"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." -- Judge Alex Kozinski, U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Saturday, September 20, 2014

How we got here

ATTENTION:  This is reposted with corrections for the videos and other little details.

If I was forced to blame the current economic recession, malaise, problems (use whatever term you like) on only one thing, it would be ignorance of most of the people.  Ignorance of both history and economics.  And I do mean real economics and not Keynesian theory, which is why I say both history and economics. History proves which economic models work and which ones don't.

Notice the fact that the largest reserves of petroleum energy in the world, more than all of the middle east and Venezuela combined, is laying underneath United States territory. The only close second is Russia, providing 90% of Europe's oil.

By the way: you won't find this information easily on the internet anymore.
 The above image is from 2011.  Such info has mysteriously vanished from most sites.  Just like some of my info on this blog has mysteriously vanished. 

Thanks to Jerome Corsi's book on the oil conspiracy, we can now know what most of the rest of the world knows: that petroleum is abiogenic. There is no such thing as "fossil fuel."  Crude oil and natural gas are not made from formerly living things, but by a chemical process in the earth's crust that a couple of Nazi scientists discovered during or before WWII.

We have the greatest technology. We have the greatest basic infrastructure.  We have no lack of consumers who would be happy to purchase goods made right here on American soil.

We have plenty of scientists who know that we could build incredibly safe reactors that would use super cheap and abundant thorium.  Before you watch the video, I want to make a couple of points.  About 40,000 people die every year in the U.S. in vehicle accidents.  About 800,000 people die from standard, non-malpractice medical care.  Just to help you keep the deaths from coal in proper perspective.


Of course that's not the only way to improve our energy situation. The bloom box.


But of course, this government would rather throw money down the black holes of solar panels (Remember Solyndra?) Or windmills that nobody wants (NIMBY).

But I say all that to get to the question: What's the real reason we are in this situation?

Mea Culpa

I've been away for a while and as a result, I've forgotten how to do a lot of little technical things with the computer.  It's not exactly the kind of thing I think of as survival skill so my brain relegated stuff I used to know how to do well on the computer to stuff I have to re-learn.

I'm trying to get back into blogging again and I'm making all kinds of mistakes.  If you've visited here in the past few weeks, you've probably notices that stuff on my blog isn't working right.  Specifically video links. 

I'm trying to retro-fix these problems and get my skills back.  Perhaps in the future I will write about where I've been and why. 

Hope you enjoy what you've seen lately.  But come back and look at the posts again and see if I have corrected the problems.

Friday, September 19, 2014

Origin of Government

Morgan over at House of Eratosthenes got me going on this subject with this post.

My perspective on this is so divergent from his that I decided to make it my own stand alone post on my blog here.  I couldn't just comment on his blog.

For the purpose of this discussion, trying to keep it in as narrow and controllable forum as possible, I'm going to define Column A and Column B in my own terms and maybe give them catchier names.

Severian says Column A people are:  "A group of individuals, each as sovereign as his physical power can make him, agree to cede some of their rights to a collective, in order to better secure their remaining rights. The key player here is the individual."   The only problem I have with that definition is that there is no need to cede any rights.  This is a misconception that has crept into our republican society.  Just because I agree with forming a local government with a police force and courts does not mean that I cede any rights or any sovereignty.  I simply LEND my authority to those entities as a matter of convenience.  I refuse to give up or cede anything to government.  To do so would be to misunderstand and negate the very words of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Until I come up with something better, I'll call the Column A group, "Indies."

The Column B group is made up of people who cover a wide range, as surprising as that may seem.  At the worst end of the spectrum are those who are ravenously power hungry and mean to rule others. Such people have learned to parlay their narcissism and sociopathy into lucrative careers. At the mildest end of the spectrum are those who desire to be ruled under the guise of having security and believe that all others should feel the same way, believe the same way, and by God we will give whatever power necessary to our champions to enforce it.  Probably the greatest rallying cry of this crowd is; "There Ought To Be A Law."  So, I'll call them the TOTBALS.  The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.  If it protects ONE child . . .  Such are the self-proclaimed "liberals" who justify the most intolerant, totalitarian government for the purpose of enforcing what they believe is best for everybody at the point of a gun.  And yes, there are more than enough of such people proudly bearing the labels of Republican and Conservative.  They are just as bad.  Don't talk to me about how evil abortion is and then in the next breath defend the so-called "war on drugs."  Shut. UP.  Don't you dare defend subsidies for industries and corporations and even farmers and then gripe about WIC and food stamps.  All of the policies and bloated bureaucracies of government need to be destroyed or scaled back to make none of those things necessary.

The Indies are those who would love to not need any courts or any police or any government, except for the fact that they recognize that human nature won't allow it.  Indies recognize that anarchy is not viable because there will always be evil people who mean to abuse other people, innocent people, and so we must establish and ordain at least some limited form of government in order to restrain the evil.
The biggest problem in this scenario is that the true-to-the-core Indies who would be the best and most trustworthy at executing that role don't really want the job.  They just want to be left alone to pursue a multitude of worthwhile goals and just taking care of themselves and their loved ones.

Unfortunately, the kind of people who actively seek to get the jobs in government are the TOTBALS.  And they actually think of themselves as really good people who are doing us a favor by sacrificing and working for far less than they are actually worth.

I get extremely irritated by anyone who thinks that the American Revolution and the French Revolution had anything remotely in common.  Even if you don't want to study them in depth, at least read "A Tale of Two Cities" by Charles Dickens.  The former was a righteous attempt to redress grievances and establish a proper government.  The latter was just an excuse to go on a cathartic blood-bath over a corrupt Church-monarchy cabal.

I don't know if there is much more that I should add to this post.  Let me know.

And now for a breakaway moment

Sometimes I get too caught up in the ugliness of this world and I need something to life my spirits.

I can think of nothing better than good music.  There are very, very few exclusively instrumental pieces that move me.  Very few.

I don't really give a flying whatever for the movie Jurassic Park, but John Williams signature piece for this movie is stunning.  It is majestic.  It raises the bar on what can be called majestic. 

I've listened to several renditions and the link below is one of the absolute best.

Think on this.  It was commissioned for a capitalist enterprise.  Had it been funded through the NEA or some such government entity, we would have ended up with some piece of crap that wouldn't be suitable for introducing Sponge Bob Square Pants or Captain Kangaroo.



In a recent personal exchange, this concept came to me and I reproduce it here.

"All the world is a stage.  [yes, credit to Shakespeare]   All of life is drama.  There's no escaping it.  Question is what script are you going to choose?  What play do you want to be in?  What character are you?"
No doubt we've got people in our lives who protest to the high heavens that they don't want any drama in their lives.
I'll bet ten dollars against a donut that such people watch "Survivor" or "The Walking Dead" or any number of shows full of tense drama.  Which exposes the lie that they don't want drama.  People love drama. Billions and billions of dollars are freely given up by a populace that can't get enough drama.  What they really want is drama that they can turn on or shut off at a moment's notice. They want to experience drama vicariously through other people without the actual consequences that will remain after the programming hour is done.
Life is drama.  Stuff happens.  We can deal with it well or we can deal with it poorly.  When people talk about not wanting drama in their lives, it typically means they don't want to put up with the poor ways that other people react to stuff that happens. Or, they don't want to put up with the different ways that other people react to stuff that happens. In a nutshell, they don't want to deal with YOUR drama.
We each have enough of our own drama.  Another way to think of it is our own stress.  Every day is a new challenge with all kinds of stress.  We think of our struggles every day as our own stress, but we don't think of it as drama.  Your stress and the way you don't handle it well according to my judgment is your drama.  We each want others to cut us some slack because of all the difficulties we are dealing with, while at the same time we want others to take their drama someplace else and leave us the hell alone.
God, please help me to remember these words from day to day as I live through the drama, and remember that other people are going through some drama as well.

Thursday, September 18, 2014

The Scottish Revolt

Subtitle: Why it matters.

Never been there.  So I know that my opinion is probably woefully inadequate. I can only go on what I can glean from the internet, which really isn't much.

What little I can get tells me that Scotland is pretty leftist.  I don't use the word liberal, because that word has been abused beyond its classical meaning.  I mean leftist or "progressive" in the sense that Hillary Clinton uses it, which is to say that "progressive" is a euphemism for socialism or communism light.

Many real conservatives in America have dreamed of an independence or secession movement. Like having Texas separate from the rest of the states and become an independent Republic.  A more optimal scenario would be to let California secede and implement all the ideals that leftists want and become the socialist utopia that they believe in, but without any help from the rest of the states. Then we can all sit and watch as they crumble and starve and implode from their own stupidity in rapid order.  Right now, California is just doing it in slow motion because they can use the largess of the rest of the states via the Federal government.

Scotland is a tiny country by itself.  If it separates from Britain and maintains leftist policies, it will be a disaster and it will collapse, which will reinforce the cause of the global elitists.  If Scotland tries to implement true conservative measures that would make a positive difference, expect the global elitists to make moves to bring Scotland to her knees.  Socialism has never, and can never work.  The USSR proved that in no uncertain terms.  Socialism only lasts as long as it has other sources to leech from. 

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Fashion Friviolitry

The computer I happen to be using, is serviced by an ISP using Bing, and one of the stupid, pseudo-news headlines that come across the splash screen is about Taylor Swift being "best-dressed" or some nonsense to that effect.

The reality is this.  Taylor Swift, or Salma Hayek, or Carrie Underwood, or Kellie Pickler,  Marissa Tomei, or Mary McDonald, or a hundred other women I could name, could wear a burlap bag, or a bath towel or flannel shirts and worn out jeans and I would get just as hot and bothered as I would if they were wearing a negligee or nothing at all.

The pieces of material have nothing to do with why we want to look at these women.  By the way, Marissa Tomei turns 50 this year and Mary McDonald is 62. I will leave you to google Rachel Welch on your own.

I don't care how much Rosanne Barr, or Whoopie Goldberg, or Rachel Maddow, or Hillary Clinton invest in clothes or cosmetics, or the experts that can tell them how to use those things, I can't stand to look at them.

I would have to be homosexual to even begin to think of being  - gaag, gaag, ick,  spew, -    attracted to that.  That pic came from his, er, her own website.

In several decades, I've seen some women who have made dramatic changes in their lives to become very pretty compared to their former selves, so let's be clear that it is very possible to improve.

But I am sick to freaking death of seeing thinly veiled advertising in the form of "news" that gives women the impression that if you wear the same stuff ____________ does, then you can be pretty too.

You can take the clothes off of Kate Upton, or Heidi Klum and put them on an anatomically correct manikin.  Once they are on the plastic doll, I could care less how nice they look.  I wasn't really looking at the clothes when they were on Kate or Heidi.  I guess you could think of it as men having a form of X-ray vision.

I don't care what you do to the Hildebeast, or Whoopi, or Maddow.  Their ugliness goes deep down.  And I could not imagine going beyond polite pleasantries with Eva Longoria or the Dixie chicks or any other gorgeous leftist female.  Just can't go there.

This makes me realize how inadequate is the phrase, "undressing her with your eyes."  When a man sees a beautiful woman wearing form-fitting clothing, swim suits or anything of that nature, we've already thought about how wonderful it would be to experience all the various parts of that body about 0.0056 seconds into the first look.  There is no scientific way to measure these things.  It's just a guess.  We've all seen men go into a form of mental vapor-lock in the presence of a beautiful woman.  A lot of women understand this phenomenon, but amazingly some women can never comprehend it and condemn men for it.  I say amazingly, because the women on the left who are so disgusted by male behavior, also believe in evolution.  They also believe that people are born homosexual, and thus have no control or choice over their sexual preferences. 

If you believe that, don't you EVER give me a hard time for fawning or even drooling over a pretty, sexy female.  Just shut the hell up.  You don't beat a dog for eating a steak you left on the floor.

Do I still go into mental vapor-lock over pretty females?  Not since about 1985.  Becoming a mature human being (male or female) means learning to control yourself.  Are the feelings still there? Oh yeah.  Deep down inside.  But just as I control the things I eat because there are all kinds of things that I could over-consume to my detriment, I don't reveal what I'm really thinking in the presence of a hot babe for fear of looking like an idiot.  But I've digressed way too much.

Of the first group of women above, I don't know much about the intelligence of all of them except Kellie Pickler. If it were up to me, the Wikipedia entry that explains the phrase, "dumber than a box of rocks,"  would have youtube videos of Kellie Pickler from "Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader" and one of Jessica Simpson explaining the tuna she was eating from a Chicken-of-the-Sea can was really chicken.  By the time I was in my early thirties, I understood that while both of those women were incredibly hot and the purely animal part of my being could go into an erotic form of apoplexy in their presence, I could not imagine any kind of long term relationship with either of them, because at some point we would have to talk.

Maybe you noticed that I included a photo of Jewel Staite. She's not what most people would think of as glamorous, or a "knock-out," but I find her incredibly sexy.  Both from her role in Firefly and from working without a script at the fan conventions.  A "kinda" pretty woman with intelligence beats a "drop-dead gorgeous" femme fatale any day of the week for me.  Women like Jessica Simpson and Kellie Pickler remind me of what smart prostitutes know.  Men don't pay you to have sex.  They pay you to leave after having sex.  And I'm guessing that except for maybe 5% of the male population, every man pays for sex.  Money may or may not be the form of currency used.

Some people can never comprehend what happened with Prince Charles regarding Princess Diana and Camilla Parker Bowles.  Why in the world would he choose Camilla over Di?  We can never know for sure, but any mature male with enough experience can surely guess.

Can you have a beautiful woman with brains?  No doubt. Heddy Lamarr must have had an IQ off the charts.  Just check out her Wikipedia page.

Ladies, whatever you wear will only impress a man for a few seconds.  We will not remember what you wore beyond 48 hours.  The clothes that we do remember will only be because we remember how much and what parts of your flesh they revealed.

Ultimately, you women wear clothes for other women.  If a woman is really beautiful and sexy to most men, she could wear jeans and a tee-shirt or a uniform every day and we'd still have the hots for her.  And if a woman is ugly, and not just in the visual sense, she could wear a negligee and we'd be tired of her in two minutes.