I am increasingly becoming a monastic in my own mind, increasingly preferring to reconnect with the past and dream of the future while I disengage psychologically from the present. Call me a Stoic dropout. I'm not necessarily a conservative fuddy-duddy or a liberal freak, and certainly not a reactionary, a racist, a xenophobe, or a homophobe, and I don't like it when anyone attempts to label me as any of those. I am simply exhausted by the frenzied way the world has become. The music I like, the movies I enjoy, and the sports I follow or practice are not current fare. Instead, I'm mentally and physically moving back to where there are more woods than people, where I can live in the peace of the past or dream of the future, and step away from the here and now.
I'm gonna cash in my hand And pick up on a piece of land And build myself a cabin back in the woods Lord, it's there I'm gonna stay Until there comes a day When this old world starts to changing for the good from James Taylor's Mud Slide Slim
The recent infusion of millions of Muslim immigrants into Europe has resulted in the quick decline of Western ideals and the erosion of legal frameworks in communities where the immigrants concentrate. It is primarily because Sharia law is a direct antithesis to traditional Western values of religious freedom, free speech, freedom of association, individual rights, economic independence, and free markets. The underlying principles of Muslim society are completely incompatible with those of free societies in the West. And unfortunately, Muslim principles allow absolutely no leeway for reconciliation with Western principles. The two societies can only coexist if they are mutually independent.
Such a circumstance is described as tribalism. Groups tend to form around clearly defined principles. When their fundamental differences are no more than minor deviations and disagreements, there is room for an amenable reconciliation. When their principles are diametrically opposed, groups simply cannot live in close proximity with other groups. When they do, one will invariably absorb the other, or destroy the other. That is what we are experiencing throughout Europe today.
Transplanted Sharia-based groups do not assimilate within Western society. Instead they act to devour the surrounding culture and turn it into something that sublimates in accordance with Sharia principles. When there are two diametrically opposed "tribes" such as this within the same society, one must ultimately take precedence over the other. Multiculturalism, in this sense, does not work. Those that push for multiculturalism in Western society at the expense of sovereign independent tribalism are well aware of what they are doing.
The very clear aim of globalists and their left-leaning advocates is to destroy the sovereignty of nation states throughout the world. They associate tribalism with nationalism and populism and falsely associate all three concepts with totalitarianism. Tribalism has become the go-to denouncement of the Trump Administration and other western nationalist movements, and is increasingly being falsely labeled fascism. Dismantling sovereignty has long been a fundamental objective of collectivists (socialists and communists). Encouraging the infusion of Muslim culture into the West is merely the latest strategy in a destructive thrust to accomplish their objective. The cultural destabilization of Europe is a well-defined and deliberate Cloward-Piven strategy, and globalists know this. Using multiculturalism to undermine nations specifically built upon traditional sovereign values is a direct assault to achieve collectivist objectives.
Most leftists are little more than useful idiots for the globalist agenda, advocating multiculturalism as a means of some sort of penance to ease their "feelings" of cultural guilt. Their argument is that traditional western culture should be punished for past transgressions and eventually phased out completely to make way for a new utopian global system. Globalists use the naivety and ignorance of the young and angry to their advantage, caring no more for protestors and leftist politicians than they do for the rest.
Globalists and their leftist minions argue that if all sovereign tribalism was dissolved throughout the world there would ultimately be no differences between Muslims and Westerners, or any other groups for that matter. But what they are knowingly glossing over is the inevitability that groups of people will always separate based upon localized principles. Their solution for all groups to get along peacefully in close proximity in the multicultural context that they imagine is for ALL value systems to be eliminated entirely, except for one - theirs - not left or right, or Western or Muslim, but the globalist's set of values. Globalists and leftists argue for the adoption and toleration of all ideologies and principles as a means to peace, but what they really want in the end is the erasure of all the ideologies and principles they see as disagreeable in order to make way for their own.
Plain and simple, globalists seek an outcome in which traditional values are obliterated by any means and replaced with a New World Order that is rooted in a collectivist suppression of individual liberty; where freedom is exchanged for harmony and fairness and justice for all with the entire global tribe worshiping one global god — the state. The suppression of one group's values for the sake of harmony is nothing less than fraud and misdirection.
Tribalism as it has existed throughout the world from time immemorial nearly always experiences conflict when antithetical cultures are deliberately forced to coexist. Globalists seek to irritate existing divisions and trigger chaos between opposing groups to ultimately destroy tribalism to make way for a single world ideal that fits their globalist agenda.
Leftists who are decidedly less self-aware love the tribalism of victim groups like Muslims. Their hypocritical hatred of tribalism rises only when it is defended by conservatives and traditional nationalists. Their indoctrinated view is that cultural division of any kind is inherently evil. But these social-justice warriors will selectively argue that the aggressively divisive behavior of any victim groups is off limits to criticism. Tribalism on the part of designated victim groups is beyond reproach, but tribalism on the part of westerners must be eradicated. Immigrant crime is empathetically tolerable, but anti-immigrant sentiments are racist and homophobic.
Leftist ideology is not based in logic or self examination, but depends upon thought control by indoctrination and manipulation in order to remain relevant. Leftists don’t have the ability to win people over through compelling arguments; all they have are lies and force. When in power, they use the force of government; when out of power, they use the threat of mobs. Globalists imagine themselves as social architects, but are impotent without the ability to impose their will and the ability to undermine practical divisions between ideological opposites.
Tribalism in the name of sovereignty and free society is a major hurdle to globalization. All the globalists can do is to utilize and exploit groups that are anti-liberty as a weapon against existing societies that still have some basis in sovereignty. This is much easier to do when anti-liberty groups are organized within those free systems, or, when they are imported into them, such as with Muslims. Globalists are quite well aware that a strong, free nation cannot be destroyed by enemies from without, but only from within.
The New World Order offers the world a false choice: either we continue our existing tribalism at the cost of endless social conflict (which is being deliberately instigated by globalists and their minions), or we choose to let go of our tribalism and traditional principles to achieve peace for all, by their definition. There is a better way, however, to solve problems that arise between people with differing world views, without giving up tribal values to become a one-world collectivist utopia - that being the time-honored principle of non-aggression as taught by all great spiritual leaders. It is a natural law that no person or group has the right to impose their beliefs or will upon another person or group, ever. The only time force is warranted is in self-defense and in the defense of innocent and helpless people.
An agreed-upon principle of non-aggression is the single easiest way to achieve One World of Peace and Order. Those who cannot abide by the principle of non-aggression can be separated from society until such time as they can abide. For those who are incapable of accepting non-aggression, they must be separated permanently. The advantage of tribalism has always been that it allows us to discriminate against groups with destructive principles and behaviors, or against those that have different objectives, allowing for a group with shared goals to accomplish those goals without constant internal obstruction or sabotage. As long as the non-aggression principle in society is adhered to, tribalism is and always has been the ideal system, as close to utopia as we may ever see.
Despite the exponential display of aggressive Islamic terrorism throughout the civilized world, the increasingly secular leadership of the West continues to excuse, ignore, or justify every evil action of Sharia law, of jihad, and of Caliphate building. The pages of history are covered with blood from the times Islamic culture has clashed with Christians. This perspective is not lost in the teachings of Muslims at mosques anywhere in the world today, but it is glazed over in the West as if the matter of differences has somehow been reconciled by forgetting the past. No reconciliation can ever be achieved as long as one side teaches its followers that the other side is the enemy.
Underlying this disparity between how each culture views the other is the influence of science in the West. While followers of Islamic ideology have never departed from their centuries-old animosity toward Christians, in the West one cannot criticize Islam, even fairly, without being accused of suffering from a “phobia”, demonstrating just how far science has intruded into Western cultural discourse. To be concerned about the extreme and fanatical manifestations of a religion is not to be prejudiced against the religion itself.
There are many differences between Christianity and Islam. The two will likely never be compatible. In Islam both Jesus and Mohammad are viewed as prophets, but Jesus is viewed as sinful and subordinate to Muhammad; Christians judge Muhammad as one of the many false prophets that Jesus warned against. Jesus taught tolerance, forgiveness, non-violence, unselfish love, and self-sacrifice, while Muhammad practiced and promoted warfare and violence, hatred, intolerance, misogyny, oppression, and pedophilia. Muslims believe the Qur'an is inspired by Allah and the Bible corrupt. Yet it is clear in the Qur'an that Allah lies, the Prophet Muhammad lies, and the true Muslim is permitted to lie so long as it promotes the proliferation of Islam. There is absolutely no restraint to the evil which is permitted in Allah's name by the true Muslim.
There are no hard and fast truths in the Qur'an; any "truth" can be instantly generated and regenerated to suit the interpretation of the imam. Christian ideology looks upon the teachings of Allah as irrational, as Allah demands total subjugation to whatever the imam currently proclaims. Salvation comes through works under Islam, and through faith in Christianity. This is truly an unbridgeable chasm between the two ideologies.
Muslims deem Christians as infidels/non-believers and subject to the most severe treatment, including death, for leaving God. Jihad is crucial to the purity of Islam but viewed as against God's teachings, hateful, and sinful by Christianity. There are today many places in the world where Muslims persecute Christians, yet no place where Christians persecute Muslims. In relationships, Sharia allows the transitory marriage of one man to many women, considered subordinate to men, while Christians have a single lifetime co-equal partner.
Looking at Iraq over the past decade and a half, we witness the blood of Christians spilled on their altars, altars which have been overturned to clear the way for worship of Allah. For the first time in 1600 years, mass is no longer celebrated in Mosul. When we look to the Middle East and see the purging of Christianity from the very land in which it grew and the great losses endured by the Cross to be handed over to the Crescent, all the citizens and land and cities given over to the followers of Muhammad, we see the beginnings of a holy war that seems unavoidable. The welcome mat for Muslims throughout Europe is leading Europe into a period of turmoil not unlike the days just prior to World War II. Jihad and Islamist groups increasingly accuse Western powers of conducting another “crusade” against Muslims under the auspices of denying their right to practice the Islamic religion under Sharia without sanction.
Any attempt to hold onto the traditional rights and values of Europeans prior to the recent Muslim infusion is being labeled fascist. The United States is not far behind Europe. The West must come to terms with the unalterable conclusion that Christianity and Islam do not, nor have they ever been able to, coexist amenably in the same society. MULTICULTURALISM DOES NOT WORK. The sooner we face the fact that Islamic ideology is an incompatible enemy of our Western way of life and the sooner we can draw a line between the two, the less suffering we will all sustain in our errant attempt to live together.
When asked if I lean Republican or Democrat, I insist that it is neither, which makes me an acknowledged Independent citizen. When it comes to voting for one candidate as opposed to another, I take up no banner for any particular special interest at any time. I always vote for the candidate or initiative that offers the least affront to my personal liberty. Freedom, and as much of it as I can handle, is my only special interest. No candidate ever advocates the cause of liberty enough for me, so I generally am left to choose the one that either wants to take away less or give back more of my freedom. That is the way I vote, short of subscribing to any extreme sort of a wish-washy non-committal form of anarchy.
The one thing I lay claim to with complete certainty is that I own me and you own you. On the basis of self-ownership most of us acknowledge that it is immoral for someone to attempt to take away our lives; it is also immoral for someone to do irreparable physical harm to another person, especially by force or rape. But stealing my property or my time is just as immoral, especially if taken by mandate, even if it is only to give it to someone else. It is up to me to give someone what is mine, and not someone else's choice.
Nearly 70% of Federal spending (about two-and-a-half trillion dollars annually) is a matter of taking the personal property of one person and giving it to another who it does not belong to. The beneficiaries includes Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, food assistance, unemployment and other programs. While I agree to pay my fair share of taxes, I nonetheless condemn the practice of legalized theft of what is mine by government force.
True rights exist simultaneously among all citizens. The exercise of a right by one person should not impose any obligation upon another person. For Congress to guarantee to any person the right to food or health care or anything else is the outright fleecing of another person's earnings. Thomas Sowell is spot on when he asks, "What is your “fair share” of what someone else has worked for?" Since Congress has no income of its own, when it grants one person something he did not earn, it necessarily deprives someone else of something he did earn. I find that contemptible.
So too is the right to free speech these days, especially on college campus. Free speech is easily defended when someone is saying something that everyone is in agreement about. Disagree with some politically correct argument and you'll find yourself under attack on most college campuses across America. College speech codes found on nearly half of American campuses that restrict free speech that is found to be offensive to some is most contemptible of all.
Arbitrary rules and regulations, whether imposed by elected officials or unelected political appointees, that deny each of us our basic right to personal liberty are the largest encumbrance perpetrated upon the American public by government and its minions. My vote goes to the public servant aspirant that aims to downsize government and cut regulation, no matter how good it might be for one special interest or another. Let the cards fall where they may without the contemptible interference of government oversight.
“Whatever the mind can conceive and believe, it can achieve.” (Napoleon Hill)
America has had a century-long love affair with the automobile, even though the typical car is used only about 5% of the time. Ride-sharing services like Uber offer us a peak into the future of transportation, whether we are prepared for it or not. An idea has recently been planted in the American imagination that it may be more practical to share cars rather than to own your own and keep it parked in the garage, reserved for one's personal use. In metropolitan areas people are already accustomed to ordering up a ride anytime they need to go somewhere. Many people in cities do not even own a car. In some areas we can already order a ride from our smart phones for a self-driving automobile to pick us up in the morning and for another one to be there to take us home at the end of the day, allowing us to convert the garage into additional living space if we so choose.
Sharing rather than buying saves money spent on the depreciation of a purchase, registration, maintenance, and for insurance, eliminating the hassles associated with commuting and parking. A car that can be used to take your family on a road trip can be roomier than the one you take to work or the gym. You won't need the subway or bus or train any longer if you can read or sleep securely while in transit. As with many other innovations, the creativity of countless individuals and organizations will continue to generate technology that will lead us into a new world unforeseen. Imagine Americans giving up their love of the automobile and driving over the open road! A similar transformation from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles only a century ago seemed just as unimaginable. (Pictures are of the stylish luxury self-driving Mercedes-Benz F-015.)
War is never the right answer, but when someone has launched a nuclear-tipped ICBM at San Francisco or New York, there is little time to argue the point. War is always initiated by a bully. When a bully swings at you, you have three choices: you can turn the other cheek and let the bully hit you again; you can duck, in which case the bully is still going to swing again; or you can duck and swing back to knock the shit out of him. If you hit a bully just once, he will never bother you again. Beneath the pretense of strength of most bullies is a coward that will run away if struck back. To avoid all bully's you only need a reputation for swinging back. You stand firm with big stick in hand and use it only when you have to, maybe never at all - but stand ready to use that big stick, just in case.
A bully believes he has something to gain by making threatening gestures or striking out at someone - it may be purely to maintain a reputation, or it may be for your lunch money. When the United States launched an attack against Iraq, the aim appeared to be about taking Saddam Hussein's lunch money, but the true motivation behind US aggression in the Middle East was to justify continued investment in this country's war machinery. (If one seeks to know why things occur in this modern era, one need only "follow the money".) When we decimated Iraq and intervened in the Middle East we left desperate populations infuriated at our actions. Islamic terrorism was easy to predict based upon our interference. It is almost as if western powers needed a threat to replace the threat previously posed by the Soviet Union. The US government needed to justify its expensive military budget, which is impossible to do without a nemesis. Now we have one.
This approach to military affairs has revealed itself to be a severe threat to global security. The previous four administrations bullied Middle Eastern and North African states that were by and large minding their own business on the world stage, starting conflict after conflict to assert our values where they were not welcome. All four were cowards in their own ways, initiating conflict to the benefit of profiteering players in the military-industrial complex and petrol-chemical industry. Our most recent Noble Peace Prize winning president initiated more conflicts than the other three combined, yet was the most cowardly of them all, down-sizing our national military strength while continuing to joust his stick into the eye of Islamic states.
Now we have an administration that knows very well how to shake a stick and swing back, as it shifts massive resources into restoring America's military strength. The nation's enemies have taken a step back to re-evaluate the way forward against the new strong man. There will be those that seek to test his mettle, but this president is no coward and will not hesitate to retaliate. Those that seek aggression against the United States will no longer get a milquetoast pass as with the past administration. President Trump will be viewed as a warring president by his critics as he defends the security of the nation at any cost, but his stick will only be used in defense. As a man seasoned in thwarting confrontation who will not run from a fight, Mr. Trump knows all the moves, and with a big stick stands ready to finally bring peace and stability back to the world theater.
We don't need no education We don't need no thought control No dark sarcasm in the classroom Teachers leave them kids alone Hey teacher leave them kids alone All in all it's just another brick in the wall All in all you're just another brick in the wall Pink Floyd's Another Brick in the Wall (Part II)
When we're born we have a clean slate, but we are not born stupid. The stupidity that is growing more and more common and accepted in our society today is the handiwork of our educational institutions - from our elementary schools to our high schools to our colleges. The educational system in this country has been assigned the responsibility of handing down to the next generation the knowledge, experience and culture of all the generations that came before. Instead it has veered left to become an indoctrination instrument that promotes whatever notions, fashions or ideologies happen to be in vogue among today's progressive elite.
In our high-tech world with its increasing artificial intelligence, we are seeing the creation of artificial stupidity by the people we trust to educate our children. Young people hear but one side of any issue without hearing the other side, and to compound the deficiency they do not receive guidance for developing the mental skills of further inquiry and critical thinking that would enable them to test one set of beliefs against another, let alone to be prepared for new and unforeseeable issues that will arise over their lifetimes after they leave the educational environment. Schools focus on teaching "what to think" at the expense of learning "how to think" and then are spoon fed a steady progressive diet of topics ranging from global warming to nuclear weapons to medical care to race, gender, and class identity.
Not only are students fed limited conclusions by their "community-organizing" teachers, but they are encouraged to galvanize and take action against these prepackaged conclusions, launching out on disjointed crusades, without either a knowledge of opposing arguments or the intellectual wherewithal or discipline to know how to analyze those arguments. The frightening result is that we see ten-year-old elementary school children carrying signs of protest in demonstrations, people signing petitions without any understanding of what they are petitioning, and a cult-like following of destructive self-serving leaders with counter-productive agendas.
Consider the woman asking people at a state fair to sign a petition demanding the banning of dihydroxymonoxide. She said it was in our lakes and streams, and now it was in our sweat and urine and tears. Hundreds of people readily and enthusiastically signed a petition to ban a chemical we know otherwise as water. While disturbing at best this incident points up just how conditioned many people have become to quickly respond to anything resembling some politically correct crusade.
It was Will Rogers who said that ignorance was not as bad as "all the things we know that ain't so." The grim and dangerous reality we now face is that dumbed-down teachers are indoctrinating students to think that they know everything about a topic after hearing only one side of an issue, without further questioning or critical thinking. It takes a wise teacher to pass on an understanding that knowledge of one's own ignorance may be a more valuable thing than having the knowledge itself. This lesson seems lost in our modern world of stupidity by design.
Global Warming's Chicken Little has cried "the Sky is Falling" much too often for most to take its frantic warnings very seriously anymore. Whether the public no longer gives the claim much credibility or merely has become bored with the obvious much ado about nothing whining of the media, enthusiasm for the climate change argument is finally on the wane. While the country has largely become complacent about the issue with the change of administrations and shifted focus toward restoring the economy, the progressives have not abandoned their dream of controlling the world's energy industry based on the greatest scientific hoax ever perpetrated.
Environmental zealots believe that it has been proven that CO2 is the primary controlling factor for climate change, which is in fact not true at all. While carbon dioxide is certainly a factor impacting the climate cycle, further careful review and analysis of climate data must be the basis of debate, detached from any political agenda. Carbon dioxide is a vital life-giving molecule that is in large part responsible for our success as a species on this planet, but is without question also a heat-trapping greenhouse gas. It is, however, far from the primary heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Water vapor accounts for about 95 percent of greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide is only a trace component in the atmosphere - about 400 parts per million, or 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, and of that only 4% of it comes from human activity. That's 16 parts per million introduced by humans, or 1 part in every 62,500 parts of our atmosphere. Furthermore, CO2's impact on any measurable warming decreases significantly after the first 20 parts per million. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere, regardless of the source, has a negligible effect. It is like painting over a red wall with white paint — after the first coat most of the red is covered. A second coat of paint has much less of an effect, while adding more coats has nearly no impact whatsoever.
Some argue that carbon dioxide amplifies the creation of water vapor, but climate models based on this consistently show global warming far beyond what is occurring. Most scientists cannot yet make accurate predictions about future climate change because their understanding of climate science remains highly incomplete. Like most speculative arguments, it fails to have any useful predictive value. Scientists still cannot predict local weather much beyond three days with much accuracy, let alone make accurate predictions about climate change hundreds or thousands of years from now.
The science is far from complete. Earth’s climate system is unfathomably complex, affected by countless interacting variables, with carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere being just one. The list of variables that shape climate includes cloud formation, topography, altitude, proximity to the equator, plate tectonics, sunspot cycles, volcanic activity, expansion or contraction of sea ice, conversion of land to agriculture, deforestation, reforestation, direction of winds, soil quality, El Niño and La Niña ocean cycles, prevalence of aerosols (airborne soot, dust, and salt) — in addition to atmospheric greenhouse gases, both natural and man made. A comprehensive list would run to hundreds, if not thousands, of factors, none of which scientists would claim to understand with absolute certainty.
The more variables there are in any system the more difficult it becomes from a probability standpoint to make reliable predictions. Just supposing there were only 20 variables that influenced the climate and science could claim a 90% accuracy of understanding for each, then multiplying .90 times itself 20 times yields 12% odds that a climate model built on a system that simple would be reliable. In a world where climate variables are exponentially greater it is little wonder that even the most refined climate models fall far short of giving us any sort of reliably exact forecast of future conditions. Measuring the human impact on earth's climate may always fall short of our aim to make useful predictions. To say that the science is settled or to implement political initiatives to reduce carbon emissions at considerable cost to society is irresponsible. Recklessly spouting dire warnings of what might happen, based upon the science we now have, is nothing other than ignorance or political fear-mongering.
The most devious part of the hoax is the fact that warming on planet earth is a good thing. Throughout history, humans, as well as all other living creatures, have thrived during earth's warm periods, and suffered and starved during the cold ones.The Romans rose up when the earth was much warmer than it had been previously, and just as the earth was entering the 400-year-long Little Ice Age, the Roman Empire was overrun by the Huns. The Egyptians built the pyramids when the climate of the earth was much warmer than today. And it is no coincidence that the beginning of the industrial revolution coincided precisely with the conclusion of the Little Ice Age. If global warming is so bad, then why has humankind as well as other animal life and plant life always flourished when the earth goes into a warming period?
Warming and cooling periods are part of a larger natural cycle that has been occurring long before humans lived on the earth. If atmospheric carbon dioxide increases are the primary cause of planetary warming, then why from the 1940's through the mid 1970's was the earth cooling when increases in our use of fossil fuels were at their greatest?
Does anyone even bother to ask why is it that Mars and Jupiter, as well as Neptune's moon Titan, have all followed the exact same warming and cooling cycles as the earth during the 20th century? Does it make sense to suggest that if the entire solar system is warming and cooling in sync, then maybe the greatest contributing factor may be the source of all warmth - our own sun? Do ya think?
There are a lot of bright people out there who have been suckered into this global warming nonsense to the point where they actually believe it. The old adage that if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth is in full play here, especially when those with other points of view are shouted down and dubbed as "deniers" by the media and academia. But even though people are slowly growing skeptical about it or losing their enthusiasm for the argument as they abandon the propagandizing mainstream media, we can't afford to let our guard down about this grandiose hoax. Whatever the environmental cry - whether the subject is global warming, or global cooling, or ocean acidification - we need to stay informed and denounce the madness of this outrageous lie and see it for what it really is. The global warming hoax has never been summed up as well as by H. L. Mencken: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
I am a runner and have loved to run all of my life, but I also realize that it is healthy for me to run. I know many people who do not run; some of them hate running. The objective fact that exercise is essential to good health does not seem to matter to them. I know people who are excessively overweight - they're fat - yet they know the difference between eating healthy and not eating healthy, and they'll argue that they still prefer to eat whatever they like and don't care to eat something that may be healthy for them if they don't like it. It's like the mother who feeds her children boxed snacks or takes them out for fast food because she doesn't like to cook. It doesn't seem to have occurred to her that she has a duty to feed her children healthy food. These people reject the idea that there is any sort of objective standard by which one should use as a guide in making important choices. And this group of people, with this mind-set, seem to be in the majority of the American population these days. They make up most of the teachers in our schools and perhaps most of the leaders in our government. The majority of people today seem to see no reason why they should set anything above their own feelings, likes, or dislikes.
We currently live in an Age of Existentialism and Pragmatism, and have since the late nineteenth century. Western Civilization has not always been the way it is today. It was founded under a completely different standard, one still followed only by a shrinking minority in this country. Upon the founding of this country we lived in an Age of Faith in which it was believed that there was an objective reality with clear truths, as defined mostly by the Bible. In the early nineteenth century we moved into an Age of Enlightenment in which an objective reality and truth were still recognized, however they were only to be realized through the use of reason. This was followed by the Age of Romanticism in which it was believed that truth could only to be known through one's own emotions and feelings. In contrast, today the majority believe that there is no objective reality at all and that truth is merely a relative concept which has no absolute meaning; there are no fixed principles anymore, there is only opinion and one person’s opinion is as good as another’s.
The way we think today originated with the pragmatic philosophies of William James and John Dewey in the late 1800's. They rejected the concept of an objective reality with timeless truths. Instead of concerning oneself with the question of whether something is true, the pragmatist asks, “What difference will it make in my life whether I believe it or don’t believe it?” So one looks to usefulness as the standard of believing something or not believing it at all. If something is good for the believer, it is considered to be true. If it is not good, then it is not true. My truth may be different than your truth, so any idea can be true for some and not true for others. And what is true for me today, furthermore, may not be true for me tomorrow - the truth can change.
Pragmatism evolved into the Existentialism of the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, which rejects an objective basis for life in favor of complete subjectivity. Sartre proposed that we are merely biological organisms living meaningless lives, making choices on the basis of no criteria whatsoever other than their own likes or dislikes. Since there is no basis for any external standards to which we must conform, people are free to do whatever they want.
It is by and large the elite or illumined members of any civilization that guide the thinking of an entire culture. Any shift of thinking is propagated by the government through the public school system in this country. For this reason government should neither own nor operate any centrally control schools. The central control becomes a tempting target for social engineers of any variant mode of thinking. Government monopolization of education is the most abominable of propaganda channels because it is aimed at citizens who are not yet equipped to question it. The only way to defuse the problem is to diffuse the system. Government schools need to be replaced with non-government learning arrangements.
It has been the colleges of education and the public schools which are the vehicles for dumbing down the public, conditioning them to reject the philosophy of our founders, and to accept the pragmatist and existentialist mind-set. It is the teachers who indoctrinate students into rejecting the concept of an objective reality and fixed standards, and accepting a subjective worldview devoid of objective meaning. Most teachers likely have no idea that they are facilitating a system of government-controlled propaganda - they are merely following what they have been taught, without question. They thus join the ranks of countless useful idiots who graduate from college only to continue assisting in the destruction of the minds and morals of their students.
Most Americans, though they have never read John-Paul Sartre, are existentialists and pragmatists. Likes, dislikes, and feelings are the only standard that matters. We do whatever we want if it feels good. That our personal likes and dislikes are irrelevant when they conflict with objective standards of morality is beyond most people's imagination. There is no black or white, there is only gray. What’s true for me may not be true for you. If it works, it’s right. What does it mean to you? And when one is facing a moral decision, one is asked, “How do you feel about it?” One’s feelings are set up as the criterion for making moral decisions! There is no appeal to objective standards of right and wrong anymore. That was ripped out of the public schools by the progressives.
This has even become the philosophical basis for some of the justices on the Supreme Court who continue to toss out the Federalist Papers as the objective standard of the meaning of the Constitution, substituting their own "educated" opinions. When they were in school, they were conditioned to reject the concept of objective reality and any fixed standards, and to accept pragmatism and existentialism. Despite their intelligence and judicial responsibility it is unlikely that many of them even think the matter through, refusing to go against their conditioning as instilled through the propaganda of their educational/mentor manipulators.
What can one do if not possessed of the degenerate thinking of this ilk? We live in selfishly dangerous times. The posterity of this great nation directly depends upon each of us repudiating the destructive philosophies we have been conditioned to believe through propaganda foisted upon us by the public schools. It is high time to reclaim the rational Enlightenment philosophy and Judeo-Christian morality of our founders. We can not save our country or our children until we close the public schools. Education must be privatized, and it must be done now.
From the emergence of life on earth eons ago, to the complex biosphere that we are members of on this blue speck of planetary dust that we call home, to the globalized techno-sphere that we have become in the early twenty-first century, to where do we journey now? On this geo-sphere we currently inhabit, societies are becoming enmeshed into a unified global whole thanks to the growing proliferation of the Internet. With access to unfathomable new levels of information that flow as never before, this technology connects us literally as a worldwide web, raising and reflecting both the commonality of our human experiences and their diverse expressions. The Internet offers us ways to appreciate, share, and enhance universal values while learning to celebrate and honor our differences. It also, without precedent, enables us to come together at moments of great inspiration and joy or of deep sorrow.
Like no other tool we have created before, it reveals what has been, what is, and what may be, for good or otherwise, encouraging and even leaving us no choice but to collectively open our eyes to a world previously unimagined. What we are willing to comprehend, how we choose to respond, and to what degree we’re prepared to participate in being agents of the change that is occurring, with or without us, is entirely at our discretion.
Nearly a century ago, visionaries like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Ëdouard Le Roy, and Vladimir Vernadsky, were dreaming great dreams about the future of humanity, envisioning a potential for our increasingly complex, entangled world to evolve toward a unified human and essentially planetary consciousness. The emerging techno-sphere that they likely never envisioned is becoming the dreamed-of path that enables the whole of humanity to see itself from a more integral perspective, forcing each of us to ask the fundamental existential whys and why nots anew, and positioning us within the much wider context of reality itself.
Teilhard, Le Roy, and Vernadsky dreamed of a world which would experience the power of love being victorious over the forces of fear. Teilhard considered that “love is the affinity which links and draws together the elements of the world. . . . Love, in fact, is the agent of universal synthesis.”
As the techno-sphere continues to expand our understanding that we are but a small part of one grand cosmic hologram, we begin to approach the fulfillment of Teilhard's dream. At the same time, as we increasingly become aware of the dangers of global breakdown, we must unite as a single human family and act inclusively with justice and compassion toward each other, taking better care for our one and only home on this planet. As we approach the hundredth anniversary of the farsighted vision of Teilhard, Le Roy, and Vernadsky, we must quickly overcome the fear and denial that holds us back and finally cross the approaching critical threshold of our evolution to embrace our awaiting potential.
Stephen Hawking said to "Look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see, and wonder what makes the universe exist. Be curious." From time immemorial we curious humans have gazed into the unknown depths of the sky and asked the question of who or what has created all of this wonderful world. At the pinnacle of human expression, Einstein wrote that “everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.” Even an agnostic or an atheist must have their suspicions.
We are approaching a point at which we may have evidence that supports at least speculative answers to the question of the great Mystery, increasingly integrating with the faith-based perspective. The growing scientific perspective of that which we call physical reality shows it to be in-formational from its simplest to most complex forms. In other words, our world does not consist of arbitrarily accumulated data and accidental processes, but is clearly ordered and meaningful. From every perspective the world is in-formationally intelligible, exquisitely balanced, unimaginably co-creative, staggeringly powerful, and yet fundamentally simple.
From the beginning of space and time, 13.8 billion years ago, the Universe has evolved through ever greater levels of complexity. There continues to evolve this progression with some apparent self-aware, co-creative, non-local intelligence behind it. If it logically follows that there cannot be an in-formed universe without a designing in-former, we are left with the question of who or what this intelligence behind the generation of this perfect Universe is. Without anthropomorphizing the nature of this creative impetus, how do we address this age-old enigma? With our emerging understanding of the cosmic hologram we inhabit there is increasing evidence that ours is a finite Universe within an ultimately infinite cosmic plenum. Perhaps the time is appropriate to address the notions of a multiverse of other universes beyond our own.
The French philosopher Marcel Proust once said that "The real voyage of discovery consists of not seeking new landscapes but having new eyes.” Perhaps we have reached a point in the history of humanity where we need to expand our vision of the world and see it with new eyes. With new vision we may be able to gather information heretofore unseen and break the code of meaningful in-formation.
We are rediscovering what the ancient Vedic sages understood about the Universe three millennia ago - that the cosmos is an infinite hologram. This convergence of perspectives continues to strengthen with an acknowledgment of the intrinsic and all-pervasive intelligence that flows throughout, yet makes up everything that we call the physical world. Science is only just beginning to catch up with the wisdom of long past eras as it re encounters the presence of a grand, ultimately infinite and eternal intelligence of which we are but holographic microcosms. Emerging discoveries will almost certainly shake our perceptions, not just of the larger world beyond, but at personal levels we may not foresee.
As we discover our true nature and place in the universe in this ongoing revolution of understanding, the next challenge will be in perceiving just how the omnipresent/omnipotent cosmic mind constructs and real-izes the in-formational and holographically expressed nature of our world and the possibilities of other finite universes. Along the path of the pioneering scientific adventure of seeking to understand the cosmic hologram, the perceived separation between mind and matter will increasingly blur, and the illusory dualism that has been under increasing threat from scientific discoveries over the past century can finally be resolved into the emerging understanding of the all-pervasive unity and wholeness of all-encompassing mind.
There are two ways that I have knowledge and understanding in the world - through consciousness and through awareness. Consciousness is how I perceive the world through my body and mind. Consciousness breaks down the world into components and is analytical, judgmental, and reactive. It is the source of my asking "Why?" and is the root of my sense of wonder and curiosity. It requires an answer to my inquiries, something logical and rational. Once I have an answer I can pass a judgment and fit this new information into my overall understanding. In order to analyze further, consciousness must externalize the new information into the structure that I call objective reality. Wherever the external classification falls, because we live in a dichotomous world, it must be either bad or good, wrong or right, harmful or safe, or some such judgment rooted in previous experience. Once a judgment is made, consciousness can react to what has now become a part of my objectified experience. If something is judged positively I can react with some kind of affinity; if I judge it negatively I can dissociate or withdraw from it entirely.
Awareness is different. It is how I perceive pure spirit. When I am experiencing awareness I can engage a thought, feeling, emotion, or belief and simply embrace that experience for what it is - just an experience. There is no judgment involved, no analyzing, nor reacting. What Is, simply Is, and is accepted as such. Without analysis, judgment or reaction, I can respond freely to any thought, feeling, emotion, or belief.
Consciousness is associated with the brain's functioning capabilities, while awareness is associated with the functioning modalities of the heart. The brain analyzes. The heart just accepts experience. Because consciousness seeks to be in a steady state of analyzing, reflecting, and the drawing of conclusions, most of us face a continual mental chatter interrupted only by surges of emotional churning and physical reactions to the thoughts and emotions being generated. The only way to escape the chatter and churning is by entering into a state of calm through internal silence to bring the Is-ness that always surrounds us back into focus. We cannot find this peace by thinking about what Is, nor by attempting to feel what Is. Consciousness cannot be used to explore the inner realms. Any attempt to do so is stymied by the distraction of inquiry and judgment. Only when we evoke internal silence will awareness come to the fore. Then we can experience what Is, free of any beliefs or judgments. The inner world offers no answers to the questions that consciousness asks - why, what, when, where, and how. Only through awareness are the inner realms revealed.
I need both consciousness and awareness to negotiate a true path in the world. Awareness is the most effective way to explore and understand who I am and where I fit within the grand scheme of things. Applying consciousness is the most effective way to make the changes in life that reflect what has been learned through awareness.
A Seattle court, followed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in ruling against a recent Executive Order of the President of the United State blocking select immigrants from entering the U.S., essentially threw the law and the Constitution out the window. It is only another example of a larger coup against the Constitution by lifetime-appointed leftist subversives in black robes. Substantive due process as an argument has been rendered a joke — unless you are leftists arguing against Trump. Then they mean something. Have we forgotten that the Congress has granted the President full and complete power over immigration. There is no due process requirement, no reason even needs to be given. The President’s power is complete. Non-citizens from foreign lands do not fall under the purview of Constitutional protections and due process; this should by and large still be the case even for those that hold a green card. Immigrants have zero legal standing - absolutely no protections under the U.S. Constitution - and may be stopped from entering the country at any time if the President determines such immigrants pose a threat to national security.
There are 678 federal judges. Apparently each one of them has the power to over-rule the President of the United States, to veto any law passed by a state legislature and signed by a state governor, and to cancel any law passed by Congress and signed by the President. This is judicial tyranny. The question is: how do we end such tyranny? One way would be to insure that all judges understand that they may only continue to sit on the bench and decide cases by permission of the PEOPLE, through elections with term limits rather than by appointment for life. We shouldn't have to form mobs, march into the courtroom, and ride them out of town to remind them that they serve at the discretion of WE THE PEOPLE. Like some other institutions in our country, the judiciary has become distanced from the society that empowers them to serve, and they now think they rule. Whose country is this? The judiciary needs reigned in, and soon. If it is going to take a constitutional crisis, let us stand our ground now and curb the tide of the leftist judicial coup that is undermining the Constitution.
The United States is the fattest nation on earth. It also has the most per capita gyms, health clubs, and fitness coaches. With fitness being so highly valued, why are we so plump? It's because we are obsessive. We work too much. Play too hard. Eat too much. We do everything to the extreme, but our eating obsession, by and large, outweighs our fitness obsession.
Travel to other countries and you may have trouble finding a gym. Outside of the U.S. people don't exercise as much. Rather than play racquetball, do in-line skating, practice jazzercize, or go to the park to throw a Frisbee, most of the rest of humanity just walks and rides bicycles more. They eat whatever they want, but they eat less of it. We Americans drive our cars to the club to do aerobics, then stop for a Whopper or Big Mac on the way home. Sure, we exercise a lot but we are also the world's greatest consumers of ice cream and meat, Ding Dongs and Cheese Doodles, and second per capita (behind Iceland) drinking Coca-Cola.
At the same time we're the only place in the world neurotic about trying to eat more health foods - buying only natural and organic labeled foods. I'll have a fat-free, cholesterol-free double cafe almond milk latte cappuccino to go, please! It's our schizophrenic diets that fatten us up and do us in. For half of our lives we abuse ourselves with Oreo cookies and Ben and Jerry's ice cream, then attempt to make amends by eating spinach salads, tofu and nut butter. Our problem is that we are an obsessive, extreme nation of people that lacks any common sense of moderation.
The energy equation is very simple: We need to move more and eat less. Eat one more banana than you need each day and you you will be twenty pounds heavier in a year. At least as many calories must be burned each day as one eats or the body saves them for lean times that may never come. It's simple math. The body is pretty resilient, so for the most part you can eat whatever you want and get away with it. Sure, it is important to make an effort to eat healthy... just eat less of it. And it really doesn't matter what type of exercise you do, as long as it makes you feel good. Just don't overdo... anything! Moderation. Moderation. Moderation... in all things.
Westerners with a liberal, welcoming, open mind-set need to come to a realization that Islam is not just a religion, but is an adversarial political ideology as well. Islam is a comprehensive cultural, religious and political system of ideology that encompasses and controls every aspect of a believer's life. While religious freedom is an inviolable foundational argument in the United States, it is not an appropriate defense for Muslims immigrating to the United States. It is the politics of Islam that should be of greatest concern, not the freedom to practice the religion of Islam. To Muslims the rest of us are kafirs (non-Muslims) which determines how we are viewed and treated according to a dualistic Islamic ethical standard. Kafirs can be abused in the worst ways or they can be treated like a good neighbor.
We kafirs need to educate ourselves world about political Islam, its founder Mohammed, his political doctrine and his god, Allah, and not make fatal assumptions about this tojan horse. There are five principles contained in the Koran, the Hadith (the traditions of Mohammed) and his biography, the Sira. It is written and believed as a major tenet that kafirs must submit to Islam in all politics and public life; that every aspect of kafir civilization must submit to political Islam.
Non-believers are so important that they have several names. Christians and Jews are called People of the Book or infidels. Other religious names for non-Muslims are atheist, polytheist, and pagan. But the Koran uses one word that includes all of the religious names. That name is kafir. Kafir is usually translated as unbeliever, but that translation is wrong. Unbeliever is a neutral word. The Koran is very clear about the kafir. Indeed, the Koran defines the kafir by how it speaks of them. Kafirs are the lowest and worst form of life. Kafirs can be robbed, murdered, tortured, enslaved, crucified and more. Later in this chapter, more of the Koran’s doctrine of the kafir is given in some detail. But the key point is that a kafir is not only a non-Muslim, but also a person who falls under a different moral code from the Muslim. The Koran is devoted to the division between those who believe Mohammed, Muslims, and those who do not, kafirs. This grand division of the Koran means that there are two points of view of the Koran—the view of the Muslim and the view of the kafir.
The third principle of Islam is duality. Here is a verse from the Koran: 109:2 "I do not worship what you worship, and you do not worship what I worship. I will never worship what you worship, and you will never worship what I worship. You to your religion, me to my religion." This sounds very tolerant, but this verse was written later: 9:5 "When the sacred months are passed, kill the kafirs wherever you find them. Take them as captives, besiege them, and lie in wait for them with every kind of ambush. If they submit to Islam, observe prayer, and pay the poor tax, then let them go their way. Allah is gracious and merciful." Now we have absolute intolerance. This contradiction is normal for the Koran and is even addressed in the Koran. The solution to contradiction is called abrogation where the later verse is better than the earlier verse. The logic here is very important. Since Allah is perfect and the Koran is the exact words of Allah, then both contradictory verses are true, but the later verse is better or stronger. This leads to dualistic logic where two contradictory facts can both be true.
Islam means submission and being a Muslim means one who has submitted. It is clearly stated in the three works of Islam that all kafirs and their civilizations must be annihilated. Mohammed’s success depended on violence to persuade kafirs that he was the prophet of Allah. Submission is political, as well as religious. Islam demands that kafirs submit in every aspect of public life. Every part of kafir culture is an offense to Allah.
Look at Muslim dominant nations throughout the world to see how Muslims think and behave. You see a total lack of civil society, of rule of law, of freedom for journalists, women, Christians, or an apostate who wants to leave Islam. The Quran has more anti-Semitism in it than Mein Kampf. You are allowed to leave Christianity or Judaism and become an atheist or the follower of another religion; you are not allowed to leave Islam or you face the penalty is death, proof of the totalitarian approach of sharia. It is the total anti-thesis of our way of life and focus on freedom and rule of law. This kind of thinking and violence within an ideology is not something our American way of life is going to ever change and it is something that we should not be importing.
The Japanese do not allow the immigration of Muslims or the building of mosques in Japan. They understand that Islam and freedom are incompatible. Muslim people, in and of themselves, are fine. It is the ideology of Islam that is very dangerous. People of different cultures are certainly more alike than different, but different cultures do not necessarily blend harmoniously, no matter how optimistic our utopian visions. We must respect differences and not seek complete blending of cultures throughout the world. Survival and evolution of any group is more associated with differentiation than homogeneity. Differentiation has long-term value, despite the short-term inherent conflict that may always exist between people of different world views.
"Democrats and liberals have been driving drunk while texting for eight years. Swerving into the wrong lane, they crashed into oncoming traffic and sit, dazed and confused, wondering what happened. The few survivors crawl out of the clown car screaming at the innocent people they’ve harmed. After all, it’s never their fault, you see, it’s everyone else’s for daring to get in their way." Tammy Bruce, Washington Times, March 1, 2017
If you give an infinite number of chimpanzees an infinite number of laptops and printers with an infinite amount of paper and ink, one of two things will result. Mathematically speaking, one of those monkeys could ultimately and inadvertently type and print the complete works of William Shakespeare. Of course, mathematically speaking, it is infinitely more likely that the result would be a lot of broken laptops and printers and a universe of wasted paper. Sure, such a proposition is implausible, but when you are dealing with an infinite number of possibilities, even a monkey will eventually come up with something amazing.
Such is the fundamental basis behind all lotteries, and gambling in general. Given an infinite number of possible chances, sooner or later someone is going to win. And someone usually does, except the chances that it will be you are not very good. We humans have a crazy passion for gambling. It doesn't even matter what the wager is. And people will lay down good money on the odd chance of winning something absolutely worthless, all for the chance to win something for nothing. Billions of dollars cross the counter every year for lotteries, raffles, casinos, sporting events, and on and on, when the known odds against winning are astronomical. Every time you plunk down a bet you have to admit that chances are generally better that you will get struck by lightning on a sunny day.
We gamble because we are, as a species, eternal optimists. We have evolved to be the successful species that we are BECAUSE we are risk takers. We like to believe that "today may be our lucky day". It's worth the risk.
Our propensity to take a chance is not all bad. On the one hand we readily disregard the laws of mathematics to throw down good money against near hopeless odds; on the other, we gamble sometimes with our fortunes or lives to fulfill our wildest dreams. The frontier has always been discovered, settled, and shaped by gamblers - men and women willing to risk all for the fulfillment of some crazy dream. We all owe a considerable amount to the gamblers that stepped away from their comfort zone to chase some wild ambition that changed the world. Where would we be without the likes of Christopher Columbus, Benjamin Franklin, Neil Armtrong, or Joan of Arc?
I volunteered to be a Marine during the war in Viet Nam. A lot of guys didn't come home from that, but I was not one of them. I went on to risk huge amounts of capital, time, and energy in business venture after business venture with the upside potential of considerable financial benefit always overshadowing the ever present reality of financial disaster. It was all very exciting playing the game to win or lose. Now, much of the theater of life has passed me by. Life drips more slowly upon the page. I don't play lotteries and visiting casinos doesn't entertain my natural lust for risk taking.
Instead, I take risks for rewards that others might think are worthless at best and sheer crazy. I'll pay $250 to run one hundred miles through dangerously bad weather and impossible terrain just to come home with a new t-shirt and a shiny belt buckle that I'll never wear. I climb mountains just to take in the view from the top, often at considerable risk of dying on the way climbing up, and sometimes I drive my car like I am racing in Monte Carlo just for a good rush of adrenaline.
It is exciting to go to the edge and do the things that others say is impossible or foolish. In many ways I am that chimpanzee with a laptop. Given enough time there really are no limits to what can be accomplished. Given enough freedom and time, and plenty of paper, get out of my way to let me monkey around in defiance of the mathematical certainty behind it all.
The wisdom and wit of Benjamin Franklin are unquestionably impeccable so I cannot but agree wholeheartedly with his assertion that "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." But I believe it is the profound postman's wisdom of Cliff Clavin in conversation with Norm on Cheers that best justifies my having another beer, if there is ever any doubt: "Well, ya see, Norm, it's like this (in his thick Boston accent)... A herd of buffaloes can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers."
Sometimes when I reflect on all the beer that I drink, I get to feeling self-indulgent. Then I swirl the suds around in the bottle that I'm nursing and think about all the workers in the brewery and their families and all of their hopes and dreams. If I didn't drink this beer they might be out of work, their kids couldn't go to summer camp, and their dreams might be shattered. Then I raise my bottle and say to myself, "It is better that I drink this beer and let their dreams come true than be selfish and worry about my liver."