Thoughts Aloud

Archive for the ‘Liberty’ Category

On a recent comment, Jim offered a link to David Friedman’s discussion of his “Hard Problem,” regarding national defense in a stateless society. It reminded me of Harry Browne’s elegant solution 45 years ago, in “How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World.” Longtime readers will recall that this is my favorite book, which I have reread at least once a year since 1979, just to keep me grounded. Anyone think they can refute Harry?:

National Defense

What about national defense? Isn’t the nation safe from foreign enemies only because of the government?

What is a nation? In common usage, a nation is considered to be a geographical area under the jurisdiction of a single government that isn’t a subdivision of a larger government. The government assumes responsibility for the defense of the geographical area and makes all decisions regarding armed conflict with outsiders.

If there were no government, there’d be no nation. And if there were no nation, there’d be nothing to defend.

If that sounds too simple, think about it. No aggressor conquers a nation by overcoming every single inhabitant and occupying every part of the geographical area. It would be far too expensive to do so.

Instead, the aggressor applies force against the country until the government of that nation surrenders. Then the aggressor takes over the existing governmental machinery to enforce the occupation. If no such machinery existed, how could it enforce the occupation?

Hitler couldn’t have conquered Europe without the help provided by the governments of the occupied nations. Would he have sent every one of his Nazis into Norway to police all the Norwegians? If he had, who would have been left at home to police the Germans?

That doesn’t mean that aggression would stop if there were no governments. But the aggression would be no more formidable than the examples of crime we’ve already covered.

Hydrogen bombs and other modern tools of war are effective only when they can be used to pressure governments. Enemy rulers have nothing to gain by destroying U.S. property and people — except as a means of pressuring the government to surrender. Otherwise, the more they destroy, the less value to them in conquering the nation.

If there were no federal government in the U.S., the Communists would have to conquer fifty different state governments — which would be far more difficult. But what if there were no state governments? Then they’d have to conquer every town separately.

But what if there were no town governments — no governments at all? Then they’d have to make over 200 million separate conquests — and use millions of their own policemen to set up new governments.

Obviously the answer to the threat of communism (or any other enemy) is not a stronger government to defend us but just the opposite. We’d be far safer if there were no government to conquer.

It’s surprising how many “national issues,” problems that “cry out” for government intervention, wouldn’t even exist if there were no governments.

The dictators of the world have always operated in countries where there was a strong respect for government. The prevailing European awe of the state has produced an endless number of tyrants, wars, and low standards of living.

And now that generations of Americans have been taught that governments are vital to their well-being, present-day Americans are afflicted with all the problems that invariably result from big government.

Such a trend has developed over many lifetimes; it won’t be reversed within ours. Governments grow naturally because individuals see them as ways of increasing their rewards at lower expense. It’s an over simplification to say that people want “something for nothing.” All people want to obtain as much as possible for as little effort as possible; that’s why labor-saving devices are valuable.

Unfortunately, however, government isn’t the labor-saving device it appears to be. It always gives back less than it takes. But because it does appear to be a giver of good things, its appeal is almost universal and there isn’t much likelihood that the trend will be reversed.

Browne, Harry. How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World (Kindle Locations 1640-1678). Kindle Edition.

Pretty simple logic, huh? â—„Daveâ–º

It would appear to be the season for redefining who we are, how we think, and how we became us. My lifelong journey from academic liberal, to patriotic authoritarian, to selfish libertarian, to now being an avowed stateless anarchist, is fairly well documented on this blog. What is most interesting to me is that although I literally spent years studying and pondering the subject before making that last leap, few seem to take my decision seriously. At times it is trivialized and/or ridiculed hereabouts. I reckon it is the connotation most have for the word ‘anarchy.’ To me it means stateless — without rulers — not without order. Perhaps it is time to republish my 2 ½-year-old essay, to try to elucidate my thinking once more:

Liberty or the State

Choose one. Only one. They are mutually exclusive.

It is interesting how both sides of our Incumbrepublocrat duopoly have very different visions of the purpose and utility of the State. Yet, both staunchly defend the existence of the Federal Government, as absolutely necessary to protect our rights and freedom. Of course they do, their cushy jobs are on the line; yet, a good many actually believe they are doing good works, in their life-long struggle to save their own vision of America, from their opponents’ strident agenda and goofy ideology. It seemingly never occurs to any of them, that if they simply shut it down and went home, most of their ‘worthy’ causes would evaporate for lack of opposition, and they would never be missed by the vast majority of a much relieved population.

What would happen if we stopped legitimizing their oligarchy? What if nobody bothered to attend the carefully choreographed kabuki theater performances they call ‘elections?’ Without our dutifully voting for the least objectionable candidates offered, they could not claim a ‘mandate’ for their ‘vision,’ and claim the mantle of ‘leader’ for their ‘constituents.’ The most important statistic worth noting in post-election polling, is how many eligible voters chose ‘none of the above,’ by the simple expedient of boycotting the sham election.

For most of a long interesting life, I have generally been an upstanding American Patriot. I wore the US Army uniform for three years back in the mid ’60s, and then a peace officer’s badge in three different small towns for several years after that. Each of these ‘government jobs,’ required that I swear an oath to defend our country and its Constitution “from all enemies, foreign and domestic.” It never occurred to me back then, to question the legitimacy of the Federal government, or its moral authority to make laws governing our conduct. Neither did I question the basis of my sworn duty to enforce them. Everyone must obey… “it’s the Law!”

Read the rest of this entry »

One might think that, given the conversations RE: AP, that I am some sort of government apologist. Let me assure you I am anything but. Ergo, the following confusion in my mind:

The outcry over the meanie Trump separating minor children from adult criminals at the border has now reached a new level of “theater of the ridiculous” in the growing call to eliminate ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement).

Let us think about this a moment: ICE is a law enforcement arm of the executive branch of our government that is tasked with the enforcement of laws duly passed in our legislature and signed into law by presidents past. Admitting that ICE has its share of bullies, just as does any other group of humanity to whom some level of power has been conveyed… in the main, it attempts to do nothing more or less than enforce the law in a legal and proper manner and in the plain sight of the citizens they seek to protect.

Yet, thousands of loonies demonstrate and demand its dissolution. Well, our Constitution does give loonies the right to bay at the moon if they so desire.

Meanwhile, there is a clandestine organization in this same government that operates in the shadows and has been proven repeatedly to violate our laws by domestic spying on our citizens. I refer, of course, to the NSA (National Security Agency). Unlike ICE, these people are a real and present danger to the liberty and the right to privacy of our citizens. Yet, I see no demonstrations against them, no demand for their dissolution. Even after whistle blowers like Edward Snowden have shown us indisputable evidence of their crimes. Indeed, many of us have been brainwashed into thinking Snowden is the criminal rather than NSA.

Is there a point to this rant you ask? Yes there is. That point is to illustrate how disconnected we have become, how we constantly fail as the ultimate watchdog over our government and how easily we are easily misled by those with a vested interest in the status quo.

If WTS don’t get off our lazy butts and take back control of our government, we have only ourselves to blame. Despite what Jim and Dave think of those in power, they are doing exactly what most of us would do if we were in the same position. It is simply human nature.

Think about it – then flail me as you see fit.

Troy L Robinson

It should be quite clear to anyone paying any attention that the massive protests over everything Trump related get ever closer to outright violence. I lived through the Vietnam War protests and clearly remember students being shot by folks in uniform before the then president shirked his duty and surrendered.

Even though the shots are not ringing out (yet), this seems to me a far more polarized situation than we have experienced since our first Civil War.

One factor that the protesting progressives seem to have overlooked (despite the growing evidence) is that we clod-heads in “flyover country” are heavily armed and, usually, well skilled in the use of said arms. Do these coastal fools really think they can unseat a duly elected president and complete the destruction of our Republic without serious resistance?

Not going to happen. Will there be a “winner” in the coming conflict? I can’t see how there could be. As soon as serious blood begins to flow, our enemies will be picking over our dead and wounded bodies worse than the Arabs during the WWII campaigns in North Africa.

Then there is the matter of what our military will do once it hits the fan. My suspicion is that divisions of opinion within the military will mirror those of the nation in general. No idea how that will play out.

Point is, I truly think we are heading into a situation that will produce only losses – losses that could be easily avoided by talking rather than screaming at each other. That said, the intentional destruction of our national education system is surely about to pay the predictable dividends.

The fact that this is taking a bit longer to materialize than I predicted in earlier articles does not change the reality I think I see all around me. The other thing that I see is that the “good people” for the most part are silently hunkering down hoping the whole thing will simply go away. As it such problems ever do.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

While I still support much of the libertarian agenda, such as decriminalization of drugs, I quit the national party over the issue of open borders. Several thoughts come to mind:

First, we know where and what constitutes a nation because of its borders. For instance, were we to simply erase the current border between the USA and Canada, how would one know which nation one was in? Of of the few ways that I can think of is which currency the local merchants accept. Those of you thinking we could at least tell Quebec because of the language have obviously never spent time in rural Louisiana. The point is that both the USA and Canada would soon lose their national identities and would tend to merge into some sort of blob.

My conclusion: no obvious borders equals no real nation. So, if you like the notion of nationhood, you must also like the notion of borders. Of course, the “one world” folks might find this idea just fine, assuming they had the mental acuity to have real ideas in the first place.

Second comes the monetary aspect of things. Many, the Libertarians among them, say, OK, have borders for national identification but leave them open so that folks can come and go as they please.

Unfortunately, the USA has become a “welfare state”. Does it not naturally follow that a welfare state with open borders will soon find itself trying to support the poor and the worthless of all nations with the ability to get their losers shipped here? I know the progressives like to give handouts on the theory of unlimited resources – but – anyone able to think knows that such ideas are at odds with the basic laws that govern our universe. Besides, aren’t those same progressives the ones who keep telling us we are running out of key resources like oil, gas, clean water, etc.? Come on folks, you can’t really have it both ways.

My conclusion: open borders in a welfare state is a recipe for disaster. After all, doesn’t our current – un-payable – national debt suggest that we are already well on the road to the disaster in question?

Why the reason for this rant? A recent article in Reason magazine suggesting the disbandment of ICE along with their consistent open borders perspective. BTW, when my current subscription to Reason runs out, I will not subscribe again. A recent change in chief editors, among other factors, has turned a once fine magazine into just another Trump-bashing, progressive piece of garbage. Indeed, I toss most of them in the trash without reading them, especially when the cover page has anti-Trump bias all over it.

So I am now officially independent and losing interest daily.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

Since the Russia collusion farce seems to be exploding in the progressives’ faces, they have to come up with a new Trump crime. This time it concerns the separation of adults and minors entering the country illegally. Translated: the coyotes have figured out a way to game the system by bringing in “families” who may or may not be related in some way other than the crime they are committing by crossing the border illegally.

Predictably, the progressives and their media stooges are crying crocodile tears over these poor “innocent” babies, even showing some of them crying in cages (via a photo from the Obamanation administration at which time such was, presumably, quite OK.

In the last few days, I have seen/heard several attempts to explain things rationally – by Trump, Sarah Saunders, Kirstjen Neilsen (DHS Secretary) and others. All to no avail.

What bothers me most about this is that none of them seem able to bring up the obvious… can you imagine how many American children are separated from their parent (usually single parent) every week because of minor violations of drug laws which IMHO should not even exist? Do these children have fewer rights than children who are, in fact, part of the commission of a REAL crime? Nope, they don’t matter (at least at present). Why? Is it because most of them are black and/or poor? Not at all. It is simply that they lack political value.

I will repeat again my friends, a once great nation is being destroyed by self-serving traitor elites while most of us sit idle and watch. These people are committing crimes against humanity for which execution is the only just remedy. Please let it begin. Although I love our Constitution and once wore a uniform and vowed to die protecting it if necessary – I am almost willing for Trump to assume dictatorial powers if that is what it takes to drain the swamp. On that subject, if you don’t watch Steve Hilton’s show on Sunday evening on FOX News, then you are missing some of the best insight into our mess than I have ever seen.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

If so, all you need to do is watch the movie Chappaquiddick. I always suspected that the whole Kennedy clan was rotten to the core but this, even with attempts to clean it up, was revolting in every way. (Would you believe my Mother was a Kennedy? Best I can tell, from the Scottish branch, not the Irish. Be thankful for small things.)

Then there is the ongoing farce with Facebook. Just read on Drudge that Zuckerberg will not be placed under oath and that his company is a large contributor to the committees that will be questioning him. Hillary all over again.

Then there is the Donald. It seems the hounds very nearly have him at bay. What should he do in response? I’m sure he is guilty of something – our legal code has become so convoluted that each and every one of us commits several felonies per week, without even knowing it. I have a radical suggestion for Donald. Declare himself dictator, hang as many of the traitors as he can round up, then start the country from scratch again.

I know this is an odd suggestion coming from one who reveres the Constitution as I do but – every indication I can judge suggests we are already on our way to dictatorship and, fool that I may be, I prefer it be Trump rather than a Clinton or a Kennedy.

Gag!

Troy L Robinson

OK Dave – have at me.

The Austin area having been my past home for many years – and the current home of a daughter, son-in-law and two grandsons, one can easily understand my interest in the recent bombings there.

My first observation is that this moron of a perpetrator was home-schooled and raised to be a religious fanatic. Why then is anyone surprised when he behaves like a typical religious fanatic?

Note further than no single religious movement has a monopoly on fanaticism – all of them are subject to it. I guess it just comes with the territory – you learn to believe the impossible then suddenly everything SEEMS possible, however perverted it really is.

My second observation is that the moron did illustrate a very good point, assuming anyone in power was paying attention. That point is that gun control is a joke and has always been a joke. What do the powers that be propose now? Shut down Home Depot and outlaw the sale of nails? At what point does the nonsense in this approach shine through?

I have a better idea. How about we fix our school system so that it actually teaches things worth knowing – like, how to coexist in a peaceful world and how to process information such that they are much less likely to be taken in by fanaticism. Then, how about we return to that obsolete notion of holding people responsible for their own actions, starting when they are small children.

My final observation is that we should all grow up a bit. It is a known fact that freedom is NOT free. Indeed, it has many costs and one of those is that a few people will misuse their freedom to do harm to others. Yes, we can punish them after the fact if we so choose but there is little we can do before the fact (or before the act if you prefer). Trending toward a police state is simply not a valid answer – although, those who are greedy for power will try to convince the rest of us that it is.

Honestly, do fewer people get harmed in a police state? Or it is just the source of the harm that is different? (Deranged dictators rather than deranged citizens.)

We tolerate tens of thousands of dead an maimed each year in order to have the freedom to drive our own vehicles. We sacrifice who knows how many to the great god known as junk food. We lose who knows how many for the privilege of altering our minds with alcohol, nicotine and other drugs. Why then do we get so excited when the source of harm goes BOOM as we are killed?

Grow up America.

Troy L Robinson

The old mantra was “see something, say something.”

After the Broward massacre, the new mantra evidently is “see something, say something, be ignored”.

Seems that even the FBI (Federal Bureau of Incompetence) was warned about this kook Cruz still no one did anything. That is, until the kook did something.

Of course, guns are the problem just like automobiles are the reason for the carnage on our highways. So, no cars, no car wrecks – no guns, no shooting. Seems simple enough but what about knives, bombs or just plain tree limbs?

Just to muddy the waters a bit with some abnormal thinking —— might it be that the tools are almost beside the point and the real issue is why so many among us, especially the young, want to kill indiscriminately. Might this not indicate a very severe problem in modern culture that we conveniently ignore? Might we be building a brave new world that is virtually without values or self-responsibility? Has actual life been reduced to some ultra-real game, little different from a virtual game except the blood actually stains your clothes?

Folks, it is way past time to rise up and discard this ridiculous fiasco that passes itself off for government at all levels. In fact, they are just giant manipulation machines meant to herd us about while having us produce for their benefit. So there is a massacre now and then – in the final analysis, don’t these serve only to give the manipulators more power over us? Yes, the word for public consumption is that these “heroes” are going to make whatever it is better but, when have they ever?

As some pundit said while reporting from Broward yesterday, “this is the new normal, get used to it” to which I reply, “there is nothing normal about this and I am damned if I will get used to it”.

Think about it,

Troy L Robinson

On the previous thread, I mentioned to Steel that I had recently acquired an Amazon Echo device, and was having great fun playing with Alexa. He replied with this apropos cartoon:

LOL… Sure, before ordering it, I experienced the old kneejerk paranoia about my privacy. Yet, before I could ask Alexa to spell antidisestablishmentarianism (she did!) or play some Beach Boys, the only time I ever spoke here in my hermitage was to my little dog, or the occasional rare telephone call. I have always assumed that my telephone conversations are being recorded somewhere anyway. Even if I never turned the microphone off, or unplugged her, and Alexa was actually recording every sound here 24/7, those tasked to search through the recordings for my transgressions would be bored to death, unless they shared my nostalgia for the popular music of my youth, and enjoyed the sound of rain, a babbling brook, or ocean waves playing while I am sleeping. 😊

Until one experiences it for themselves, it can be hard to imagine the sense of relief derived from escaping the stultifying paranoia of Big Brother, which is just another weapon in the oligarchs’ tool chest, for maintaining their dualistic society. The ubiquitous ‘us against them’ mindset is designed to keep the sheeple at each other’s throats, rather than their own. All that is required to reacquire personal freedom, is to opt out of their cruel game, as an individual refusing to choose sides. If one concludes he has no need of a ruler, or even a political leader, then it becomes ludicrous to consider sanctioning their authority, by participating in the obnoxious process of choosing one.

Several months ago, it occurred to me that, now in my dotage, I am no longer a threat to the powers that be. If they have nothing to fear from me, I see little point in fearing them. Frankly, at my age, were they to haul me off to prison as a subversive, it would represent a marked improvement in my austere lifestyle. Air conditioning; pest control; three hot meals a day; regular hot showers; laundry service; free medical attention; gym; library; cable TV; internet; armed guards 24/7 to protect an old man from terrorists, gangs, flash mobs, muggers, and lonely widows. No wonder so many codgers who are released, soon deliberately re-offend to get back inside, and resume the carefree lifestyle to which they had become accustomed. It sure sounds more appealing than a retirement home, populated predominantly with addled dementia patients, no?  😉

Since this epiphany, I switched back to using Google as my search engine, and have found I much prefer Google Chrome to Firefox for several reasons, so it is now my default browser. I even stay logged into it and YouTube, with my real identity. I notice that the ad blocking extensions do such a good job, that I have not experienced any of the targeted advertising that is supposed to be so off-putting about allowing Google to collect data on my surfing habits. I do not even experience advertising on YouTube, and appreciate the way it tracks my tastes to offer new clips that might interest me. So, with nothing to hide, what exactly have I lost by relinquishing my privacy? â—„Daveâ–º

Uh oh… We have been musing over the mysterious Vegas massacre a bit hereabouts; but I have deliberately avoided chasing the various conspiracy theories, involving multiple shooters. I had assumed that all of the reports of more than one gunman were the result of confusing echos. That just ended:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxmEFeKy8aI&feature=youtu.be

This sure strikes me as sound science (pun intended) and common sense. Now, what exactly are they hiding, and why? â—„Daveâ–º

Politics managed to sneak back into the previous thread’s ribald attempt to evade such. Chris eventually explained why he thinks of ‘liberals’ as left-wing ideologues, and how outdated it is of me to omit the qualifier ‘classic,’ while employing the term outside of the modern Left/Right political paradigm. While composing a response, it occurred to me that this discussion probably deserves its own post. So, I fleshed it out as a more fulsome reply. The block quotes below are from his referenced comment…

The dictionary is awash in Orwellian distortions of the English language. The venerable term ‘liberal,’ like ‘Liberty,’ is derived from ‘Liber,’ meaning ‘free’ in Latin. Liberal political philosophy was developed by 17^th & 18^th century philosophers during the enlightenment, known as the Age of Reason. Thinkers like Adam Smith, David Hume, Voltaire, John Locke, et al, and all manner of Liberty loving, anti-tyranny, radicals like America’s founders, would have proudly worn the label ‘liberal’ in their day. Thus, I had always assumed that the Left had deliberately co-opted and inverted the term, as typical Orwellian Newspeak. That is, until I finally took the time to look up the word.

As is not at all unusual, the muddled definition I had been carrying in my head for decades, I had originally surmised from context and common usage, rather than consulting a dictionary. I suppose this is how and why language evolves over time. I would bet that most Americans have only a vague notion that ‘liberal’ means one or more of: left-wing; altruist; collectivist; socialist; communist; Marxist; atheist; Democrat; or simply the opposite of ‘conservative.’ The way it is used so often as an expletive by conservatives, suggests as much. Yet, none of those terms are used to define it, by any dictionary I have checked.

The term is used differently in American politics as I’m sure you know. Liberal and conservative now pretty much refer to attitude regarding adherence to the meaning and intent to the constitution and rule of law.

I reckon Chris’ attempt to define it by one’s attitude toward the U.S. Constitution, is much too parochial. That would only further confuse anyone trying to make sense of politics in other countries, which have conservative political parties called, “Liberal.”

Currently, the Oxford dictionary definition of liberal is simply: “open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.” I really like the simplicity of that, and it describes me.

The Free dictionary offers: “Favoring reform, open to new ideas, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; not bound by traditional thinking; broad-minded.” That sure doesn’t sound tyrannical to me; quite the opposite.

My thesaurus suggests as synonyms for liberal: open-minded; broad-minded; moderate; freethinking; tolerant; laissez-faire; and noninterventionist. These are all positive values to my mind. Wouldn’t it require a rather staid dogmatist to reject them?

It turns out that all of these current definitions and synonyms, fairly describe my own attitudes and outlook on life. So, the only reason I ever need qualify my liberal bent with the prefix ‘classic,’ is to disavow the collectivist and altruistic nature of most Leftist social justice warriors, who are routinely labeled and disparaged as simply ‘liberals,’ by cultural warriors on the Right. Surprisingly, nowhere have I found the bugaboos of altruism and/or collectivism, mentioned under the heading of liberalism. This would suggest that in this case, the corruption of the English language was likely done by the Right, rather than the Left. They are the ones misusing the term.

More tutoring from Chris:

“I know it’s hard to accept but there will always be government. Always has been. Human nature doesn’t change like that.”

It depends on your definition of ‘government.’ By mine, in terms of systematic ‘rule,’ and ‘rulers’ employing armed enforcers to govern a population, there certainly has not always been. There have always been ungovernable frontiers on this planet, and there still are. E.g. the Pashtun tribal no-man’s-land, between Pakistan and Afghanistan. There are several others in that part of the world. Afghanistan itself is largely ungoverned, despite being considered a nation state.

You might not like the conditions extant in such frontiers; but there is nothing preventing those who choose to live there, from moving to the more ‘civilized’ areas of their countries, where they would be subject to the rule and rulers of the state. How many of us would move to a Galt’s Gulch in a heartbeat, to escape the tyranny of ubiquitous government rulers, tax collectors, and enforcers, if such a frontier still existed in America? I sure would.

“The single document in the world that comes closest to guaranteeing the liberalism you would desire is the constitution of the United States.”

Poppycock. Setting aside my rejection of your premise that a constitutional government is somehow required to maintain Liberty, the U.S. Constitution has obviously done no such thing, and never will. The only way such a document could ever hope to constrain a nation state’s tyrannical rulers, is if the citizenry were indefatigably ready, willing, and able to effectively revolt against their jackbooted thugs if necessary, and summarily hang the offenders without mercy, to strictly enforce it. With the passing of our generation, such will definitely no longer exist among the largely docile, dumbed-down, domesticated, sheeple that remain in America. More the pity… ◄Dave►

I recently mentioned that I rarely even turn on my TV anymore. That is primarily because, as a political news junkie, that is all I have ever watched for the past 40 years or so. It hasn’t always been that way. As a young man, I was hooked on football. It began long before TIVO, when I couldn’t miss a pro game on Sundays. When it advanced to the point of not wanting to miss a college game on Saturdays, it finally occurred to me that I was wasting my weekends, watching other people have fun. I went cold turkey in the mid ‘70s. Now, I only ever watch the Super Bowl, and half the time I DVR that.

Now that I am effectively boycotting cable news, for loss of interest in partisan politics, and am probably getting too old to enjoy much exercise, I just might become a football fan again. My prime motive would be to support the NFL, in the face of the state’s call for sheeple to boycott their games. Whatever one might think of their personal motives for doing so, the players’ open defiance of nationalistic rituals, needs to be encouraged by right-thinking Liberty-loving individuals.

The notion that those dissatisfied with the state, can just stop waving its flag or standing at attention for its anthem, is certainly to be encouraged. It wouldn’t do if the NFL had to knuckle under to the state’s economic pressure, so the least I can do is help keep their ratings up. I think I’ll set my DVR up to record all NFL games, even if I don’t bother to watch them.  😉 ◄Dave►

How long has the war between western culture and Islam been going on? In round numbers, 1,000 years. Our own modern, active participation has been going on for over 20 years.

Are we winning?

The answer is a simple NO.

Why aren’t we winning?

Could it be that we either don’t know or refuse to admit who/what we are fighting?

I think so. If this is true, or even somewhat true, would this not be a good time to refocus and try one or more new approaches? If so, what keeps us from doing so?

First is a mistaken understanding of our own Constitution. Said Constitution does state that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion”. However, it does not say “Congress shall make no law protecting said Constitution (and the Republic it established) from destruction by group or system of thought that clearly states its intention to do just that”. Such a Constitutional clause/statement would be paramount to insanity. Yet, there are those among us who try to pretend that it says just that – and, to convince the rest of us, particularly those among us whose brains are still in the plastic state. So, are we insane? To a frightening degree, yes.

Second is a “hate America and everything it once stood for” group, embedded among us, that will support any cause, no matter how insane, so long as it promises to damage or destroy western culture. To this end, we now have a near majority of citizens who think that somehow the statue of a Civil War leader or Founding Father is a symbol of white supremacy or neo-Nazism. Can anyone truly believe that the pen that wrote “all men are created equal” really belonged to a man who did not think that Negros were human? Even though he lived much of his life with one of them playing the role of spouse? Yes, Jefferson owned slaves. Yes, he knew it was wrong. He understood it to be one of those wrongs that have no really good way to make right (“But, as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.”) Can anyone truly believe that George Washington was an early Nazi? Such is absurd. Yet, there are serious discussions about tearing down the Washington DC and Mount Rushmore monuments to these two people (among others).

But I diverge. My topic is about another approach to our war with “radical Islam”. Here I offer a suggestion that, IMHO, would alter the existing “war” instantly and in our favor… Our government (the President) should simply (and publicly) announce that, lacking any REAL evidence that there is a form of Islam that does not support (at least with its silence) the actions of the supposedly “radical” form, we (the USA) will consider ourselves to be at war with Islam and will act accordingly until such time that evidence of meaningful disapproval of the acts of the “radicals” by this supposedly “other” branch of Islam.

That is to say, we will outlaw the practice of Islam within our own borders and will cease to give aid, comfort and weapons to any nation/state that supports Islam. Further, we will respond with every weapon at our disposal to every nation/state that harbors and/or supports terrorism in any form or fashion.

Our next move should be to discover why so many American Jews seem to support a movement (Islam) that is vowed to destroy all Jews. Something about this simply has never smelled right to me.

Would the “left” have a cow over such a declaration? Of course. But, they are already trying to destroy the Republic as we know it so who really cares how many cows they have.

Am I a bigot? No, I think I am simply realistic.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

What would happen if all the useful idiot SJW sheeple, rioting across America under the banner of “Antifa,” watched this while actually sober?

These college indoctrinated fools couldn’t have read Jonah Goldberg’s ten-year-old book “Liberal Fascism,” which explained this subject well. Better yet was John Taylor Gatto’s earlier book “The Underground History of American Education: A Schoolteacher’s Intimate Investigation Into the Problem of Modern Schooling,” which not only covered extensively the subject of the collectivist nature of fascism; but explained how we have all been deliberately dumbed down by the Progressives (link points to free PDF of this remarkable tome – probably the most important book I have ever read!).

Alas, red pills are generally unappetizing for anyone under 30 or even 40, so they are unlikely to read  Dinesh D’Souza’s “The Big Lie” either. I suppose I should; but I already know the subject all too well, and am of the ineluctable opinion that it is far too late to do anything about it. â—„Daveâ–º

I know we are supposed to be transitioning this blog from politics to religion and philosophy – yet I can’t stay quiet about the (in my view) approaching civil war.

Donald Trump’s overall reaction to the insanity in Charlottesville, VA (not NC as much of the lame-brained media seem to think) – his position that it took TWO sides to cause such trouble is right on. And he is catching hell for saying it.

There is no place in our society for neo-Nazis and we can all easily agree to that. But there was more to the protest in Charlottesville.

In the first place, there is nothing overtly racial or bigoted in the continuing Southern reverence for Robert E Lee. Indeed, his bearing and his conduct of the war was about all Southerners we had left to be proud of once the shooting had stopped and the looting began. And most present Americans understand to little about those days that I, for one, do not grant them the right to an opinion. In other words, learn about the thing you would pontificate on and THEN we can have a discussion.

A couple of simple thoughts to ponder:

First, Robert E Lee was at worst ambivalent about slavery (some say he outright opposed it, others that he simply knew it was untenable). For sure, his family (of whom he was titular head) used their own wealth to free slaves and relocate them to Liberia.

Second, while estimates vary, the net estimate is that no more than 20% of white Southerners owned slaves at the outbreak of the Civil War. If we assume that the makeup of the Confederate military pretty much reflected that of the South as a whole, then one has a quandary to deal with. It is somewhat easy to insist that the 20% were willing to fight to retain their primary source of wealth. Bit what of that other 80%? Do you suppose that they were gladly willing to die for the fortunes of a pseudo aristocracy? Somehow that does not ring true to one such as myself who grew up under the remnants of said pseudo aristocracy. Ergo, they must have been fighting for something far more personally important to themselves.

Let us diverge for a moment and think about the legalized abortion issue that plagues today’s politics. A clear majority of females, especially the younger ones, will fight like hell to preserve access to legal abortions. Yet, relatively few of them actually get abortions, even when an unplanned for family addition suddenly presents itself, mid-womb. Does this not raise the same question as the one above regarding the non-slaveholders willingness to fight and die? I contend that the same reasoning is at work. In both cases, the people involved simply do not want to surrender their right to make up their own minds about certain issues rather than be dictated to by others who have far less at stake in the issue.

I close with a warning to this nation: Years ago, the author John Donne postulated that “no man is an island, Entire of itself, Every man is a piece of the continent. A part of the main…” We Americans have so very little time left to understand our interdependence, ergo to respect our fellow humans as essential to our own survival. And then, to treat each other accordingly.

Were Trump WRONG about Charlottesville, the so-called riot there would have been no more than the sound of one hand clapping.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

My frustrated comment to the previous post by Troy, caused him to reply with a thoughtful comment, regarding my increasingly serious flirtations with anarchy. My efforts to compose an equally thoughtful rejoinder, outgrew that somewhat off-topic comment section, so here it is as a new post specifically addressing my perspective on the subject of anarchy.

One of us is surely mistaken.

Perhaps we both are at this juncture, Troy, and now just living with very different illusory movies running in our heads, which we mistake for reality. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

some government is needed

As you well know, I spent the first 70 years of my life convinced of exactly that; but that in no way obligates me to be submissive to any so-called authority, or support the tyranny into which the Federal government has devolved. Madison particularly despised the concept of democracy. How then, did we end up with mob rule? Why is it so readily accepted by the sheeple?

Can we agree that mankind deserves at least the level of individual Liberty he and his contemporaries enjoyed? Would you not also agree that the odds now of retrieving that worthy goal, through any nonviolent political process, are essentially nil? Must we abandon it entirely then, perhaps out of some errant sense of patriotism, or is another violent revolution inevitable?

At a quick glance, anarchy may seem to have a lot to recommend it. But, upon deeper reflection, it soon becomes apparent (to most of us) that anarchy provides a sure and consistent path to some manner of “strong man rule”.

Troy, you have had a front row seat to my slow, cautious, careful, and deliberate investigations into the philosophical underpinnings of anarchical thought. This was in no way a causal “quick glance,” and I can assure you that after reading several books, numerous scholarly essays, and countless articles on the subject, I have given it considerable ‘deep reflection.’ Interestingly, the notion that it would inevitably result in “strong man rule,” is still not at all apparent to me. With all due respect, from my perspective, reaching such a conclusion appears to be the result of distinctly shallower thought than I have invested in the subject.

As for strong man rulers, try to convince me that the average citizen Read the rest of this entry »

Just a few months ago, it seem certain the GOP was headed for certain destruction. Now it is the Dems that are hanging by thread (a thread they seem determined to break).

Even though I thought I was paying attention, I am still not sure what happened (although I am pretty sure the Russians did NOT do it).

Can it really be that a majority of Americans are simply tired of being lied to and treated like incompetent children? One can only hope.

As all of our readers know, I did not support Mr. Trump and I am still wary of him today – although I will credit him with at least trying to do exactly what he promised during the campaign.

As I predicted, sadly with some accuracy, a large portion of our citizens simply will not accept the outcome of the election and seem determined to cripple the elected government in any and all ways possible. The evidence following the 2 Obama elections suggest the same would NOT be true had the election gone the other way. For sure the losers grumbled after Obama’s wins but they did get out of the way and let him govern – however badly he did so.

If we are to continue to function as a free Republic, it is past time that the progressives do the same. If office-holding progressives cannot or will not accept the outcome of a free election, then they are in violation of the oaths they took upon accepting their offices and should be held accountable accordingly. Indeed, at what point does this behavior rise to the level of treason? Read the rest of this entry »

To my knowledge, the last time our Republic was this screwed up was when Abraham Lincoln had to sneak into Washington D.C. for his first inaugural. We all know what started soon after.

It is interesting to note that the protagonists were them same then – a bunch of Democrats who could not accept the election of a Republican president. As the French say, “the more things change, the more they are the same”.

Then we have that citadel of responsibility, CNN, explaining to the kooks that, if they can kill sufficient government officials before Pence takes the official oath, an Obama cabinet member (the “designated survivor” – name currently unknown) will become POTUS. Whether legally true or not, this must be a great motivator to the “never Trump” movement. The only good side to this nonsense is that the people who must be killed for it to happen include Obama, Biden and the rest of the Obama cabinet minus the DS. Trump and his “cabinet”, having not yet been sworn in, evidently can be allowed to live although it is hard to imagine an event that would eliminate Obama’s cadre without taking Trump’s along with it since they will in such close proximity.

Never in my life did I expect to be discussing such a thing except as the script for a B grade TV show. Read the rest of this entry »

James O’Keefe has done it again:

I have absolutely nothing in common with these foul characters, and refuse to consider them as my countrymen. Obviously, they would have similar disregard for anyone who thinks like me. Read the rest of this entry »