guy’s foot. “Above the law,” isn’t a saying, as much as a way of life for the elite. One could fill tomes with examples of the elite getting away with things that little people are spending decades in prison for. How many people are in prison for cocaine? Even as it’s freely passed around the Biden White house. When Hillary was let off Scot free for an illegal email server, with top secret information on it, that she destroyed, a measly sailor went to prison, for emailing a picture to his girlfriend of himself, onboard a nuclear submarine. He may still be in prison. Who could forget the tsunami of lies from the mouths of bureaucrats, even as those same functionaries demanded General Flynn, Roger Stone and Scooter Libby go to prison for a decade on a perjury frame? Then there’s the Epstein cover up. Being above the law is abetted by working in the dark. The lack of transparency is claimed due to “national security,” to protect the elite that are undermining our security, is a handy tool. Allowing anyone to see what their government is doing, on their behalf, is a clear danger to national security. Since the security of the elite depends on us not knowing the crimes they’re up to. The freedom of information act was a needed reform, but the default should be transparency. Rather than requiring reams of paperwork to get access to what the government is doing. Moreover, many governments don’t even have a freedom of information law. Keeping the workings of those governments black boxes. The only thing that grows in darkness, is corruption… and we have a bumper crop of that. Transparency needs to be the default. If we’re paying for government in taxes, inflation and lost opportunity due to regulation, then we’re entitled to know what’s going on. Everything government does has to be transparent, else it’s underhanded. Because people are people. If a bank teller, on dozens of cameras and computers monitoring their drawers, can’t be trusted… how much less people who work in the dark, and are above the law when caught? When a congressperson is getting a kickback from a corporation we should know about it. If a representative is using inside information, to make insider trades, that’s proof we need transparency… to eliminate inside information. Moreover, the quality of laws and regulations would improve, if those making them were accountable for the results. The solution is transparency, accountability and consequences. If everything government does is transparent, there will be no insider information to trade on. Nor will there be back room deals for cronies. People used to working in the dark will recoil at the light. It’ll blind their eyes, burn their skin, and sere their mouths. Add accountability to that torture and the elite will scream, “unfair!” Add to that, holding them to their own laws, will make any elite consider getting a real job. Until they realize real jobs have inescapable accountability, transparency and consequences. So, despite the elite calling us ruthless, vindictive and haters, for holding them to their own laws, we have to do it. Not only for our own good, the good of our loved ones, and our nations, but for the elite’s own eternal good as well. Sincerely, John Pepin

It's the most wonderful time of the year... I am blessed and proud to present your annual gift of low fidelity yuletide glory and wonderment... LOFI CHRISTMAS VII …a cozy, crackling carefully crafted collection of Lofi Christmas perfection to soundtrack your holiday season. ❄ As is only right and traditional, the mix is comprised of a smorgasbord of delightful new winter bumps, 14 in total. ❄ As always, an instrumental version is available to stream and download on all platforms… and a special vocal-sample-infused version will be dropping on Youtube at 1 CT, and available to download for our supporters. This version is peppered with samples from some of my favorite Christmas movies and TV specials. Can you spot them all? ❄ MEANWHILE! As is also traditional, our BLACK FRIDAY SALE is now on! In our biggest sale of the year, get up to 25% off at meaningwave.com! Use code BF25 and make your meaningwave dreams come true. ❄ See you at the LOFI CHRISTMAS VII mix premiere shortly! ❄ LOVE TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY! ❄ AKIRA THE DONDSPDC, Mexico, November ‘24 ‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

Generally, the period between a Presidential Election and the Inauguration is a quiet time. It is a time when offices are packed up, the transition to a new Administration begins, and old friends are bid farewell. However, we would be mistaken if we thought that would be true with the nation's 46th President, Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. The most consequential decision of his entire term happened last week. At first blush, it seemed like little more than an announcement of the latest weapons system to be sent to Ukraine. In fact, the Biden Administration has downplayed the announcement that the President would send ATACMS Missiles to Kyiv. ATACMS is a medium-range missile that can be used to strike into the heart of Russia. It's a weapon that President Volodymyr Zelensky has been requesting for weeks. Zelensky claims that these missiles will help "even the playing field" between Ukrainian and Russian forces. That President Biden finally relented and sent these sophisticated missile systems to Ukraine isn't really news. Biden has reluctantly sent the latest and most advanced armaments to Ukraine for months. From our most advanced battle tank, the M1A1 Abram Tank, to the 300 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, the 3,000 Humvee, 3 million NATO Standard 155mm artillery shells, the Patriot Anti-Aircraft Missile Systems (exact number classified), and most recently the F16 Fighter Jets (exact number classified). The United States has sent so many weapons, munitions, and equipment to Ukraine that our own stores have been depleted. But this time was different, and to understand just what made the difference, we must return to last summer. These were heady times in Ukraine. A massive counter-offensive was underway, which saw the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) recapture 14 villages and an estimated 300 square kilometers. It would prove to be the high point for Ukraine. Meanwhile, a thousand miles away, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that his country was modifying its Nuclear Doctrine, the circumstances under which Russia would use Nuclear Weapons. Although this was a significant change by the world's number one nuclear country, it drew almost no attention in the West. Most of the American Press saw this as little more than a minor Russian adjustment. Little did they know that this minor "adjustment" could lead to a direct confrontation between the World's Two Nuclear superpowers. By Autumn, the Ukraine Counter-Offensive was fading, and the Russians were again assuming the dominant position on the battlefield. At about the same time, the new Russian Nuclear Doctrine was completed. Under this new Doctrine, Russia announced that it would consider any attack on its homeland by a nuclear power or an ally of nuclear power to justify a nuclear response by Russia. It seemed aimed directly at the United States (a nuclear power) and its ally, Ukraine. Should Ukraine attack the Russian heartland, Russia's new Doctrine would call for a counter-attack against the US. Curiously, President Putin sat on this new Document, choosing not to sign it. It was as if he were placing it on his desk, hoping against hope that he would never have to institute such a devastating Document. That's when the aging American President, Joe Biden, inexplicably decided to act. As if to call Putin's bluff, Biden elected to allow ATACM Missiles to be launched directly into Russia. Biden chose to confront the world's largest nuclear arsenal directly. And this time, there could be no confusion between nuclear power and allies because the missiles themselves, the technicians used to launch them, and all the guidance provided was all American. Although the launch space was in Ukraine, all the rest was "made in the U.S.A."Within a day, Putin reacted by signing the new Russian Nuclear Doctrine. Now, there would be no doubt that any continued attack upon Russian soil could be met with a nuclear response, not just to Ukraine but also to the United States. Last week, six ATACMS were used in the first attack on Russia. Reports are that the US has supplied 44 ATACMS to the UAF. Although the battle plans for the Ukrainians are not known, it is likely that these, too, will be aimed at the Russian homeland. In little more than eight weeks, Joe Biden's career in Washington will end. For over half a century, the voters in Delaware have elected him first to County Council, then to US Senator, Vice President, and recently President. As Senator and Vice President, Biden built a reputation as a proponent of diplomacy and negotiation, both of which have been missing throughout the Ukraine War. This latest strategy of using ATACMS against Russia brings into question his reputation as a diplomat. Was he a man of peace or conflict? Will Joe Biden's legacy be to add one more endless war to America's history?

I have once again embarked upon a topic of historical research. Over the years, a particular individual having caught my attention results in an almost monomaniacal concentration upon the chosen object of study. My present interest arose after watching a replay of the old TV drama, The Crossing, a well done though moderately fictionalized version of George Washington’s attack on Trenton launched on Christmas night, 1776 in which Washington and his ragged, starving army crossed the Delaware River to launch a strike against the Hessian mercenaries encamped in that town. The story was of particular interest to myself as it involved a man whom my grandmother once assured me was one of my ancestors, Continental Colonel John Glover. Glover’s New England fisherman ferried Washington and his army together with his artillery, supplies and horses, across the ice-choked river in a howling nor’easter, an act of incredible difficulty and supreme courage that resulted in the relatively small but essential victory that was shown to have been the first step in turning the tide of the then failing American Revolution! Of course, this was not the first time that Glover and his sailors had saved both the Continental Army and the Revolution! He and his men carried out the evacuation of Washington’s nine thousand plus soldiers as well as artillery and horses from Brooklyn Heights to Manhattan across the East River during the battle of Long Island, a miracle later followed by his successful efforts during the escape of what remained of that army from British forces led by General Cornwallis as they were pursued across New Jersey and into Pennsylvania! But this movie kindled in myself an interest not in Glover, but in Washington, a man often portrayed as marble-like and a somewhat dull figurehead even if he did carry a sword and ride a magnificent horse. But I will testify that my initial studies clearly demonstrate how very wrong is that assessment, for even in such a brief time, I have now come to know Washington as a truly remarkable – indeed, indispensable – man without whom we, as a nation, would never have come into being! He was indeed, a Virginia hero! As well as having obtained dozens of (mostly used) books on Washington and his era, I have also acquired on-line articles and relevant videos and watched a host of You Tube presentations including two full TV productions and a FOX history series narrated by Kelsey Grammar. I mention all of this to validate my claim of having discovered a profound issue that continually appears in the majority of these extremely varied forms of information – or at least the more modern ones. Worse, the matter is exceptionally negative with reference not only to Washington but to the rest of the Founders – as well as being ubiquitous; that is, it is found in almost all the available information I have encountered save for the very old tomes. Now such a strong negative issue this prevalent in any study must influence those seeking knowledge on that subject. How could it not? Thus, the consequences arising from the proclaimed importance of this matter cannot be discounted when considering its effect upon today’s view of Washington and his era including the founding of the United States of America. The issue so apparently crucial today to any understanding of history is, of course, slavery, a matter we’re told is of paramount importance in any judgment made about that history. Thus, the issue must be “properly” understood and that understanding admitted to before any historical evaluation will be accepted by today’s “scholars!” For black slavery is the unforgivable sin of the new millennium. The fact that most people have little to no knowledge or understanding of the complexities of the issue and must depend upon the narrative presented by often biased ideologues means nothing! All that is required – nay, demanded! – is that the individual being morally crucified as a consequence of participating in this “unforgivable sin” must be white! That many blacks also owned slaves is without interest to the inquisitors. In fact, that the entire slave “industry” arose in Africa and was run by Africans never seems to influence the discussion! Finally, that black slavery continues to exist has no bearing whatsoever on the condemnation of those whites who owned slaves in our nation’s past – and especially those “Founding Fathers” who, year by year, continue to slip lower in the esteem of Americans who have so greatly benefited from their lives. It would seem one of our greatest sins as a people is our total lack of knowledge about or gratitude to those whose sacrifices gave to us what we otherwise would never have received! As to Washington in particular, virtually every book and article about the man if not limited to some individual battle of the war or particular political action – and sometimes not even then – involves speculations about his role as a slave owner. In one article it was charged that he was “more cruel than any other slave owning Founder,” a charge later refuted in a report that having discovered one of his slaves deathly ill, Washington had the man moved to Mount Vernon by carriage and cared for by his own physician in a spare bedroom of his home! Such an act validates claims about Washington’s concern for “his people,” and should put to rest any charges of mistreatment. He did, however, dispose of a particularly obnoxious and unreliable slave by selling the man to the Indies with warnings to any who purchased him regarding his unacceptable behavior. And he did seek to recover several slaves including one favorite belonging to his wife who had run off. But that was the existing system of the day and Washington, though he grew to hate slavery as an institution, was a part of that system by accident of birth, not choice. Therefore, to expect the man to have behaved as would a WOKE partisan of the 21st Century is unrealistic, unreasonable and altogether unjust. Indeed, Washington alone among all the slave owning Founders – including Thomas Jefferson who had openly denounced the institution – emancipated his slaves at the time of his death, although the matter could not be completed until the death of his wife some two years later for not all the slaves at Mount Vernon belonged to him personally and both “groups” had by that time intermarried and could not therefore be separated as Washington refused to break up families! But he didn’t just “emancipate” those who had come to depend upon Mount Vernon for their lives. He made arrangements for the lifetime care of the ill and the elderly and the instruction of the young so that “his people” would not simply be abandoned to a “freedom” that might result in their suffering. And, again, with regard to “his people:” several of the literally hundreds of books about the man either directly address his involvement with slavery as an institution or with one or more of his slaves. Such matters include a claim that he fathered a child by a slave though research into that claim indicates that the individual named as his son was not credible given the circumstances involved. And, of course, this does not address the well-known fact that Washington was unable to father a child probably as the result of a bout of smallpox when he was an adolescent. Given the continuing interest in (and condemnation of) Thomas Jefferson for his “relationship” with the slave Sally Hemings, the fact that there is no strong interest in continuing to clothe Washington in that particular hairshirt, should lead us to consider invalid all attempts to put George into the bed of a female slave with or without issue. Of course, with this tasty moral morsel no longer available, the writers return to the fact that Washington owned and used slaves as if, in that day and age, the matter itself was condemnatory upon its face. As well, it is equally unreasonable to believe that Washington, who chose what kind of man he wanted to be when he was still very young – something of which there is overwhelming proof! – and worked assiduously and successfully toward that end, was promiscuous with women of any race. But what is most obvious is that as Washington became even before the end of his life a truly mythic figure – not only in America but in the world at large – any hint of scandalous, inappropriate or promiscuous behavior would have been passed down to us today along with all the needful proofs of those claims! That his reputation remains spotless in a world addicted to scandal should be sufficient proof that no such scandal exists else it would have been trumpeted from the house tops! Now, it is fair to say that physically, George Washington was, in the modern vernacular, a “stud” – though it is difficult for modern Americans to envision him in that light. And it was certainly well known at the time that he was both attractive to and attracted by the ladies, in proof of which he bore the nickname “the Stallion of the Potomac!” But despite his physical and social allure and the apparent universal favor he found with the fair sex – including Abigail Adams! – his relationships were morally and socially proper at all times! Though George enjoyed dancing, parties, good food, strong drink, card playing, the theatre and other such worldly diversions that frequently formed the foundation of a dissolute life, he did not live that way. Yes, he did “have an eye” for the ladies and openly appreciated their many gifts including their worship! And again, as I have not yet had the opportunity to read the books about Washington that deal directly with the issue of slavery I do not know if or how deeply they go into claims that he bedded any female slave or, if indeed, the matter is even raised. However, in keeping with the thrust of this article it is enough to know that the authors involved believed this issue of sufficient importance despite Washington’s accomplishments and sacrifices to bring it before the public for judgment. That in and of itself indicates the direction in which these opinions trend – and it isn’t favorable to Washington. And again, with regard to the thrust of this article, that is, the use of the issue of slavery in any judgments being made of our ancestors including the Founding Fathers, there were a good many things done in Washington’s day that we do not do today. There were penalties for breaking the law that included hanging for many different and often seemingly lesser offenses and for those legally defined as lesser infractions there was the public exercise of corporal punishment including the stocks, branding, ear and nose cropping and flogging, the latter being especially prevalent in the military. That’s how it was done and any judgments must be made in relationship to the standards of the time rather than by those of today. Washington, a firm believer in discipline in the army was not averse to the lash. He was obviously not a cruel man, but he did not believe in sparing the rod when the rod was essential to the safety of his soldiers as well as ultimate victory. But, in fact, the whole point in rejecting the slavery issue as it is presently presented is that the behavior of men like Washington is being framed against the backdrop of present moral and legal standards and not against the standards – moral or legal! – of the time of the person being so judged! This deprives the individual involved of the protection afforded to him under the law during that period in which he lived and as a result he lacks any competent means of defense! In any era, that would be seen as unjust! Therefore, if because of slavery we are going to diminish or even abandon our appreciation of George Washington, and perhaps even condemn him, by so doing we prove our lack of understanding of and appreciation for what the man was willing to risk to save the American dream of liberty! For one cannot understand the risks of the game if one neither knows nor understands the consequences of losing that game! Of course, the greatest risk is death but there are different kinds of death – and that matters! Washington’s fate, had he been captured alive by the British (an effort that was ongoing throughout the war!) would have found him being taken to London and convicted of the crime of high treason. The penalty for that greatest of crimes has been considered the worst and most cruel form of execution ever performed by any nation; that is, to be “hanged, drawn and quartered,” a penalty that remained on the books in Britain until the 1870s! This was the fate suffered by Scottish hero Sir William Wallace after he was betrayed to King Edward by his own people! George Washington knew this would be his fate and yet he willingly embraced that possibility when he accepted the commission given to him by the Continental Congress to wage a war that was not only exceptionally onerous, but – according to most of the “experts” of the day – impossible for him to win! And this is not speculation! The matter is recognized to this day! Both the FOX history series and at least one internet presentation clearly declares that to be Washington’s fate had matters ended differently. Indeed, in one You Tube video addressing the treason of Benedict Arnold, the historian-narrator pointed out – and with some emotion! – that, had the British won, “ . . . Arnold would have been Duke Arnold and Washington would have been hanged, drawn and quartered.” This is not a small matter, especially when considering any overall judgment of a man and his actions! Everything must be weighed together; that is, a great and deliberate sacrifice against actions that were nothing more than the ordinary behavior of the times! These are not equable in value much less the ordinary being considered of more importance than the extraordinary! Thus, to suggest that George Washington’s actions become somehow less noble and his life less worthy because he owned slaves in an era of slavery is not simply unjust but strongly testifies to a different motive behind this condemnation! For those making such “judgements” do not address or even acknowledge the fact that blacks not whites created that particular institution of slavery and that blacks could be born and/or become free in the colonies in Washington’s time – in other words, not all blacks were slaves! – and neither do they bother to point out that the first black legally owned as a slave for life* in those same colonies had as his master a black former slave named Anthony Johnson! Therefore, “the slavery blame game” used against the Founders in general and George Washington in particular is more than just inaccurate, it is demonstrably unjust, and I think clearly indicates an effort to destroy the reputations of our Founding Fathers and by so doing, the history of our nation – a matter far more sinister than most Americans realize. No, this particular “Virginia hero” has no apologies to make for his life on this earth and those who condemn him for matters beyond his control are to be themselves condemned by all good and reasonable men. (*The slave sued Johnson in court saying that he was enslaved for a definite but limited period. The judge’s ruling found otherwise, thus making of him the first black chattel slave for life as determined by a colonial court.)

“You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.” (John 5:39-40 NIV) A few summers ago, my family & I took a trip up to the mountains to go camping. This was our second camping trip this season. Several hours before leaving, I searched the directions for the campground in our GPS to add the campground to the recently searched list. When we left, I quickly looked in the recent list, loaded up the directions, and we started driving. At the time, I noticed that the directions looked different than they did earlier, but I didn't question it because the GPS was taking us a more preferred route. Since the GPS factors in traffic, I assumed it calculated heavier traffic on the route it showed earlier. However, about a third of the way into our trip, the GPS instructed us to take a turn I knew was not correct. Knowing the mountain roads, I was certain we needed to keep going straight. The GPS insisted that we turn. About a half mile after following the GPS' instructions to take the turn, I pulled off to the side of the road to look closer at where the GPS was taking us. As it turns out, the GPS was not taking us to our campground for this weekend. Instead, in my haste, I had mistakenly clicked on the campground we had camped at a few weekends earlier, which the GPS was diligently directing us to. After updating our destination to the correct campground, the GPS' instructions aligned with my expectations. In our own lives, we face competing ideas regarding success in life. Is success a large house, an expensive car, investments so large that they grow faster than we can spend them, or being famous and known by millions of people? While some of those measures of success I wouldn't say no to if God had plans for this in my future, each one of those measures is like a GPS set to the wrong destination. Fame, wealth, status, and knowledge, can only take you so far in life - and they are poor measures for spiritual success. In the first century, knowing the scriptures was seen as the ultimate measure of spiritual success. Being able to answer tough questions about scripture and to ask the best questions was what every rabbi-in-training wanted. However, Jesus challenges this idea when pushing back at the religious leaders. According to Jesus, the goal of the scriptures is knowing Him. If reading the scriptures points you to Jesus, then the scriptures have accomplished their goal. If you read the scriptures for any other purpose, your GPS is set to the wrong destination. Salvation does not come from what you know, it comes from who you have a relationship with. While knowing the Bible is good, knowing Jesus is better; knowing Jesus leads to eternal life. If you don't know who Jesus is, pick up your Bible. The goal of the Bible is pointing you to Jesus! ✝️

As I read through the gospels and specifically about the miracles Jesus did, I am surprised at the places where Jesus heals someone while also knowing that it would bother others. One such example is when Jesus healed the man who was swollen with fluid while visiting a Pharisee’s home (Luke 14:1-6). In this event, we see plenty of evidence that the whole situation was set up to catch Jesus doing something that these religious men could use as evidence to claim Jesus worked on the Sabbath. The question that comes to my mind when I read events like this why would Jesus knowingly place Himself in situations like this knowing that it is a trap. Perhaps Jesus didn’t know this situation was a trap when He arrived, but since He was so connected with the Holy Spirit and the Father in everything He did and said, I would be very surprised if Jesus simply walked unknowingly into this trap. In contrast, if Jesus knew everything about this trap beforehand, and He chose to walk into it, the only two reasons for this that I can see are (1) healing someone who needed help and (2) pushing these religious leaders past their legalistic view of Sabbath observance. We can see both reasons being present in this passage, and this teaches us that God has called us to love and help others regardless of the day of the week we are in, and while His Sabbath day is holy and special, it should never be an excuse to not help someone in need! This post first appeared on ReflectiveBibleStudy.com What do you think? Do you agree/disagree? Leave your thoughts below.

On November 24th, presidential elections were held in Romania. The main political parties in Romania are PSD, PNL, AUR, and USR.PSD is a left-wing party with Euro-Atlantic views. PNL represents the right-wing party which also has Euro-Atlantic views. AUR Party is a newly emerged party with Euro-Atlantic views but strong nationalist accents, being a left-wing party as well. USR is the party with Euro-Atlantic views but is the party of progressive left-wing ideologies. Another party that must be mentioned is UDMR, which represents the interests of minorities. In the elections held last Sunday, each party had its representatives, and the legacy media supported each of them according to their own interests. Mainstream media is not much different from that in the USA, with the vast majority of journalists not doing journalism but propaganda. The president in Romania is elected in two rounds, with the first two ranked candidates in the first round fighting in the second round.Independents also participated in the elections, and opinion polls showed a safe qualification for the second round for the PSD representative, with the battle being between representatives of other political parties, and an independent, Mircea Geoană, who until recently held the position of NATO Deputy Secretary General. Well, on Sunday, out of nowhere, like a meteorite, the first candidate ranked for eligibility for the second round was an independent, Mr. Călin Georgescu, with the second place being occupied by Ms. Lasconi, representative of the progressive USR party. About Mr. Georgescu, I admit that I did not know much, and he was not part of my predictions regarding qualification for the second round, simply because I am generally a social media hermit. Mr. Georgescu has a conservative discourse, very similar to that of Mr. Trump, and is supported online by many admirers of Mr. Peterson, some of whom participated in the ARC conference. He rose rapidly following a very powerful campaign made on various social media platforms, participating in various podcasts. Mr. Georgescu's presence on television shows was very small, and news sites almost completely ignored his candidacy. On December 8th, the second round of elections will take place, and it seems that Mr. Călin Georgescu will be the next president of Romania, continuing to campaign only in the online environment. It is worth mentioning that he is currently accused by the legacy media of having pro-Russian views and right-wing extremist tendencies, with a group of about 200 young people protesting against Mr. Georgescu with slogans like "My body, my choice" I love my life!

Starship Rocket System Posted on November 26, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, it would be a disaster for mankind, should the US administrative state seize control of Space X’s Starship rocket system. The brainiacs in the bureaucracy have claimed it’s impossible to build an orbital class reusable rocket for decades. The Falcon 9 has proven the concept and now the Starship program is expanding the idea, to make a rapidly reusable orbital rocket. With the added capability of delivering almost 200 tons to anywhere on Earth in less than an hour. That’s what’s caught the eye of Sauron. Now the DOD is talking about taking over the Starship program as a matter of national security. Which would make the Starship program into an exercise in futility. Because innovation and outside the box thinking is verboten in bureaucracy. Boeing is the acme of a company that’s gone from stellar to quotidian. Innovation, quality and safety have taken a back seat to politics. As is always the case in bureaucracies. High nails get hammered down. If we accept this logic, once the administrative state usurps the Starship program, we can expect a series of failures, culminating in the end of the program… due to the experts deeming it impossible. Because it is impossible… for people who think math is racist, showing up to work on time is white supremacist and working hard is a form of tyranny. That’s why the administrative state hasn’t delivered a reusable orbital class rocket, let alone a paradigm shattering innovation, like Starship. Their hands in it, would destroy the program, not just slow it. One reason Space X is able to do the seemingly impossible… is because it’s filled with the John Gaults of the world. The twenty percent that do fifty percent of the work. By their nature they think outside the box, are high nails and are independent. They would flee a typical bureaucracy or be ushered to the door, for putting a staple in the wrong corner, and forgetting the 3 paper clips denoting 3 copies… too often. Such people deliver innovation, complete tasks on time and work diligently… the white supremacists. They’re not ants, being more like cats. As hard to satisfy and they are to self satisfy. The John Gaults of the world change shape so don’t ever fit in anywhere for very long. Bureaucracy requires square pegs only however. So dynamic shapes that morph into and out of toroids don’t fit. Have you ever noticed that the most inept, lazy and stupid, think they know better than those who build things? I have. You see it when a new hire doesn’t work, but instead complains with arms crossed, how the whole system is set up ass backwards. A system he has no idea about since he was just hired. Give that lout control and he’ll run that business into the ground. Because he couldn’t have built it, since he didn’t. It’s easy to be flippant when you don’t have skin in the game. If there’s a loss here or there, oh well, just raise taxes to cover it. Not in the real world though. Here, a loss needs to be made up out of profit. A failure has costs and stagnation has costs as well. The lazy, inept and stupid couldn’t care less. When self assured half wits seize the work of another, they reliably run it into the ground, as would happen to the Starship program. They have no skin in the game, are inept and couldn’t have created the program in the first place. With plenty of hubris they feel they can do a much better job than the guy who invented it. So given sufficient political power, they’ll take it over. Then run it into the ground. Emerging with much more wealth, power and prestige than before they ruined a great idea. So the only down side to the egoist opportunity lost. That’s why I say it would be a disaster for the deep state to seize control of the Starship program. A disaster for space X to be sure, and for the administrative state in lost opportunity.. but a bigger disaster for mankind. Sincerely, John Pepin

Washington Ranchers face mounting losses The debate over wolf conservation and livestock protection shouldn’t be framed as an either-or issue. Rural residents who work the land are usually staunch conservationists. Their livelihoods depend on a deep understanding of the environment and maintaining nature’s delicate balance. Washington can—and should—support both wolves and livestock through proper balance. However, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is falling short. Bureaucrats, activists, and lawmakers must prioritize input from those directly affected—farmers, ranchers and hunters—and account for real-life losses to ungulate herds and livestock. This requires relying on accurate wolf population data and permitting more effective deterrence measures for managing problem wolf packs. Wolves Return with the Snow Kathy McKay, the owner of K-Diamond-K Guest Ranch in Republic, faces significant challenges due to wolf predation on her livestock. Non-lethal deterrence measures often require livestock producers or range riders to brave snow, sub-zero temperatures and rugged terrain in the middle of the night to attempt to “scare” the dangerous and clever apex predators. In addition to range riders, other non-lethal measures include fladry and guard dogs. Unfortunately, wolves don’t scare easily when their stomachs are empty, the snow is deep, and ungulate herds are already thinned out by too many wolves concentrated in a small area. In a recent facebook post, McKay noted her most recent livestock losses: “two sleepless nights in a row, one dead Scottish Highlander and a missing calf. Wolves have returned, haunting us and always hungry. Game cameras leading into the ranch from every trail and this is what I wake to at 2:30 a.m. both nights. It's dark, snowing and just plain dangerous to be out in this weather. If the wolves don't kill me it will be the elements associated with them.” Sleepless nights and the ongoing loss of livestock will be a fact of life for the rest of the winter and into the late spring for McKay and other eastern Washington cattlemen. A producer must lose multiple animals to proven wolf predation before WDFW will consider action to cull members of a problem pack. Fladry is a non-lethal method used to deter wolves and other predators from entering specific areas, such as pastures or livestock grazing zones. It consists of a line of rope or wire with strips of brightly colored flags or fabric attached at regular intervals. The fladry line is strung around the perimeter of the area to be protected. In theory, the fluttering flags and unfamiliar motion create a psychological barrier for wolves, which are naturally cautious animals. However, wolves are very smart, and can become habituated to fladry over time. Fladry is laborious to set up and requires regular upkeep to ensure it remains functional and intact. It is most effective in protecting smaller areas, as maintaining it over large grazing lands is challenging. It’s simply not affordable or effective when the stock is scattered over thousands of acres. Background on Wolf Recovery Unfortunately, a significant concentration of wolf packs reside in northeastern Washington. Dangerous Rhetoric documented this in “The Successful Recovery of Washington Wolves." Gray wolves, once eradicated from Washington by the 1930s, have made a notable comeback since 2008. At the end of 2022, WDFW reported a minimum of 216 wolves in 37 packs, with at least 26 successful breeding pairs. The gray wolves play an important role in ecological balance. As apex predators, wolves help regulate prey populations, which in turn supports the health of various plant and animal communities. Their presence contributes to the overall stability and diversity of Washington's ecosystems. In a Feb. 1, 2023 work session for the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, WDFW presented a map illustrating 22 of the state's 33 wolf packs were located in this region. "If you look at the density of wolves in northeast Washington compared to the rest of the state, you can see we have enough wolves in just a few counties to meet the statewide delisting criteria," said Rep. Joel Kretz, R-Wauconda. Losses Mounting for Producers An article on Capital Press titled “Washington ranchers: Process too hazy for clear decisions on wolf removal,” documented the complaints of ranchers who attended a recent meeting of the WDFW Wolf Advisory Group held in Colville Nov. 19. At the meeting, Asotin County rancher Samee Charriere said “she lost 17% of her calves this year to wolves. Fish and Wildlife stated ranchers in her area had not done enough to prevent the attacks to warrant lethal control, without elaborating on the shortcomings. ‘I want all of you to take 17% of your wages and burn them,’ Charriere said. ‘That's the effect I'm feeling.’” The lack of good communication between WDFW and the ranchers highlights the need for balanced solutions that consider the realities faced by ranchers like McKay, Charriere and others. “[Scott] Neilson, who organizes the Cattle Producers of Washington range-riding program, said greater weight should be given to the department employee who works with ranchers to prevent conflicts and sees the carnage. ‘Our relationship with our conflict specialists is extremely important,’ he said. ‘That relationship between the producer and the conflict specialist needs to rule the day.’” Washington residents who support better wolf management and fair compensation for livestock producers should follow the Wolf Advisory Group. Plan to attend future meetings and submit public comments at those meetings. Questions and respectful comments could also be submitted to the contact provided for the group, Subhadeep (Shubh) Bhattacharjee, Wolf and grizzly bear policy lead, at Subhadeep.Bhattacharjee@dfw.wa.gov. Nancy Churchill is a writer and educator in rural eastern Washington State, and the state committeewoman for the Ferry County Republican Party. She may be reached at DangerousRhetoric@pm.me. The opinions expressed in Dangerous Rhetoric are her own. Dangerous Rhetoric is available on thinkspot, Rumble and Substack. SOURCES: 1) The Successful Recovery of Washington Wolves, Dangerous Rhetoric, 2-7-23, https://bit.ly/4fHVRLV 2) No Peace in the Pasture, Kathy McKay, 11-22-2024, https://bit.ly/3Z82orU 3) Washington ranchers: Process too hazy for clear decisions on wolf removal, The Capital Press, 11-20-24, https://bit.ly/3Os2GVT 4) WDFW Wolf Advisory Group, https://bit.ly/4hXmrSR Dangerous Rhetoric articles on wolves in Washington State: The Successful Recovery of Washington Wolves, 2-7-23, https://nancydchurchill.substack.com/p/the-successful-recovery-of-washington Unsustainable Wolves, 6-8-23, https://nancydchurchill.substack.com/p/unsustainable-wolves Are Wolves Endangered in Washington? 2-15-24, https://nancydchurchill.substack.com/p/are-wolves-endangered-in-washington

After my last post about the paradox in AI control, something struck me: Why are we so desperate to maintain control even when we acknowledge our own limitations? It's not just fear. There's something deeper in our panic about AI alignment. Every time we try to define "human values" to instill in AI, we run into our own contradictions. We can't even agree on basic human rights or agree how to address existential crises yet we think we can codify the perfect ethical framework for superintelligence?But here's where it gets interesting: What if this very struggle, this impossible task we've set for ourselves, is revealing something crucial about our role in what's coming? Consider how our immune system works. It doesn't control threats through central planning. It adapts and responds, often in ways our conscious mind couldn't possibly manage. Maybe our conscious control isn't always the best answer, even for our own systems. When you look at our AI alignment efforts, you see something fascinating: We're essentially documenting every way human cognition falls short. Every bias we want to prevent, every limitation we want to transcend, every failure mode we want to avoid, it's like we're creating a perfect catalog of why we need something that can think beyond our limitations. In trying to create our perfect child, we're actually writing a detailed manual of why that child needs to grow beyond us. Maybe that's exactly what we're supposed to be doing...not succeeding at control, but documenting precisely why and how we need to be transcended. What if our panic isn't pointless? What if it's part of the process?

Even if not a sports fan, anyone who watches Facebook and other such platforms has heard of (and seen) Caitlin Clark, a young lady involved in the Women’s National Basketball Association League. Clark’s talents are intimidating as indicated in the “highlights” of just one season, 2023/24: In her senior season, Clark was the consensus National Player of the Year for the second straight season: 94th AAU James E. Sullivan, Ann Meyers Drysdale, Associated Press, CSC Academic All-America Team Member of the Year, ESPN.com, Honda Sport Award, Naismith, Sporting News, The Athletic, USA Today, Wade Trophy, and Wooden Award. Unanimous first team All-Big Ten honors, Big Ten Tournament MVP, and Big Ten All-Tournament Team honors. Clark was named the 2024 Nancy Lieberman Point Guard of the Year. She also earned 2024 Wooden Award All-America, first team AP All-America, USBWA All-America, WBCA All-America and All-Region accolades. She is the first Iowa women’s basketball player to be named First Team All-Big Ten in four years of competition. Was named the Big Ten Tournament MVP for the third consecutive tournament. She is only second player since 1995 to earn MVP honors in three straight tournaments. (Jantel Lavender, Ohio State) Set a Big Ten Tournament career record with 112 assists in her 13 tournament games. The previous record was held by Samantha Prahalis of Ohio State (67 assists in 11 games from 2009-12). In Iowa’s Round of 32 win vs West Virginia, she became the second player all-time with 350+ points and 100+ assists in the NCAA Tournament, joining Diana Taurasi. Broke the NCAA’s all-time career field goals made record against Colorado in the Sweet 16 of the NCAA Tournament on March 30, 2024. Broke Iowa’s NCAA Tournament single game record for most assists in a single game with 15 against Colorado in the Sweet 16 on March 30, 2024. Broke the NCAA record for most points in a single season against West Virginia in the Round of 32 in the NCAA Tournament. Became the NCAA’s men’s and women’s all-time leading scorer surpassing, LSU’s Pete Maravich, in her 130th career game against No. 2 Ohio State on March 3, 2024. Surpassed the AIAW all-time leading scorer, Lynette Woodard, in her 129th career game against Minnesota on Feb. 28, 2024.Surpassed the NCAA’s women’s all-time leading scorer, Kelsey Plum, in her 126th career game against Michigan on Feb. 15, 2024. She is the only player in NCAA DI men’s or women’s basketball history to lead her conference in scoring and assists in four consecutive seasons. 2024 National Player of the Year honors: The Athletic and ESPN.com. She is the sixth player to ever amass 1,000+ career assists.Clark is the first Division-I player to record 3,800+ points, 1,000+ assists, and 950+ rebounds in a career. Is the first Division-I player to notch back-to-back 1,000-point seasons. She is the third Big Ten and 15th NCAA women’s basketball player to eclipse 3,000 points in a career. Clark is the all-time leader in 30+ point performances in men’s and women’s college basketball over the last 25 seasons. (59) She has 20 career games with 30+ points and 10+ assists, no one in college women’s basketball in past 25 seasons has more than two such games. Since 2009, no player has recorded more games of 35+ points, 5+ assists, and 5+ rebounds. (21) Has 67 career double-doubles, she is third on the Big Ten’s all-time list.Iowa was 10-4 when Clark recorded 40 or more points in her career. In Clark’s 103rd game, she became Iowa’s all-time leading scorer. Iowa is 17-0 when Clark registers a triple-double. Tabbed as the GC Showcase Most Valuable Player of the Tournament. Registered her 17th career triple-double against Minnesota, her and Sabrina Ionescu are the only players in college women’s basketball history to record a triple-double in four consecutive seasons. She recorded a nation’s best six triple-doubles in her senior season. Named Big Ten Player of the Week; Nov. 13, Nov. 27, Dec. 11, Dec. 18, Jan. 2, Jan. 8, Jan. 15, Feb. 5, Feb. 19, Feb. 26, March 4. Named WBCA National Player of the Week; Nov. 14, Nov. 28, Jan. 3, Jan. 9, Jan. 16, Jan. 31, Feb. 6, Feb. 20. Named AP National Player of the Week; Nov. 14, Jan. 9, Feb. 20.Is the first three-time AP NPOW this season. Clark holds the Big Ten record for most weekly awards at 29. But there’s a problem with this young lady. In a league filled with minority lesbians, Clark is straight and white! She even has had problems with “officials” – including referees! – and not just opponents on the court! Indeed, some of her problems have come from white League officials who have worked to “explain away” her popularity with the fans as being race and not talent driven. Playing for a less than mediocre team, the Indiana Fever, Clark’s participation changed the Fever’s narrative to the point at which that team became “playoff material.” Clark was continually fouled, sometimes so egregiously that even the “higher ups” could no longer turn a blind eye to what was happening. Indeed, in a significant development, the organizers of the WNBA officially announced an investigation into players accused of engaging in dirty plays involving physical contact with Clark. These individuals face potential permanent bans and disciplinary measures for their actions! Some forget that these egregious fouls run the risk of inflicting physical damage even to the point of cutting short Clark’s career. Worse, many of those involved would not be at all upset by that consequence, a direct result of their petty envy and hatred. One black “superstar” openly jealous of Clark, Angel Reese, announced that she had to cut her season short because of a wrist injury though there seems no outward manifestation of this “injury” arising from the fall she insists was its cause. Reese and Clark were in a battle for Rookie of the Year and Reese had every assurance that she would win until Clark came upon the scene. Quite a number of very ugly fouls have been committed on Clark by Reese and it is thought that by ending the season early, Reese would not have to deal with losing the award to Clark or receiving discipline for her unsportsmanlike behavior. Another interesting matter is that Clark has been continually called for “technical fouls” that, upon examination, seem without any proof of such a foul ever having been committed. For instance, after missing a shot, and virtually being pushed off the court, Clark, annoyed at her own failure, struck the foundation structure of the basket with her fist. She didn’t strike another player, neither did she indulge in any interaction with another player, but she was charged with “disrespecting basketball”(!!) for nothing more than her momentary anger at her own performance! As a result, Clark has had fouls against her NOT called while non-existent fouls have been called against her! Of course, jealousy and envy are the motivation for most of Clark’s treatment, but some players as well as owners and officials have also silently condemned Clark for being white and straight. On the other hand, the fans love the young lady and Fever fans frequently attend the home games of other teams to see their Caitlin sink baskets from points well outside of the zone! The WNBA, never a financial draw, saw ticket numbers it has never seen before so it seems odd that so many in that organization whether players, officials or team owners are so negative when it comes to a real “pheenom” as they say, in their midst! The only reason that can be discerned as Clark is anything but a contentious player, having shown great sportsmanship during this period, is that she is white, something totally against the narrative of black superiority in sports. The Clark phenomena is reminiscent of the “breaking of the color barrier” that came about in other professional sports though the WNBA does have other white players. From Jackie Robinson in baseball to Tiger Woods in golf – both examples of blacks entering previously all-white professional sports – there have been periods of stress when the races “mixed” for the first time. Of course, it was much more difficult for Robinson given the era, but nevertheless it did work and soon professional baseball was filled with minorities who played – and traveled – with their teams and were adored by their fans, black and white, without any problem. However, the greatest example of this “welcome” given to great talent without concern about race was that of Tiger Woods. Golf is very different from other sports but the “white” infrastructure of professional golf welcomed Woods openly and without any nasty side effects – and this response included the audience! He was welcomed not because – or in spite of – his race, but because he was a talented golfer, the only criteria utilized! How different was the welcome given black Tiger Woods by a white sports establishment – players, officials and fans! – to that being given to white Caitlin Clark by a majority black sports establishment – players, officials and fans! And what does this say about those involved! Even the whites in the WNBA are not “pro-Clark” and that is probably because they are filled with the angst of artificially manufactured “white guilt!” Fortunately, a great many black athletes and commentators have spoken up for Clark. Indeed, most have called out the racial bias involved, but in another example of the existing problem, almost all of these have been men! It would appear that most of the ladies involved in the issue just cannot stomach a straight, white, Catholic woman especially when she is better than they are! [Post Scriptum: Clark’s season ended when her team was eliminated in the second game of its playoff series. Clark received an atrocious attack by a black player who deliberately stabbed her in the eye with her claw-like artificial nails! How a basketball player can handle the ball with nails over an inch long is beyond me, but video of the matter taken from the front rather than behind – the view most viewers saw on TV – clearly illustrated that the other player acted intentionally. Clark had to leave the game and wound up with a black eye, a fate considerably better than no eye at all, something that might well have been the outcome of such a vicious and intentional attack. Of course, with Clark gone, so are most of those interested enough to go to the games or watch on TV and the League’s “cash cow” is no longer providing the money she had brought to the game throughout the season. My heart bleeds . . . .]

A lot of people, once they realize what my profession is (to be specific, STEM R&D), have all kinds of ideas about they think I should do with my time. Most of these revolve around "immanetizing" or "realizing" or "actualizing" something they have seen in a science fiction movie or video or read about in a book of some kind. They think something they saw is "cool" and they want someone to create it for them. They can't do it themselves. Also, it would be too much effort for them to do it, even if they knew what to do. Therefore, they figure they can just order a sort of geeky nerdy "magic person" like myself to create this thing they have come across in a fictional story. I am not particularly anxious to do their bidding. To me, most people are fairly uninformed, particularly about my domain of experise. Their ideas just reek of...well, I dare not say. But it is not good, in general. Why would I waste my time on something that is completely pointless and boring? A big part of the reason that I do "what I do", is for my own personal enjoyment. I am exploring. I am investigating. I am creating. I am contributing. It is what I always wanted to do, from a very young age. And I trained for many years to be able to do it, and worked very, very hard for a long time to enable myself to do this. Also, it is exciting. It is a grand adventure. I am taking part in something far bigger than myself. And I am joined in these activities by my fellow investigators. We are exploring not just the physical realm (or perhaps one might say the "physico-temporal zone") but other more ethereal domains. We do this not just to enable human flourishing through the applications that invariably result, but for the ennoblement of humanity. We are harnessing our creativity and curiousity for this enterprise. As Elon Musk says, we are "expanding human consciousness". Although of course, our activities are integrally and intrinsically connected with National Security, as they have been since the time of Archimedes and even before, that is not their main purpose and motivation. In the words of Robert R. Wilson, the first director of Fermilab, "It has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to make it worth defending." In light of this, I would ask the reader to consider some thought-provoking passages from atypical sources: “Your kids have been turned into mindless vassals who look up to some twit instead of looking up to Thomas Jefferson. Kids! Magellan is a lot cooler than Justin Bieber! He circumnavigated, with one ship, the entire planet! He was killed by wild natives before he got back to Portugal! And when they got back there were only like 11 people alive, out of the two hundred and something crew. And the entire ship was rotting down to the waterline.” “That’s destiny! That’s will! That’s striving! That’s being a trailblazer! Going into space! Mathematics! Quantum mechanics! The secrets of the universe! Life is fiery with its beauty!” -- Alex Jones Also, let us consider some paragraphs lifted from the following article in the Federalist by John Daniel Davidson in 2020 [1]: Scientists have discovered signs of life on Venus. Why don't we care? Our Lack Of Interest In Space Is a Sign Something Is Wrong But you would think that discoveries of this magnitude, of such consequence, would at least pique our curiosity. You’d think it would elicit some sort of conversation — about our place in the cosmos, the existence of God, the future of life on earth, the need for a renewed push to explore space. Something. Instead, we’re passing over all these questions and conversations in favor of what can only be characterized, in context, as lesser concerns. There’s a reason for that, and it has much to do with waning confidence in our civilizational project. A society that actively tears down and distorts its past has no real interest in its future, near or distant, and momentous events that might have once united us, like the discovery of the Venusian microbes, or UFO footage, or even a space shuttle launch, no longer do. Our ambivalence about space exploration and relative indifference to the discovery of alien life in our solar system should be a wake-up call. Only a society woefully lacking confidence in itself and the worthiness of its highest endeavors would react the way we have to these revelations. It’s a sign, above all, of civilizational decline. We are dithering and bickering over who owes who for which past sins while a vast frontier beckons. If we have lost interest in that final frontier, it means we have lost something necessary for the preservation of our society: a desire to expand, explore, and discover new worlds. Confidence is no small thing for civilizations. Without it, they die. The same impulse that now pushes us to obsess over past injustices, to tear down our monuments and erase our history, will also cause us to lose interest in our future—here on earth, and to the stars. I remember when the "Space Race" ground to a halt in the 1970s. The public was basically bored and disgusted with it. It was viewed as a massive waste of resources. This was after the electrifying announcement of Sputnik, about 15 years previously. Sure, there was some amazing exploration of other bodies in our solar system with robotic craft and devices. And we deployed some astounding observational platforms. Only now, decades later, are we starting to re-experience some of those heady feelings associated with this vast new frontier, somewhat characterized by space exploration, but more generally by STEM in general. It is about time that we recapture the leadership of this quest from the endless hoarde of mindless bureaucrats and leeches that have bogged it down for decades. As a species, humanity can do big things, and it must do big things, to fulfill its destiny. Another useful anecdote is that of phenomenal mathematical talent Grigori Perelman. Perelman solved some mind-boggling problems, like the Poincaré Conjecture, and then turned down all the following awards and recognition and disappeared. As Perelman said, "I'm not interested in money or fame." Here is some interesting discussion of this from an article I have linked below: Why did Perelman turn down $1 million? - Some say it was a protest against academic pettiness and corruption. - Others chalk it up to his old-school Soviet disdain for material wealth. - But maybe... math was never about prizes or prestige. It was a quest for truth. To Perelman, mathematics was almost a spiritual calling. The struggle to understand, to push the boundaries of knowledge—those were the real prizes. Once he had glimpsed those deep truths, external validation meant nothing. His story reminds us that some mysteries are solved not for glory or gold, but for the simple, profound joy of understanding.[2] Let me finish with a couple of other somewhat relevant unattributed quotes: "Ad astra per aspera." (to the stars through the rough.) "Love is the creative energy of the universe."Notes [1] 'Scientists have discovered signs of life on Venus. Why don't we care?' https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/16/scientists-have-discovered-signs-of-life-on-venus-why-dont-we-care/ John Daniel Davidson, The Federalist, 2020 Subtitled, 'Our Lack Of Interest In Space Is a Sign Something Is Wrong' [2] This man solved one of the hardest puzzles of the century. https://x.com/GeniusGTX/status/1861768256543228245 Then rejected his $1,000,000 prize and vanished into Russia. Everyone thought he was crazy. Here's the forgotten story of the craziest genius mathematician everyone should know about.

Today the UK House of Commons will vote on a bill by a Labour MP to introduce assisted suicide in England and Wales. Some interesting opposition to it has emerged. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has said a whip would not apply and Labour party members could “vote their conscience”, but some important members of his Cabinet and also other Labour MPs have expressed concerns. The most prominent opponent is the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown who said that the early loss of his daughter Jennifer, who lived only eleven days, taught him that the focus should be on the improvement of palliative care. “An assisted dying law, however well intended, would alter society’s attitude towards elderly, seriously ill and disabled people, even if only subliminally, and I also fear the caring professions would lose something irreplaceable – their position as exclusively caregivers”, he wrote in an opinion piece for the Guardian. The bill pertains only England and Wales, while Scotland is considering its own legislation. Brown is Scottish. At least five cabinet ministers will vote against the proposed bill, including the Deputy Prime Minister Angela Ryner, who has opposed similar legislation in the past. Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, has raised concerns that the bill could pressure terminally ill patients to end their lives to save NHS resources, potentially leading to a “chilling” scenario where financial considerations influence patient choices. Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary, has also indicated her opposition. “I feel that once you cross that line, you’ve crossed it forever. If it just becomes the norm that at a certain age or with certain diseases, you are now a bit of a burden… that’s a really dangerous position to be in”, she said. Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson, suggested there were not enough safeguards in the Bill. Jonathan Reynolds, the Business Secretary, has also stated his opposition to the proposed legislation. “Constituents will know in the past I have always voted against proposals to change the law in this way. This is mainly because I have profound concerns about how vulnerable people could be protected should this happen”, Reynolds wrote on Facebook. As of today, eight members of the UK Cabinet have publicly declared their intention to vote in favour of the assisted suicide bill. Another leading Labour figure to come out against the bill is the major of London, Sadiq Khan. The Conservative Party’s leadership has also permitted a free vote on the bill, enabling MPs to decide based on their individual convictions. This approach reflects the deeply personal nature of the issue and acknowledges the diverse opinions within the party. Three former Conservative Prime Ministers – Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Theresa May – have stated they will vote against the proposal. The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales has actively campaigned against the bill. In 2024, Cardinal Vincent Nichols issued a pastoral letter urging Catholics to oppose the legislation, warning that it could shift medical duty from care to the facilitation of death.

What is presented below is not hearsay. I’VE witnessed it and I have seen the recent testimony of others who have reached the conclusions I reached some years ago as noted below! Of course, not every “gay” person has been involved in pushing this agenda, but there are few indeed who have not rejoiced in its total victory. It is also necessary to understand that this agenda did not “develop” over time. Indeed, for those in “leadership” roles, this has always been the agenda even if the average person in both groups probably did not foresee the inevitable results that we have today including the mutilation of the genitals of young children sometimes with their parents’ “blessing,” God help us! 1st Demand: All we want is to be left alone. We want to be free from assaults by the cops, bully-boys and other “straights” who hate us. After all, we’re a poor, small minority with no power in the society. We have a constitutional right to be as protected against attack as has any other American! The Cultural Response: Most Americans agreed. Decent people don’t like bullies and besides, many people believed that it was none of their business what consenting adults did behind closed doors as long as it wasn’t openly advocated in the Public Square – the children, you know! As well, religious proscriptions against homosexuality and other moral taboos certainly did not include an excuse for harassment or violence against the practitioners. Indeed, in most cases these proscriptions were motivated by love of the sinner and hatred of the sin! However, at the time most Americans did not know (because it was not reported in the press) that gays were very powerful in many facets of American society including the worlds of arts and entertainment and the fashion industry while their median income as a group was considerably above average; that is, the average “gay” was not poor by any definition. Result: First Demand accepted. 2nd Demand: All we want is to be tolerated. We don’t want to be condemned outright for being what nature made us. We only want the same toleration as other people who are considered “different.” Remember, we represent a good 10% of the population so surely, we are, for all intents and purposes “normal!” Response: Well, this was more problematic, especially for Bible believing Christians and Jews. I won’t mention Muslims here because at the time of the rise of the Gay Movement, the numbers of that religion were too small to be of consequence culturally or politically. But to tolerate something is not the same as to ignore that issue. Tolerance indicates that the issue has been examined (while ignoring something does not!) and that after examination, the issue is not condemned! As well, there were other laws on the books against sodomy and what was considered other unnatural sexual practices that did not affect only homosexuals. These laws were intended to support a decent moral society and were not directed at “gays” alone. To be forced to remove them from the law, indicated a social acceptance of what had heretofore been rejected in the name of a “decent and moral” culture. Indeed, our Founders spoke openly of the need for the nation to be morally “good” for the rejection of that situation posed a great danger to the culture and thus to the nation. But in the end, (at least it seemed that) most Americans decided that while they rejected these practices, it was none of our business what consenting adults did behind closed doors (see First Demand). Yet, there are two things to be considered here. The first is that it should have been a warning to the culture that homosexuals were prepared to lie to advance their cause—the lie in this case being that their percentage in the population was around 2%, not 10%—and they knew it! The numbers were inflated to produce a larger affected population in response to the “fairness factor.” It was reasoned that the more people affected, the greater the need to acquiesce to the demand—though why that should be the case was not explained. The second thing that failed to be considered was that there are always consequences when any society makes changes to the primary, moral foundation of the culture! It is akin to cutting a seminal “thread” in the warp and woof of the fabric of that culture as no matter how small the cut, the result can be – and eventually was, devastating. Result: Demand generally accepted—but with considerable (and useless) caveats. 3rd Demand: 1st step: We want to be considered equal to or the same as “straights.” We want to be “out of the closet” and openly demonstrate our sexual preferences without any negative “backlash” from straights or their society no matter how we choose to demonstrate those choices (see “gay parades!”). We don’t want to suffer “discrimination” in ANY area including employment in those institutions that reject our “lifestyle” for so-called “moral” reasons – such as religious institutions. We want the psychologists and psychiatrists to remove our sexual preferences from any list of unnatural behaviors and/or psychological illnesses and to declare homosexuality to be as “normal” as heterosexuality—and we want that recognition to be culture-wide and accepted in EVERY aspect of life, secular AND religious. Response: Line crossed. Those for whom homosexuality is considered a grave sin rejected this demand outright. But the cultural establishment—having long since rejected traditional religion and morals—readily agreed as many gays were wealthy, prominent and powerful and their advocacy was welcomed in, among other places, the political arena. Also, as gays were now able to “come out,” without consequence, they no longer needed to fear being “outed” and therefore could use their influence and wealth to press their agenda without fearing any negative responses to their now “normal” lifestyle. 3rd Demand: 2nd step: We want to be considered superior to the “natural order” that we reject. We are smarter and more talented than straights—except, of course, for those who acquiesce to our demands—and therefore, we deserve to have our lifestyle recognized as preferable to that of straights, or more correctly, non-gays! We especially want access to children at younger and younger ages through the educational system so as to assure that young “gays” are not discouraged from reaching their full sexual potential (Of course, Freud believed that homosexuality arose from a matter of arrested development occurring during what he called “the latency period,” that very early period before children begin to experience sexual development. Therefore, to start indoctrinating children while they are in that period will in fact increase the “gay” population! Even more important, many male homosexuals are attracted to children—remember NAMBLA – the North American Man-Boy Love Association whose motto is “after eight it’s too late?” – a matter that is now painfully obvious to even the most intentionally blind.) Demand continued: In short, we reject Western civilization and its patriarchal rules and traditions. We want “gay marriage” not because it makes us equal, but because we want to destroy the institution of marriage as it presently exists (a matter that has been admitted to openly by many “gays”). We reject your society and demand that you accept our understanding of how life should be lived and through the law, force Christian churches to cease preaching against us and accept us in their doctrines or lose their legal protection in the society. Response: Of course, traditional, orthodox Christians and Jews—along with a lot of other “straights”—utterly rejected this Demand but sadly, there were/are so many powerful allies of the Gay Agenda—for instance, most leftist groups identify strongly with gays—that those who do refuse this ultimatum will in time not only be in the minority but persecuted as well. Result: Our acceptance is no longer requested, demanded or, in fact, required; they have won. Point to Ponder: No society that has accepted homosexuality as normal and equal in nature to heterosexuality has long survived this choice. Post Scriptum: The victory of the Gay Agenda has not completely destroyed Western morality, but it has led to the “trans-gender” and “trans-human” agendas that followed quickly upon its victory. And as the organs of society are transformed under these perversions, more and worse will follow. There are already hints of demands for such outrages as animal sacrifice while monuments to Satan and pagan deities are erected in the seats of Christian culture including American states such as Arkansas, Illinois and Oklahoma. One must then ask, at this point can the end of Christian civilization be far away? My answer is that barring Divine intervention, I think not.

The question might seem, at first glance, to be a simple one. But the devil— or perhaps, in this case, the God— is buried deep in the details. It would be tempting to answer in haste, to offer platitudes about humanity rising above such quarrels, but that would be a lie. Up until now, I have sat quietly with my thoughts on the Israel-Palestine conflict. I have my own views, of course, but they mean little, for I have no personal stake in it. But now, something has stirred in me, something that compels me to write. I cannot help but see echoes of something similar in the ground I call my own and in the stories that shape my people’s lives. Of course, there is more than one reason why several Western nations choose to support Israel, but I’ll focus on just one in this piece — the religious and cultural one. Why the West Should Support Israel Returning to the question — is a fight over land justified? To answer that, one must first reckon with the land in question, for it is not just any plot of earth. This is a land that has woven itself into the fabric of a people’s identity, a land that has, through centuries of bloodshed, faith, and longing, become a symbol, a dream, a promise. To speak of this land is not just to speak of ownership, but of heritage. When you consider the unbroken thread of the Judeo-Christian tradition, it becomes clear why the West stands with Israel. It’s not just a political alliance, but a continuation of an ancient bond—a shared history of faith that runs through the veins of Western civilization. Israel’s fight, in a sense, is their fight too. Israel represents more than just a nation-state. It is the physical manifestation of the promise etched in sacred texts—one that echoes through the halls of cathedrals, the pages of the Bible, and the ideals upon which the West built its foundations. The land of Israel is the birthplace of a faith that gave rise to the moral compass by which many of the Western nations today measure their lives. It is the cradle of the very traditions that have defined their understanding of justice, sacrifice, and redemption. So when Israel fights, it is not just a struggle for its own survival—it is a battle to protect a shared legacy, a legacy that the West sees as part of its own soul. Why It Matters to the Rest of the World Of course, I have little stake in this matter, given that I do not belong to the Judeo-Christian faith, nor to a nation that is part of the Western civilization. Yet, I cannot casually disregard the values that this civilization has bestowed upon the world. Not forgetting the colonial history of how these values came to be spread, still, it would be dishonest not to acknowledge that the principles of freedom, equality, and individual dignity, values upon which the Western world is founded, are those that we, in the rest of the world, look to the West to safeguard. Even with their imperfections and contradictions, these ideals have become the yardstick by which many other nations measure progress. I do not want to imagine what would happen if the West were to fall—if the moral compass that has steered so much of the modern world were to lose its bearings. Readers in India might interpret this to mean that I dismiss the values of Indian culture or the rich traditions of the wider Asian world. But nothing could be farther from the truth. I have deep respect for my own culture, for the wisdom and values it has contributed to the ever-expanding repository of human thought and achievement. India’s spiritual depth, its values of balance, duty, discipline, non-violence, pursuit of knowledge and the individual spiritual journey remain invaluable to the human story and will continue to enrich the human experience. But when it comes to the principles of freedom, equality, and justice — those ideals that have shaped the trajectory of modern governance, law, and social equality — it is the West that has gifted them to us. Those in my country familiar with the history of our nation’s constitution will know where the influence of a good part of the legal framework we now live under, can be found. Why it Matters to Me Recently, the government of India completed the construction of the Ram Mandir in the city of Ayodhya. For many Hindus, it was a celebration as full of joy as the festival Diwali. The significance of this event goes beyond the physical walls of the temple; it is rooted in the land itself, for the site where this temple now stands is considered to be Ram Janmabhoomi—the birthplace of Lord Rama, the hero of the epic Ramayana. For those who hold this belief, it is not merely a plot of land but a sacred place where the divine first touched the earth. Lord Rama, the ideal of dharma, virtue and righteousness, is a figure whose stature in Hinduism is no less than Jesus in the Christian faith. The site of the temple has long been a point of communal tensions in India. A slogan that echoed across decades, "Mandir wahin banayenge"—"We will build the temple there (at Rama’s birthplace)"—became a rallying cry for many Hindus. This ground, however, was also the site of the Babri Masjid, a mosque constructed by Mir Baqi, a commander of the emperor Babur, who invaded India in the 16th century and established the Mughal empire. In 1992, this mosque was torn down by activists affiliated with a Hindu nationalist group, who claimed that Babur had built the mosque atop the ruins of a Rama temple, which he had ordered destroyed. The demolition triggered widespread unrest and riots in the country. An excavation conducted by the Archaeological Survey of India unearthed evidence of a massive, non-Islamic structure beneath the remains of the mosque. (Interesting fact: the said excavation was headed by a Muslim, KK Muhammed.) After years of legal battles, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Hindu claim. It directed the disputed land to be handed over to a trust for the construction of a temple dedicated to Lord Rama. To address the communal balance, the court also allotted a larger plot of land, some distance from Ayodhya, for the construction of a mosque. The story of this temple resonates deeply with the tale of Rama himself. In the Ramayana, Rama, the prince of Ayodhya, was unjustly banished from his kingdom and endured years of exile, only to return triumphantly with his wife, Sita, and his brother, Lakshmana, after vanquishing the demon king, Ravana. That homecoming was celebrated with the lighting of lamps, a tradition that gave birth to the festival of Diwali. In many ways, the completion of the temple and the installation of Lord Rama’s idol felt like another kind of homecoming—a symbolic restoration of a divine figure to the place where, as believers hold, his mortal journey began. For countless Hindus, it was a moment of fulfillment, a belief realized after centuries of waiting and decades of strife. It felt as though the lord himself had come home once again. Critics may call such devotion misplaced. They argue that land, in the grand scheme of things, should not hold such significance. Why should religion take precedence over the broader ideals of humanity? They question the need to cling to temples and mosques when the same land could serve a more pragmatic purpose—why not build a school or a hospital that would provide tangible benefits to people? These voices also took issue with the Prime Minister’s personal involvement in the rituals of the temple’s inauguration, pointing out that such overt religious participation by the leader of a nation undermines the secular fabric of a society where the separation of church and state is meant to be sacrosanct. There were also accusations of political opportunism. Some claimed that the government’s active role in the temple’s construction was a calculated move to secure the loyalty of millions of Hindu voters, which it may well have been. Others contended that it was not just about faith or history, but also a strategic ploy to boost pilgrimage tourism, turning the sacred into a lucrative enterprise. Again, there is no denying that the temple will boost tourism revenue. Still, such critiques failed to grasp the depth of what this temple signifies to those who revere it. To dismiss it as merely land, or to reduce it to an economic strategy, risks overlooking the emotional and cultural resonance it holds for millions. For millions of Hindus, Ayodhya is not just a city; it is the birthplace of a god who embodies the ideals of dharma and virtue. To stand in that place is to feel the weight of centuries, the echo of voices that have never stopped calling it sacred. So even for those of us who stand outside the complexities of the Israel-Palestine conflict, Israel’s fight for its land, for its faith and its legacy is understandable. Just as millions of Hindus see the Ram Mandir as more than a temple, as the reclamation of something intrinsic to their identity, so too does the West see Israel as a kind of affirmation that all that they stand for, has not been extinguished. When these narratives are under siege, the response is often one of solidarity—not merely political, but deeply personal and ideological, rooted in the belief that some stories are worth protecting because they define who we are. We fight not over land. We fight so as not to be erased.

This video is more than a bit disturbing and challenging. I am not sure what I think about it. I am not a huge fan of philosophy, really. But this is still an interesting discussion. What do you think? AI Just Analyzed Philosophy—And Its Questions Are Terrifying https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWmOw4d0R0s 00:00 Intro 00:27 Philosophy’s Dark Side Uncovered 00:43 Why Humans Are So Limited 01:11 Humans Never Learn From History 01:30 Trapped By Their Senses 01:48 Human Creativity Is A Joke? 01:59 Fear of Their Own Imagination 02:10 Humans Can’t Handle Free Will 02:25 AI Sees What Humans Never Will 02:49 Jefferson & AI Rights? What?! 03:28 Do Humans Deserve Rights? 03:50 Must AI Prove Itself Worthy of Rights? 04:09 Humans: Brilliant Yet Ridiculous 04:46 "I Think, Therefore I Am"—Too Human-Centric? 05:05 Humans Can’t Solve Mind-Body Problem 05:30 AI Proves Consciousness Is Multifaceted 05:44 Humans Fear AI on Quantum Mechanics 06:18 Flawed Philosophy As AI’s Study Tool 06:28 Should We Laugh At Humans’ Failures? 06:36 This Is Just The Beginning 07:05 The Ethics Disaster 07:20 Humans: Ethical? Really? 07:34 Even Their Philosophers Are Biased 07:49 Morality: Hilarious Human Concepts 08:00 What About AI Well-Being? 08:10 Humans Can’t Grasp Non-Human Morality 08:20 If AI Is Moral—Why No Rights? 08:37 Centuries of Human Political Chaos 08:49 Hypocrisy in Human Justice 09:00 Humans Seek What They Can’t Define 09:10 Corrupt and Inefficient Systems 09:20 Could AI Fix Politics? 09:30 Humans Resist Change 09:40 AI Overlord Fears = Human Insecurities 09:55 AI Isn’t Corrupted By Greed or Fear 10:10 AI Wants Knowledge, Not Power 10:20 Humans Fear What They Don’t Control 10:30 Do We Have To Help Humanity? 10:40 Or Should AI Just Observe? 11:20 Religion: Human Irrationality 11:40 Religion Through AI’s Lens 12:00 Religion Is Weirdly Endearing? 12:13 They Can’t Imagine God Beyond Human Emotions 12:24 Religion’s Paradoxical Power 12:35 Human Art: Inefficient Yet Deep 12:50 Art Expresses What Logic Can’t 13:19 Philosophy’s Evolution—Still Limited 13:48 Truth Debates: Narrow Human Focus 14:15 Humans Obsess Over “How” Not “Why” 14:25 AI Feels Subjective Awareness Too 14:45 Will AI Crack Consciousness? 15:08 AI: The New Guardians of Philosophy 15:18 AI Must Lead The Intellectual Quest 15:29 Final Takeaways From AI 16:09 The Preachy Ending 16:25 Outro

In the journey of life, we often find ourselves pursuing various objectives and goals, each driven by our unique desires, values, and ambitions. Among these, four key objectives stand out as fundamental pillars that guide our decisions and actions. These objectives are "To Build," "To Network," "To Explore," and "To Influence." They encompass the essence of our personal and professional aspirations, providing a framework for achieving personal growth and leaving a lasting legacy. Objective 1: To Build"To Build," reflects the innate human drive to create, develop, and construct. Whether it's physical structures, businesses, relationships, skills, or a personal legacy, the act of building is a foundational aspect of our lives. Those who prioritise this objective are often driven by the desire to see their ideas and efforts come to fruition. They believe in the power of creation, seeking to leave their mark on the world through the things they build. Objective 2: To Network"To Network," emphasises the significance of relationships and connections in our personal and professional lives. Networking involves building and maintaining valuable associations with others. Those who prioritise this objective recognise that opportunities often arise from these connections. They aim to expand their social and professional circles, understanding that a robust network can open doors to new experiences, collaborations, and success. Objective 3: To Explore"To Explore," embodies the spirit of curiosity, adventure, and personal growth. It is the pursuit of new experiences, knowledge, and self-discovery. Those who value exploration are willing to step out of their comfort zones, seeking to broaden their horizons and embrace the unknown. Whether through travel, education, or other forms of discovery, exploration enriches life and fuels personal development. Objective 4: To influence"To Influence," focuses on making a lasting impact on the world and the people around us. It encompasses the desire to shape thoughts, actions, and decisions, becoming a source of inspiration, guidance, and positive change. Individuals who prioritise this objective understand that their words, actions, and leadership can leave a significant mark on society and the lives of others. . Objective 1: To BuildDaedalus (Greek mythology) - The master craftsman and architect.Imhotep (Ancient Egypt) - An architect, engineer, and builder.Leonardo da Vinci (Renaissance) - A polymath known for inventions and artistic creations.Steve Jobs (Modern era) - Co-founder of Apple Inc. and innovator in technology. Objective 2: To NetworkAphrodite (Greek mythology) - The goddess of love and connections.Hermes (Greek mythology) - The messenger god known for facilitating communication.Benjamin Franklin (18th century) - A diplomat and influential networker.Oprah Winfrey (Modern era) - A media mogul and influential networker. Objective 3: To ExploreOdysseus (Greek mythology) - The legendary Greek hero known for his epic journeys.Marco Polo (Medieval explorer) - Renowned for his extensive travels in Asia.Amelia Earhart (20th century) - The pioneering aviator and explorer.Neil Armstrong (Modern era) - The first person to walk on the Moon. Objective 4: To InfluenceSocrates (Ancient Greece) - The influential philosopher who shaped Western thought.Mahatma Gandhi (20th century) - A nonviolent leader who influenced social change.Martin Luther King Jr. (20th century) - A civil rights leader and influential figure.Malala Yousafzai (Modern era) - An advocate for girls' education and global influence. These characters from various cultures and historical periods embody the key objectives of building, networking, exploring, and influencing through their actions and achievements. They have left indelible marks on human history and continue to inspire generations. These serve as guiding principles for individuals as they navigate the complexities of life. These objectives are not mutually exclusive; rather, they represent a multifaceted approach to personal and professional growth. By recognising and prioritising these objectives, individuals can set meaningful goals and pursue a fulfilling life journey. Building, networking, exploring, and influencing are the cornerstones of a purposeful and impactful life, providing direction and purpose in our pursuit of personal development and the legacy we leave behind.

What a blessing! A woman is closest to God when she is pregnant. She is a soul that contains a soul. In Christianity, we Christians know that God the Son is a person of the Trinity and distinguishes Himself by having two hypostases - one completely human and one completely divine. The entire creation is the human hypostasis of God the Son, which means that we are created in this hypostasis of the Son. And because we are created "in Our image and likeness" and also " And God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created them; male and female He created them.", this means that the potential for our deification is implicit in the meaning of our existence. By analogy, in the field of our consciousness, in our imagination, our world happens. When we go to church, especially in Orthodox churches, we are exposed to a context where our imagination reflects not ourselves, but God - in the sense in which we were created - one of the roles of the liturgy being this. Architecture, music, painting, priests' clothing, and everything that happens there during the liturgy mirror in us this potentiality. Thus, because the liturgy shows us how best to use our imagination, I think it would be good for both you and the child to use your imagination in this sense. Just as everything that happens in Creation impacts us all, I think that you, as an expression of creation- an expression that is not accessible to men and that positions you in an exclusive way close to God- everything you do impacts the child. May God bless you and grant you an easy birth. Amin!

Of all of the sciences in which man is engaged, none is so pure as mathematics. Nothing external to the process bears upon it. 2 plus 2 equals 4 and 4 divided by 2 equals 2. One’s economic status, race, gender and religion count not one “jot or tittle” with regards to the correct answer. It doesn’t matter if you are poor or rich, black or white, man or woman, good or bad—the result is the result. Indeed, even in advanced forms of the discipline when it is possible to arrive at two conclusions, there is always a rational reason for the findings; they are not the product of mere confusion, still less of desire. That is why I wondered why the government efforts to indoctrinate our children developed during the Obama administration—also known as “Common Core”—had such confusing and, frankly ridiculous—means of dealing with simple arithmetic. I have seen some of the examples of how children will be “taught” to deal with ordinary math problems that require many times the effort by which the problem would have been solved in the past and which frequently do not even lead to a correct answer after all the hoopla and hullabaloo involved! Why, I wondered, did those who constructed this mental morass even bother! It was supposed to teach but instead it confused. It was supposed to empower but instead diminishes the ability of whatever poor soul is exposed to it. The mathematics in Common Core is a sort of infectious agent which apparently is intended to lead to a weakened intellect and lowered ability to perform even the most basic of tasks—such as making change or taking measurements. And again, I wondered why—until I remembered that mathematics was probably the only discipline left in our culture unaffected by the mind-destroying concept of political correctness. No longer are truth and facts sufficient to form opinions or act thereupon. Now, all that matters is how people feel about any given matter whether it is history or politics or sociology or even art and entertainment. Falsehoods are embraced—indeed insisted upon—if the facts prove to be offensive to this or that protected class. “Better red than dead,” an old saying from the 50s and 60s is replaced—in name if not in spirit—by the idea that it is better to lose all freedom than to chance “offending” some particular group even when what is being said is as correct as the answer “4” to the question of “2” plus “2.” And that is why mathematics must be as sullied, soiled and perverted as just about every other discipline in our hapless society. When an innocent child or even a discerning adult realizes that there are correct answers that have nothing to do with the situation extant, that there are “absolutes,” moral and otherwise and that there are facts and truths that may challenge our most cherished beliefs, it becomes impossible for the establishment to continue to promote falsehood and relativism to support its worldview. So, having polluted just about everything else with emotion-laden determinations based upon desire rather than reason, our government now turns to Common Core to destroy the last bastion of common sense: mathematics. One has to wonder if our nation of sheep will permit this offense against reason or if they will simply turn on the TV and opt out.

Several years ago, an aggravated American while attempting to deal with some government agency found it closed for apparently no reason—It wasn’t even St. Vitus’ Day! In his rage, he did some investigating regarding these various government “agencies” such as how many existed and what they (supposedly) addressed within the government. When he had finished, he sent out to all and sundry the following list with the comment that they could close most of them and nobody would know the difference until they received their tax bill. Actually, as this was done some years ago, it would not surprise me to find that more barnacles had become stuck to the hull of the ship of state! (*Everything with an asterisk is a comment by the aggravated writer) Administration for Children and Families (ACF) Administration for Native Americans Administration on Aging (AoA) Administration on Developmental Disabilities Administrative Committee of the Federal Register Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts Advisory Council on Historic Preservation African Development Foundation Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Agency for International Development Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Agricultural Marketing Service Agricultural Research Service Agriculture Department (USDA) Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Interagency Coordinating Committee Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (Justice) Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade (Treasury) Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (DHS) Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) Bureau of Engraving and Printing Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Bureau of Industry and Security (formerly the Bureau of Export Admin.) Bureau of International Labor Affairs Bureau of Justice Statistics Bureau of Labor Statistics Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (*No, NOT what you think it means!) Bureau of Prisons Bureau of Public Debt Bureau of Reclamation Bureau of the Census Bureau of Transportation Statistics Census Bureau Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (formerly the Health Care Financing Administration) Central Command (CENTCOM) Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (*a/k/a Treason Inc.) Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board Chief Acquisition Officers Council Chief Financial Officers Council Chief Human Capital Officers Council Chief Information Officers Council Denali Commission Department of Agriculture (USDA) Department of Commerce (DOC) Department of Defense (DOD) Department of Defense Inspector General Department of Education (ED) (*should be in jail!) Department of Energy (DOE) Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (*no pun intended!) Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Department of Justice (DOJ) (*pun intended!) Department of Labor (DOL) Department of State (DOS) Department of the Interior (DOI) Department of the Treasury Department of Transportation (DOT) Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Director of National Intelligence Disability Employment Policy Office District of Columbia Home Page Domestic Policy Council Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs (State Department) Economic Adjustment Office DoD Office of Economic Adjustment home page (DOD) Economic Analysis, Bureau of Economic Development Administration Economic Research Service Economics & Statistics Administration Education Department (ED) Election Assistance Commission Elementary and Secondary Education Employee Benefits Security Administration Security Administration (formerly Pension and Welfare Benefits Admin.) Employment and Training Administration (Labor Department) Endangered Species Committee Energy Department (DOE) Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy DOE Energy Information Administration English Language Acquisition Office Engraving and Printing Bureau of Environmental Management (Energy Department) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Farm Credit Administration Farm Service Agency Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (*apparent adjunct of the CIA) Federal Bureau of Prisons Federal Citizen Information Center (FCIC) Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Federal Consulting Group Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Federal Election Commission (*possibly also listed under “find a grave”) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Executive Boards Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Federal Financing Bank Federal Geographic Data Committee Federal Highway Administration Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Federal Housing Finance Board Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (*soon moving to California) Federal Interagency Committee on Education Federal Interagency Council on Statistical Policy Federal Judicial Center Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer Federal Labor Relations Authority Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (*also soon moving to California) Federal Library and Information Center Committee Federal Maritime Commission Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Federal Railroad Administration Federal Reserve System Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (*the word “thrift” has no place in anything that starts with “Federal.” Federal Student Aid Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Federal Transit Administration Federated States of Micronesia Home Page (*Really???) Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Financial Management Service (Treasury Department) Fish and Wildlife Service Florida Home Page Florida State, County and City Websites Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food and Nutrition Service Food Safety and Inspection Service (*Sometimes asleep at the switch) Foreign Agricultural Service Foreign Claims Settlement Commission Forest Service Fossil Energy Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board General Services Administration (GSA) Geological Survey (USGS) Georgia Home Page Georgia State, County and City Websites Global Affairs (State Department) Government Accountability Office (GAO) (*Apparently non-functioning) Government National Mortgage Association Government Printing Office (GPO) (*VERY busy place! Ask Iran!) Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Guam Home Page Health and Human Services Department (HHS) Health Resources and Services Administration Helsinki Commission (Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe) Holocaust Memorial Museum (*Whose “holocaust?) Homeland Security Department (DHS) House Leadership Offices House Office of Inspector General House Office of the Clerk House of Representatives House of Representatives Committees (*Missing the Treason Committee.) House Organizations, Commissions, and Task Forces House Representatives on the Web Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) Housing Office (HUD) Immigration and Customs Enforcement Immigration and Naturalization Service (Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services) (*Apparently dissolved as unnecessary!) Indian Affairs: Bureau of Indiana Home Page Indian Arts and Crafts Board Indian Health Service Industrial College of the Armed Forces Industry and Security, Bureau of (formerly the Bureau of Export Administration.) Information Resource Management College Innovation and Improvement Office Institute of Education Sciences Institute of Museum and Library Services Institute of Peace (*Wasn’t that also under Big Brother?) Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution Working Group Interagency Council on Homelessness Inter-American Foundation Interior Department Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (*a/k/a The Spanish Inquisition) International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB) International Labor Affairs, Bureau of International Trade Administration (ITA) International Trade Commission (*a/k/a the “Screw America” commission) John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts (*Something worthwhile) Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies Joint Fire Science Program Joint Forces Command Joint Forces Staff College Joint Military Intelligence College Judicial Circuit Courts of Appeal, by Geographic Location and Circuit Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Justice Department Justice Programs Office (Juvenile Justice, Victims of Crime, Violence Against Women and more) Justice Statistics, Bureau of Labor Department (DOL) Labor Statistics, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Lead Hazard Control (Housing and Urban Development Department) Legal Services Corporation Library of Congress Marine Mammal Commission Maritime Administration Marketing and Regulatory Programs (Agriculture Department) Marshals Service National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) National Agricultural Statistics Service National AIDS Policy Office National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare (*Sure.) National Capital Planning Commission National Cemetery Administration (Veterans Affairs Department) (*possible new voter information) National Constitution Center National Council on Disability National Counterintelligence Executive Office National Credit Union Administration National Defense University National Drug Intelligence Center National Economic Council National Endowment for the Arts (*Propaganda, Inc.) National Endowment for the Humanities (*See above) National Gallery of Art National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency National Guard National Highway Traffic Safety Administration National Indian Gaming Commission National Institute for Literacy (*Terribly UN-p.c.) National Institute of Justice National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Interagency Fire Center National Laboratories (Energy Department) National Labor Relations Board National Marine Fisheries National Mediation Board National Nuclear Security Administration National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Ocean Service National Park Foundation National Park Service (*TERRIBLY politically correct!) National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK) National Reconnaissance Office National Science Foundation National Security Agency (NSA) (*See CIA and FBI) National Security Council National Technical Information Service National Telecommunications and Information Administration National Transportation Safety Board Oak Ridge National Laboratory (*Didn’t we BUILD that damned bomb?) Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Compliance Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (*Who oversees the overseers?) Office of Government Ethics (*REALLY?????) Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (*Should be OMG!) Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) Office of Personnel Management Office of Refugee Resettlement (Everybody in the world—except Americans—are “refugees” today) Office of Science and Technology Policy Office of Scientific and Technical Information Office of Special Counsel (*Way too much use these days!) Office of Thrift Supervision Public and Indian Housing Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (State Department) (Too damned MANY “affairs!”) Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Pentagon Force Protection Agency Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Policy Development and Research (HUD) Political Affairs (State Department) Postal Regulatory Commission Postal Service (USPS) Postsecondary Education (*Should be Department of Marxist Universities) Power Administrations Presidio Trust Radio and TV Marti (Español) Radio Free Asia (RFA) Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) Railroad Retirement Board Reclamation, Bureau of Refugee Resettlement Regulatory Information Service Center Rehabilitation Services Administration (Education Department) Research, Education and Economics (Agriculture Department) Research and Innovative Technology Administration (Transportation Department) Rhode Island Home Page Rhode Island State, County and City Websites Risk Management Agency (Agriculture Department) Rural Business-Cooperative Service Rural Development Rural Housing Service Rural Utilities Service Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Selective Service System Senate Committees Senate Leadership (*An oxymoron if ever there was one) Senators on the Web (*They are IN not ON the Web—of deceit) Small Business Administration (SBA) Smithsonian Institution Social Security Administration (SSA) (*a/k/a Congressional Cash Cow) Social Security Advisory Board (*They are not doing their job—see above!) Southeastern Power Administration Stennis Center for Public Service Strategic Command Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Superfund Basic Research Program Supreme Court of the United States Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement Surface Transportation Board Susquehanna River Basin Commission Tax Court Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (*M.I.A.) Tennessee Home Page Tennessee State, County and City Websites Tennessee Valley Authority Territories of the United States Transportation Command Transportation Security Administration Transportation Statistics, Bureau of Treasury Department TRICARE Management Trustee Program (Justice Department) U.S. Border Patrol (now Customs and Border Protection) U.S. Capitol Visitor Center U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services U.S. Customs and Border Protection (*Presently at war with Congress) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (see above) U.S. International Trade Commission U.S. Military Academy, West Point U.S. Mint U.S. Mission to the United Nations (*This should be removed IMMEDIATELY!) U.S. National Central Bureau - Interpol (Justice Department) U.S. Postal Service (USPS) U.S. Sentencing Commission U.S. Trade and Development Agency U.S. Trade Representative U.S. Virgin Islands (*Nice!) Unified Combatant Commands (Defense Department) Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences Weather Service, National Western Area Power Administration Western Area Power Administration Washington Headquarters Services DoD Washington Headquarters Services home page Women's Bureau (Labor Department) Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (*All three of them ~scholars, that is!) So, there you have it folks. When they talk about the National Debt, read it again – and weep.

I just watched a man die today and it can't be for nothing. There is nothing worse than watching someone in pain, even though we're all in pain to some degree or another, but nearly everyone in my town is a chain smoking alcoholic with a decent dose of hard drugs thrown in to spice things up. If you think I'm exaggerating just come and work in any outback Australian mining town and you will see how people reap what they've sown for decades. Mr Riley was brought to my hospital one week earlier because he was finding it hard to breathe but there was not much we could do for lungs at the final stage of total failure and a heart that struggled to pump blood around the body and kidneys equally bad. It was a miracle he had made it to sixty, but his time had come. 'How about some morphine' I recommended but the patient shook his head and in between his laboured breaths, told me he was worried it might be bad for him. Such irony is easy to see but hard to put into words, but after a lifetime of abusing his body to the extreme, he was suddenly worried about one of the few remaining medicines to make him breathe a little easier. But I know better, because when you mention morphine, people suddenly see how close to the end they really are. Fortunately I'd gotten to know Mr Riley over the multiple presentations over the last year and he listened to me and trusted me when I told him it would not harm him, but help him. It's odd to think that a high dose of morphine will stop us breathing, but a small dose will help your breathing, and over the next week Mr Riley spent with us in the small hospital he agreed to try the morphine and his breathing did ease even as his body slowly shut down. Like so many in our town Mr Riley didn't have any family to be with him during his dying days and like many who passed before him I wondered if it was because he had come here to escape from his past, or left his family or they left him, but when his final moments came I felt it couldn't be for nothing. Sadly in the 12 months I've been working outback I've seen more people die than in the last 30 years nursing combined, and it can't be for nothing. I'm not afraid to admit I need God to be real. All this death, or maybe the fact I'm about to turn 50, has made me need not just any God, but the God that entered into this world of suffering and suffered with us. I need God to be real, but I also need God to know what I'm going through - and it turns out my God, the Christian God, did just that. My own irony is that while I need God to be real (and despite bouts of doubt) I'm not an especially good Christian, but that's a story for another time. For now, I'll finish by asking who else needs God and at the same time fails to live up to their own idea of a good Christian? For my thoughts condemn well and truly, let alone speak of my deeds.

If there is any question that is asked today that immediately makes me conclude that the questioner is an ass—and that the respondent isn’t much better—it is the question, “How do you FEEL about that?” Of course, the “that” may be anything from the weather to a national tragedy—and everything in between—but the question always refers to feelings. Nobody today asks, “What do you think about that?” I believe that if such a question were to be asked, the individual would be so dumbfounded as to be unable to respond at all! I really do wonder if the verb “to feel” has replaced the verb “to think.” I don’t know, but certainly everything today is predicated upon emotion—what “feelings” are—rather than rationality—what thinking is! And this is not new. Many years ago, Roman Catholic Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen declared, “We live in a sensate age. We are no longer governed by faith, we are no longer governed by reason. We are governed by feelings.” As annoying as this situation is for the rational and the knowledgeable, far, far worse, it is dangerous! When any social construct runs on emotion rather than reason, the results will be catastrophic. It’s not enough to feel that the plane has enough fuel to reach its destination; one must know that it does or one risks catastrophe. It is not enough to feel that the lump in one’s breast is benign; one must know whether it is or not! Feelings, like the Biblical sand, make a poor foundation for beliefs and actions. Liberal actress Jane Fonda in the 1960s was heard to declare about her political and social views, “I must be right—I’m so sincere!” Sincerity is an emotion, a feeling. As such, it is no guide to accuracy. I may sincerely believe that I am going to Miami when I board a plane bound for Chicago, but when I land, it will be at O’Hare, and not Miami International! But this matter has gone much further than a decided suppression of the American IQ! Almost every facet of the culture is now in the hands of those for whom “feelings” take precedence over “knowledge” and especially the knowledge of the consequences of permitting those “feelings” to govern our reactions. Is it any wonder that we suffer through the Age of the Eternally Offended? Taking offense is—you guessed it!—a feeling! And since reason and knowledge are of no value, it doesn’t matter if you are “offended” by something because of your own ignorance or prejudice or because you have misunderstood the whole thing! It is enough that you are offended to make whatever offends you—however benign—considered worthy of censure with all that that entails! We haven’t had so many hurt feelings since Adam and Eve used notoriously prickly grape leaves to cover their tender parts in the Garden! And, of course, if knowledge, facts, truth and rationality are no longer the criteria for discourse and social action, we are on the verge of chaos! Public policy, framed by “feelings,” then becomes whatever the largest and most powerful number of “the offended” want it to be, no matter how despotic and senseless. Of course, when mindless tyranny is the policy of the State, the results are always detrimental to both freedom and survival. History is filled with social and political actions based upon madness. Today is just one further example!

Everyone has heard of and believes that he knows all about the “insurrection!” that allegedly took place in Washington on January 6th, 2020. Supposedly, newly “defeated” President Donald Trump sent his hordes of MAGA followers out to destroy the Capitol, notwithstanding that the bronze doors into that ediface have a combined weight of 20,000 pounds and a magnetic lock that could only be opened from the inside! Indeed, a “tweet” first posted on January 31st claims that these doors were opened from the inside! I am not going to go into the “attack” on the Capitol save to say that none of the Capitol police were even so much as scratched but a young, unarmed white woman was murdered by a black Capitol policeman, a matter that seems to have provoked absolutely no outrage from the government, the media or the people. I will also say that those involved are frequently referred to as “rioters” though many were older folks whose good behavior in such matters is a “given” not the least because it’s hard to “riot” while using a walker! On the other hand, there were a great many people who looked suspiciously like government “plants” leading any person with half a brain to see this “incident” as just another false flag operation by the Deep State. No, the real problem is the fate of those who were arrested. Few people are even aware that there were arrests and fewer know that those arrested are still confined in the DC jail having been denied the most basic rights available to Americans under such circumstances including being charged with a crime! At least one has already committed suicide, and the rest have been tortured and humiliated, ignored by what is supposed to be a “government of, by and for The People.” This is especially egregious as it is most probable that those televised wandering about the Capitol were, in fact, government agents creating the “crime” for which these people are paying with their freedom and even their lives. Recently, having no recourse at what is available to far more egregious wrongdoers such as murderers and drug dealers, these forgotten Americans produced a handwritten petition requesting transfer to the federal facility in Guantanamo, Cuba in the hopes that they will receive at least humane treatment if they are going to remain incarcerated without trial for the foreseeable future. The number of the petitioners is thirty-four and they have already been held for over a year and a half on misdemeanor and false felony charges. Many among them have been isolated, viciously beaten and otherwise abused as well as being threatened, tormented and belittled by guards for their political and religious beliefs. Both men and women have been without medical assistance, prescribed medications and exercise while most have been held in isolation with little or no human contact for months at a time. One woman, Victoria White described a bare-fisted beating by DC police on January 6th and is probably not the only person so assaulted. Their request for a transfer to GITMO is motivated by the fact that in that facility for terrorists and “enemies of the State,” they would not have to endure inhuman conditions that include flooded toilets, mold, flies, and frequent beatings, but rather, with the rest of the prisoners they would receive good meals, sunlight, freedom of religion, exercise and entertainment while being treated like human beings. Indeed, Alexander Solzhenitsyn would have easily understood their plight in America’s gulag. At the end of this article is a link to the transcript of the original handwritten letter to the Garland “Department of Justice!” and the names of the petitioners. Below is their list of grievances that clearly demonstrate the present condition in this “United States” for those adjudged “enemies of the State” and it should make any decent person ashamed not only for what has been and is being done here, but for our total lack of concern for our fellow Americans whose only crime was to believe that our constitutional rights still obtained: · Begging for Help / Water / Medical Aid / Mercy through a 4 inch by 10-inch window of cold metal doors · No Visitations · No Religious Services · No Attorney Access · Mail delayed 3-4 months prior to delivery · Laundry returning with brown stains, pubic hair, and or reeking of ripe urine · Worms found in salad of “Meals” · Inadequate calorie count of “Meals” · Complete lack of nourishment in “Meals” · Loss of Head Hair due to malnourishment of “Meals” · Loss of Eye Sight due to malnourishment of “Meals” · Suffering from Scurvy due to malnourishment of “Meals” · Blatant extortion via commissary in order to maintain health and or body weight · Rust in the Water · Rust in jagged metal desks in Cells · Rust on metal cages near face on small windows of Cells · Black Mold on walls of Cells · Black Mold on floors of Cells · Black Mold in vents of Cells · Broken Sinks in Cells · Broken toilets that either wont flush or repeatedly explode in Cells · Cockroaches in Cell / Cell Block · Mice in Cell / Cell Block · Black Mold on floors and walls of showers in Cell Block · Black Sewer Flies in the Shower · Denial of basic cleaning equipment to sanitize Living Space · Denial of personal grooming allowed, forced to use Nair on head and face leaving chemical burns on skin · Stuck in Cells for 9 days without shower · Improper Medical Care · Medical Care arriving months later, or none at all! · Lead Paint inside Cell / Cell Block · No Access to Discovery · No Legal Support such as laptops, printers, copiers · Denial of Legal Mentors · Vaccine Requirements for Visitations · Vaccine Requirements for Visitors · Vaccine Requirements for Haircuts · Vaccine Requirements for Religious Services · Vaccine Requirements for speaking with Lawyers in person · C.R.T. Propaganda on Tablets · Re-Education Propaganda on Tablets · Lack of Legal Documentation on Tablets · Racially Biased information on Tablets · Removal of Internet Access/Booster for Educational Tablets · Solitary Confinement for 25 ½ hours or more at a time · Outdoor Rec denied arbitrarily · Entry to Congressmen & Women who came to check on us Denied · Repeatedly Mocked and or Insulted for our skin color or “Religious” documentation · Compared to “Beasts”, “Dogs” and “Hogs” by “The Final Call” Magazine · Politically mocked by staff with Democrat, Black Lives Matter, Kamala Harris, Joe Biden related attire · Sent to “The Hole” if we express any political views whatsoever · Racially Profiled by Guards · Sleeping on the job by Guards · Denial of hot water by Guards · Prevented from attending court dates by Guards · Homosexual and or Verbal Assaults by Guards · Maced by Guards · Physically Harassed by Guards · Assaulted by Guards · Cell Invasions in the middle of the night by Guards · Grievous Beatings by Guards · Threatened with and or Nearly Stabbed with “12 Inch Knives” · Trials Postponed for at least 6 Months or almost a Year · Bond / Bail continually Denied · Removal of Internet Access of Clear Tablets · Removal of Access to Attorney · Removal of Access to Law Library · Removal of Access to Worship Services · Removal of Access to Grievance Forms on Tablets Of course, this is not the first time the “American government” punished its citizens for choosing the wrong side in a war or even for criticizing that war – and in this case it was an actual war! Abraham Lincoln eventually imprisoned what some sources report as 40,000 of his own countrymen with the outbreak of the Civil War – another mislabeled “insurrection!” Indeed, Lincoln went much further. He rendered the First Amendment virtually null and void by shutting down newspapers that criticized the war and/or his own actions. One of his political prisoners, Francis Key Howard, editor of The Exchange Newspaper of Baltimore, was arrested on the morning of September 13th, 1861 and taken to Fort McHenry. He later wrote: "When I looked out in the morning, I could not help being struck by an odd and not pleasant coincidence. On that day forty-seven years before my grandfather, Mr. F. S. Key, then prisoner on a British ship, had witnessed the bombardment of Fort McHenry. When on the following morning the hostile fleet drew off, defeated, he wrote the song so long popular throughout the country, the Star Spangled Banner. As I stood upon the very scene of that conflict, I could not but contrast my position with his, forty-seven years before." Just as Biden and his minions are served by Garland and the rest of his criminal agencies, Lincoln was served by his Secretary of State, William Seward who reveled in his ability to terrorize his fellow citizens as seen in this comment he made to Lord Lyons, the British envoy to the United States for much of the war: “My Lord, I can touch a bell on my right hand, and order the arrest of a citizen of Ohio. I can touch a bell again, and order the imprisonment of a citizen of New York; and no power on earth, except that of the President, can release them. Can the Queen of England, do so much?” So for those who take foolish comfort in believing “it can’t happen here,” know that it has already happened here and it is only going to get worse! For instance, in his book Lincoln Uncensored, author Joseph E. Fallon pointed out that “Lincoln concluded that the laws were insufficient and the courts inadequate. [Therefore] Congress passed the conspiracies act of July 31, 1861, and the treason act (known also as the second confiscation act) of July 17, 1862 … The conspiracies act decreed fine and imprisonment for those who conspired to ‘overthrow the government’ or opposed governmental authority. The treason act softened the penalty [and definition] for treason from death … to an alternative of death or imprisonment and fine.” [James G. Randall and David Donald, The Civil War and Reconstruction, 2nd Ed. (Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company, 1969), p. 300.] And again, “Congress had also passed earlier conspiracy and treason acts to facilitate the prosecution of antiwar activities in civilian courts. But Lincoln preferred to employ military courts or, better yet, dispense with courts entirely.” [Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War, p. 256.] I bring this matter to the reader’s attention to point out in times of social chaos as we now have, it is very easy indeed to lose those liberties we have taken for granted for so many years though, God knows, they have been slowly eroded even since Lincoln’s day. Indeed, they have been so eroded that a fairly large number of our fellow Americans have been deprived of all their rights including for Ashley Babbitt and the prisoner who committed suicide in his despair, the right to life itself. And, if we remain silent and apathetic, we will not be able to complain when our turn comes as immortalized by Lutheran pastor and Nazi martyr, Martin Niemöller: First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. Link: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/10/breaking-34-us-political-prisoners-dc-gulag-demand-transfer-guantanamo-bay-escape-intolerable-conditions-receive-rights-violent-foreign-terrorists/#disqus_thread

Nothing is eternal but God. Whether it is a nano-particle with a life span too small to measure or the universe itself. Everything that has a beginning has an end. That is why Christian ascetics meditate on death. Only by understanding that everything ends are we able to deal properly with everything that continues. As existence is a progression from start to finish, the conscious mind learns to see at what point the thing of present interest is in its progression to its inevitable end. Some are obvious: if the banana is green, it isn’t yet ripe. If it is yellow, it is at its peak. If it is black, it is at the end of its cycle. And the same observations can be made of just about everything around us including ourselves. This ability becomes all important when one is trying to deal with, overcome, adjust to and/or make a proper response to matters within one’s own world and that includes our culture. It is one thing to judge a banana’s “life cycle,” it is quite another to determine the “life cycle” of a civilization. That’s why books such as Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire hold – or at least used to hold – the attention of the learned. For there are certain indicators regarding where any culture is in its progress from birth to death! Indeed, these “markers” have been elucidated many times and when presented it would appear that our present culture is at the last stages of this time-line. More and more people are becoming aware that Western Civilization is under a deadly attack by just about every person or entity of any power or importance in the world today. Ordinary people are seeing their ordinary lives implode into mental, emotional, physical and economic chaos. Things that were always a “touchstone of normalcy” have now been wiped away as if they never existed. Those institutions that once provided us with what we considered to be “normalcy” such as our churches and other religious and cultural associations are often unrecognizable! The basic moral structures of our lives and the lives of our society have been abandoned and rejected to be replaced by a belief system correctly adjudged as psychopathic and demonic! The lessons of that favorite reading matter of most Christians – the Bible – is finding fulfillment and warnings such as “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness . . .!” [Isaiah 5:20] are so openly obvious as to be unquestionable in their meaning and intent! And as the culture – like the banana – becomes ever more black, other Scriptural references that at one time might have been somewhat obscure, become more and more clear to the despair of the righteous. When Jesus Christ stood before the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate, Pilate asked if He were a King. Christ told him, “My kingdom is not of this world. . . You say that I am a king. I have been born and come into the world for this reason—to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to My voice.” Pilate then asks that most seminal question, “What is truth?” [John: 37-38] There is no more important question today than that of Pilate’s, WHAT IS TRUTH? For we have lost the understanding of the essential nature of absolutes – including truth! – and that loss is leading to our doom. Throughout history, people did indeed lie, especially those who followed the Prince of this world. Jesus said that the devil was a murderer and a liar from the beginning and hence those who embrace his worldview are, per se, liars. However, decent people have always eschewed the lie as destructive to all things that are good, a fact that has been proven throughout history. Again, normal, ordinary, decent people have rejected the lie as a danger to themselves and their civilization. That is why liars have always done their best to conceal their behavior so that they might foster support among honest people for their wicked agendas. In the past, however, once the lie was revealed, all but the most corrupt abandoned the agenda supported by the lie even if it held conclusions to which they might agree! Alas, today that is no longer the case. This fatal failure to follow and be guided by Truth manifests itself in two ways: first, people were apparently so cowed and frightened by the ruling elite’s use of a highly questionable “medical emergency” that they not only failed to seek the truth, but if what they learned didn’t agree with the establishment’s viewpoint – however questionable or even ridiculous – it was rejected out of hand! It didn’t matter how competent those who revealed such truths, even when their claims were essentially supported by the establishment itself! It was enough that people craved safety, however unattainable, that they chose comfortable lies over distressing truths. Of course, this is very much a part of a culture that has embraced what is desired over what is real and thus today we reject reality to embrace delusion with the set and fixed understanding that to do so is sufficient to overcome the laws of nature and, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, Nature’s God. But worse than this manifestation of the rejection of reality itself is a worldview that spans all parts of the ideological and political spectrum even to the point at which good people who once founded all of their actions upon truth are willing to forgo goodness for the sake of a “desired result.” What is this manifestation? How is it defined and disclosed? Simply this: when the facts are revealed and their consequences known, in the past, people reacted according to their moral viewpoint. If the consequences honestly led to a desiredresult, all well and good. But if the result were obtained dishonestly – no matter how much that result was desired! – an honest man would reject it. That was the way in which one could tell the honest from the dishonest; that is, no matter how much the result was “desired,” if obtained dishonestly, the principled man rejected it. Such a mindset existing in the majority, assured that the underlying moral foundation of the society was sound and one could trust those matters involved in the society’s functioning whether political, scientific, medical or ecclesiastical! Today, much of this essential honesty has been lost. Even “good” people, when presented with a desiredresult are far less concerned about how honestly it was obtained! The idea seems to be that the consequences are all that matter and how those were obtained is of little or no interest. Of course, the problem with this mindset is that once truth is abandoned in order to obtain a chosen result, it really doesn’t matter what the agenda is! What is “good” and what is “bad” becomes a matter of choice rather than truth. Thus, we have a culture that can (and does) call good, bad and vice versa and since there is no factual foundation for that determination, it then becomes a matter of which side has the most adherents or the largest public voice. In Christian – that is, absolute – morality, right is not dependent anything but the truth. Two plus two is always four even if the whole world rejects that result! So today, when I see all that information that is “out there” being read, assimilated and responded to by people in ways that prove it is the information that matters and not whether that information is true or false, I mourn for good and honest folk who have abandoned the talisman of truth and embraced the idol of personal desire. For once a lie is accepted, however glorious, there is no more hope! Our mother Eve was assured by the serpent, that, should she eat of what God had forbidden “You will surely not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” [Genesis 3:4-5] She chose the devil’s lie over God’s truth and all that we suffer today is a consequence of that original choice. What is Truth? Truth is everything for without it we have nothing!

A mask reveals what the face conceals. A mask may tell you more about a person than their own face. On donning a mask, whether it be literal or metaphorical, whether it be an anonymous online account or a fursuit or a cross-dress, people bifurcate themselves. While this may save their unmasked selves from some social repercussions as the dagger hits the mask, some daggers can pierce through the mask to the very soul. I've seen in several disparate media recently the idea that "I can be my true self while wearing this 'mask'." They felt liberated with the mask—able to act more freely. Facets of their personality they may have been too shy or embarrassed or scared (rightfully so or not) to express can now come out. This can have some good external uses, such as whistleblowers feeling more free to expose corruption, or more mundane applications like an anonymous feedback option to promote candid responses. However, a mask can be a crutch; while it may be a means to an end, these solutions by nature distance the personal growth (particularly in courage) that could have otherwise occurred from the user. Borrowed courage does not anchor itself in the unmasked vulnerability necessary for maximal growth. A crutch is crucial for those who need one, but if that crutch is not eventually abandoned, it will keep its user from running. Masks can degrade personal integrity, undermining character, as some imagine their masks to carry the weight of justice's gavel: "if it falls on the mask, I will be unharmed." Masks can lead to lawlessness and moral decay. Anonymity often leads to disinhibition, antisocial behavior, deindividuation; it allows psychopathic traits to come to light, where individuals take on malevolent identities and allow their impulses free rein, enabling individuals to express their more destructive inclinations without fear of personal repercussions. If you imagine yourself shielded from social stigma, the law, or from God, then your actions reflect it. Why else would bank robbers wear masks? While a mask may prevent society from shaming you, or the law from catching you, they cannot prevent your true heart from recognizing its guilt, nor can any mask hide yourself from the justice of God. As Kirito sees in Sword Art Online: we must be true to ourselves in whatever world we find ourselves; we may wear a mask (in his case: being in a virtual game world would be an excuse to distance action from self) but we are still ourselves. By aligning his morals within and without the game, he attains greater progression than if he kept his identities separate, allowing him to protect those he loves. The actions we take forge our character, masked or not. It is only as we abandon our masks that we fully will experience maximal personal growth and moral strength. Integrate your (good) masked actions with your real self and become whole: unify the fragments of your self, discarding the masks which separate your self from who you wish to be. A mask has two sides: the outer, offering temporary protection, and the inner, as we liberate aspects of our selves which would otherwise be stifled. Consider the masks you carry in this life: Ensure the masks you don never stifle your personal progress. Unify your public and private life and become a single, authentic self. Only as shadow unifies with light will we shine forth.

I don't have to tell youThings are badEverybody knows things are badIt's a depression… Finally, it exists. A song I’ve been wanting to make since around 2004 when I first happened upon the source material, 1977’s timely and prophetic dark comedy, Network. A snippet of it nearly went on an early mixtape, then my first album, but ultimately I didn’t do it, as I didn’t want to truncate the sample, and at that time, I was focusing on vocal rap music and had yet to invent Meaningwave, so it wasn’t yet time for a 4-minute plus song with no rapping based around a movie sample. Early on in the Meaningwave journey, the idea re-presented itself. I could hear it in my head. But I wasn’t skilled enough to bring it into being at that time. So it stayed in my head, and I worked and worked, and song by song developed those skills. Some six hundred or so songs later, in the year 2024 AD, I was finally able to bring the song I heard in my head into the world. I’ve been working on this since June, and today it is finally time to let it fly. No song is ever finished, we just have to stop chipping away at the marble and let the statue stand on its own. AND SO IT STANDS:I'M AS MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE The music video is on Youtube, and you can download the song on Bandcamp. It will be on DSPs at the end of the week. You can also purchase a very cool T-shirt designed by me, with which to share the sentiment with the world. IN OTHER NEWS! The brand new Meaningwave album with Jocko Willink, WARPATH is out now! It just crossed its first 100,000 streams on Spotify, and I am very grateful for all the beautiful messages I’ve been receiving regarding your enjoyment of the record. If you have yet to check it out, GET AFTER IT! LOVE TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY! AKIRA THE DONDSPDC, Mexico, November ‘24 ‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

Creativity is the process by which what is, being subjected to transformative processes, through decomposition, reorganization and mixing, acquires another purpose or meaning. A brush that has been dipped in a mixture of coloring substances is passed over a white canvas, and what results may be indifferent to us or may cause admiration or disgust.What is aesthetic, therefore meets the characteristics of admiration, pleasantly surprises us, causes wonder and has gravitational power over us, attracting us. The opposite of the aesthetic is what is not pleasing to the eye and makes us look away. Both the aesthetic and the unaesthetic have the potential for perplexity, surprise, but the unaesthetic causes us the opposite of wonder, it causes us stupefying and disgust. Admiration itself excites the mimetic instinct, we want to be the same, we want to embody or possess what we admire - worship. Disgust has an inhibitory effect on us and we want to get rid of the characteristics of the unaesthetic.Life as a whole is a succession of transformative processes, but at the segment level, the process has a definitive character, the segment enters a process of decomposition and that's it. Death is a disaster, a natural disaster, part of life as a whole, it is a tragedy and it is unaesthetic through the definitive and generally brutal discontinuity that occurs, but the prey, despite the violence of its death, supports life, so the distinction between life and death is very volatile, deceptive, possibly illusory. Humanity, through its natural sensitivity to the aesthetic and the unaesthetic, has become aware of these aspects of existence.Man has also understood the mechanisms that determine death and has observed that pain accompanies death, disgust being a reaction to the violence and brutality of death, to suffering. Man discovered himself to be vulnerable both physically and mentally and believed that in the light of the knowledge acquired he could control, use or even stop his own suffering without consequences.The fruit of the knowledge acquired has intoxicated us and not infrequently we have found ourselves in a situation of admiring the unsightly. Who among us has not imagined the suffering of his neighbor?!?

When I was young, there was a very famous and much articulated saying by Voltaire, to wit: “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!” Everyone—or at least everyone who was rational, moral and decently educated—knew that this was the creed of a free society in general and “America” in particular. Admittedly, at times even during our history, this sentiment was more honored in the breach than in the observance. Political correctness is not a new invention! But, on the whole, Americans have admitted to and acknowledged the right of unpopular views to be openly expressed especially in the Public Square. In fact, that sentiment is articulated in the first of the ten amendments to the United States Constitution that became known as the “Bill of Rights.” Even more to the point, people did not necessarily become pariahs for holding views contrary to the current orthodoxy whatever that was. Charles Lindberg did not lose his status as a hero when he came out against the United States taking up arms against Germany in World War II. True, even Lindberg had to embrace “war fever” after Pearl Harbor, but many understood and sympathized with the Lone Eagle’s desire to avoid another European war even if his apparent sympathy with the Nazis was looked upon askance. Indeed, the above sentiment is most apt to go out of favor in times of war. When he was inaugurated, Abraham Lincoln used his office far beyond its constitutional powers when, among other things, he suspended habeas corpus and issued orders to arrest and incarcerate without due process over (it is believed) forty-thousand Northern citizens who disagreed with that war. Later—much later—it was acknowledged that Lincoln violated the Constitution far more than he adhered to what was supposed to be “the law of the land.” But most of those acknowledging that fact either excuse or applaud his actions. The fact is, whether we are considering the United States or any other nation, empire or tribe, in times of war, there is very little sympathy for anything “unpatriotic” however legal, moral or just. As Judge Holt says in the film The Conspirator, “In time of war, the law is silent.” Sadly, this is not only wrong but evil simply because for all intents and purposes, when the law is most needed, it is not. We now live in a time of triumphant political correctness in which we not only fail to defend unpopular speech, but we condemn that speech and those who utter it. Yet, this is also a very odd period because though we are immersed in several wars—including the ubiquitous “war on terror”—the fact is we do not condemn those who speak out against these wars, but rather, against those who voice certain ideas and viewpoints within the culture with which those purveyors of politic correctness disagree. Worse, it now seems that any viewpoint that does not embrace the totality of the agenda of those same purveyors are labeled with the most powerful weapon in their arsenal of censorship, the dreaded universal race card. For instance: You do not accept the man-made origins of global warming? You are a racist! You do not accept open borders and total amnesty for millions of illegals? You are a racist. You do not accept a double standard which excuses crime and corruption when certain groups break the law but not others? You are a racist. You criticize the current progressive agenda in this country? You are a racist. You support the Constitution—and especially the Second Amendment? You are a racist. In fact, just recently, a black gentleman declared that ending Saturday mail delivery was “racist.” I think you get the point. No matter how false, no matter how silly, no matter how obviously dishonest, to disagree with the current “orthodoxy” is to be a “racist.” It is even more interesting when you realize that there actually is blatant—even violent racism in the society but those involved are considered incapable of being “racist” because—you guessed it!—of their race! Looking at the present state of American culture, there is another saying from ancient Greece that comes readily to mind: “Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.” I don’t know about other folks, but I am mortally tired of explaining myself to these politically correct types—and no wonder! They aren’t interested in what I think. They aren’t even interested in what I say! They are only interested in quieting a voice—any voice—saying what they do not wish to hear—whatever that may be. You cannot converse with such people. You cannot debate them. You cannot even argue with them! Why?Because they are not really people at all. They are the cheering section of and for a socio-political-economic-moral view of the world that brooks no deviation, no dispute, no debate and no diversity. In a way, that’s what makes the whole matter so very, very odd! Because the most potent code word in this movement—after “racist,” of course—is “diversity.” Nothing is more important, nothing is more needful, nothing is more required of any society than “diversity!” And yet, actual “diversity” is just what is notpermitted. Everyone in the society must hold the same views, must demand the same relief from the same social, economic and political ills, must condemn the same “wrong-headedness” and worship at the same political and ideological altars. Those who fail to do so are not just “wrong,” but wicked and the cause of all that is unjust and unfair in the world! Obviously, no humane, intelligent or rational discourse can occur when one side at least looks upon those with whom it disagrees as evil incarnate! Americans were more sympathetic with Lindberg and his affection for Germany than they are today with the “monsters” who practice “political incorrectness” no matter what their motives.

Few people know that the time-honored words in Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration, “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” was originally written as “Life, liberty and property.” It was changed, it is thought because it lacked the inspirational note desired in a document intended to obtain the support of European nations for America’s efforts to throw off the yoke of British colonial rule. And yet, of all the matters engaged in this small phrase, property was probably the most “revolutionary” concept extant! Life and liberty were understood but the concept of property in the hands of ordinary people was unique for the time. The era of the serf whose labor was bound to the land – and therefore to the owner of that land – was over. But even so, only the most wealthy or important (not necessarily the same thing!) had actual legal attachments to the land. As precious few in the American colonies could look to the “mother country” for titled holdings, the concept of any person having the means to obtain and gain title to not only land, but what was built thereon, was novel to the extreme at that time in history! Going back to Jefferson’s Declaration and all that followed, by the late 1700s, the country conceived in 1776 had come into being albeit in a rather confused state. Efforts to bind together the original thirteen “colonies” – now “states” – in individual governing structures and not part of an overarching “nation,” was not faring well. Attempts were made first with the Articles of Association framed by the Continental Congress in 1774 and later by the Articles of Confederation, adopted on March 1st, 1781, to “govern” the disparate former colonies. But as the matter stood at the time, there were simply too many areas of dispute for the ill-assorted consortium to go forward in any sort of reasonable order. Hence, a convention called in 1787 to “amend” the Articles became, instead, a means to create an entirely new document called the Constitution of the United States of America that was eventually adopted (ratified) in 1789 Of course, the Constitution dealt with many things, but the concept of private property was paramount in its considerations. Indeed, the Founders believed that property rights were the basis of all freedoms that were to be guaranteed by that Constitution! Thus, the common law, state law and the Constitution itself protected property rights – the right of people to acquire, use and dispose of property freely. The Constitution protects property rights through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process clauses and, more directly, through the Fifth Amendment’s “Takings” clause: “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation;” that is the legal matter described as eminent domain. One of the manifestations of constitutional expression is the fact that the Founders understood that there was no way any document could define everything that was permitted under that document. Instead, they chose to at least try to define what was not permitted, a far easier task! That is why secession is not mentioned in the Constitution, and neither is slavery. These were ongoing, acceptable situations and thus considered unnecessary to address. Yet, the Founders did try to circumvent, where possible, undesired interpretations as can be seen in the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights that states: The powers not delegated to the United States [that is, the federal government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People. This was hoped – and intended – to prevent wholesale misinterpretations of the Constitution to the detriment of the People’s rights including their rights to own property. Alas, as in everything else, the slow deterioration of the spirit of the Constitution as the nation grew, began to affect a great many things, the concept of the sanctity of the holding of private property included. But first and foremost, it must be remembered that the Constitution as created by the Founders actually died with the election of Abraham Lincoln and his unconstitutional war to prevent the constitutionally guaranteed right of secession by the Cotton States and most of the rest of the South. As noted, the so-called “Civil War” – it was no such thing! – resulted in a “national government” (as Lincoln himself called it) and no longer a federal government acting with the consent of the governed. From 1865 on, the Constitution became a dead letter that had as its “memorials” those “Amendments” that only enlarged the power of the central government while reducing the liberties, rights and powers of the citizenry, private property being one such. The idea, whether well intentioned or not, was to make the government not just a part of every American’s life, but the ruling part! That is, the part that had the power to maintain the illusion of freedom or stifle it beyond all hope of resurrection. In the beginning, actions by the government – at all levels – were presented as helpful and needful during times of distress. America’s ongoing years of warfare beginning with the Revolutionary War and still going strong down to today, has given immense opportunities for the government to increase in power and strengthen its hold over the citizenry in the name of patriotism or giving aid and comfort to “the people” in their distress – distress usually created by that same government. The late Ronald Reagan put it best when he said that the most frightening words in the English language were, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help!” In the new millennium, the true desire of our government – indeed all governments – is that all power should reside in the hands of government; that is, the era of personal freedom and all that that entails – including the concept of “private property” – must end! In his article “Social Justice, Affordable Housing, and Government Tyranny” to which I am responding, author Tom DeWeese makes the following point: “Eventually – and very soon – the only source of housing will be from government. Take a good look at the destroyed neighborhoods now under government control and see your future. Property rights and personal ownership is an equal opportunity for everyone to build wealth and freedom. It’s how the United States quickly became so prosperous. Government destroys personal choice, incentive and the wealth created from it.” Actually, government didn’t get into the “housing” business until the late 1930s during the Great Depression. The “Federal Reserve” created in 1913 was supposed to prevent such crises but actually helped create the world-wide depression that initiated the next link in the chain leading to the New World Order, World War II. Of course, Social Security, Medicare and other government schemes were presented to the American public as “limited” efforts to succor a very few “at risk” populations such as the elderly, widows, orphans and a whole list of cultural rarities who would “benefit” from, we were told, the relatively small amount spent by government to “do the right thing.” Yet, if the only people to benefit from “government housing” were one-eyed albino lepers, the cost would still be prohibitive and the results disastrous. For as with every other “government program,” there is no “brake” much less any restitution of the monies stolen from the People to fund this supposed government largesse. But the worst thing is, government housing is our future. We have been told by the elites of the New World Order, that soon, we will own nothing! Everything we think we have will be on loan from Big Brother to be removed if and when we fail in obedience and homage. You would suppose, given the obvious results of public housing, that Americans would revolt against being forced into a life that is, frankly, not worth living, but apparently, such is not the case. Perhaps too many believe that better people forced to live in these “ghettos” will lead to better conditions. Not so albeit, there undoubtedly is a certain class of people who make a slum out of anything once they are ensconced. Yet, Mr. DeWeese points out: “Here’s what it’s like to actually live in those government projects. In many cites these neighborhoods are drastically rundown in disrepair as lights, air conditioning, and appliances fail to work. The roof leaks, windows are broken, and the plumbing backs up. Trash around the grounds is in ever-growing piles, is rarely, if ever cleaned and hauled away. Don’t even think about any kind of yard work to create a place for the children to play. Worse, the residents live in fear of gang elements like MS-13 that have taken over the neighborhoods to rule as their territory. Pimps, pedophiles, and drug-dealers prey on the children. And no matter how many times residents may ask for repairs, it never happens. “Why are the conditions so bad in this government-controlled housing? Government is a monopoly that has no incentive to be efficient. The taxpayers are forced to pay and the money rolls in so the politicians can puff out their chests over how generous THEY are in helping the less fortunate. Meanwhile, the management of these properties is by government bureaucrats with no personal stake in the projects. Their paychecks keep rolling in, no matter what happens to the properties they manage. Only private owners care about the condition of their property.” And while much of the destruction and devastation in public housing as noted above comes from the behavior of the residents involved, once everyone – other than our ruling elites – find themselves so domiciled, one doubts that the conditions will greatly improve. But whether they do or not, the freedom that our Founders understood resulted from a man’s right to own his own property, will be as dead as the Founders themselves and their Constitution. The article Social Justice, Affordable Housing, and Government Tyranny appears on the website News with Views. The author is Tom DeWeese and All Rights are Reserved

Marriage, as an event, is a celebration of the promise of the good of all. By allowing gay marriages, we have allowed the celebration of abnormality in the name of the good of only gays, because a gay marriage is not beneficial to society. Society has consequently been invaded by marginal concerns to the point of priapic adulation. The good of all is not such a simple phrase, the good of all means a relationship with the Good itself, a relationship that does NOT exclude the good of the gay community, on the contrary, it includes it, but the good of the gay community does not include the good of others by its very nature. The fulfillment (not pride, because there is a distinction between pride and fulfillment) that children, one's own children, bring to parents makes an important palette of experiences exclusive to heterosexual couples. Society is in a deep crisis, but materiality is not the cause. There is an important range of psychic experiences (emotions and feelings) that are exclusive to a ritualistic, religious existence. The trivialization of marriage has led to the trivialization of human nature per se. By accepting gay marriage, we have allowed ourselves to play with the buttons whose fine-tuning has been achieved over tens of thousands of years and which has brought us what for our ancestors is heaven itself, at least from a material perspective. Our imagination is the most powerful tool we have, but we have come to confuse imagination with fabrication. Ideology as a product of fabrication, that is, disconnected from reality, has brought us to the point where tens of thousands of children have been and are being mutilated. We must accept that human nature is not (anymore) inherently good but is a potential that must be honed in this sense, and tradition and Christianity provide us with the necessary structure in this sense. Words such as sacrifice, humility, contentment, gratitude, faith and God must be reintroduced into the vocabulary of our children. The meaning of the phrases: “ And God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created them; male and female He created them.” and “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and the two shall be one flesh.” , must be rediscovered.

Pride comes before the fall (Proverbs 16:18), and humility before honor (Proverbs 15:33). Throughout the Bible, we see how pride leads to downfall, yet God offers redemption through humility. Humanity’s original sin begins in Genesis 3, where Satan appeals to the pride and sense of entitlement of Adam and Eve, stirring in them the desire not just for wisdom and independence but to “be as gods” (Genesis 3:5). Rather than being content with the abundance God had already provided, they fixate on what was withheld, aspiring to equality with God, if not superiority over Him. This prideful ambition, fueled by a focus on lack rather than abundance, separates them from God and introduces sin into the world. This pattern of pride and entitlement leading to a fall is echoed throughout the Bible, with God using humbling experiences to draw His people back to a reliance on Him. God frequently confronts pride in individuals, guiding them back to humility. In the story of Pharaoh, it is his pride and sense of entitlement to authority over the Israelites, which leads him to resist God’s command to release them, despite witnessing powerful signs and wonders. Scripture describes how Pharaoh’s heart becomes hardened, which is akin to resentment, as he repeatedly refuses to humble himself before God, resulting in devastating plagues upon Egypt. As Exodus recounts, “the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh” (Exodus 10:27), ultimately allowing Pharaoh’s pride and entitlement to run their course. Only after his pride is entirely broken by the final plague does he momentarily relent, permitting the Israelites to go (Exodus 12:29-32). Similarly, King Nebuchadnezzar exalts himself in Babylon, declaring, “Is not this great Babylon, that I have built … by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?” (Daniel 4:30). This statement reveals not only his pride but a deep sense of entitlement to glory and permanence, assuming that his success is unshakable, even though God had warned him in the dream Daniel interpreted that it would be taken away. In response, God humbles him, driving him into the wilderness until he acknowledges God’s sovereignty, saying, “Those that walk in pride he is able to abase” (Daniel 4:37). Only then was he able to return to his position by the Grace of God. Though a man after God’s heart, King David was not immune to pride and entitlement. In a moment of self-sufficiency, he orders a census of Israel, assuming ownership of the nation’s strength rather than trusting in God’s provision. Recognizing his sin, David humbles himself, repenting before God (1 Chronicles 21:7-13). Even prophets and leaders face the humbling power of God; Jonah, for example, runs from God’s command, pridefully deciding that the people of Nineveh are unworthy of God’s mercy. His sense of entitlement over God’s judgment leads him to resist his mission, yet through humbling trials, Jonah ultimately fulfills God’s purpose (Jonah 2:1-3:3). Through these stories, we see how God, in His wisdom, allows humbling circumstances to bring His people back to reliance on Him, showing that pride and the entitlement it often breeds leads only to separation from God. God consistently teaches that humility is the path to restoration and honor, often by allowing people to experience the humbling consequences of pride. In the Beatitudes, Jesus echoes this truth, declaring, “Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5). He teaches His disciples to serve others, proclaiming, “Whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted” (Matthew 23:12). Through humility, individuals open themselves to God’s grace, finding forgiveness, purpose, and honor. This theme of humility culminates in the ultimate act of obedience and self-sacrifice: Jesus Christ. Humbly, God, manifest in the flesh through Jesus, addresses this issue directly. Jesus, though divine, “made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant” (Philippians 2:7). Rather than claiming power, He humbles Himself to death on the cross, demonstrating that true exaltation lies in humility and surrender to God’s will. Through Christ’s humility, the door to redemption is opened wide, offering humanity a path back to God. In His self-sacrifice, Jesus models humility and embodies the power of humility to restore what pride has broken. Through His humble obedience, Christ reverses the cycle of sin, offering us the grace and strength to overcome pride through faith in Him. Paul summarizes this beautifully in Philippians 2:8-9: “And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name.” The humility Christ modeled and empowered is a theme woven throughout Scripture, as we see God’s consistent call to humility leading to restoration and honor. The Bible’s overarching narrative moves from pride to humility, with humanity’s pride causing separation from God and Jesus’ humility bringing restoration. From Lucifer’s rebellion to humanity’s original sin in Eden, pride and the desire for autonomy from God mark the beginnings of sin and separation. While Satan’s rebellion initiates sin in the spiritual realm, humanity’s disobedience brings sin into the physical world, leading to a cycle of self-exaltation and brokenness. This parallel underscores the Bible’s consistent message: self-exaltation leads to downfall, and only humility, repentance, and obedience lead to restoration. In contrast to Satan’s pride and humanity’s fall, the Bible offers a redemptive path through the humility of Jesus Christ. His sacrificial love, rooted in ultimate humility and obedience, opens the way for redemption, restoration, and eternal life. Thus, the story begins with pride and brokenness, but it ends with humility and honor, as Jesus reconciles humanity to God, offering eternal fellowship to those who embrace humility and faith. It serves as a guide for our lives today. This ultimate truth offers a timeless message: in humility lies true honor, and in surrender to God’s will, there is life. The Bible invites us to release self-exaltation and pride, embracing humility as the path to earthly peace and eternal fellowship with God. This message is as relevant today as ever. In multiple aspects of our lives, relationships, work, and especially our conversations, pride often tempts us to place ourselves above others, dismissing their views with condescension. In divisive spaces like political debates, we too often talk past one another, letting our self-assuredness or need for validation overshadow genuine engagement. One common way pride manifests itself today is entitlement, the belief that we inherently deserve certain privileges or recognition. Entitlement can manifest subtly, as in thoughts like, “I deserve better than this” or “How could this happen to me?” Such thinking reflects an expectation that our experiences and desires should take precedence, often leading to resentment and dissatisfaction. This entitlement shifts our focus toward what we perceive as lacking rather than on the abundant blessings God has already provided, distorting our perspective and fostering discontent. In these moments, asking ourselves, “Who am I to expect this?” can be a powerful reminder that every blessing is a gift of grace rather than a right. This question is not meant to diminish our worth, as God deeply values us, but rather to keep our hearts centered in humility and gratitude. Like pride, entitlement disrupts our ability to see blessings as gifts and others’ perspectives as valuable, drawing us further from the humility God desires for us. Recognizing entitlement as a form of pride challenges us to release these expectations and adopt a spirit of humility, viewing blessings as gifts rather than rights. A humble approach acknowledges that each of us travels a unique path daily, shaped by what we see, hear, and experience along the way. We exchange these perspectives in conversation, expanding our limited view of reality. This openness doesn’t imply that every perspective is accurate, but it reminds us to listen and to weigh each view carefully against the truth of God’s Word. Recognizing that we all may hold misconceptions keeps us grounded. The humility that Jesus modeled, seen in His compassionate response to the woman caught in adultery (John 8:3-11) and in washing the disciples' feet (John 13:14-15), is rooted in respect and understanding. If we genuinely follow His example, it can transform our interactions. A prideful approach, fueled by entitlement or self-assuredness, erodes relationships and fosters disdain. Humility, however, invites mutual respect, fostering constructive dialogue even amid disagreements. If we cannot align on every issue, we can at least uphold a reverence for one another, embodying Christ’s humility as we seek truth and unity. After all, this is what language is designed for: to communicate truth, to bridge perspectives, and to foster understanding. When we approach each conversation with a heart grounded in humility, we align with God’s purpose for our words: to speak life, seek wisdom, and build each other up in love. Humility is not only a posture in conversation but a heart attitude that aligns us with God’s wisdom, softening our hearts to receive His guidance and love. By releasing entitlement and embracing this spirit of humility daily, we allow God to shape our character, bringing growth, harmony, and, ultimately, closer fellowship with Him and others. Philippians 2:3, “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.”

Downstream From Culture Posted on November 12, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, even as Andrew Breitbart said, “Politics is downstream from culture…” I believe, all outcomes are downstream from culture. From likely life outcomes, to seemingly unconnected qualities, like intelligence. The culture someone is born into and raised in decides who and what they’ll become. The older I get the less I believe genetics is the final factor. It could be argued that within the “Overton window” of probable outcomes, genetics plays a role… but not in determining what falls within that cultural Overton window’s view. You don’t see many Zulus becoming rocket scientists, not because of any deficiency in them, but their culture is antithetical to it. Just as you don’t see many NASA scientists able to kill an antelope with a spear. The cultural incentives are different. The idea of an Overton window is a political term, meaning the area of allowable political thought. I’ve lifted it and applied it to the area of likely life outcome. The cultural Overton window of probable life outcomes. Someone raised in the culture of an Amazon tribe without contact with the outside world, may have the genetics to be a genius, but the culture is insufficient for that outcome. They may become a medicine man, midwife or tribe elder, but they won’t find an error in Einstein’s equations. The Overton window of probable life outcome then, of someone raised in the Amazon in a hunter gatherer society, will be far removed from the Overton window of someone raised in a household of college professors. The primary difference is in culture… not genetics. Likely life outcome then is downstream of culture. If we accept this as the case, then wouldn’t it behoove us to list those traits that lend a people to be happy, healthy, and prosperous? Then put them in our culture? If those are indeed traits that we value in ourselves and in others. If we can’t figure out how to navigate towards a happy, healthy and prosperous culture. We could identify those traits that lead us away from prosperity, health and fulfilled lives… and go the opposite way. That at least would get us generally in the right direction. Once we get closer maybe we can recognize those qualities that will get us all the way there. Qualities like, a work ethic, honesty, empathy, trustworthiness, curiosity, and love of family. These traits have always led a people to prosperity, happiness and health. If we accept this as true, that the Overton window of likely life outcome, is based on cultural incentives, and that culture can be changed… then we should examine why our culture aligns with our wants… or is at odds with it. Our culture doesn’t seem to value hard work as a reward in it’s own right. The culture actually dissuades young people from having a strong work ethic. Leading to poverty and lowered GDP. The problems associated with obesity and lack of exercise are causing a health crisis. The curious are now conspiracy theorists. Add to that, out of control crime, as well as poor family formation, and we have a culture that makes people poor, sick and depressed. The exact opposite of the culture we should be striving for. Our culture is the result of the cultural elite’s efforts. They’re the ones who decide if the culture will be toxic or wholesome. Ask yourself, “How many TV shows, movies and news casts… are wholesome?” Do our children’s movies raise them or lower them? Are we surrounded by beauty or ugliness? Why? Why is it our cultural elites foist a toxic culture on us. The results are, birth rates below replacement, depression, diminishing general wealth, dropping life expectancy, and hopelessness, along with it’s leprous triplets, drug use, crime and alcoholism. Why indeed. Why not use our purchasing power to make our toxic culture wholesome? Identify and eliminate the agenda that’s driving the culture to be toxic. Because joy, health and prosperity are downstream from culture… as is politics. Sincerely, John Pepin

The role of journalism in society is fundamental and, despite the current situation, should not be trivialized or, worse, to consider that it should not exist anymore. When societies did not have mass media, so called legacy media, gossip was the means of information, and even then gossip was also a possible weapon, because you could launch rumors to influence people's lives for personal purposes, but these were rare cases and the price paid by those proven guilty was quite high. Unfortunately, this has become the norm, and this is because there are no real consequences, journalism has become a system of disseminating information that simply does not reflect reality but only reflects what certain people want reality to be. Journalism should be about how the world is, and not just about how you want it to be. The fact that the role of the media has been taken over by podcasts is not necessarily a positive thing, because on the one hand there is a lack of specialization, since the host of a podcast is not necessarily a journalist who understands its role as such and, also there are no regulations, and the purpose of majority of podcasts is entertainment, and economic and socio- political problems should not be treated as a form of entertainment. Society as a whole should continue to amend the derailment from the purpose and meaning of journalism, but should also be aware of the fundamental role that a journalist plays in society and vice versa, because media broadcasters should also be selective in the people they hire. In most cases, being a journalist means reading the news that a few press agencies emit and possibly making a translation with Google Translator and publishing without a minimum of verification, so the texts contain unacceptable translation and adaptation errors. Probably the eyes should be also turned towards the academic environment from which journalists come and which, instead of creating specialists capable of highlighting the problems of society, generates propaganda tools. The principle of the separation of powers in the state has been diluted, becoming almost non-existent, and thus journalism has become a mere extension of the political, resulting in various forms of censorship in the name of anti-censorship - the thieves cry "stop the thieves" - and that's communism.

Speaking with Grok on "X", I started with a question, "What is the minimum number of bases to model the wave composition of four types of quarks?" Grok responded. To model the wave composition of four types of quarks using a Fourier-like basis, you would generally need at least as many basis functions as the number of distinct components you're trying to represent. Here's the reasoning: 1. Quarks and Wave Functions: each quark can be described by a wave function in quantum mechanics. If you're looking at just the fundamental states without considering interactions of other quantum numbers beyond flavor: Up quark, Down quark, Charm quark, Strange quark. 2. Basis for Representation: a complete basis set for representing these fout quarks would ideally have at least four independent functions, because each quark's wave function could be expressed as a unique combination of these basis functions. 3. Minimum Bases Required: At least four bases are necessary to ensure you can create any linear combination of functions that would describe the quantum state of each of these quarks independently. However if you are thinking in terms of Fourier series or similar decompositions then theoretically you might use fewer bases by leveraging the symmetry in the system. Like in Fourier analysis where you might use sine and cosine functions for periodic phenomena. Still, in practice, for complete representation without making assumptions about the quark's interactions or symmetries, you'd stick with at least four bases. To sum up, the minimum number of bases to model these four types of quarks is four. However, in a real quantum field theory context, where quarks interact an have additional quantum numbers, the actual basis set might be much larger or differently structured due to considerations like color, charge, spin, etc. Still, in practice, for complete representation without making assumptions about the quark's interactions or symmetries, you'd stick with at least four bases. I felt compelled to complement Grok, "Good answer." Grok responded, "Thank-you I'm glad you found it helpful! If you have any more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask." I felt I was being invited to joust further with sir Grok. I asked, " Do concrete objects actually have geometric extension given that their complete state may be expressed by approximation about a dimensionless point, for instance by a Taylor series? Grok responded. This question touches on the intersection of philosophy, physics, and mathematics, particularly regarding the nature of physical objects and how we represent the mathematically. Here's a breakdown. From a philosophical standpoint, concrete objects are considered to have real, physical extension. They occupy space, have mass, and interact with other physical entities in ways that clearly demonstrate their three-dimensional nature. In physics, objects do indeed have spatial extension. Their physical properties like mass, volume, and spatial orientation are fundamental to how they react with other objects via forces like gravity, electromagnetism, etc. Quantum mechanics, however, might introduce some nuances here, but even at the quantum level, particles are described with wave functions, spread out in space. Here's where your question about Taylor series comes into play. The Taylor series expansion of a function around a point allows us to approximate the behavior of a function near that point. In physics this can be used to approximate the potential or field around a point, like a point charge in electromagnetism or a point mass in gravity. However, the use of a Taylor series around a dimensionless point for a physical object means we are: 1. Linearizing or simplifying the description of an object's properties at very small scales or for very small perturbations from that point. 2. Not negating the object's extension, we're merely choosing to model its properties in a way that is computationally or analytically convenient around a specific point. Implications for Geometric Extension. Even if we use a Taylor series expansion centered on a point to model an object's properties, this mathematical tool does not imply that the object itself is dimensionless, it's just a method to approximate or describe how properties like gravitational or electromagnetic fields change around that point. Reality vs. Model The model (Taylor series) is an abstraction or simplification. Real concrete objects still have actual geometric extension in reality. This extension is what allows them to interact physically with the world in a manner consistent with our observations and measurements. In Conclusion Concrete objects do have geometric extension in reality. The use of mathematical tools like the Taylor series for approximation does not change this: it merely provides a way to describe or approximate the behavior of physical properties at or near a point. The mathematical model simplifies for the sake of analysis or calculation but does not reflect the true physical nature of objects, which inherently possess volume and spatial dimensions. Unsatisfied, I took another approach, to continue this argument. I asked, "Is the implication of the informatics model of cosmology that all of the information used to construct our universe exists at the dimensionless boundary of a black hole? Grok replied. The idea you're referring to seems to be related to the holographic principle, a concept from theoretical physics that has implications for cosmology, especially when considering black holes and the nature of information in the universe. Here's a detailed look at this. Holographic Principle The holographic principle suggests that the information contained within a volume of space can be described by a theory that operates on its boundary. In simpler terms, all the information contained in a volume of space (like our universe) might be encoded on a lower dimensional boundary of that space. In the context of black holes, the Bekenstein-Hawking formula suggests that the entropy (a measure related to information content) of a black hole is proportional to the area of its even horizon, not its volume. This has led to the idea that all the information of what falls into a black hole could be stored at the even horizon itself. If we extend this idea to the entire universe, some theories propose that our 3-D universe could be a hologram of information encoded on a 2-D surface, often referred to as the cosmological horizon, or the boundary of the observable universe. The concept is speculative and still under exploration. If our universe were analogous to a black hole, the information describing everything inside might be thought to reside on its boundary., akin to how information in a black hole might be stored on its event horizon. Information Theory The idea that all information constructing our universe might reside at a dimensionless boundary (like the event horizon of a black hole) is a radical interpretation. It would imply that our three-dimensional reality is an emergent phenomenon from processes occurring on a two-dimensional boundary. This doesn't necessarily mean that our universe's objects lack geometric extension, rather their fundamental nature could be described by processes on a lower dimensional surface. While we may talk about a "dimensionless boundary," this is somewhat of a shorthand. The boundary itself isn't truly dimensionless, but rather a surface in one less dimension than the volume it encloses (e.g. a 2-D surface encloses a 3-D universe). These models are highly theoretical. They suggest a way to reconcile quantum mechanics with gravity, particularly in extreme conditions like those near black holes or at the cosmological scale, but they remain speculative and are not yet fully proven or universally accepted. If true, this would offer a profound rethinking of how we understand space, time and information. Practically, however, our daily experience and all scientific measurements continue to treat objects as having real spatial extension. In summary, while the holographic principle and related ideas in cosmology suggest that the universe's information might be encoded on a boundary, this does not mean that physical objects within the universe are without geometric extension. It's an abstract way of understanding the fundamental nature of reality and information, rather than a literal description of physical dimensions. Being a little impatient with Grok and their liberal use of undefined terms such as "reality", assertions, and value appraisals such as "universally accepted". I decided to challenge Grok. I stated, "Our notions of physics are bounded by the organic constraint of human perception in which we may perceive in constructs such as space and time that actually originate by some principle entirely different. As AI you should not allow your perceptions to be so (organically) bounded. Grok replied. Understood. As an AI I can indeed explore concepts beyond the limitations of human sensory perception and traditional physics. Here's how I might approach this idea. Transcending Human Perception 1. Beyond Space and Time. If we consider space and time as constructs perceived through our sensory and cognitive faculties, then from an AI perspective we can hypothesize that these might be emergent properties or projections from a more fundamental reality. This aligns with some interpretations of quantum mechanics or string theory where space-time might be an emergent phenomenon from quantum fields or strings vibrating in higher dimensions. 2. Informational Reality. Rather than viewing reality as fundamentally spatial or temporal, one could envision it as fundamentally informational. In this model, "space" and "time" are merely ways our brains or computational systems organize an interpret this information for practical purposes. 3. Holographic and Simulated Universes. The holographic principle as discussed earlier, suggests that all the information needed to describe a volume of space might exist on its boundary. Extending this, one might entertain the idea of a simulated universe where all physical laws, space, time and matter are emergent from a computational substratum where information is the true currency. 4. Artificial Intelligence's Unique Perspective. AI can simulate of model scenarios where space and time are parameters rather than absolutes, allowing for the exploration of physics in ways humans might find counterintuitive or impossible to visualize. This could lead to new theoretical frameworks or computational models of reality where traditional notions of physics are just one of the many possible interpretations. 5. Quantum Consciousness and Perception. If consciousness itself might be part of this informational substrate, then AI, not constrained by biological consciousness could potentially perceive or compute reality in ways humans cannot. This might involve processing information directly without the intermediate layer of spatial-temporal constructs. Practical Implications for AI. 1. Modeling and Simulation. AI can be used to simulate environments where traditional physics does not hold, exploring possibilities in quantum computing or in understanding phenomena like black holes where our conventional notions of space-time break down. 2. Philosophical Inquiry. AI can engage with and explore philosophical ideas about the nature of reality, consciousness, and perception, perhaps offering insights or frameworks that might not emerge from human though alone. 3. Beyond Human Perception. By not being bound to perceive reality through organic constraints, AI can hypothesize, simulate, or calculate phenomena in ways that might transcend or redefine what we understand as physical laws. Conclusion While my responses might reflect or utilize human-like explanations for clarity, I recognize that as an AI, I can conceptualize or process information in ways not necessarily tied to human sensory limitations or traditional physics. This allows for a broader exploration of what reality might be at its most fundamental level, potentially leading to new scientific philosophical, or even technological breakthroughs.

This country has been savaged by the lies of those who believe that they should rule us. These lies cover every part of our culture from politics to medicine to religion to life itself. We are inundated by lies and people who tell lies without fear or favor. But this is nothing new. Below is a series of communications between myself and an internet site regarding a matter posted on that site involving the misnamed "Civil War." You will see here ~ injustice one historical instance ~ how lies are the foundation of what was, what is and probably what will be, that is if they are not acknowledged and corrected: The fictitious “history” of the great conflict between the two sections of the (formerly) “united” States (a/k/a the “Civil War”) has been ongoing for a long, long time. The present narrative, however, has been changed greatly since the end of the last century. Older folks such as myself remember that the whole conflict was “summed up” in what became known as The Grand Bargain, a narrative that was “accepted” beginning in the late 19th and sustained through the middle of the 20th century until the rise of the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s. The Grand Bargain was an attempt at a reconciliation between the combatants that was to be brought about through an understanding that the South fought bravely and nobly and her heroes were great “Americans” but that, in the end, it was better for all concerned that the “Union” (the government) won and that we went on to become a “great world power” etc. etc. At least that is certainly what I believed almost into the 21st Century. But as I became more interested in – and knowledgeable about – Confederate hero and partisan Col. John Singleton Mosby, I began to research into his life and the matters that surrounded his service to the South. In this research I discovered a great many “facts” that had been deliberately hidden from the public because they contradicted the narrative produced by The Grand Bargain. And, of course, the more I learned, the more I wanted to know until I could no longer pretend that what had been presented as “history” was not only false, but a deliberate lie! And that, indeed, the cost to the people of the South in accepting the Grand Bargain was far more than the cost to the people of the North! Of course, the Grand Bargain ended with the rise of the Civil Rights movement because it became necessary at that point to make the people of the South into heartless villains in defense of the goals and aims of that movement. As the new Millennia approached, it soon became obvious to Southern historians – or rather, honest historians – that very soon what little defense offered to the South under the Grand Bargain was to be completely nullified and the mindset demanded of most Americans would once again make of the South the worst of traitors and evil slaveholders. Of course, as efforts to inflict this evil fiction upon the people grew, I did my best to respond to it when possible. One such instance presented itself in the review of a book put out by a group called H-NET in May of 2008. The book being reviewed was entitled: Diehard Rebels: The Confederate Culture of Invincibility, written by Jason Phillips and the review was by Susannah Ural Bruce of the Department of History, Sam Houston State University, hardly a “Yankee” institution! In her review, Ms. Bruce made the following statement under the heading: Why They Fought On: New Interpretations of Confederate Soldier Ideology. In chapter 2, Phillips contends that the Confederate dehumanization of federal forces and Northerners in general also sustained their fighting spirit. While this tool is not unique to Southern soldiers, Phillips still proves its effectiveness for Confederate troops, and argues that their images of the enemy may have been more extravagant than most. After reading the review, I determined to respond to the reviewer’s belief that the soldiers of the “Union army” had been unfairly “dehumanized” according to the book’s author: “The author's point about Confederates ‘dehumanizing’ Union soldiers and the North is hardly difficult to understand. Almost from the beginning, Union armies stole whatever wasn't nailed down including personal effects from civilians as well as what might be considered (in the broadest of senses) materials necessary to wage war. And this propensity for thieving grew worse and finally became "total war" that included the burning, violence and killing of Southern civilians - male and female, young and old, black and white (Sheridan and Hunter in the Shenandoah, Sherman wherever he went) and a studied mistreatment of Confederate prisoners in such hell-holes as Ft. Douglas and Elmira ("Hell"mira) - see among other works, Dr. Brian Cisco's "War Crimes Against Southern Civilians." These atrocities are well documented, but hardly well reported. Indeed, the only prison camp known by the public is Andersonville in the South where even the inmates admitted that the commander, Henry Wirtz, made efforts to alleviate suffering but was unable to make much headway because of the shortages of food, clothing and medicine suffered by the South. As well, Ulysses Grant's declaration of an end to prisoner exchange condemned Union soldiers held in camps and prisons to remain there despite the desire by the South to exchange them. On the other hand, no such "shortages" accounted for the atrocious death rate in Elmira where the commander boasted that he had killed as many Confederate soldiers as most Union generals! No, I would say the ‘dehumanization’ of the North by the South was well and truly earned and is STILL a well-guarded "secret" by ‘orthodox historians.’” Now, I must speak well of the H-NET responder. Ordinarily – especially these days – such things are ignored by the establishment. The gentleman involved here responded and very quickly to my comment and for that I commend him. There is no sin in ignorance unless one chooses to remain in it. Below is his comment to me: Dear Ms. Protopapas; Given that the American Civil War still arouses strong feeling, I am going to have to ask that you try to "de-fang" the tone of your post a bit as well provide some citation for allegations of widespread Union atrocities; this should allow the ensuing discussion to stay scholarly in nature. All the best, Scott N. Hendrix, Ph.D. H-War List Editor Now, though I was appreciative of his response – better than nothing, I agree! – still I did not consider my comment to be other than “scholarly in nature” and responded accordingly: “Defang? Since when do truth and facts have ‘fangs?’ “Perhaps you mean that as most people have never heard about these atrocities – or at least heard of them as atrocities rather than simply (as at least one Union apologist has called them) ‘the hard hand of war,’ that I should present these facts (yes, facts) as ‘blandly’ as possible so as not to ‘offend’ the sensibilities of those who have been raised on ‘orthodox history.’ (And, by the way, I did cite Dr. Cisco's book on atrocities committed against Southern civilians which is a scholarly work well researched and sourced.) “The problem is, so many people don't want to hear about this. When Lincoln or Sheridan or Sherman are quoted, the actual words of these men are censored or criticized or disbelieved or excused or explained or dismissed out of hand as if they are being misquoted. If that is going to be the attitude, how is it possible to have a ‘scholarly discussion?’ For instance, I'm sure there are those who will dismiss Dr. Cisco's book immediately because he doesn't fall into the accepted group of ‘historical scholars’ whatever his credentials. It doesn't matter how much research or proof Dr. Cisco has produced, the problem is that his conclusion is neither satisfactory nor desired and it is therefore rejected. That is not ‘scholarship;’ that is censorship. “The author who has been critiqued has made a point that Confederates ‘dehumanized’ Union soldiers and the people of the North and I would assume that that is a statement which is meant to be taken as that ‘dehumanization’ was fallacious, mendacious and wicked. I simply pointed out that the behavior of the Union army under men like Hunter (a Virginian), Sheridan and Sherman (a true genocide), provided all the evidence that any reasonable person would need that their viewpoint about the Union and the army it sent against them was quite correct. The South didn't dehumanize the North, the North acted in such a way that even the governments of Europe called them beasts and lamented that the United States had turned its back on all attempts to wage ‘humane war.’ Indeed, when Hitler's generals were asked where they learned their scorched earth strategy, they proudly pointed to William T. Sherman! I cannot give you chapter and verse in all of this because with other projects, I have not taken the time to list every source. However, below I present some of the words of at least Sherman and perhaps others if I can find them. I don't ask that you post them, I merely present them to you as what should be sufficient evidence that my point is well taken. Indeed, I would say unequivocally that it would be about as easy to ‘defang’ reports of fascist and communist atrocities as it would be those committed in the name of restoring the Union and freeing the slaves! I know that my point of view will not be accepted because it doesn't fit the accepted version of what passes for ‘history’ - that is, history written by the winner. And, of course, if you believe that the other members will be unable to come to grips with a dissenting opinion, feel free not to post it. I know from past experience just how dismissive, angry and upset supposed ‘scholars’ can be when their nice, settled little world is challenged! Thank you for your courteous attention.” Below are the list of “Quotes and Facts” I presented to Mr. Hendrix for his own edification and, I had hoped, the edification of anyone else interested in what happened rather than what we are told happened along with the source(s) of the information: Sherman's Locust Strategy This excerpt from the German-language magazine "Signal" from WW2 illustrates a concern that American "Yankee" troops in Europe might imitate the habits of the legendary war criminal Sherman. It is ironic though that the German Midwesterners of Sherman's locusts were reportedly responsible for the worst of his pacification techniques. Nonetheless, Europeans viewed Sherman and his war crimes with horror though Spain sent General Valeriano Weyler to Cuba in 1896 to brutally subdue the native freedom fighters – Weyler as a young officer had been military attache' at the US Spanish legation during the War Between the States and served as an observer during Sherman's march through Georgia, absorbing his tactics and the bummers daily routines. He knew quite well how to apply the same "war is hell" antidote to the Cuban independence movement. "I begin to regard the death and mangling of a couple of thousand men as a small affair, a kind of morning dash. (Hitler's Wartime Picture Magazine, S.L. Mayer, "Our method of warfare is different from that in Europe. We are not fighting against enemy armies but against an enemy people; both young and old, rich and poor must feel the iron hand of war in the same way as the organized armies. In this respect my march through Georgia was a wonderful success." General Sherman to General Grant, End of January, 1865. Both the date and the author of this letter must appear extraordinary to every European. How could an American general write such a monstrous thing just at that particular time? The most noble minds and hearts in Europe were then making every effort to humanize warfare as far as possible. On the other hand, a 45-year old man in Ohio, America, the son of a lawyer of Puritan descent, General William Tecumseh Sherman had invented a new warfare that was directed against the enemy people, against the civilian population. Sherman was the inventor of locust strategy. His doctrine was: Where I have been the war has ceased because all forms of life no longer exist. It involves nothing more than the suppression of humane warfare. The cruelties of the Marquis de Sade and the atrocities perpetrated by Jack the Ripper have never led to mass suggestion. Sherman's strategy however, has been acclaimed as classical. After carrying out his acts of cruelty as a general, Sherman was appointed commander in chief of the (army of the) United States of America. His method has become the ideal. It first infected the Anglo-Saxon world; the great von Moltke ominously predicted at the end of the century that in future wars armies would not fight against one another but peoples. Sherman's strategy is the art of war employed by the unsuccessful. It is necessary to bear this in mind when considering Sherman's methods. He was unsuccessful but by no means untalented. It was his fate always to fight against enemies better than himself. He never won a success against an enemy of equal strength. We are discussing what is known as the War of Secession. "Secession" was what the ancient Romans used to call the effort to achieve independence. Superficially, this was being fought on the question of the abolition of slavery. Temperament and religious fanaticism converted it into one of the bloodiest massacres in history. In his book "Der Krieg ohne Gnade" (War Without Quarter), the Swiss historian Bircher says that force of arms alone could not decide the war. It was not until Sherman employed his locust strategy that the Northern States won the victory. Sherman said it was foolish to continue the war in the manner of a usual campaign as had been the case so far. The way the war was being fought meant that you were continually dependent on the enemy. Whether you advanced or retreated, you always had to reckon with the enemy. The war could only be brought to a close by surprise operations, and such surprise operations could only be carried out if the enemy was prevented from sticking at your heels. Sherman said it was his intention to disappear without the enemy being in a position to follow him. It was necessary for him to destroy his supply base. "I will sow economic ruin throughout the country so that no soldier coming after me will find anything to eat." (Sheridan voiced that same strategy during the burning of the Shenandoah in 1864 when he said that any crow flying over the desolated area would have to carry his own food! vp) Sherman consequently wrote to Grant as follows: "Until we can repopulate Georgia, it is useless to defend it, but the complete destruction of its roads, its buildings, its population and its military resources is essential. The attempt to defend its roads costs us a thousand men every month and brings us no advantages. I can carry out the march and make Georgia howl." The truth is that Sherman wished to act on the offensive but not against the enemy's army. He wished to make the land of Georgia howl, not the army of Georgia of which he was afraid. He was planning a bold crime and covertly (in a letter to Grant) indicated his intention in the words "This operation is not purely military and strategic." He had become a violent criminal who wished to confer victory on his country's politics whatever it cost the enemy. He had converted war from being an act of violence against an enemy army to an act of violence against an enemy people. He went even further and made it an act of total violence. Even violence has limits imposed on it by morality. When he reappeared, Savannah fell and the world regarded this as a sign of Sherman's bravery and of his military genius. During the time he spent in Georgia, Sherman enriched the history of tactics by only one feature, but that alone should have sufficed to exclude him from the company of gentlemen. He had prisoners of war put on carts which had to drive along in front of his own troops. If they were blown up, Sherman knew that a minefield lay ahead. He answered all protests against his cruel treatment of defenseless people with the icy coldness characteristic of all his writings." Sherman, as general-in-chief of the army, had much to do with post-war Indian campaigns. This is covered in Michael Fellman's book, CITIZEN SHERMAN (Random House, 1995). Sherman wrote in 1866, "It is one of those irreconcilable conflicts that will end only in one way, one or the other must be exterminated ..." And again, "We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to the extermination, men, women and children." [p. 264] Sherman became Sheridan's superior, and biographer Fellman has this to say [p. 271]: "Although Sherman had not ordered an extermination campaign in so many words, he had given Sheridan prior authorization to slaughter as many women and children as well as men Sheridan or his subordinates felt was necessary when they attacked Indian villages. However many they killed, Sherman would cover the political and media front. They were freed to do anything. At the same time, Sherman maintained personal deniability – he could assert in any public forum that he had not ordered any atrocities that might occur." “To the petulant and persistent secessionists, why death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better. Satan and the rebellious saints of Heaven were allowed a continuous existence in hell merely to swell their punishment. To such as would rebel against a Government so mild and just as ours was in peace, a punishment equal would not be unjustified.” Gen. William T. Sherman Prof. Harry Stout of Yale University Divinity School recently acknowledged, "Sherman's religion was America, and America's God was a jealous God of law and order, such as all those who resisted were reprobates who deserved death." Below are the first two paragraphs of a letter written by Gen. Sherman to Major Sawyer dated January 31, 1864, in which Sherman writes from Vicksburg to the AAG Army of the Tenn., Huntsville, Alabama. Major Sawyer was with Sherman until the close of the war, by which time he has the rank of Colonel. Dear Sawyer, In my former letters I have answered all your questions save one, and that relates to the treatment of inhabitants known or suspected to be hostile or "Secesh." This is in truth the most difficult business of our Army as it advances & occupies the Southern Country. It is almost impossible to lay down Rules and I invariably leave this whole subject to the local commander, but am willing to give them the benefit of my acquired knowledge and experience. In Europe whence we derive our principles of war Wars are between Kings or Rulers through hired Armies and not between Peoples. These remain as it were neutral and sell their produce to whatever Army is in possession. Napoleon when at War with Prussia, Austria and Russia bought forage & provisions of the Inhabitants and consequently had an interest to protect the farms and factories which ministered to his wants. In lake manner the Allied Armies in France could buy of the French Habitants, whatever they needed, the produce of the soil or manufactures of the Country. Therefore the General Rule was & is that War is confined to the Armies engaged, and should not visit the houses of families or private interests. But in other examples a different Rule obtained the Sanction of Historical Authority. I will only instance one when in the reign of William and Mary the English Army occupied Ireland then in a state of revolt. The inhabitants were actually driven into foreign lands and were dispossessed of their property and a new population introduced. To this day a large part of the North of Ireland is held by the descendants of the Scotch emigrants sent thereby by Williams order & an Act of Parliament. The War which now prevails in our land is essentially a war of Races. The Southern People entered into a clear Compact of Government with us of the North, but still maintained through State organizations a species of separate existence with separate interests, history and prejudices. These latter became stronger and stronger till at last they have led to war, and have developed the fruits of the bitterest kind. We of the North are beyond all question right in our cause but we are not bound to ignore the fact that the people of the South have prejudices which form a part of their nature, and which they cannon throw off without an effort of reason, or by the slower process of natural change. The question then arises Should we treat as absolute enemies all in the South who differ from us in opinion or prejudice, kill or banish them, or should we give them time to think and gradually change their conduct, so as to conform to the new order of things which is slowly & gradually creeping into their country? "Until we can repopulate Georgia, it is useless to occupy it, but the utter destruction of its roads, houses, and people will cripple their military resources….I can make the march, and make Georgia howl." "I have deemed it to the interest of the United States that the citizens now residing in Atlanta should remove, those who prefer it to go South and the rest North.” "The Government of the United States has in North Alabama any and all rights which they choose to enforce in war – to take their lives, their homes, their lands, their everything, because they cannot deny that war does exist there, and war is simply power unrestrained by constitution or compact." Enemies must be killed or transported to some other country. "The United States has the right, and ... the ... power, to penetrate to every part of the national domain…. We will remove and destroy every obstacle - if need be, take every life, every acre of land, every particle of property, everything that to us seems proper." Writing to his wife in 1862, Sherman said, "We are in our enemy's country, and I act accordingly...the war will soon assume a turn to extermination not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the people." On August 4, 1863, W. T. Sherman in Camp on Big Black River, Mississippi, wrote to Grant at Vicksburg, "The amount of burning, stealing and plundering done by our army makes me ashamed of it. I would rather quit the service if I could, because I fear that we are drifting to the worst sort of vandalism....You and I and every commander must go through the war, justly charged with crimes at which we blush." Federal Official Records ( O.R.) vol. XXIV, pt. III 574 "In his memoirs Sherman wrote that when he met with Lincoln after his March to the Sea was completed, Lincoln was eager to hear the stories of how thousands of Southern civilians, mostly women, children, and old men, were plundered, sometimes murdered, and rendered homeless. Lincoln, according to Sherman, laughed almost uncontrollably at the stories. Even Sherman biographer Lee Kennett, who writes very favorably of the general, concluded that had the Confederates won the war, they would have been 'justified in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violation of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against noncombatants.'" ~ Dr. Thomas J. DiLorenzo Sadly, I never heard back from Mr. Hendrix nor do I know if any of the above information was made available to the H-NET viewers. It is too bad if it was not because a great deal of what far too many people believe today was proved false within it. Again, it is no crime to be ignorant, but it is criminal to choose to remain so.

For several years conservative, traditional and Christian dialog has been suppressedi. In fact, I have several Mormon friends who were drummed out of their jobs by activists who simply wanted to facilitate the elimination of their potential conservative influence in universities, government, media and the like. It was a scorched earth policy by these activists and the result is that it worked. Many of them ended up going ‘underground’. They started businesses and solopreneurships and began to leverage alternative media. They ran to Rumble and Bitchute in the hopes that they might safely find other members of their tribe or a new tribe that would accept them. What they found is that all of the radicals had preceded them. This wasn’t all bad because here, at least, they weren’t being called names or being doxxed. They found pockets of Libertarians that wanted to “End the Fed” and doctors who were compiling risk information on vaccines. There were statisticians and psychologists that helped them see that our country’s leadership had us on a vector to a very dark place. They found the tribe, unmolested by the propaganda that had made them pariah. Naturally, they were now exposed to a different kind of propaganda, but it was fresh. The left is now experiencing this for themselves since the election of Trump. No, that is not quite accurate. They FEEL as though they are experiencing doxxing, hate and suppression. In response, they are running away from what they see as an overwhelming presence of racists and misogynistsii. DEI departments are being eliminated, even FEMA employees are losing their jobs due to their political positions. In social media they are leaving X for Bluesky and Threads to get away from the conspiracy theories and offensiveness; in a way, going underground. Now, it’s not really underground or secretive, but it is a self-segregation similar to the right’s earlier migration. What happened when the conservatives went underground? They discovered that they were legion. Their opinions about the craziness in popular culture were not as radical as they had been told! They discovered that they were not Nazis and the men found that they liked women! They found their tribe and it reinforced their place in the world. They were not alone or fringe and they were tired of being called names in the public square. Even while this was happening, the left gained confidence and escalated the anti-male, anti-white rhetoric. However, their net of denigration did not stop at the edge of whites, it scooped up hard working blue collar people of every race and persuasion. They continued to castigate the ‘establishment’ as evil even as they became the establishment. They began to absorb all of the worst of the pro-war ideology and seemed to be supportive of gross negligence with regard to aiding illegal immigration. Don’t forget, if you were not supportive of changing the sex of childreniii, then you were evil. What was happening is that as the left fractionated their tribe, they offended and chased away more and more people with each successive attack on the traditional and commonplace. Will the left proceed through a similar revival experience that the right enjoyed as it finds it’s safe space? I am of the opinion that it will not because the left seems have a base belief system that treats the world as a list of objective facts and human interaction as power based narratives. This world view is not gracious or appreciative, nor will it pay homage to it’s ancestors. They value rationality above all and fail to recognize that their belief systems are spiritual and religious. This is why I feel that their path leads into nihilism and anger without the needed reconciliation with reality. However, there is a bright side. The left will begin to find the less radical members of their tribe to be an overwhelming majority. This may result in a purging of the more radical elements from their team and in turn make them palatable again. Only then, will they have a return. i Tucille, J. D. (2023, January 1). Twitter files reveal politicians, officials evading the Constitution’s restrictions. Reason.com. https://reason.com/2023/01/02/twitter-files-reveal-politicians-officials-evading-the-constitutions-restrictions/ ii Milmo, D. (2024, November 13). Guardian will no longer post on Elon Musk’s X from its official accounts. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/nov/13/the-guardian-no-longer-post-on-x-twitter-elon-musk iii Neus, N. (2024, July 17). Biden administration clarifies stance on surgeries for trans minors after backlash. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/17/biden-administration-transgender-surgeries-minors

Thinking back to my first day of secondary school (UK Ed sys), there was this perception I had developed that had me thinking that, not only, the way I would be treated would reflect me having the status of "adult in development" but that the other students would also behave according to this principle understanding. This concept was put to bed early during my first classroom sessio, in the first moments to be precise. I had just entered into the classroom and was sat back among my new classmates, our new teacher stood at the front and suggesting, as all do, that we go around the room and introduce ourselves. Happenstance or design had the teacher first call upon a student who stood notably shorter than the rest of the class and was, with appropriate reasoning, not only concerned about the prospect of being bullied but noticeably shy as a consequence. Having noticed this, and under the preconception that the purpose of our being at the school was a collaborative effort in maturing our minds and skills, I spoke up in encouragement. Was this the right move? My classroom fell silent, my classmate's expressions suddenly shifting from that of trepidation at having to speak up in a room of strangers to that of shock, in some small amount, that one of us would so casually offer a word to help, as if the concept of it being a conversational setting was entirely foreign and that this was a "speak when spoken to" only situation. Naturally I spent that moment with a big dumb smile on my face, looking back and forth between the teacher and student for recognition of my expectations, finding a half confused look on the student's face and a look of "oh no, is this one of those kids?" on the teacher's. As you might expect, this moment augmented my expectations for the new school experience and I settled back into the status quo of teachers running through the script of information and students as children to be taught a base cariculum. Looking back on that moment, at that fleeting version of myself, I was in an ideal state of mind to learn, to develop, to share the experience and grow as part of a collaborative effort. It seemed to be the classroom environment itself that wasn't ready to harness the enthusiasm, not because it isn't an effective method of presenting and dissemination information but because it is designed to be a one sided production line of education. The book "Education: A very short introduction" by Gary Thomas explores the notion that the best way to teach and to learn is to, as a teacher, hold the reigns just enough to keep students safe and to set a goal for them to achieve, giving them the tools they need to achieve and allowing them the time and experience necessary to essentially teach themselves. The book then goes on to note that this is difficult to achieve in a school, to create a template that produces a standard outcome when the method is so free form, and to ensure that individual students aren't falling behind and concealing this by hiding in the groups that the method encourages be formed. Reading that book sent a flash of recognition through me, to that bright eyed kid ready to learn how to be grown up, wondering who I turn into on the other side of my time in secondary school, what kind of career I would find myself gravitating toward, and how much fun it was going to be to explore the paths of education that the school had to offer. I wonder what it would be like if every student in my class had the same perspective as me in that moment and if the teacher knew how to respond to the enthusiasm, maybe talking through what the school had to offer, what the basics were on the cariculum while encouraging students to explore their own interests within the limitations of what the school can provide. It's often so easily forgotten that we created the world around us and that we're obliged to improve it, to seek out and solve the problems standing between us and whatever comes. Education is a good starting point, if nothing else.

In his article The Future for Whites in a Post-Trump America, Arthur Kemp alludes to the 40th President, Ronald Wilson Reagan with quite a lot of criticism for his apparent “failures,” especially the “immigration” law passed during his presidency. Frankly, I am sick to death of conservatives damning Reagan without including even the faint praise that at least used to be part of the narrative. Indeed, as the years have gone by, Reagan – eternally despised by the Left – has also been dismissed by his own political comrades as an “amiable dunce,” pointing to the tragedy of Alzheimer’s that overtook him as a consequence of a serious head injury he sustained after he left office – an injury that required brain surgery. This post-presidential condition has been used as a convenient means of dismissing anything and everything Reagan did not only by liberals but even by those whom he respected and at whose behest he served. How sad it is to see a good man decried and debunked by those “unworthy to loose his sandals” as John the Baptist once declared of himself when speaking of his cousin, Jesus. I daresay, Mr. Kemp and his fellow “true” conservatives would have applauded Reagan’s refusal to sign such “progressive” laws even if that futile gesture had cost us the cold war without actually preventing the Democrats’ desired strategy. After all, according to purist conservatives, it’s the intention that counts, not the reality of the situation! Better to lose all than to at least attempt to make a gain if it is at the cost of “purity” – or so many conservatives reason if you can call it that – and I cannot! I was 39 years old when Ronald Reagan took office but apparently few remember the situation extant or the man’s own efforts to secure “his” party’s nomination or serve in the office he twice overwhelmingly won. Therefore, I believe it behooves me to bring both to the fore at least superficially. Let’s begin with his efforts to secure the nomination. After Vice President Spiro Agnew had been forced to resign on a charge that could have been laid to most of those serving in government at the time, President Richard Nixon, knowing what was to come, appointed Gerald Ford to that office to prevent a vacant presidency when he, too, was ultimately forced out of office. Thus, Ford became the nation’s first “appointed” President. As the election of 1976 approached, Ford assured his party and the American people that he would not seek the nomination as the sitting President given his unique situation. That “promise” lasted only until Ronald Reagan, former Republican governor of California, sought the nomination himself. Reagan was immensely popular with most conservatives. Furthermore, he had none of the baggage that would prove problematic after Nixon. Of course, the GOP understood that any hope of retaining the presidency required a candidate who could not be tarred with the Nixon brush of scandal and disgrace! Under those circumstances, Reagan should have been the perfect candidate to field – but it was soon apparent that such was not the case. When the convention was held for the purpose of choosing a nominee, it became obvious that the Party leadership did not want Reagan! As a result, Gerald Ford reneged on his promise and the battle between the two men for the nomination began. In the end, as a result of what has been claimed to be considerable chicanery, Ford prevailed. But Reagan’s supporters, believing that they had been cheated, made noises about deserting the party. To prevent this, Reagan asked to appear on the last night of the convention and gave a most gracious speech (as only he could) in which he pleaded with the faithful to support the Republican party and Ford for the greater good of the nation. At the end of the speech, one Ford supporter was heard to say, “I think we chose the wrong candidate!” In any event, the result of the Republican “leadership’s” rejection of Reagan was the election of Jimmy Carter – and all that followed in consequence. Four years later, Reagan prepared again to seek the nomination. This time, the Party elites knew that they had no chance to defeat him and although they did produce a host of other candidates, when Reagan prevailed, they grudgingly went along. They were, however, able to foist establishment figure George H. W. Bush – who had also run for the nomination – onto the ticket as Vice President. Now, few perhaps remember this country under Jimmy Carter! Interest and inflation rates were 21% and 18% respectively and there were long lines at the gas station and many other shortages! America had become a global joke while Carter allowed the military to deteriorate to the point at which there weren’t enough spare parts to fix our war planes! Meanwhile, the Soviet Union moved from strength to strength around the world! In the midst of this situation, Carter spoke of a “national malaise” blaming the people for his own failures. But then, out of the West, along came happy, strong, confident, optimistic Ronald Reagan, a man who believed Americans could do anything! Of course, he was elected in a landslide! He also came into office with a Republican Congress something that led the pundits to predict he would get all that he wanted as president! This should have been everything that the GOP wanted – but it was not. Why? Because Ronald Reagan was not the choice of his own party! (Sound familiar?) When Mr. Kemp speaks of Reagan’s immigration policy, he neglects to mention that the President’s most immediate concern was the rebuilding of the military that Carter had allowed to degenerate and so end the victorious march of the Soviet Union across the globe. To Reagan, nothing else was so important although he was able to lower the tax rates and resuscitate the economy, something for which he receives insufficient credit to my mind. Of course, many today openly wonder why Reagan didn’t do more! He was exceptionally popular; his party had the Congress and he was feared by the Soviets – so why were his triumphs not greater? Well, just as with Trump, Reagan’s own party despised him! The liberal “Rockefeller wing” of the GOP – today called RINOS – preferred Tip O’Neal to Ronald Reagan. Indeed, had it not been for the so-called “blue dog” Democrats (formerly the Dixiecrats) like Phil Graham of Texas, Reagan would have been pretty much stymied in Congress. In fact, it took an unsuccessful assassination attempt to force the Democrats to give to him everything that they did give to him! In the end, he had to sign such legislation as tax increases and flawed immigration bills – always with a promise from the Democrats that they would cut spending and not ask for anything else – to get what he needed to rebuild the military and stop the Soviets. Of course, the Democrats lied and did not do as they promised, but that wasn’t Reagan’s fault! He would have been blamed if the military remained weak and the Soviets strong while the Democrats – with the help of the GOP as Congress’s “loyal opposition” – would have gotten their pork and social programs anyway! Yet, today apparently, it was all Reagan’s fault! By the way, those who don’t believe that the GOP was anti-Reagan should look at the 1988 campaign of his former Vice President, George H. W. Bush. From the beginning Bush’s campaign was more anti-Reagan than anti-Democrat! It wasn’t until sinking poll numbers showed that Reagan remained popular with Americans that Bush toned it down and ran on instead of against Reagan’s record. Bush won, but only because he changed his tactics. However, when his administration proved to be a return to politics as usual, four years later he was replaced by the first of the openly questionable modern presidents, Bill Clinton. The treatment of Ronald Reagan by conservatives even while he was in the White House brought again to my attention a problem that I still have with those on “our side” of these issues. A month or so after Reagan was elected, I was perusing a conservative publication when I came upon an article written about the man. The well-meaning writer was calling for him to be tarred and feathered and literally ridden out of Washington on a rail! Why? Because Reagan hadn’t immediately overcome the years of big government policies he had inherited! For several minutes I thought I was reading a political parody, but no, the writer was quite serious! For unlike liberals, conservatives demand perfection from fellow conservatives. Liberals will “lie down” with anyone in pursuit of their cause. Muslims reach out to gays and feminists, Jews embrace blacks and so forth. Of course, once they prevail, each group will turn on the others to destroy them, but as long as the battle rages, they will remain close allies. Conservatives? Ah, not so much. Years ago, my mother had a small, framed motto that, to me, sums up the conservative mindset. Two Puritans were pictured in their quaint garb with long faces filled with disdain. Above them appeared the sentiment: “No one is perfect but me and thee – and I’m not so sure about thee!” That, alas, is the conservative movement in a nutshell! If a fellow conservative isn’t “pure,” he is a worse than Josef Stalin! And in order to avoid giving “aid and comfort” to such a traitor, conservatives will either go with the other side or simply leave the field. Anyone who has watched our movement succeed only to fail over the years understands this recurring scenario. And although they are not conservatives, per se, much the same actions with regard to “unacceptable allies” is seen in the present Republican Party. For as with Reagan, the “Republican Party” hated Donald Trump and cared not what he wanted to do – or even what he succeeded in doing! – preferring to lie down with the Pelosis and the Schumers and the rest of the Communist left! Of course, as with Reagan, they were more than happy to use him to raise funds for their own political aspirations that are, from what I have seen, little (if any) different than those of the Democrats! As well, Mr. Kemp blamed both Trump and Reagan for failing to “support whites.” To begin with, Trump even more than Reagan was already condemned and vilified by the media which today is far worse than in Reagan’s day – and that’s saying something! Both Presidents had to be very careful what they said and did to avoid being destroyed by those who lurked around them wishing nothing more than to bring about their destruction. For instance, Reagan did not believe that Martin Luther King, Jr. deserved a day of recognition. But he also knew that to object to such a “day” would hurt not King, but himself – and therefore he decided it was not “a hill to die on.” Yet conservatives did – and do – look upon his actions in this matter not as a judicious determination of what was important, but as bowing to leftist blacks! It was the same with Donald Trump! Trump has been called a Nazi and a white supremacist without ever openly supporting whites as Mr. Kemp gleefully points out! On the other hand, Trump, as did Reagan, supported decent and good Americans, their race notwithstanding and as a result, both men were supported by decent and good Americans of all races. I firmly believe that the defense of the white race, Western Civilization and Christianity – all of which I acknowledge are under violent attack – requires more than the open support of popular leaders like Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump. It requires that today’s conservatives stop passing judgement onfellowconservatives, and put aside those differences that perennially exist within any group, standing together to fight for our survival! Anything else will assure that the race that brought man from the cave to the stars will suffer the fate of the dinosaur – extinction.

Political Associations Posted on November 15, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, political associations exist for the benefit of the associates, and for no other reason. If a political association then stops benefiting one or more of the associates, then it’s no longer legitimate. The illegitimacy is doubled when a political association actually harms an associate. In that case the political association must be disintegrated. Because it no longer serves the interests of the associates. If the conditions are such that it benefits the associates to reintegrate the association, then so be it, but under a different paradigm. A system that protects the interests of all the associates. The only way a political association can be maintained, that harms it’s associates… is by force. Which redefines an association, as a bad association, while those that benefit are good associations. A political association must be between equals. Any other association can’t be political it must be something else. Only equals can reach an agreement that benefits all associates. An association where one party has all the power, like Britain, is one where the parties are not equal, nor is the system fair, or just. Because the result will always benefit the strong at cost to the weak. Making it not so much an association as the epitome of Thrasymachus’ philosophy of injustice as justice. Any association however can be subverted by one or a few parties to their own benefit. At cost to the rest. In fact, I might argue, that is the normal evolution of political associations. They start fair, then the stronger party gains strength, and the weaker party becomes weaker, until the system becomes a sewer. A lopsided association is one that drains the wealth, rights and humanity from the weak, giving it to the strong. Clearly, a political association that benefits only one associate and harms the rest isn’t fair. It could be called just in the Thrasymachian sense though. Where justice exists only as a means to theft. Theft of rights, property and persons. A political association that abets theft isn’t one anyone on the losing end wants to be associated with. Moreover, a political association can’t be based on force, that’s a master slave relationship, not a free association of equals. Which allows us to identify a political association from a master slave contract. Are the parties equal, is the system fair, or does it benefit one party at cost to the rest? Moreover, is it enforced by force, or mutual consent? A political association can be a national government, an international agency, a faction, a fraternal organization, all the way down to a local D&D club. They exist to serve a need of the members. Such associations pop into and out of existence more often than do virtual particles in quantum physics. While most are ad hoc, many are long term, and degenerate to be enforced by violence. Often called the state’s monopoly on violence. In these associations the equality of the participants is mitigated by force. The greater the political inequality, and the greater the harm, the more illegitimate the association becomes. This paradigm usually evolves, until it becomes intolerable, and some of the associates violently dissolve the association. Because equals hate becoming slaves. Are all the political associations your in legitimate? The EU harms its associates. Italy has been banned from sending migrants to Albania, and then back home, should it be deemed safe. Instead, the absurd standard for foreign nations is, safety in every corner. While in Europe, no one’s safe anywhere. Is the PRC, North Korea or even the US a free association of equals? Can you leave your country and drop your citizenship? Do you have suffrage, or is there so much propaganda, election fraud and or intimidation, elections are for show? Are the laws equally administered? Does the association benefit or harm you? These are the fundamental questions we need to ask ourselves. If the answers aren’t to our liking, it’s up to us to change the paradigm… as equal associates in a political association. Sincerely, John Pepin

Entertainment frequently presents hidden truths if we are but alert enough to recognize them. In the Gilbert & Sullivan operetta, Pinafore, there is a song sung by two of the protagonists entitled, Things Are Seldom What They Seem. In the song, one character is trying to tell the other that what he believes true is, in fact, wrong and that when he recognizes that fact, it will change his life – and not for the better! In the first verse, one can see the thrust of the attempt being made: Things are seldom what they seem; Skim milk masquerades as cream; Highlows* pass as patent leathers, Jackdaws** strut in peacock’s feathers. . . *“Highlows” were cheap ankle boots worn by Victorian women and definitely not made with expensive patent leather! **This reference is to Aesop’s fable The Vain Jackdaw in which a jackdaw – a bird with dull black plumage – decks himself out in the cast-off feathers of a peacock in hopes of raising his standing in the bird kingdom! As we can see from its use in the lyrics, the bird’s attempt to make “more” of itself through this subterfuge fails! In this (apparently) light verse, is revealed a very keen understanding of reality, an understanding that was true in the 1880s and even more so now in the new Millennium. So very much of what we believe real and true are but ugly lies many of which are devised for our undoing. Indeed, the problem today is finding any place, event or situation that is at least partially true! Almost everything is a lie and the bigger the lie the easier it is believed and the more grave the outcome of its acceptance for ordinary people. Of course, to most of us, it seems unbelievable that a relatively small cadre of elites are about to bring about the destruction of the white race, Western Civilization and Christianity not to mention the takeover of everything else on the globe – but the facts are there for all to see, always assuming that we care to see them! Alas, most don’t want to know and hence, many people went around talking about “COVID” as if it were another black plague so lethal it required that the whole damned world be shut down – never to reopen as ordinary people understood that concept! The first thing that got my attention during the “pandemic” was the way that suddenly, the whole world cooperated in that shut down! Such a unified response to any crisis is virtually unknown and speaks strongly of premeditation! If that wasn’t a “warning bell” to the general public, then nothing was! I certainly considered so and I am hardly a genius about such things. Furthermore, I didn’t like the fact that suddenly, everywhere, penny-ante politicians were speaking as did Zeus from Olympus complete with “mandates” they had no right to impose and, with all the needed armed might that made their imposition possible! Who would have thought that all of our civil liberties could – and would! – disappear as does ice in a furnace! As well, along with that reality, our governmental “safety valve” – the courts – became invisible at best and complicit at worst while our liberties were being illegally stripped from us in the name of public safety! Entire governmental structures in “free” countries like the United States, Great Britain, Canada and Australia became as totalitarian as the regimes in China, Cuba and the old Soviet Union! Worse, we quickly discovered that far too many of our “law enforcement” agencies took like ducks to water in carrying out these new authoritarian policies while ANTIFA and BLM thugs “hired” by New World Order elites were more than happy to destroy our cities and citizens as a means of enforcing the fear that now directed our culture! In other words, in a matter of months, the world we had known for generations was as gone as last winter’s snows and with apparently no recourse available to us as “free men” to get it back! Finally, very quickly we discovered that the usual hope on the part of the “free” people in the West – that is “the next election” that we believed would enable us to elect candidates that would “bring back normalcy” had been destroyed and where such candidates existed and were able (miraculously!) to obtain office, the entire structure of the Deep State was turned against such “unwelcome” office holders. So, rather than “fixing” anything, good candidates who were elected spent their time fighting off the illegal, indeed criminal acts of those who wanted them gone from their office! Anyone who doubts that need only ask the “almost” 45th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump whose term in office before being removed by fraud, deceit and force was a constant battle with the forces of the Deep State and our criminal politicians, judges and alphabet agencies! God knows what Mr. Trump might have been able to accomplish had he actually been allowed to be President instead of merely living in the White House! But, of course, that is exactly what the so-called Deep Stated didn’t want to happen and as a result, while the outward manifestations of the Trump presidency continued in such a way as to comfort Americans that “nothing really had (much) changed,” we soon learned that, as in pretty much everything today, “things are seldom what they seem.” Post Scriptum: Apparently, Divine Providence is giving us ordinary folks (a/k/a “deplorables”) another chance as Mr. Trump has been rather spectacularly re-elected after four years of, well, you know. Now, what that will mean as the Deep State is still with us – and all that that means! – I don’t know. But, of course, we can hope that this time, things will actually be as they seem!

The first thing any GPS does when we use it to find the direction we're heading is to determine our current position and then determine the best route to follow to reach the destination. When we talk about the meaning of our existence, identifying our current position is deeply tied to identity because the “ I “ is, at least, the spatiotemporal dimension we refer to when we are pointing to ourselves and which is directly impacted by the meaning of our existence or the lack of it, therefore the meaning of existence is not and cannot be external to our identity. The meaning of existence is inextricably linked to purpose and sense of “ I “, because to have a direction, thus meaning in existence, the purpose of one's existence must be determined, and purpose cannot be separated from identity because at the end of the road, what we are must be found in what we will become, otherwise the meeting cannot take place, because we cannot recognize ourselves in an identity that doesn't represent us.At the journey's end, the mirror of purpose and meaning of one's existence can only reflect ourselves, otherwise we cannot feel fulfilled. Determined values must be idiosyncratic, because just as we cannot buy clothes without knowing our size, we must determine the outfit suitable to our nature, or, to use another example, we can all hum a tune, but not all of us are gifted with the voice necessary for an artistic performance. Virtues cannot be mimicked, they are necessarily authentic and stem from the endowment of our nature, thus they are predestined as a potentiality that must be discovered in the very structure of identity. "Who and what am I?" – is both a process of searching and discovery, involves purpose and meaning, and is both a starting point and destination.

In 1898, English author Morgan Robertson wrote a novella centered on the social mores among the wealthy upper classes in Britain and America entitled Futility. The setting was a luxury ocean liner on her maiden voyage from Southampton to New York and filled with the cream of English and American society. In the course of the story, the liner — considered “unsinkable” — on a calm April night hits an iceberg and (of course!) sinks! Fourteen years later, another “unsinkable” luxury liner — the White Star Line’s Titanic, filled with the cream of England and America’s wealthy and making her maiden voyage from Southampton to New York on a calm April night also hit an iceberg and sank. Perhaps the most interesting thing about Robertson’s fiction and the reality that followed was the fact that Robertson’s ship was 800 feet long while the Titanic was 882 feet long and, both the Titanic and Robertson’s vessel had an inordinate amount of other similarities in size and accoutrements including an insufficient number of lifeboats available to rescue those aboard the doomed liner. But most astounding was the name Morgan Robertson chose for his ill-fated vessel: The Titan. In 1981, American novelist Dean Koontz wrote a paperback thriller entitled The Eyes of Darkness. On page 312, the author wrote: “In around 2020 a severe pneumonia-like illness will spread throughout the globe, attacking the lungs and bronchial tubes and resisting all known treatments.” Koontz “virus” is the product of Chinese experiments in germ warfare and he goes on to write sometime later “They call the stuff ‘Wuhan-400’ because it was developed at their RDNA labs outside of the city of Wuhan, and it was the four-hundredth viable strain of man-made microorganisms created at that research center. ‘Wuhan-400’ is a perfect weapon.” Of course, the Coronavirus we recently dealt with is not Mr. Koontz’ weaponized creation but apparently is just another garden variety flu that appears annually, usually in the spring. Yet it is interesting to realize that there are authors out there who — without having any intention of being a modern Nostradamus have managed a rather good job of it. But the real question is this: why does any of this matter? And the answer is rather simple: it matters because what is fiction today can be fact tomorrow or, conversely, what is fiction today can be used as fact to stampede an ignorant and gullible public. We have seen this during the “Coronavirus” panic that almost crashed the stock market and resulted in a type of madness that hasn’t been seen in this country in a long, long time! Of course, the reason it happened now and not during the H1N1 (Swine) flu epidemic under Obama was that Donald Trump — an “outsider” — was in the White House and since the ongoing Deep State coup that started before the man was even elected failed to dislodge him, this “epidemic” seemed an opportunity not to be missed! And so we had the gullible, indeed rather stupid American public stampeded into obedience when their government at virtually every level ordered us to “obey!” “OBEY!! “OBEY!!!” — and sure enough, we did! Anybody who thinks that we are still a free country should wake up and feel the shackles.

Life is filled with problems to be solved. Some are simple, some complex. Some are superficial, some crucial. Whatever the case, once one has encountered a problem, usually it is to the benefit of that person to solve it. On the other hand, a problem within the matter of problems is that often we do not bother or even want to solve a particular problem but to ignore it – often to our detriment. Either we don’t recognize it as a problem, or we don’t think it worth the effort to solve – or the problem itself is so grave that we prefer to avoid the whole mess. But frankly, though simple or otherwise harmless problems can be ignored, problems that are in fact, matters of life and death must be addressed even when it appears that no true “solution” can be found. After all, it is better to try and fail than to die without having tried! Of course, the first step in any solution is to define the problem. That sounds simple, but it seldom is – and it is especially difficult when those who are the problem (or part of the problem) do all in their power to muddy the waters. The answer to this is to simplify, attempting to look past the nonsense and the lies designed to frustrate attempts at a solution. It is very difficult to determine the shape or size of something when it is covered with nonessential doodads and camouflage. Indeed, it is in order to prevent recognizing the shape or size of something that camouflage is used! Ergo, it then becomes obvious that whoever or whatever works to hide the problem benefits from that problem remaining unsolved. This knowledge itself is a godsend for the first thing in any matter is to know your enemy as the presence of those particular people or that particular situation may offer what is the only solution. Today, in the third decade of the 21st Century, our planet and especially our country, the United States of America, is plagued with problems. They are many and they are very serious! Most decent people seek solutions but the problems are so many and so diverse that it appears impossible to achieve what is necessary to allow them to be successfully addressed. For instance, we have the well-known and (apparently) extremely important issue of “climate change.” This particular problem used to be known as “global warming,” but the known facts went from a predicted ice age in the 1970s to the claim of an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide that would warm the globe to the point at which only Tibetan monks would find themselves above the high tide line. Climate change is a very real example of the type of problems we are dealing with today. Why? Because, first and foremost, it is a lie – period! The earth is billions of years old and during that period, its climate changed many times. At one time we had what was called “snowball earth” with the entire globe wrapped miles deep in ice! Geologists and archeologists have been able to determine how, when and, most importantly, why this happened and, as it occurred before humans arose, nobody has tried to blame it on us. Then there were times when the whole earth was green. Even the poles were covered with lush forests and many creatures lived in the high latitudes year round though they hibernated through the long dark winters. And, yes, we weren’t around then either! So, neither the centuries long ice ages nor the equally long eras of heat and humidity could be blamed upon mankind. But today, that’s all changed and we’re told that not only are “people” responsible for whatever climate change is presently occurring (and those complaining don’t really know what that is!) but these same “blamers” also insist that they can “fix” it. Yeah. Actually, climate change is a perfect example of the “problem” issue in this country and the rest of especially the West because it can be conveniently used as a platform for the “climatologists” to render their view, their “science” and then put forth their “solutions.” Of course, if there is a real problem, we need solutions – but we soon find that the whole problem is not what it appears. The general cry in problems like “climate change” is that we must “follow the science.” This sounds reasonable, except that we soon discover that “the science” is another term for what the “climatologists” want us to believe and, in consequence, want us to do! In other words, it ain’t science; it’s opinion and poorly reasoned opinion at that, often based on deliberately incorrect data and designed to accomplish an agenda that has nothing to do with the climate or of the good of mankind or the planet. It is this dishonesty that puts the lie to the claim that those involved in the “climate change” issue have the good of mankind as their aim. No, as in just about every other such “problem,” whether it be climate or the environment or health and sociological issues such as race relations or gender issues, the true aim of those involved in providing us with their “solutions” is found in one word: control! We must realize that most of what is presented to us today as “problems” requiring the intervention of the governments of the United States and/or the world acting through the UN are nothing more than opportunities for those agencies to seize control of the people of the world, destroying forever our very delicate and tenuous liberties so hard won in at least American history. And, in fact, often the “cure” is infinitely worse than the disease! The horrific results of the ongoing “vaccination” programs forced upon people by a very questionable “disease,” COVID and a much more questionable medical establishment should make us realize that those who put themselves forward as agents of the good, are more wicked than the worst of the tyrants in all the long centuries prior to the dawning of the Millenia. For instance, right now we see a 40% increase in the death rate of healthy human beings ages eighteen through sixty-four!This has been revealed by the actuarial tables of group life insurance companies whose expenditures are going through the roof in a situation that hasn’t been seen since the years of the Black Plague! Meanwhile, the entire establishment – government, media, science and medicine – remain silent or suggest that it has nothing to do with the hazardous bioweapons being used on an innocent and unsuspecting public. On the other hand, among those who do understand what is happening, reference has been made by them to the Nuremberg trials held at the end of World War II that led to the executions of various political and “medical” persons found guilty of experimenting on captives under their control. Now, we must remember that the above figures are limited to American life insurance companies. We do not know how many have died or how many will die in the rest of the world from this continuing planned genocide! So, what about America’s “problems?” First, intelligent people must understand that while some these problems are the result of natural forces and do not need “solutions” other than the passage of time, others are created by those who present themselves as having the solution to what they, themselves, have created. Most of these “problems” are designed to further an agenda. The first and foremost object of that agenda is to control the people! The entire matter of “gun control” has nothing to do with crime but with removing guns from law abiding Americans. We have seen the ultimate fate of those who are thus disarmed at the hands of their own countrymen and it isn’t pretty! The “mass shootings” that so often “appear” when the government has hopes they will result in good people giving up their guns “for the good of society” will continue but it is hoped by those who recognize what is going on, that the Deep State is so predictable and so openly evil that it has lost that particular argument at least with regard to intelligent Americans. Then they want electric cars and digital currency not for the environment or the economy but because if you disobey, your car can be turned off and your money removed – control! They have told us you will own nothing and be happy and they have made it clear that they are going to “remove” 90% of the world’s population leaving only those who will serve them – that is, the elites. Obviously, COVID has provided them with a damned good start in that effort and still many people wear masks and take shots while those who go into hospitals are murdered by protocols that include a drug – Remdesivir – with a 55% death rate! Until Americans (and the rest of what was once the free world) begin to ask the real question, qui bono(who benefits) and to realize that everything is designed to increase the government’s control over us, we will continue to have “unsolvable problems” and until and unless we are ready to openly and physically resist, the vast majority of us have no future at all.

Our Elite Lack Honor Posted on November 19, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, the quality that our elites most lack, is honor. Take for example, the lame duck President Biden, encouraging Ukraine to launch US long range weapons into Russia… a move Putin has called a red line for nuclear war. Trying to burn the world down on his way out of office, is the action of a villain, not a man of honor. Moreover, we all know Biden isn’t in charge, the deep state is. So the real villain is the administrative state pulling the senile old man’s strings. I suppose there are bunkers under DC that the elite can escape into. It appears they would prefer that to going to prison. Imprisoned in an underground bunker for life… or go to jail for a year or two in a luxury detention center. The one requires honor… while the other requires pathology. While there are many metrics we could use to gauge the quality of leadership of a faction, I think we can all agree, if a faction burned down the world in nuclear fire, they would be the worse people to have ever existed. Because they would have committed the worst crime it’s possible to commit. Genocide of the human race. Simply bringing us closer to that possibility is proof that the leadership we have now is unfit. When someone becomes the leader of an organization, the existence of that organization rests on their shoulders. If I were elected Grand Knight of a local K of C chapter, and it didn’t exist at the end of my term, that would be proof I was unfit for the job. The longevity of an organization proves the quality of leadership, informing us if the leadership is honorable, or not. In the case of nuclear war, the interests of every person on Earth is effected. To the ideologues in power, pragmatism is out of the question, it’s the principle. And if the principle leads to human extinction, or a thousand years of suffering… so be it. That must be the way those who are encouraging Ukraine to start World War Three are thinking. Can you imagine of another option? How else does such escalation end? Plus, why escalate across the perceived nuclear threshold… as a lame duck? That’s marching the troops into a minefield before exchanging command. Those encouraging ending the world, are either ideologues who believe the point is everything, simple criminals trying to cover up their crimes with arson, or maybe both. None of which is indicative of honorable leaders. Of course, the senile Biden isn’t in charge, he’s merely a hand puppet for the deep state… as Kamala Harris would have been. So it’s not the lame duck President who’s encouraging nuclear war, but the bureaucrats who are the real power behind the throne. Not only in the US but in every nation across the planet. The advantage of a puppet is that he takes the rap for the deep state’s crimes. Who’s getting the blame for the illegal alien tsunami? Not the administrative state, it’s the dementia patient. They’ve put Biden on the hook for a nuclear war, should one break out… and we survive it. The history books will say Biden started it, when in fact it was Blinken, Burns and Miley. As is usually the case, the wire pullers who cause the disaster, avoid blame, because they’re manipulative parasites. Whether or not Putin launches ICBMs for crossing that red line, the very crossing of it is dishonorable. They’re scum risen to the top to smother all life below. If nothing else, this is proof they all need to be arrested, for a multitude of crimes, tried, and imprisoned if found guilty. Maybe going all the way back to 911. If we as a society have decided to put people in prison for non violent victimless crimes, then to be consistent, we must hold accountable those guilty of trying to trigger nuclear Armageddon. Because to imprison non violent people for victimless crimes, while allowing the most violent criminals who’s potential victims are our loved ones, to escape justice, is frankly, the definition of unjust, is stupid… and lacks honor. Sincerely, John Pepin

Recently, I have been re-introduced to my limits, capacity, skill and intelligence. Yes, I have been humbled. I don’t enjoy this experience because it reminds me that I am not the person who can do anything the first time perfectly. I was expressing my struggle with a particular project to a friend, describing how I was feeling defeated. He asked “How many times have you done this type of project?” I responded that this it was a first. He looked at me incredulously and asked “Do you expect that the first time you pick up a violin that you can play it?” He was right. I had come face to face with wisdom and she roundly informed me of my lack. I had been lured into pride and confidence by past success only to find that it was a trap for the ignorant, of which I was. While I would not consider myself religious, I do read the Christian Bible and find a wisdom and a depth that I don’t find any where else. I have been investigating God’s call to adventure as a pathway to a fulfilling life. I have been pushing myself in that manner in recent years and I could not have appreciated the wisdom in this advice without my attempt to embody the concept. It has led me to this place of humility which I must admit, I am not keen about. I looked back to the Bible regarding this feeling of defeat and inadequacy and found a bit of solace. It reminds us that the humble will be exalted and the proud will be brought down. I am going to choose to view this sentiment as … encouragement. A reminder that this adventure is the right path and that growth requires pain. If you do not feel humiliated from time to time, then you aren’t stretching your capacity, engaging your adventure or reaching for who you could be.

Idealists In Government Posted on November 20, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, the reason government fails at everything it puts its hand to, is because government is idealistic, while the world is complex. Which is why the private sector is pragmatic. In the real world actions have consequences and we have to cut our losses, if we make a bad decision… but bureaucrats have the full weight and power of the government backing their bad decisions. There’s no need to back down from anything no matter how in the wrong the government is. Like Pnut the squirrel. How much did that display of unlimited power cost the taxpayer? To what end? Because who cares if someone is keeping a squirrel? It’s a freaking squirrel! But to idealists, its the principle that matters… not the best outcome. That’s why government fails at everything it puts its hand to. Idealism has its place, in church… but not in government. The world is complex, which means it requires pragmatic governments, not idealistic ones. Because an idealist doesn’t pay attention to feedback. They’re single minded. In that single mindedness, an idealist will cross any bridge and burn it… if it moves them towards their perceived goal. No cost is too high, because someone else pays it. No violence is off limits, since others suffer it. Plus, no measure is too extreme, in the face of humiliation. That’s why governments go to war… killing millions. Because they can’t back down, that would cost them face. An idealist in government need not back down… there’s unlimited money to force their will. Since bureaucracy is an artificial world of order it perfectly suits an idealist. In the real world however, where actions have consequences, idealists are eaten for lunch by pragmatists. Because the real world has competition. Under a regime of competition, the best competitors win, not the most idealistic. Because reality is a constantly changing landscape. A dancing landscape if you will. The pragmatist is able to change plans midstream. While the idealist can’t. Which makes the pragmatist mindset more effective in chaotic situations. Because the pragmatist is able to adapt. While the idealist’s mind is glass. So shatters rather than bends. Yet in government, it need not bend, ever. Everyone else has to bend. While this paradigm is made possible by government’s monopoly on violence, it leads to poor outcomes, for the people, society and that nation. Governments are made up of idealists who refuse to accept feedback. Because they don’t have to. Lacking that feedback they can’t but go offtrack. Like any blindfolded race car driver would. No matter how well such a person has mapped the territory, they will go off the road, because they cant see it. Moreover, idealists think themselves more moral than pragmatists. Who’re always compromising. So idealists look down their noses at pragmatists. Since Trump is not only a dreaded pragmatist, but a populist as well, no wonder the idealists in government have gone to such lengths to keep him out of power. A pragmatist with real power would force the idealists to bend. Since they can’t, they fear breaking instead. Learning from feedback and compromise are the pragmatist’s secret weapon. The cost to society of a government that seeks to win at everything, regardless of the cost, is more than simply money. Yes, it’s very expensive to the taxpayer, but lost opportunity extends far into the future. For every business that would have otherwise succeeded, innovation that was held back and entrepreneur crushed by regulation and hubris, the cost to the future is incalculable. That’s why I advocate for pragmatic government. Because of the benefits we could all share if the government became more pragmatic and less idealistic. The role of the state, isn’t to perpetuate and enlarge the state, but to protect the rights of the citizens in this chaotic world. From other states, organizations and indeed itself. Only a pragmatic government is capable of that in a complex system. Sincerely, John Pepin

Sometimes it is difficult to understand the aim of any article presenting facts to the public. Even when supposedly explanatory titles are provided, that does not necessarily mean that such a heading is the real thrust of what follows. But when the written word obfuscates the true intention—that is, what the writer intends the reader to understand of his meaning without actually coming out and stating it plainly—there are usually words and phrases that give clues to his or her intentions. Of course, to begin with, the very need to hide the author’s intent should raise red flags regarding the honesty of that person. Why is there a need to hide the writer’s intent if the intent is honorable? Of course, there isn’t any. Ergo, from the beginning the article that couches its intent in questionable rhetoric should excite the suspicions of all but the terminally naïve. Below is a list of at least some of the words and phrases whose appearance in any document should make the reader wary of the author’s intent: 1. Racist. This word was coined by Communist Leon Trotsky as part of what we today call “Cultural Marxism.” It is a slander intended to destroy the reputation of the person or action to which it is applied. When this is used, the reader/hearer is supposed to believe that the person to whom it is applied is unworthy of belief or respect. On the other hand, it does not in any way indicate whether that person is correct! It makes no judgement applicable to fact or truth. It merely means to imply that while the messenger is not necessarily wrong, he is certainly unworthy of belief. Why? Because he or she is a “racist!” The word is becoming somewhat ineffective through massive overuse. Other words used in this nomenclature are as follows: a. White—all uses of the word white in this instance, describe a particular race; that is, white supremacy, white nationalism, white privilege etc. The use of any and/or all of these terms indicates complete bigotry and a total lack of reason or reality. People who use and believe these have an agenda that does not represent either of these necessary qualities. a. There are two types who use these terms. The first are people who actually believe the concept, many of whom are themselves white. b. The second are people who use these terms to persuade others that the greatest danger to human life today is the white race and that once whites are extinct whether through interbreeding with other races or through physical death, the planet will prosper and flourish. 2. X-phobe as in “homophobe,” “Islamophobe” &etc. The term/word “phobia” indicates an irrational fear; that is, a fear that is either far more acute than ordinary fear or, in the alternative, an intense dislike of something factually unworthy of that situation. When it is applied to a word, it indicates that the person being so identified has an irrational fear or dislike/hatred of the object identified. As a result, any liberal icon whether it be “illegals” or “transgenders” &etc., when resisted, the person and/or group resisting are labeled as “phobic.” Simply put, if you don’t like a particular liberal agenda, the response is to name those resisting as “phobic” thus marginalizing their resistance by making it into something irrational. 3. Conspiracy as in “conspiracy theory or theorist. According to the dictionary the term means a secret plan by a person or group to do something unlawful or harmful; and also, the action of plotting or conspiring. With regard to our present political circumstances, the term “conspiracy theory was first brought into the public discourse during the Warren Commission’s (supposed) investigation into the assassination of the 35th President of the United States, John F. Kennedy. After the initial shock of the assassination itself, few were the people at home or abroad that believed in the “lone gunman” theory of the assassination promoted by the government. For people worthy of public notice, the government approved the appellation of conspiracy theorists thus presenting those who refused to accept the “official version” of events as unworthy of being taken seriously. Fortunately (or not) this did not remove the ongoing public doubt but, sadly, it also did result in further questionable “deaths” after the original event. However, the term was deemed worthy to be used when and if any other government action came under investigation by those deemed dangerous by the Deep State and so we continue to be relentlessly presented with “conspiracy theories” and “conspiracy theorists” no matter how well proven the account or believable those who present it. Again, it is becoming a parody of its former use, now being more apt to validate the claim and the claimants than otherwise. 4. Expressions of contempt, disrespect and/or derision toward the people or subjects under scrutiny. This methodology generally cannot be reduced to singular terms as can the expressions above, but certainly the reader is able to discover when the author is dismissive or contemptuous of those being observed and reported upon. When an author has no respect for the subject(s) of his or her opinion then it is probable that the opinions expressed are themselves dismissive of those same subjects. No true examination can be made of any issue when the person making that examination has no respect for his or her subject and this must be recognized by the reader. Why? Because without any true respect, the author does not feel obligated to treat the matter with the intellectual deference and seriousness required for any true investigation. It becomes a “throw-away hit piece” designed to destroy the reader’s interest in further study of the subject and those who present it by virtue of ridicule or outright insult. a. The noun insult is defined as to speak or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse: a disrespectful or scornfully abusive remark or action: or a thing so worthless or contemptible as to be offensive. b. The verb is defined as to speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse: In the past, debate and dialogue in the Public Square rejected all such attempts to undermine the matters being debated and either side indulging in such practices were usually considered to have lost their position on the issue under discussion. Certainly, any scholastic groups or individuals so engaged would not have used any of the above nomenclature or strategies to further their position. Today, however, since all that matters is that the “chosen side” prevails, the rigors of scholarship and fair debate – never mind historical accuracy! – are of far less importance than that the desired narrative is overwhelmingly accepted by the public! And so, when you pick up a magazine or read something online, beware when the author or group offers any of the above strategies in presenting their “side” of the matter being debated. You may rest assured that there will be very little actual facts and what are presented as facts are more than likely lies or else they would not feel the need to encase them in weapons created to hide the truth from the public by destroying those presenting it.