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. **
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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
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
Faction And Fallacy Posted on November 17, 2024 by john Dear friends, It seems to me, the fallacy the progressive faction falls for is, the fallacy of popularity and its opposite, the fallacy of unpopularity. Both are a form of the appeal to authority fallacy. While conservative factions tend to rely too much on the fallacy of common knowledge. If a popular person says anything… the progressive faction follows in lockstep. If however an unpopular person says something, it’s to be considered a lie, no matter how provable. That’s why democrats dwell so much on persons and so little on policy. Meanwhile, republicans follow common knowledge, like a dog does a scent trail. The problem with appeal to authority, popularity and common knowledge is, they’re often wrong. While discourse, investigation and attempts to falsify lead to real knowledge and truths. Appeal to authority and it’s siblings, appeal to popularity and the dismissing of the unpopular, are fallacies in that they usually lead to wrong conclusions. If Goebbels came in from outside, soaking wet and said, “It’s raining out there.” Would you disbelieve him because he was the Nazi propaganda minister? Maybe, but one thing we know, if it was Trump, democrats would ridicule him for it. Climate change is based entirely on appeal to authority. Despite the IPCC email scandal, proving the IPCC is a propaganda outfit, progressives are all in. Because they believe their beloved authorities who claim climate change is man made. They’re the authority, and we like them… so they must be right. Sadly, they’re not right, experts are wrong more often than not. Making mindless belief a fools errand. Appeal to common knowledge is also a fallacy in that it often leads to wrong conclusions. In fact, this is one of Francis Bacon’s Idols. He called appeal to common knowledge the Idol of the marketplace. While he apparently meant, the misuse of language that leads to misunderstanding, I mean it to be our common lack of omniscience. Because we don’t know everything, even as a species, let alone a community, or person. At one time it was common knowledge that leeches cured disease. While appeal to common knowledge can’t be malicious, manipulative, or egotistical like appeal to authority, it can lead to wrong conclusions. Because what passes for common knowledge today will probably be considered foolishness tomorrow. Since our understanding changes over time. These fallacies have in common that they are a lazy man’s way of thinking. Common knowledge is common and so must be right… right? If someone is popular and has authority, they must be wicked smart… right? In both cases… wrong. No one or group of people is omniscient. Some may think they are, but those people have fallen into their own Bernay’s trap. There’s no shortcut to understanding and knowledge. School and education is only a starting place. Since so much of what I was taught back in the 1970’s is now discredited. How much more so the things taught in the 1920’s? Moreover, in a century, much of what we take for granted today, will be thought childish. Instead of strolling down a well trod trail, that leads to error, it behooves us to cut trail, to the truth. An idea based on a fallacy is a fine place to start an investigation… to see if there’s merit. Talk about it with an eye to understanding the idea. Finally, seek to falsify it. If an idea passes all these tests, it’s probably true on some level. Then, hone the idea until it has an edge, and use it to cut to other truths. When we use mind crutches we do ourselves and the future a disservice. Because we act on poor data leading to poor outcomes. This is one reason progressives fail to see their failures and conservatives fail at change. Both factions base their aim on wrong information leading them to miss their target. So, instead of basing one’s opinion on an authority who probably has an agenda, or common knowledge that’ll change in a few years, let’s think, talk and experiment… to find real truth. Sincerely, John Pepin
"If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led like sheep to the slaughter." ~ George Washington Above is a maxim from a man who, though an American and not a Canadian, was speaking the truth for any nation and its citizens. God knows, history makes quite clear that before any people can be overwhelmed, conquered and enslaved, they must first be silenced. Oh, it begins innocently enough when we are asked to consider the “feelings” of our fellow man and the “sufferings” that may be caused by noxious or hateful speech and what has today come to be called “misinformation.” Why even Scripture itself warns us about “bridling our tongues” (see below) a matter that also refers to what we write as well as what we say. As that is so, then the devout Christian should be overjoyed when “those in authority” put forth their legislative “hands” against what they (at least) consider to be an evil directed against our fellow man: 1 Peter 3:10: “Whoever would love life and see good days must keep their tongue from evil and their lips from deceitful speech. Ephesians 4:29: Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. Proverbs 15:28: The heart of the righteous weighs its answers, but the mouth of the wicked gushes evil. Matthew 15:11: What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.” Psalm 34:13: Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from telling lies. Psalms 141:3: Set a guard over my mouth, O LORD; keep watch over the door of my lips. Proverbs 6, 16-19:16 – There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to Him: 17 – haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood: 18 – a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil: 19 – a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community. And these are only a very few of the many cautions and prohibitions presented to us in Scripture against speaking (or otherwise disseminating) evil speech – and therefore, efforts to validate God’s prohibitions through man’s legal actions might at first glance be considered a good thing. But, alas, we have had far too many examples of efforts claimed to do right becoming something far, far different! And, alas, we see this today in our neighbor to the North, Canada! Consider the headline on the internet: “New Liberal 'online harms' bill to make online hate punishable up to life in prison. Bill C-63 aims to force social media, user-uploaded adult content and live-streaming services to reduce exposure to online content deemed harmful. Justice Minister Arif Virani speaks during a news conference on Parliament Hill in Ottawa regarding the new online harms bill on Monday, Feb. 26, 2024: OTTAWA — The federal government tabled its long-awaited online harms bill on Monday which is already shaping up to become a delicate political battle over freedom of expression on the internet, while also aiming to provide more protections for children. Bill C-63 aims to force social-media, user-uploaded adult content and live-streaming services to reduce exposure to online content deemed harmful, to strengthen the reporting of child pornography and to better address hate propaganda and provide recourse to victims of hate online. It also amends the Criminal Code to create a new stand-alone hate crime offence that would allow penalties up to life imprisonment to deter hateful conduct, as well as raise the maximum punishments for hate propaganda offences from five years to life imprisonment for advocating genocide.” Now, let’s take a look at all this “information” provided to us. In it we see presented as the supposed real reason for the bill, “to provide more protections for children (and) to strengthen the reporting of child pornography. . .” Meanwhile, sandwiched within this obviously perfectly legitimate assault on a known criminal activity – child pornography – there is also mentioned (almost in passing), “. . . to reduce exposure to online content deemed harmful . . . and to better address hate propaganda and provide recourse to victims of hate online.” Of course, how anyone could prove him or herself a “victim of hate online” is not defined – a very dangerous thing in and of itself! But the bill . . . “also amends the Criminal Code to create a new stand-alone hate crime offense that would allow penalties up to life imprisonment to deter hateful conduct, as well as raise the maximum punishments for hate propaganda offense from five years to life imprisonment for advocating genocide.” WHAT????? We’re not talking here of committing anything but of (supposedly) “advocating” it without any definition of who or how such a determination would (or could) be made! That’s a long, long way from the concept of freedom of speech! First, of course, in most of these things, the judgment about what is and what is not “hate speech” is itself a personal opinion, not something that can be legislated at least in a free society! As this is the criteria and as nobody wants to go to jail for even the most well-considered opinion that appears in print or on the net, the obvious result of this manifestation of tyranny is to silence the people, especially those who disagree with the current ideology of the elites as supported in and by the government! Of course, all of this is “legitimized” by what are actual concerns. Consider this quote by Justice Minister Virani as the Liberals unveiled the bill: “I’m the father of two youngsters and, like parents and grandparents around Canada, I’m terrified by the dangers that lurk on the internet for our children. I’m also a Muslim. The hatred that festers online is radicalizing people and that radicalization has real world impacts for my community, and for so many other communities” he added. The article goes on to state, “Harmful content is defined in the legislation as content that incites violence, that foments hatred, that incites violent extremism or terrorism, is used to bully a child, that sexually victimizes a child, that induces a child to harm themselves, or intimate content communicated without consent.” It is obvious that these are two very different situations and that the latter is used to cover the intrusion into people’s right to free speech by claiming that the government will determine what “foments hatred” and “incites violent extremism or terrorism,” situations that are entirely a matter of conjecture and cannot be validly proved in any way. This “bill” also creates a new level of bureaucracy – never a good thing for freedom! – including the Digital Safety Commission, that will be responsible for enforcing rules and holding online services accountable, as well as a separate Digital Safety Ombudsperson, which will support and advocate for users and make recommendations to social media services and the government. The article then goes back to its original premise that, “(t)he legislation is mostly focused on protecting minors against online sexual abuse, extortion and exploitation, which have seen a sharp increase in recent years. In a span of a decade, RCMP National Child Exploitation Crime Center reports have increased by 1,077 per cent.” The fact that those most involved in the sex trafficking of children are to be found on this side of the political “aisle” leads us to believe there is more coverup here than any attempt to shut down child trafficking! In dealing with the consequences for online servers who carry undesired opinions, the bill claims that “online services will have to continuously assess, mitigate and report on the risk to users posed by their services, provide tools to flag content and block users and create an internal point of contact for user complaints. It will also have to identify measures taken to reduce exposure to harmful content. Online services that do not abide by the rules could be subject to severe penalties as high as six per cent of global revenue or $10 million, whichever is greater.” However, to prevent the law from appearing ubiquitous, Canadians are assured that “(n)ot all online services are covered under this legislation as only those that are above a certain threshold of users which will be set out in regulations. Private and encrypted messaging services, such a direct messaging and emails, are also excluded.” Alas, undoubtedly there is another phrase not included in this information at the moment, and that is the phrase, “. . .for now.” And, finally, the real reason for this “legislation” is made completely clear for those who still don’t “get it:” “The bill amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to specify that posting hate speech online is discrimination, to empower people to file complaints against individuals posting hate speech at the Canadian Human Rights Commission and to create a process for assessing hate speech complaints.” According to the article, “Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said last week the upcoming bill would be specifically focused on making the internet safer for children, not on censoring it. But Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has already signaled his party would be opposing Trudeau’s ‘latest attack on freedom of expression.’ However, Virani pooh-poohs that claim stating: “I want to be crystal clear about what the Online Harms Act does not do. It does not undermine freedom of speech. It enhances free expression by empowering all people, to safely participate in online debate.” Yet, it seems difficult how one can “safely participate in online debate” if you can go to prison for stating something in that debate with which the government disagrees! An earlier version of the bill, C-36, was introduced in 2021, but died shortly afterward, when an election was called. The government was planning to legislate on five categories of online harms, such as content inciting violence, the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, child exploitation, hate speech and content promoting terrorism. At the time, the bill was heavily criticized by privacy experts and civil liberties groups for giving social media platforms only 24 hours to remove any content deemed harmful, or face punishment, potentially infringing on freedom of expression by encouraging companies to take down acceptable materials by making the time involved in doing so too short to be an acceptable risk. Better not to print in the first place than deal with economic loss. Of course, the Trudeau government has denied that there is any such “ex post facto” rulings as part of the bill that would permit people who have posted “unacceptable” comments before the bill was passed to be punished for those comments. However, knowing Pierre, his claims can be discarded without too much fear of being wrong. But even if that part of the legislation is either entirely untrue or will be quietly put aside – for now – in order to pass the legislation, that doesn’t mean it cannot be “amended” into the law at a later date when people have lost interest or, perhaps, the rest of their freedom.
Guardrails Posted on December 1, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, by smashing down the guardrails, the progressive faction has opened us up to innumerable potential disasters. Now the progressive globalist faction is on the ropes, the unlimited power they’ve amassed around the world, could fall into the hands of anyone. We hope the leaders we elect will be centrist, in an Enlightenment way, but until we have a taste of them, we can’t know. Especially since everyone not to the left of Mao is called far right. Skewing the metric we use to determine a person’s political stance, and hollowing out the middle, to add to the ends. Which empowers radical factions at cost to sanity. That’s why we must limit governmental power, erode the administrative state, and put the guardrails back up. The swing from the far left, rightward, is a good thing. However, such movements can gain momentum such that they overshoot the ideal… by a long way. An out of balance wheel will wear no matter if it’s tipped to the right or left. The trouble is, we’ve worn down to the steel belts on the left side of the tire. So if we want to stave off a blowout, we need to balance more to the right… but not too far. As is the tendency of people to do. Movements build inertia. That inertia gains as the movements speeds up and grows in mass. Plus, people hang on way past their comfort zone, as we’ve seen with the progressive faction. Eventually rejecting that ideology altogether. So we must control ourselves and insure we don’t let our emotions run away with us. Else the globalists might seize control again. The repulsive corruption of the progressive globalist faction has only impelled the swing faster. As the scales fall from people’s eyes, and they see the horror that is the globalist vision of the world, and humanity, they flee it as fast as possible. Because once you understand what they mean by, “You will own nothing and be happy…” your blood will run cold. That emotional reaction to astonishing evil is natural but makes people less rational. Running in terror, while screaming and carrying scissors, through a junkyard… is a sub optimal strategy to escape to safety. Which is the natural reaction to a monster in the dark. Once you have some distance though, it’s best to hide and weapon up. In the case of the leftist beast system, our weapons are our voices, just law and public opinion. No guardrails means no bounds. If we pick up the weapons of the foe, lawfare, fraud and propaganda, then we’ve become unbalanced too. We need to eliminate those things. You get rid of lawfare by charging the criminals, with denial of Constitutional rights under color of law, then try, and if guilty, made examples of. Root out election fraud. By voter ID, paper ballots and same day counting. If an election takes more than 24 hours to count, there are too many anomalies, and it needs to be redone. Mail in voting must be abolished. Then there’s propaganda. Edward Bernays would be astounded at how effective his tool of mass control has become. Pass laws to forbid government propaganda against citizens. Then there’s the administrative state. Now that people with demonstrated sanity, might be in charge, it’s time to put some guardrails back up. Pare the government back to some semblance of constitutionality. Debate Constitutional changes to get rid of abominations like Wickard v Filburn, Korematsu and Buck v Bell, to name a few. Get a handle on election fraud. Make examples of those who abuse their power, and put the guardrails back up, to prevent it in the future. Remember, the faction in power today, will not be in power tomorrow. It’s up to us then to insure that tomorrow’s ruler’s stay on the road. So they can’t engage in open election fraud, forced medical procedures, or other usurpations of human Rights. But don’t go crazy, going off road on the trail the left cut… and become the faction we’re fighting. Limit government power… don’t expand it. Sincerely, John Pepin
