Thoughts Aloud

Archive for the ‘Philosophy’ Category

Ignore all the hyperbole over Elon trying ONE small hit from Joe’s tobacco/marijuana hybrid joint, two hours into the interview, which did not appear to change his mental state at all. Watch this utterly fascinating conversation for yourself. I promise the time will not be wasted.

I can’t imagine anyone better qualified to explore Musk’s remarkable mind. Many truly thought provoking discussions on very diverse subjects arise. Enjoy!  :)  â—„Daveâ–º

There are many, including me, who are very worried about the current drift of our Republic and who express that worry aloud, hoping to spur others into action while action is still possible. We truly mean well but I am now not so sure we have done well.

For my own part, I have tried to peer as far into the future as I can, with an eye as to where I think this is all leading. In doing so, I fear that I, and others like me, may have done a disservice despite our good intentions.

What an I talking about? Simply this. Despite our obvious (to me) deterioration as a self-governing Republic, the fact remains that we are still among the freest people ever to inhabit this planet. For instance, we are having a discussion, of sorts, about Assassination Politics, in an open and public forum without the slightest fear that there will come that knock at the door in the middle of the night with some frightening character saying “come with me”.

Does this sound far out? Well, it does only to those who are ignorant of both history and current events. The fact is that there are relatively few places on this Earth where we could get by with the conversations we have here. Not just AP but me, calling the former President of the Republic (and several of his minions) “traitors”. And, we sign our missives with our own names without fear of anything worse than disagreement within the forum. Whether our ideas are true or not is not the issue – it is the fact that we can offer them without any fear of physical retribution that counts.

I think it is healthy to publicly discuss our errors, to try to learn from them and maybe even seek ways to improve. But, in doing so, we should not lose sight of what we still have. If I have contributed to such loss of sight, then I am truly sorry because that was never my intent.

The fact is, I think this Republic is still worth saving and, indeed, can be saved. We might even have a President who agrees and is trying, in his way, to do just that.

Think (not feel) about it.

Troy L Robinson

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 »

I realize that I often express what, for some of you, seems an odd point of view. For some reason, I feel compelled to attempt to explain myself.

For years, I was a systems analyst at IBM, and also a bit mentally challenged (I am a highly functioning autistic).

Over the years, I began to think that I actually knew what I was doing – at least part of the time. Following is a bit of what I think I learned:

–> All things that involve more than one active component are systems.

→ All systems naturally seek a level of equilibrium because a system that is seriously out of balance cannot function.

→ Many people who study a system and detect an inevitable flaw (nothing is perfect) mistakenly conclude that they can “fix” the one flaw while the remainder of the system will continue, unchanged. This is always false because when you change any attribute of a system, its equilibrium is also changed. As the system seeks a new equilibrium, the initial change will radiate through the system, often changing it in ways that the original change agent neither anticipated or desired.

→ I am convinced of the truth of the above because I have used it to great advantage in my career. While the best analyst can never fully predict all the changes that will be triggered by the initial “fix”, simply knowing that they will likely happen better prepares one to deal with the reality of what one is doing – as opposed to the “good intentions” that originally motivated the change. My overall explanation is that this is simply part of the “connectedness” of everything in the universe.

→ While this is a gross oversimplification of a complex issue, and I realize that this is more than a little abstract, it very accurately describes how my mind works and, I hope, will allow you to better tolerate my sometimes strange conclusions about things.

BTW, if some of you are wondering why I recently became more active in this blog again, it is because I got some steroid shots for my arthritis problems and, as a result, am taking far less oxycodone, leaving my mind clearer.

Thank you for your forbearance.

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

I had never heard of Naval Rivikant, until Scott Adams spoke highly of him on Periscope. He recently did his own first Periscope:

https://www.pscp.tv/naval/1eaKbqrWloRxX

…which I found rather riveting — probably, because I found myself in such agreement with most of his philosophy and advice. When you have an hour you are willing to invest in something besides politics, I highly recommend watching it.  Crank up all the volume you can get; but I am sure he will sort out the technical issues for future broadcasts, to which I am very much looking forward. Enjoy… 😀 â—„Daveâ–º

The subject of Artificial Intelligence and the future of mankind arose in discussions on the previous post. Here is an excellent TED talk on subject, by Sam Harris last year:

…pretty sobering and thought provoking, no? The analogy comparing ourselves to ants works rather well. His last line about constructing a new god was incredibly profound! Any discussion?

PS: Especially for Chris… be paying close attention to the visual at 4:08; but try not to lose your train of thought.  😉 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►

So, some nut case in Las Vegas collects an arsenal in his hotel room then uses said arsenal to kill and wound hundreds of people.

And, we-the-sheeple demand to know why.

Well, there are the usual suspects… the NRA, the 2nd Amendment, the GOP, Donald Trump, etc.

I beg to offer another very different point of view.

For years, the progressive movement in the USA has repeated the mantra that nobody is personally responsible for the outcome of their life. It is all the fault of THEM.

From all accounts, the Las Vegas nut was distraught over his massive gambling losses. (Can one assume that the NRA, the 2nd Amendment, etc. forced this nut to gamble and lose a fortune? Of course not.) But, according to the progressive mantra, the gambler himself could not have been responsible. Nope, it was all due to THEM.

So, our nut case does the only logical thing… he kills and wounds as many of THEM as he possibly can.

In a sick way, doesn’t this actually make some sense? THEY cause these awful things to happen to you so you strike back against THEM as best you know how.

That should teach THEM!

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

It is bad enough that the functionally illiterate lame-stream-media folk are helping to destroy our culture. Now, they seem to be leading the charge to destroy our language as well.

Every time I turn on the idiot box, I hear that NFL players are “taking a knee” during the playing of our anthem. What knee are they taking and where is it being taken to? Oh yes, it turns out that said players are actually “kneeling”, perhaps even “genuflecting”. Why not just say that?

Then, a few weeks ago I heard repeated reports that people close to Trump had “taken meetings” with various Russians. Where did they take these meeting to? Well, it turn out that they were actually “attending” meetings. Again, why not just say that?

Could it be that, during these “taken” meetings they were also having dialogue with other participants? No, they were simply “talking” to each other and/or “having discussions”.

I have often heard that English is a complicated language… no doubt this is somewhat true since the language has picked up so many words and phrases from other languages over the years as it has emerged as the world’s preeminent language. So, why further complicate it by misusing words, using nouns for verbs and other such nonsense? Do the L-S-M folk think they are being cute or are they trying deliberately to make their crap harder to comprehend? Can you even imagine how much harder this is on people for whom English is not their first language?

To paraphrase a late master of the language, Winston Churchill, “with this, I am finding it hard to put up”.

Of all people, should not those who charge themselves with informing the rest of us not work hard to be correct and precise? Or is this just another bit of evidence that everything that was once great about us is headed to hell in a hand-basket.

Put another way, would we be impressed if surgeons, engineers and scientists deliberately pursued their respective crafts with such sloppiness?

Think about it because it actually does matter.

Troy L Robinson

Furthering my jihad against all forms of collectivism, including careless use of collective pronouns, a TED talk offers some profound food for thought regarding origin myths and tribal narratives:

We all have origin stories and identity myths, our tribal narratives that give us a sense of security and belonging. But sometimes our small-group identities can keep us from connecting with humanity as a whole — and even keep us from seeing others as human. In a powerful talk about how we understand who we are, Chetan Bhatt challenges us to think creatively about each other and our future. As he puts it: it’s time to change the question from “Where are you from?” to “Where are you going?”

Be yourself. I am. All that is necessary is to stop caring a whit what other people might think of the authentic you. 😉  ◄Daveâ–º

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

Readers of this blog will know that I have long thought universal suffrage to be a recipe for national ruin. For a change, time and history seem to be proving my point. It turns out that such an idea (restricting the franchise) had occurred to a real thinker years ago – in 1850 to be precise.

I had read Frederic Bastiat’s masterwork, The Law some years ago but some of the finer points did not stick effectively in my mind. Yesterday, on the long drive home from The People’s Republic of Austin (TX), we listened to a reading of The Law on CD. This time said finer points hit me square in the brain. I had previously suggested some ratio of taxes paid versus government benefits received as a yardstick to determine eligibility for the voting franchise. None of my suggested schemes seemed viable (because they were not). Then, listening to Bastiat’s words again, I realized the obvious.

This Republic has never practiced universal suffrage. Originally, the franchise was restricted to “freeholders” (property owners). Later, after some initial enlightenment had broadened access to the franchise, women and children were still denied the vote. Why, one might wonder? Was the Republic anti-woman until the 1920’s and anti-child to this day? Not at all. The objection to these, and other groups, was the general lack of sufficient formal education to make an informed choice in the voting place. For sure, a few American women were well educated before the 1920’s (and, no doubt told their husbands how to vote) but it was not until women were universally given the same primary education as men that they were (finally) extended the franchise.

This actually makes sense. We don’t really want our elections to be a random game of chance do we? So, why not continue that notion today? That is, extend the “privilege” (it is not a “right”) of the franchise only to those with sufficient education (no matter whether formal or self taught) to make an informed choice? Yes, I realize that the literacy tests once used in parts of the South were declared unconstitutional but that was pandering nonsense. Our original Federal Constitution did not speak to voter qualification because, among several other good reasons, our Federal Constitution did not empower the Federal Government to conduct elections. This power, rightly, remained with the several States (as it actually still does to this day although one would hardly know it what with the constant interference with the Federal Government when the States try to take actions to curb voter fraud).

So, I hereby propose the re-institution of some manner of test to establish that each proposed voter understands the English language and has sufficient literacy and information to understand the issues and/or candidates subject to the upcoming vote. Details to be worked out by smarter people than me – and the federal courts told strictly to piss off as this is not within their jurisdiction! (The English language part of this proposal should be enacted as part of a law establishing English as the one and only official language of the United States of America.

What to do about those supposedly educated snowflakes being produced by our secondary indoctrination system I leave for others to ponder. I seriously doubt that my solution (shooting them and their professors) would be widely accepted.

On another topic, Bastiat opined that the United States of America (in 1850) was a nearly perfect Republic, stained only by slavery and tariffs, either of which might eventually destroy us. IMHO, slavery actually did. Aside from the obvious death and destruction of the Civil War, national guilt over slavery and the subsequent institutionalized bigotry (for instance, the so-called “Jim Crow” laws) opened American hearts to the notion of relaxed standards and welfare payments to Black citizens – soon expanded to any “affected” group (read – any group with enough numbers to invite political pandering). This has ultimately led (again IMHO) to a nation of “victims” and “cry babies” who are generally neither self sufficient nor dependable (or actually educated for that matter). I see no good path back to where our Republic was in its glory days.

Bastiat also opined that socialism, which The Law was written to defeat in his native France, depended on a foundation of legalized and institutionalized plunder such that the law became destructive of its own original purpose (to protect life, liberty and property). I especially admired one idea from the book – “if you want people to respect the law, then make the law respectable”. I continue to be amazed how many thinkers (such as Jefferson, Franklin, de Tocqueville, and Bastiat), way back then, could clearly see and understand the causes of our eventual demise.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

As stated in earlier articles, I spent the more productive time of my life as a systems analyst. Since retirement, I have frequently amused myself with attempts to analyze current events and predict likely outcomes – with ever decreasing accuracy as is obvious to those who follow this blog. So I have given that up. Yet, lacking the common sense to shut-up completely, I offer the following random questions and observations (dare I say insights?) concerning several items lately in the news:

Fake News (aka intentionally misleading (mis)information):
– Aren’t most of us old enough to remember all those “genuine” UFO sightings from the 50’s and 60’s? And the “leaks” from government/military insiders assuring us that amazing things RE aliens were being hidden from us? Can this have been other than fake news? (OK, toss in a few genuinely confused people if you must.)
– Then looking much further back, can there be any doubt that all organized religions are based on fake news?
– Can there be any serious doubt that most of this is nothing more than an attempt to keep our government in a constant state of turmoil so that little or none of the Trump agenda can be realized?

The various hazards inherent in a Trump presidency:
– To begin with, how can the “media” make so much of a few amateurish blunders by Trump when they covered up for obvious treason by the late President and influence peddling by his first Secretary of State? Might they be relying on our collective ignorance and indifference?
– How can the talking heads get so excited when Trump chooses not to play the “game” by traditional rules when the last president who chose not to play by the rules caused the downfall of our primary enemy in the process?
– Why would any sane society allow the deliberate destruction of a duly elected leader at the clear detriment to the nation’s future? After all, how much damage can one person accidentally do in 4 years after what the Obamanation intentionally did in 8 years?

The So-called Russian Interference in our “Democracy”:
– Is one to suppose it is harder to subvert a Republic? (Hint, of course it is. Many of the critical issues are defined by a Constitution rather that being left to the passing fancy of the ignorant mob.)
All of our enemies, foreign and domestic (and including some supposed “allies”), regularly spy on us by whatever means are available. No news there.
– I have yet to see a shred of evidence that the Kremlin somehow preferred Trump to Clinton as POTUS. After all, was it not Hillary who sold them control of must of our uranium?

The Firing of James Comey, late Director of the FBI:
– Even though he deserved to be fired, Director Comey was put in an impossible position. His superiors, all the way up to the Obamanation were determined to protect Hillary Clinton from her obvious crimes.
Further, his more direct superior, then Attorney General Loretta Lynch, had compromised herself via an airport meeting with Bill Clinton, ex President and partner of the criminal Hillary.
– So, Comey seemingly did the only thing left to him, laying out Hillary’s various crimes in a public presentation then doing as he was required, seemingly dismissing it all as somehow not presecutable (lacking the supporting judgment of a Grand Jury as our Constitution requires).

Campus Craziness:
– Who put these immature, indoctrinated morons (students) in charge of our universities?
-bWhy do we-the-sheeple continue to fund this nonsense? Said differently, if the morons/students want to run the educational system, why not let them also pay for it? (Remember the “golden rule” – whoever provides the gold gets to make the rules.)
-bHow can the same society that worried so about possibly gay scoutmasters not seem to mind when the minds of those same children are left to the ministrations of misfits and traitors?

The Overall State of the Republic:
– Can there be any reasonable doubt that the Soros-funded progressive movement has determined (apparently successfully) to destroy Fox News?
– Can there be any reasonable doubt that the Soros-funded progressive movement has determined (apparently successfully) to destroy our educational system, turning it instead into a vast system of progressive indoctrination?
– Why are the honest people in this Republic so (apparently) afraid to say or do anything about the above?
– As I have asked before, can it be possible that we are dying of our own prosperity?
– Does the process of maturing a useful humanity actually require some level of real threat, some degree of actual effort to survive?
– Can that miracle once known at the Republic of the United States of America survive? Indeed, is it gone already except in the memory of the elderly?
– Can “social media” actually be more dangerous that cancer, nuclear war and terrorism?
How can we, at the same time, be the best educated generation in history and still manage to behave like uninformed morons?

How I miss the mental acuity I once enjoyed, even if I was just deluding myself at the time! I freely admit that I no longer understand the world and most of the people around me (assuming I ever really did). Most of what I see and hear today simply makes no sense to me whatever. It increasingly seems to me that, while in my mind life is simple and can be quite good, many of us go out of our way to make it complicated and unpleasant. And for no good reason.

I don’t really expect answers to this musing but would welcome any conversation that it may inspire. To those of you who may have wished I was gone for good I only ask your patience. Everything in good time.

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 »

Hey, Troy! I just had occasion to reread the 5-year-old post here, entitled: “Fairies, Witches, Fords, and Chevys .” In the amusing comment section, you mentioned you had just finished writing an interesting book, which was only awaiting final editing before publication. I never received the promised copy of it. Whatever happened to it?  â—„Daveâ–º

Here is a good compilation, worth pondering:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuwRE6yM_Wg

Harris is brilliant; but so was Hitchens, and I always appreciated his attitude. 😀 â—„Daveâ–º

It is depressing to think how much more damage the Obamanation and his lackeys can do to our Republic and to the world before we are finally rid of them (assuming we actually will be rid of them).

He, the Clintons and all of their tribe are openly behaving in a way that should get them lynched. Yet, a frightening number of the sheeple actually support the insanity they continue to foist on us.

I really wish I had reason to believe that Trump will do better. For sure, his cabinet and other appointments have been somewhat encouraging. Yet I fear that, even if he and his team operate from the purest of motives, the sheeple will combine to ensure a lack of success. These poor bastards have been brainwashed to the point that they prefer the actual destruction of the nation to the slightest change of ideas, regardless of the fact that the existing ideas have failed us completely.

I repeat, once again, my sincere wish that the States divide into several “clusters” of like minded, like intentioned citizens before the whole mess gets totally out of control and we become a bigger, badder version of the current Syria.

For instance, if states like California wish to govern themselves with a total lack of common sense and responsibility, then let them try. Just don’t let them pull the rest of us down with them.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

This is very well done:

What would happen if everyone understood this? What would you do if you came to believe you didn’t need and/or want rulers controlling your life anymore? Read the rest of this entry »

Seems nobody else has the nerve (or has too much good sense?) to comment on the latest round of exposures, rumors, lies and even a few facts.

For my part, I just want this nightmare to be over. One of these sleazebags will win and the nation will lose. It is just that simple.

I have done my duty as a citizen and thrown away my vote on the Johnson/Weld ticket, knowing that they have no chance to win but wanting to put in my 2 cents worth regardless.

BTW, I have read several articles recently about HRC’s body odor problems. Some seem to think it is disease related but I am amused to see that her campaign manager (Podesta) says she simply does not bathe often enough. This is similar to claims from her college days. Given that Trump will say anything that comes to mind, I wonder why he has not mentioned it when they have been on stage together?

More and more I find myself wishing that the Obamanation would pull the plug on this whole circus and just crown himself pasha or whatever. At least a big airplane and plenty of golf courses to fly to seems to keep him happy. Costs a lot of $$ but still better than spending it on civil war. Plus, given the obvious deterioration of people succeeding to the White House, why not quit while we are behind rather than risk getting behinder (is that a real word?)

Try not to think about it.

Troy L Robinson