You'll notice speaking at length with very-successful Hollywood people, often white male writers, that they’ll find a way to cry during your conversation. They've been trained to do this, like monkeys, as it will help them close whatever deal or project they have on the table. The empathy game. I don’t like Andrew Huberman. He’s a rise-and-grind health grifter who lives and breathes therapy-speak. Many such cases, but he plays the game to win, and he has won. He is complicit in his own downfall because of course the empathy game is in large part about appeasing women. He should’ve known they would come for him, and he probably did know. He took the risk anyway. Why? Because the point of power, and life in general, is to enjoy it. Very powerful people take very big risks. The biggest problem in contemporary life is not the longhouse, but the simps who make it possible. Had Huberman been as transparent about his normal male sexuality as he is about his trauma, he wouldn’t be quite so embarrassed. He would be a better, more righteous person—living a “more beautiful life” as Justin Murphy has suggested. But, of course, had he been honest, he would’ve had a much harder time getting laid. Hence, the simp. However, this is all really besides the point. No matter how annoying, cringey, or hypocritical he is, an unmarried man was cancelled for having sex with unmarried women in his private life. Not even technically adultery according to original biblical meaning, which meant having sex with someone else’s wife. Other famous men have been cancelled for saying certain words in a private group chats (one got jailed for posting a meme). Others for being unkind in private scenarios. You read these big character posters in the form of very-serious-journalism and you wait for the ball to drop, some horrible act, and it never does. We have become accustomed to this state of oppression, and, like all oppressed, we seek rationalizations for why we actually deserve it. But absolutely no man, let alone the kind who strives to become publicly relevant, can survive the current cancellation standard. All private interactions collated, evaluated, and published for public consumption. Not one of us will pass this purity test; it shatters the concept of privacy entirely. Really think about it. If every one of your private messages and actions were revealed, would you survive? You know the answer. Any dude condemning Huberman and not an obviously totalitarian media aimed at destroying every last powerful straight white guy in the name of equity is complicit in their own destruction. A righteous person, a person "living beautifully" in this scenario, supports Huberman despite how unlikable and hypocritical he is, because it's the right thing to do. This is the hard thing, and also the right thing. Otherwise, when the Borg comes for you, you will deserve it.

In Hindu mythology, Narada serves as a messenger and advisor to the gods, often conveying important messages between deities and intervening in various divine affairs. He is believed to be one of the mind-born sons of Lord Brahma, the creator of the universe. Narada is often depicted as wandering the universe, spreading knowledge, and playing his veena (musical instrument) while chanting the name of Lord Vishnu. He is known for his ability to travel freely between different realms, including the celestial, earthly, and underworlds. Fitting the Wise Fool Archetype: Like the Shakespearean fool, Narada often appears unconventional or eccentric in his actions and speech. He may seem whimsical or playful on the surface, but underlying his antics is profound wisdom and insight. The fool in Shakespearean plays frequently employs humour and satire to comment on the folly of human behaviour and to reveal deeper truths about the world. Similarly, Narada uses his wit and unconventional behaviour to impart spiritual teachings and philosophical wisdom to those he encounters. In both Hindu mythology and Shakespearean drama, the fool serves as a truth-teller who fearlessly speaks his mind and exposes the hypocrisy and folly of others. Narada, with his sharp intellect and keen perception, often plays this role in his interactions with gods, sages, and mortals. He fearlessly challenges authority and conventional wisdom, using his wit and insight to illuminate the path of righteousness and devotion. The Shakespearean fool is often a catalyst for transformation, prompting characters to confront their flaws and reconsider their actions. Similarly, Narada's interventions and counsel often catalyse spiritual growth and enlightenment in those he encounters. Through his conversations and interactions, he inspires individuals to reflect on their lives, question their beliefs, and strive for higher ideals. Both Narada and the Shakespearean fool possess multifaceted personas that defy easy categorization. They can be playful and mischievous one moment, and deeply profound and insightful the next. This complexity adds depth to their characters and underscores the richness of their roles in their respective narratives. Ultimately, both Narada and the Shakespearean fool symbolise transcendence—transcendence of social norms, of conventional wisdom, and of mundane concerns. They occupy a liminal space between worlds, serving as intermediaries between the divine and the mortal, the mundane and the transcendent. Through their words and actions, they invite audiences to glimpse the deeper mysteries of existence and to aspire to higher states of consciousness and understanding. Parallels: Beyond the Shakespearean fool, Narada also bears striking resemblance to Hermes in Greek mythology. Hermes is the messenger of the Olympian gods in Greek mythology, known for his swiftness and ability to travel freely between the mortal world and Mount Olympus. Both figures embody the archetype of the divine messenger, bridging the gap between heaven and earth and facilitating communication between deities and humans. Their ability to traverse boundaries and deliver messages underscores the importance of communication and divine guidance in shaping the destiny of both individuals and civilizations. Both are associated with guiding souls between different realms. In Hindu mythology, Narada is believed to assist souls on their journey through the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth, offering guidance and support along the way. In Greek mythology, Hermes serves as a psychopomp, guiding souls to the underworld after death and facilitating communication between the living and the dead. Narada and Hermes are also revered as protectors of travellers and pilgrims. In Hinduism, Narada is believed to watch over those who embark on spiritual journeys, offering guidance and protection along the way. Similarly, Hermes is the patron deity of travellers in Greek mythology, safeguarding them during their journeys and ensuring safe passage. They share characteristics of trickster figures who use their wit, cunning, and mischief to achieve their goals. Narada's playful and sometimes mischievous nature is evident in his interactions with gods, sages, and mortals, where he often employs clever stratagems to impart wisdom or teach lessons. Similarly, Hermes is known for his playful and trickster-like behaviour, using his cunning to outsmart adversaries and navigate difficult situations. The Fool card in the Tarot deck is often depicted as a figure standing at the edge of a cliff, symbolising new beginnings, innocence, and a leap of faith into the unknown. Similarly, Narada embodies aspects of this archetype as a figure who traverses the cosmos with childlike curiosity and openness to new experiences. Both the Fool and Narada represent the archetype of the wanderer, unburdened by preconceptions and fear, ready to embark on a journey of discovery and enlightenment. The Message: In the modern world, individuals often embody the archetype of the messenger or intermediary in various aspects of their lives, albeit in subtler ways than the mythological figures of Narada and Hermes. In a world filled with uncertainty and rapid change, embracing the energy of the Fool means being open to new opportunities, taking risks, and trusting in one's intuition and inner guidance. Entrepreneurs, artists, and innovators who dare to defy convention and pursue their dreams exemplify this archetype, embracing the unknown and forging their own paths. Like Narada, who is known for his playful demeanour and mischievous antics, these individuals approach challenges with a lighthearted attitude, seeing obstacles as opportunities for growth and learning. They understand that life is a journey meant to be experienced fully, and they embrace each moment with joy and enthusiasm. Whether travelling to new destinations, pursuing creative endeavours, or simply savouring the beauty of everyday moments, they infuse their lives with a sense of adventure and wonder. By embodying the energy of the Fool, modern individuals remind us to let go of rigidity and embrace the magic of the present moment, trusting that each step taken with an open heart and a spirit of curiosity leads to new discoveries and infinite possibilities.

Once upon a time, is how great stories begin. You heard this one, many years ago. Rest awhile and I will remind you of the path of the hearth fire. The hearth fire is the place where great stories are told and heard. Grandparents and the very young ones get to sit closest to the fire because that is fair and proper and that is where they were when the first heard about the path of the hearth fire. You remember Pythagoras. He was a school teacher. He learned at the hearth fire, back in the day. He also saw that three joined lines could make a triangle and the triangle was a thing of divine beauty. Socrates sat the feet of Pythagoras and learned of that divine beauty while looking into the blazing warmth of that hearth fire. Plato sat as the feet of Socrates and the blazing hearth fire warmed them on their coldest and darkest nights. Aristotle sat at the feet of Socrates and saw, in the blazing fire, the coarse wood transmogrify to the brightest light. And Aristotle felt his soul in that light. Aristotle watched the blazing light of the hearth fire warm the souls around him. Aristotle watched how each and every soul around the hearth fire glowed warmly from the blazing light. The old souls, the tiny souls, the black, brown, white and yellow souls, all warmed by the hearth fire. Later on, when declarations and constitutions were being written around the world, Aristotle’s astute and kindly observations about all souls informed the words of those writing founders. From time to time, sitting regally close to the hearth fire, were beautiful women from the town of Delphi. The women were the Oracle. The Oracle learned about souls from Aristotle and prophesised about every aspect of civic life. The counsel of the Oracle was valued so highly that no important decision was ever made without her. The declarations and the constitutions recognised that each and every soul was divine and that in the same way that the coarse and often gnarled logs would turn to useful blazing warmth and light and to fine ashes and dust, so too all souls would transform around the hearth fire. Today the hearth fire is still blazing. Come and sit with me and I will show you where Pythagoras was when he studied the triangle and where Aristotle was when he saw all the souls. You get to sit at the hearth for only a short time but you get to sit right where those great ones sat. The light of the hearth fire is a great place to study the wise ones. Learn about the divine beauty of geometry and see that divine beauty in all souls around you. Be inspired by the great ones and the wise ones. They have spent more time around the hearth fire than you. Gather your own wood to put on the hearth fire so that you can warm the young ones and the old ones, the black, brown, white and yellow ones. Every time the hearth fire was blazing, the wise ones spoke about the Tree of Life. Have you seen the way the tail of a horse is plaited ? There are three strands and they fold over each other. The Tree of Life is like that. It’s a very old Tree that has three branches. Learn about that Tree of Life because the wise ones have stored their knowledge there. Learn about the branches on that Tree of Life. There is a left branch and a right branch and a middle branch. Uncle Jordan speaks of chaos and order. The Tree uses the words mercy and severity to describe the same realms. Uncle Iain McGilchrist speaks of the Master and the Emissary. Uncle Iain speaks of your corpus callosum. Learn about that. It is the middle branch. The Tree of Life calls the middle one Equilibrium. It is between the left and the right. The wise ones at the hearth fire speak of walking the path of the hearth fire. The path is the middle branch. A bit like Goldilock’s porridge. Not too hot and not too cold. Not too much Mercy and not too much Severity. Not too much chaos and not too much order. Not too much Emissary and not too much Master. Not too much of the left and not too much of the right. The wise ones say that the Tree of Life is inside of you and inside of your head and all around you and above you and below you. Learn from the wise ones how the left and the right and the middle branches need each other and have always needed each other and will always need each other. For ever and ever.

I was having one of those hypothetical scenario discussions with a friend the other day, when the line between a dystopian possibility and reality became uncomfortably blurred. The hypothetical scenario in question being - what might happen if men began to significantly diminish from public life due to societal transformations. It's concerning how a narrative fueled by animosity towards men is gaining traction in various developed societies, even spreading to more distant ones, such as mine. I recently came across news about a groundbreaking medical procedure allowing women to generate sperm cells from their bone marrow, potentially enabling self-impregnation or impregnation of another woman, the only catch being that the offspring in such a case would always be female. While I'm unsure about the feasibility or legality of such a procedure, especially outside Western countries, what staggered me was the volume of comments that supported the idea of a world without men. Such drastic methods seem to be supported by people who are keen to make men “obsolete” so to speak. I wouldn’t quite say that men can be obsolete, because that would mean that the entire male consciousness can be reduced to a bunch of tasks or roles that could be substituted by women, technology, or rendered unnecessary altogether. I came across a podcast featuring a person known as Teal Swan, who discussed the idea that there is a growing effort to marginalise men by rendering them unnecessary in society. Swan also questioned the impact of a society where women can do everything for themselves, asking what place men would have in such a world, and if women would stop needing them entirely. I don't know much about Teal Swan or her broader beliefs, and I'm not sure how accurate her claims are. While she didn't provide answers, she seems to be asking the right questions. I also have some questions, some of which might be deemed too politically incorrect or controversial to voice openly in modern society. Carl Jung discussed archetypes in his book, Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. If we think of a father, the typical imagery is of a tall, strong figure—a protector, a judge, a disciplinarian, perhaps a hunter or builder. It’s like all the traits of masculinity stack together like a deck of cards. Now consider a mother: the image that often comes to mind is of someone kind, caring, gentle, and soft-spoken, typically holding a baby or child. She's depicted as a feeder, a nurse, a caretaker, the epitome of femininity at its best. What happens when these archetypes become blurred? The traditional roles that men and women have fulfilled in society are vital for raising well-adjusted children. Men have historically provided for and protected their families, disciplined their children and led communities. Women have fed and nurtured their children, cared for sick family members, and maintained the household. It is true that some of these roles, like hunting wild animals or providing physical security, have become less relevant in a society where safety is largely governed by the rule of law. If these roles are outsourced to babysitters, cooks, maids, and robots, what happens to the bond between parents and children? Can children thrive without the active involvement of their parents? If the archetypes of father and mother become diluted to the point where they no longer resemble traditional figures in a child's imagination, what impact will that have on society? Boys might struggle to understand what it means to become a man if the traits typically associated with fatherhood—strength, protection, discipline, and leadership—disappear. Similarly, young girls could find it challenging to understand what it means to be a woman if the nurturing and caring aspects of motherhood become obsolete. In a world where gender boundaries blur, purpose becomes elusive, and family ties weaken, and confusion reigns supreme. Although tasks like providing and protecting can be handled by women or outsourced, and many roles are interchangeable between genders or even replaced by technology, there is more to being a man or a father. The unique male instinct, refined over centuries of survival in the wild, is something that can't be easily replicated or replaced. It is the instinct of the inventor who eased the problem of pain and disease. It's the instinct of the artisan who wielded tools to build infrastructure. It is the instinct of the explorer who drew the maps and established trade routes. It's the instinct of the ruler who established the foundations of societal order. Most importantly, it is the instinct of the father who passed on that legacy to the son.

We were in the family locker room this morning at our gym, and my daughter suddenly noticed that her own pants matched a cheetah pattern on the pants of an attractive and fit older woman. The woman was pleased and she began talking to my almost-three-year-old. “Do you have a little baby in your tummy?” My daughter so innocently asked the dreaded question. Although she initially looked a bit horrified, the lady took it very well. She chuckled and stated, “I’m actually a grandma of three.” My daughter beamed. “I have two grandmas!” I told the lady that I have been verbally preparing my daughter for a pregnancy, which is true. We plan on trying to conceive soon, so I’ve been trying to get her comfortable with the idea. The lady didn’t even look a little bit pregnant. The comments were entirely situational in etiology. I pray that this lady doesn’t ultimately take it personally. Only, a few days prior, I encountered a similar slightly humiliating situation, but the reverse. Kids are humbling! I carried my restless toddler from my car into the gym. Upon showing my phone for proof of membership, my toddler immediately giggled and yelled to the desk attendant, “sticker, please!” The attendant smiled and gave her a little booklet of stickers to choose from. I picked her back up once she was satisfied and headed to drop her off at the kids academy so that I could get to the treadmill. My daughter pressed my forehead with her pointer finger and gave me a kiss, “So pretty, mommy.” I almost teared up, toddlers can be so sweet. I put her down so that she could walk into the kids academy. She put her arms out and proceeded to make buzzing sounds, tilting her head from side to side. I asked, “are you an airplane?” She shook her head and made more buzzing noises. “No, mommy! I’m not airplane!” “Helicopter?” “No, mommy!” The young woman at the desk, overwhelmed by all of the parents and children in line, rushed her back into the tot spot. I walked into the locker room to drop off my tote bag. I didn’t even take the time to look at the fit of my new tennis dress in the mirror. As I walked upstairs, I started to get a ton of smiles. Men (and women) walking down the stairs grinned as I made my way towards the treadmills. I didn’t think anything of it, at least, at first. My old man friend, a retired oncologist I used to work with, immediately found me, as usual, and proceeded to tell me a dad joke. I politely laughed even though I didn’t really know why it was relevant, something about honey or a bee-keeper. Where in the world did that come from? He’s getting so old and senile! I got on the treadmill facing the stationary bikes and I start to get all of these stares and smiles from the cyclists-in-place. I must look really good today! Maybe it’s the tennis dress? A young guy who works at the gym got on the treadmill on the right side of me. I had seen him at the gym before, but he hadn’t ever said anything to me besides comment on my toddler and her energy. After a few minutes, he looked over and smirked, raising one eyebrow. This is getting annoying. What is up with today, do I need to flash my ring? I brushed a few strands of hair in front of my right ear back into my ponytail with my left hand. I paused in exaggeration with my ring facing him so that he can see that I’m obviously married. Wow, what is up with the creeps these days! I finished my work out and I headed downstairs to pick my daughter up from the academy. I couldn’t help but scratch an itchy spot on the upper right side of my forehead. I suddenly felt something papery and sticky, and I realized, for the last hour or more, my toddler had me sporting a bumblebee sticker the size of a nickel. Everything made sense. Again, kids are very humbling. How often does this happen? I think I make this error much more often than I want to admit. We may think we’re getting reactions from people that say something about “us” or “them,” when the reactions we receive could be based on situational factors alone.

Compromised Politicians Posted on April 13, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, we’re way too hard on our friendly, thoughtful, and compromised politicians. While yes, many if not most are corrupt as vulture vomit, it’s not their fault. Some are literal psychopaths. Which is a birth defect. The rest are controlled by the deep state. Because, while a politician must face an election every few years, the deep state is above the law, our constitution and consequences. If a politician doesn’t have a perversion the administrative state can hold over their head, they’re picked up by a black SUV, and shown pictures of their children leaving school. People are vulnerable to many kinds of manipulation. Especially by immoral actors with omniscient surveillance and impunity to law. I wonder if that’s not why, people who started their careers in politics with integrity, rapidly become scum. Nowhere in the US Constitution, is the government given the authority to kill American citizens without trial… yet the deep state does it all the time. In fact the Constitution strictly forbids such activities. But, since the bureaucracy isn’t really a constitutionally constituted entity, it doesn’t have to abide by that antiquated document’s suggestions anyway. Our Constitution also expressly forbids what the government is doing to Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and Donald Trump… yet they’re doing it. Perverting law in public and without consequence. Because, the deep state has normalized their above the Constitution status, through the mockingbird media, and their sock puppets in congress. So the bureaucracy acts as it wants, justifying their endangering our very lives… by national security. The elephant in the room, of the Jeffery Epstein murder called suicide… is that it was done by the bureaucracy. No politician could have pulled it off. Even Colonel Robert Hogan couldn’t have swung that one. That murder and subsequent cover up was deep state action. Multiple people across multiple agencies had to be intimidated or bribed into complicity. Only the deep state has the ability to do that. Why? To cover up their political leverage operation. Had the tool talked the gig would have been up. The videos of their marionettes would have come out, and congress might have been cleaned of corruption. Until the deep state could salt the ground again. The result is, our “representatives” are captured by the deep state and bend to their will… even backwards, as we see with speaker Johnson. How is a septic tank different from congress? You don’t have to swallow the stuff that comes out of a septic tank. We go to jail if we can’t stomach the laws and lies our corrupt congress passes though. They have all year to come up with a budget yet fail to, every year, and “have” to pass an omnibus bill funding everything the deep state wants. Almost like the administrative state decides the budget and congress is a rubber stamp? Oh, representatives and Senators piss and moan about it… but dutifully vote for any usurpation when the time comes. They have skeletons in their closets too. Congress could stop illegal immigration with the passing of a single law, banning non citizens from any social services… but would never do that! They’re wisely terrified of the deep state’s wrath. Our politicians are controlled, they have no agency, a janitor at McDonalds has more freedom. Our politicians have too much power to harm the bureaucracy to be allowed a long leash. So they’re held in check by fear. Remember when Chucky said, “They have six ways to Sunday to get you…?” He was expressing his terror of the deep state. Quite an unintended admission, isn’t it? Our politicians may have started with honest, good and noble intentions, but intentions are the road to Hell… and the deep state’s made Congress a superhighway. What’s the answer? There are many things we could do, contact our representatives, inform our neighbors, participate in the process, etc… but we won’t do them. Sadly, we won’t act until its too late. The collapse the deep state will cause though… that always works. Sincerely, John Pepin

Until all the collectivist types come around to understanding that it is the Libertarians, Anarchists, and Voluntarists who are the true leaders in the Liberty movement, there will not be any solidarity. Sorry, but you don't get to co-opt, insult or deride the very people who have always railed against government corruption, and then in turn expect them to jump on board your little bandwagon just because you finally realize you were wrong or that your efforts were in vein. Without a full understanding of what the State represents there is no possible way to offer valid or coherent options to escape it's grip on power. Collectivists seem to think all that is needed is to control government and use it's force and violence to implement their own ideology, whereas the Libertarians/Voluntarists/Anarchists are saying "no one has the right to use force against their fellow man for any reason outside of defense." Collectivists offer.... -Utopian Centrally planned societies with zero explanation as to how or who will build them. -petitions and protests that do nothing to end abuses of authority. -a focused effort on the effects of government, rather than government itself. -An expansion of, and continued reliance on government for prosperity and wealth distribution. -The Occupy Movement, which was/is mainly comprised of Socialist types who yearn for more government, not less. -Lee Camp and the Young Turks, who put on a great show pretending to be all about freedom, then in turn regurgitate lefty media talking points and fall in line behind their political masters in the Democratic Party when the heat gets turned up. Libertarians offer.... -Ron Paul, who spent decades using many different platforms as the means to spread the message of Liberty to Millions and Millions of people all over the world. -Edward Snowden, who has basically destroyed his own life in order to let the world know just how corrupt governments are. -The Free State project in New Hampshire where people aren't just talking about freedom, they are making it happen. -A joint effort by many in the Liberty movement who have already begun building a Libertarian type society in Chile called Galt's Gulch. -Bitcoin, which allows anyone the ability to escape government reach economically. -Philosophers like Ayn Rand and Stefan Molyneux who have laid to waste the old world notion of dogmatic subservience to central authorities. -Prolific and insightful author Larken Rose who wrote "The Iron Web" and "The most dangerous superstition"...as well as the ever popular YouTube video called "The complete and undeniable truth." -Economists like Adam Smith, Ludwig Von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, etc, who correctly predicted the consequences of central planning , central banks, and government interference into the free market, As well as Peter Schiff, who saw and warned about the impending economic collapse long before it happened in late 07. I could actually go on even further giving real world examples of the efforts being undertaken by many people in the Liberty movement, but I feel I made my point effectively here already with the examples I offered. My final point is this....anyone and everyone is accepted into the Liberty movement. Due to the very nature of the movement, no one person or group needs to conform to any ideology, or set of ideals, other than refraining from using force, coercion, and theft as a means to their end. Those who are new to the Liberty movement should, at the very least, support voluntary solutions to the many problems we face, make connections with likeminded people, and have the courage to speak your mind or push back against those who seek to deny your fundamental rights and liberties. Anyone can be against something. It's another thing entirely to be about something and have the right message and directions on how to get there. If you truly care about humanity you will take the time to better understand who are the people you need to align with in order to get there. If you choose to follow those who recognize the effects and consequences, but don't truly understand the cause, you will all continue to stumble around in the dark because it's case of the blind leading the blind. Look to those who are shining the light and have already beaten a path. Independence = agilityCL

Power Of The Purse Posted on April 16, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, we see the astonishing power of the purse in the medical system. Any debate that goes against the narrative is stifled by the threat of liquidation. Punishment is rapid and severe should anyone have too much to think. That’s one reason why the vaccine that isn’t… is still available, pushed on toddlers, and no one has gone to prison for the deaths it’s caused. How many medical advancements have been suppressed by the medical elite… exploiting their power of the purse? Since the power of the purse is so omnipotent, when used by people with a backbone, isn’t it sad the US House abdicated it to the bureaucracy? The power of the purse has such amazing force, it’s capable of getting people to participate, knowingly, in the murder of millions… or the destruction of their own nation. Those who control the funding have the ultimate say. Speak up against Global Warming, and everyone knows, you get fired. From a weatherman, to a physicist at CERN, your job depends on your keeping quiet… and participating in the lie. So the experts participate. Do you want to study toenail fungus? Don’t bother writing for a grant… unless your study is how global warming is making toenail fungus worse. Then untold millions will be available to you. That’s how the funding of research can be used to manipulate data, and conclusions. Come to the wrong conclusion and you’ll never get a grant again. So “scientists” will lie, and participate in lies… to keep their job. As would you or I. If our livelihood depended on it. Because, only a fool, or hero, bites the hand that controls the purse strings. Covid’s origin and effective treatments were suppressed by the power of the purse. Upon Covid’s appearance Fauci set himself to using his power to control the flow of money, bribing the experts, to parrot what he told them to say. They were faced with a dilemma. Lie when they know they’re lying, or face the wrath of Fauci. They saw the example the elites made of Doctor Malone, and no one wants to be made an example of. Stripped of credentials, lambasted in the media and called a quack… for telling the truth. It’s much easier to play ball and lie. To this day, the control of who gets what funding, decides the narrative about Covid, and the mortally flawed vaccine that isn’t. Not just shutting up “scientists,” but getting them to participate in murder… by the power of the purse. How many people took the vaccine, knowing it’s potentially mortal side effects… because their job depended on it? I know of several. Those people knowingly risked death, or worse, to keep their sucky job. Now that is power. The power of the purse. It can force people to risk life itself. No wonder the bureaucracy so loves it. Bureaucrats decide what gets funded. They write the budgets, and representatives give it a thumbs up, or thumbs down. If they give it a thumbs down, the mockingbird media attacks them and threatens their jobs. So republicans always back down, rather than shut down, the government. In this case, the power of the purse, is used to wrest the power of the purse, from the congress. Because one side is willing to use it… while the other is terrified of it. It’s astounding congress gave the power of the purse to the bureaucracy, since it’s able to get people to forswear their honor, participate in lies, and even mass murder. How do we know this? Because under a “rock ribbed republican,” speaker Johnson, the republican controlled House didn’t write the budget, the bureaucracy did, under the guidance of the democrats, and the “budget” they passed reflects it. The bureaucracy decides what gets funded, who gets punished for speaking out, and who gets rewarded for playing ball. Not the republican controlled House. They gave that power up. Instead, holding hearings about how bad Biden is… and doing nothing about it. Showing us how useless congress is. Having given anti- Americans the power of the purse. A purse our Constitution gave to them. Sincerely, John Pepin

Buying Justice Posted on April 25, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, while the recent Supreme Court ruling restoring property rights to American citizens, and chastising the EPA is a victory… it came at a cost. I don’t know what the lawyer bills for the Sackett family were, but I guarantee they were in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not the millions. There aren’t many people with that level of wealth enabling them to successfully protect their Constitutional Rights. Which means… only the rich have actual Constitutional Rights, the rest of us get the scraps from the table, breaded in dirt . How many families have been abused by the EPA, and indeed all the other bureaucracies that exist only to make life harder for the average American? They didn’t have millions set aside to pay for attorneys. Doesn’t this paradigm seem unjust to you as well? The court system is based on political favor. We know this by their actions, past and present. By those actions, showing their political bias, we can predict with some accuracy their future actions. Obama could murder a child in public, and the media would say the kid had it coming, the DOJ would say it’s not their jurisdiction, and the NY prosecutor would play Pontius Pilot. Because Obama has too much political favor to charge with a crime. At least in NY. Courts use political favor as the primary source of their decrees. Then backtrack with reason to justify their rulings. A smart jurist like Oliver Wendell Homes, can make a perversion of justice so seamless, abuse looks like love. As in Buck v Bell. That’s why we buy lawyers… to lease their political favor, for our benefit. It’s good that we get the scraps from the table. Those scraps are getting fewer and further between though. For example, the legal system in NY is showing itself to be utterly corrupt. But here’s the rub… if they’re willing to violate a billionaire’s Constitutional Rights, in public, then what limit is there on the NY “justice” system abusing you or I? Nothing. Other than political favor. Once the court system has grudgingly allowed us a Right, they not so studiously, enforce it. We have many Constitutional Rights on paper, but I know people who’ve had their Constitutional Rights abused, that abuse exposed to the courts, and the consequences were for the victim, not the perpetrator. Because the victim didn’t have political favor. That’s where the law and order people have it wrong. Lacking the political favor to get the courts to rule on one’s side, a litigant can take the case to a higher court. Where he or she hopes the notoriety and publicity will force the court to rule justly. Which is usually a fools errand. Especially if the litigant has negative political favor. Unless the case is making the courts a laughing stock, making it’s patently in the system’s best interest to tamp down the knowledge of its corruption, so they rule justly. To protect their image. This paradigm however demands a great deal of wealth from the victim, to protect their Constitutional Rights… and ours. Even after having spent millions on lawyers, with strong political favor, many victims are crushed in the process. Making the legal game one for the rich… not the average Joe. A litigant with sufficiently negative political favor risks their attorney’s political favor as well. To the point of getting them disbarred. The system will steal the assets of a victim they don’t want fighting back. Especially one who’s been obviously aggrieved. Like Trudeau did to the Canadian Trucker protesters, and Gofundme shut down Kyle Rittenhouse’s fundraiser. Stealing their ability to fight back. Proving our system of “justice” is nothing of the sort. It replaces actual justice for Thrasymachus’ version. Where law is a swindle, so the powerful can steal from the weak, and call it just. If the weak fight back, now, that’s unjust. This inhuman system is gated by the huge cost of lawyers. Holding the hoi polloi ever at arms length from justice. They don’t call it the “Bar” for nothing. Sincerely, John Pepin

I once knew a girl in high school who I admired very much. Her grades were consistently at the top of the class. She had a style all her own. Her bedroom walls were covered in magazine clippings and collages she'd spent long hours on. She didn't mind falling off a skateboard and scraping her elbow. Her creativity just shimmered through everything she did, no matter how small. She seemed like the model student. More so, the model friend. Then she started trying different things. Introducing different chemicals into her already-brilliant psyche. She figured that she may as well now, while she was still young and able. That—, in her words—, she'd like to have all these things "under her belt." It confused me. She already seemed perfect, why the need to experiment if you've been blessed with so much. Stranger yet, her grades never suffered. They didn't dip once. Throughout all the psychedelics, pills, and whatnot—, she remained on top of her class. This confused me even more. Long story short: she transferred schools and I never saw her again. I'd often think back to her free spirit and nonchalant attitude toward drugs and try to see the soundness therein. Her premise was probably that the more experiences one has, the more they'll have to draw from, hence, the more reliable their conclusions will be. But I don't need to stick a needle in my arm and shoot up heroin to know it's bad for you. There are studies available. I've skimmed a few. All sarcasm aside—, there actually are people in this world who won't respect an iota of your opinion if you haven't done each and everything you're describing on a firsthand basis, multiple times over. Though, nobody reaches the top of the Empire State Building and needs proof that jumping toward the street below will be the worst—, and last—, mistake they'll ever make. It's common sense. It's engrained into our DNA. Rationale; it's there to be used, often. So why this elitist obsession with having as many things under one's belt as possible? They claim "enlightenment" as these would-be’s ingest handfuls of brightly technicolored capsules and listen to music so new that it hasn't even been assigned a sub-genre yet. These "brave" culture warriors teeter the edge which divides our mainstream from the scary wilderness beyond. They self-appoint themselves the true curators of cool but only because there is nobody else who cares enough to make such a huge production out of whatever the current flavor-of-the-week happens to be. Everyone else is gone. They've moved on. They grew brains and with them created goals, outlined plans, and just started taking those who chose to stay behind at their words. "Oh..., too many counteractive drugs in your body will shut down your central nervous system?" So I’ve heard. "Oh..., you smoked three packs a day for twenty-some years and now you're bummed out by your test results?" Hmm... "Oh..., going through withdrawals really isn’t fun?" Wow. A priori knowledge is independent of experience, a posteriori is dependent on experience or empirical evidence. If a privileged upper-middle class teenager who's been lucky enough to grow up in an environment where the realities of drugs could be observed through both those that litter the streets of his downtown and the internet at large, still needs further empirical evidence to fully commit to a conclusion, then I would venture to say that he is probably welcoming of all the misery he's plunging himself toward. There are certain things in life that I don't need to experience on my own skin in order to label them a certain way. A priori knowledge. Anyone who sees this as whimpering away with fear is a masochist and can be my guest when it comes to trying "that new gasoline stuff."My only guess is that people are forever trying to one-up each other. You've tried the pink powder? Well I've tried the blue. And so on and so forth. I don't admire this type of thinking. It gets you killed or at the very least, makes you extremely regretful. The one I admire is the third person looking at the two who are arguing with a look of bewilderment that shouts out: “Why?!”

Unjust Courts Posted on April 14, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, as long as people are treated unjustly, and unfairly by the courts, how can any of us expect fair and just treatment? We can’t. A dog understands justice. Unfairly give two dogs out of three a treat, ignore the other, and there will be a reaction. Because justice is so hard wired into our psyche that even pets understand it. That’s why we have the cannon of law. To call the unjust just. It may take a lot of intelligent thinking, to rationalize injustice as justice, but we have some of the smartest lawyers who’ve ever lived. Backed by judges who live in an echo chamber atop an ivory tower. Law has been crafted into the acme of Thrasymachus’ version of “justice.” Where law is used by the strong to take from the weak and pretend it’s just. As US law and our courts are obviously doing. People are on their best behavior when in public, knowing this, how absurd is it for the courts to publicly shame themselves? The term “Railroaded” was invented in the 1800s because, at that time the railroads had so much political favor, they could act with impunity. They would take anything they wanted no matter how illegal…. and the courts would back them. Thus the term… “Railroaded” came into popular vernacular. The railroads were stripped of their power by public opinion. The public became so annoyed at the obvious political favor the courts were giving the railroads, they contacted their representative, cornered him in public and at rallies, demanding action on the railroads. The railroads had acted in public and so had angered the people into action. Courts rule based on political favor and expedience, then backtrack with law, to justify it. As they did with the railroads, Dredd Scott, Buck v Bell, Korematsu, Wickard v Filburn, etc… making them theater, masquerading as courts. Because, those decisions spit in the face of Constitutional rule in general, and our Constitution in particular. US courts aren’t the only ones subject to this. All courts across the planet rule based on political favor. Look at the recent ruling of the World Court, that Switzerland hadn’t done enough, to combat climate change! Even as Europe is burning down due to an invasion of people who despise Europeans, their customs and their little dogs too. That same court would never rule against unlimited immigration. No matter the negative effect on the people or immigrants. Examples abound of our courts publicly humiliating themselves. The absurd, clearly political charges against Trump, are only the latest in a long line of public humiliation of the justice system, at their own hands. Kyle Rittenhouse’s self defense was documented by a multitude of cameras. Yet, the courts tried to crucify the boy, to manipulate public opinion against our Constitutional Right of self protection. Barring that, make an example of him so others will simply lay down and die. Then there’s the example of Julian Assange. The British courts have humiliated themselves over and over. Even today doing mental gymnastics to extradite him against their own law. Can you imagine how lacking self awareness the Texas and Connecticut courts were, when they railroaded Alex Jones, for wrongspeak? Even an amoeba swimming in a pond in northern Alaska knows US courts are worthless. The public action of our courts has utterly obliterated their authority. All they have now is naked power, that flows from the end of a gun… as Mao put it. Those with political favor will fight to the death, to protect the system that protects them, while we hoi polloi don’t know how to wrest justice back. This isn’t a recent problem, as Plato’s Republic explained, with the Sophist Thrasymachus. Is Justice simply a tool for the strong to control the weak? Or is it a real thing? It’s real… because even a dog understands it. So what we have in our court systems today, are malevolent people railroading law, to their own ends. To the detriment of humanity… until we become sufficiently outraged to do something about it. Sincerely, John Pepin

Would human rights matter when human beings cease to right themselves? Will there be any humanity left when humans are coerced further to the left than ever before? It’s 2024, but 1984 is still on its way. Industry 4.0 is here to stay, and billions will be held under its sway. Our world sunders under the assault of oppressive black rocks hurled at us by the infernal juggernaut of a trebuchet that is Wide State Socialism, and our apathy will cause us to pay. It’s said that “the only thing evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing". We must act on the understanding that apathy is neither a synonym nor a substitute for antipathy. Inexcusable indifference, even if it stems from ignorance, will make no difference to our outcomes if we fail to fight this fiendish foe: Wide State Socialism. Socialism and the Deep State are concepts familiar to many of us, but Wide State Socialism is a more accurate label for the globalist, elitist cabal that has set itself as our enemy. It’s postulated that if you “know your enemy and know yourself, then in a thousand battles you will not taste defeat”. So, who is this enemy? Sometimes, when the enemy’s obfuscation, designed to keep us oblivious, is so potent, knowing our enemy’s enemy could prove illuminating. After all, we know who the enemy of our enemy must be: our best friend. The WEF released a video elucidating their eight goals for 2030. The very first one is the now infamous adage, “You will own nothing and be happy.” That assertion can also be analyzed to obtain what should be a blatantly obvious insight: happiness is inextricably tied to ownership! It’s quite symbolic and telling that a female Scandinavian politician, Ida Auken, apparently coined the malevolent WEF motto. The Funding Feminizers who drive Wide-State Socialism are definitely nothing like the Founding Fathers. The consecrated concepts of liberty, equality, and human rights all stem from one invaluable axiom: the inviolability of individual sovereignty, which is why Wide-State Socialism can never be reconciled within a freedom-based world. Individual sovereignty, or self-ownership, is the exclusive right to control one’s life and is, thus, imperative for our happiness. Ergo, all forms of socialism target the concept of ownership in multifarious ways. Individual sovereignty is also the foundation for the keystone idea behind democracies: popular sovereignty. In simple terms, popular sovereignty means that the people own the government and not the other way around. But is that how the real world functions? The inexorable enmeshment of AI in society will cause another inescapable change to our ownership potential. Working jobs to make an income, giving you money to own things, and hence being happy, will no longer be a prudent pursuit. Already, debt culture has captured true ownership away from the majority of humanity. We’re not really owners of our homes if we pay rent or mortgage. We’re glorified tenants. This is a universal truth that has been recognized since ancient times. In the world’s longest epic poem, the Mahabharata, when a god tests the wisdom of the protagonist character, Yudhishthira, by asking him who is the happiest of them all, Yudhishthira correctly confirms that it is the one who is free of debt. Concurrently, the global emasculation of society continues to fester because it results in entitled people who find misery in the idea of merit, which is unquestionably linked with ownership. This emasculation is also designed to target the one group that is most likely to procure happiness from ownership: masculine men. Ownership is in our very nature. Our ability to fulfill our hierarchy of needs and scale that apex of transcendence is inseparably tied to our ownership because it meets our actualization requirements. When our ownership doesn’t make us happy, mental illness is bound to occur. The rise of mental illness alongside Industry 4.0 could be why Industry 5.0 is supposed to target wellbeing. As proof, women supposedly hold around 80% of consumer debt, and most anti-ownership and leftist ideas are propagated by women and emasculated, entitled men. This is why, for masculine men, socialism is so cancerous, and complete ownership over our lives is crucial. Do we really own ourselves if even our thoughts are policed and our words are controlled? So why is masculinity such a threat to the globalist elite hell-bent on empowering themselves against ordinary people? The answer could be as simple as it is profound. Since time immemorial, masculine men have always been willing to be the first to lay it on the line to combat evil and protect our sense of agency. It’s innate in us to want to resolve issues. Indignation ought to drive our hearts at this stage, and we must once again raise arms. Hence, in the AI era, it is incumbent upon us to strive against the diabolical behemoth that is Wide State Socialism. We have to overcome debt culture, and preserve our ownership. Our wealth should never aid in empowering the denizens who propagate this globalist socialism. Never spend money on socialism-supporting enterprises. But that’s only one part of the equation. Borrowing from Teddy Roosevelt, it is time for young men to once again become political. Participate in the politics of your polity at all levels. Embrace activism! Remember, power is the name of the game, and power comes from a prescient application of phronesis. Foresight and practical wisdom have never been more invaluable. When the idea of jobs is becoming outdated, we must become entrepreneurs. Make wealth instead of money. Seize control in all aspects of your life. Eschew debt culture and embrace true ownership. In the experience-based economy of the future, become creators. Pursue merit and encourage others to do so, too. Above all, promote meritocracy-loving activism. When liberty is threatened with policing, politicizing is the solution. After all, the trebuchet only left the field when it was conquered by the right tool: gunpowder. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sources: Jan, Z., Ahamed, F., Mayer, W., Patel, N., Großmann, G., Stumptner, M., & Kuusk, A. (2023, April 1). Artificial intelligence for industry 4.0: Systematic review of applications, challenges, and opportunities. Expert Systems With Applications. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.119456 Minné, D. (2018). The effects of testosterone on embodiment: implications for social power. https://open.uct.ac.za/items/da1060e3-26d6-4892-97ca-b233cf0fdc00 Van Der Westhuizen, D., Moore, J. W., Solms, M., & Van Honk, J. (2017, November 1). Testosterone facilitates the sense of agency. Consciousness and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2017.10.005 The great reset: Could Henry George be the antidote to the world economic forum? Clifford W. Cobb, 17 August 2023, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12538 https://www.cato.org/regulation/spring-2023/plutocratic-socialism https://committeetounleashprosperity.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Them-vs-Us_CTUP-Rasmussen-Study-FINAL.pdf

The older I get, the more I want a moody atmosphere when I sit down and watch a movie after work at night. That often leads me to mysteries, thrillers, and the types of horror movies where the protagonist goes off into unfamiliar territory, isolated from civilization. One particular cinematic mood that was captured most prominently in the early 1990s was the steamy thriller. Some might call them “erotic thrillers” but I don’t want to mix Skinemax with the likes of Basic Instinct and Single White Female. I went on a steamy 90s thriller binge back in June last year and got my fill. But as I started getting back into comics earlier this year, something caught my eye in the local comic book shop. Sumerian Comics launched Basic Instinct in November 2023 and currently has 3 issues out. The femme fatale in the 1992 film, Catherine Tramell (famously performed by Sharon Stone), continues her story in the comic series in parallel to an anonymous artist who draws inspiration from famous murders. The comic is dark, mysterious, and hard-boiled. It builds sexual tension like a steamy thriller should. The steamy 90s vibes seem to come out when Catherine Tramell is on the scene, but it doesn’t really capture the feeling of the film otherwise. And the opening sex scene in issue 2 probably won’t appeal to many fans of the original film (no spoilers). I’m hungry for that 90s steamy thriller vibe when I buy these comics, so I’m hoping they stay true to that going forward. But Sumerian Comics is doing more than 90s cinema nostalgia and they caught my eye with a new 80s cinema nostalgia release: The Fog. John Carpenter’s 1980 horror feature The Fog now has a followup story 40 years after the events of film. There’s only one issue out so far and I’m pretty sure John Carpenter has a cameo role in it, judging by the artwork. The Fog has the quintessential mood building you want out of a coastal village horror story — a much different feeling from the 90s steamy thriller variety. It starts calm, like a sleepy coastal town usually is. But there’s something ominous lurking. A perfect setup for a fish-out-of-water horror story. I want to applaud Sumerian Comics for bringing these moody cinema franchises back to life in print. The question is, when does the Sliver comic book come out?

The Narcissism of Contemporary Autofiction The Anti-Art of Confabulation You wake up to it. Thirty unread messages from last night’s date, each more mundane and self-involved than the last. You scroll and scroll, the onslaught of nonmeaning condensing into a Talmud of intellectual antimatter. Something about the dog. The ex. The rich aunt in Tallahassee. The color of last week’s socks. You read the thirtieth message and gasp. The text thread has found a publisher, and will be available at a store near you by Q4 2024. You try to scream, but no sound comes out. That would be too interesting for the kind of nightmare you’ve found yourself in. The kind of nightmare that’s most young writers’ ultimate dream. Why? Because they’re boring narcissists. To put it more elegantly – and give perspective to this phenomenon of boring narcissists with literary aspirations – we’ll start with Norman Mailer, a narcissist who attained his literary aspirations through the miracle of actually writing well. In his late-career celebration of the novel as a form, The Spooky Art: Thoughts on Writing, Mailer identifies two broad approaches to longform narrative: the Tolstoyan and the Dostoevskian. The Tolstoyan novel is epic in scope, breathing life into a wide-ranging array of characters while grounding them in their particular social and historical contexts. The Dostoevskian novel, by contrast, focuses on how individuals’ thoughts and actions serve as building blocks of their existential conundrums. Now the Tolstoyan novel is all but gone, and the Dostoevskian novel seems more a product, rather than an exploration of, the pathologies of our age. Literary fiction is fast becoming an offshoot of self-help journaling, portraying only those events which directly impact its author/subject, and seldom digressing into their wider significance. This style, known in the book trade as “autofiction,” certainly has its place, the best of it having the quality of a long, boozy conversation with a charismatic stranger. Knausgaard comes to mind. His pale imitators (their names are legion -- could you be one of them, niche Internet reader?) do not, and the more I’m exposed to their output, the more I dread the morning after: the bitterness of lost time, unrecoverable by a latter-day Proust, too muddled by a sour stomach to dare a bite of madeline. Unlike Bukowski or Henry Miller, whose outsized personalities led them along paths rich with intrigue and startling insights, and without the dreamy melancholy of Duras or Kavan, many of today’s self-mythologizers seem ruled by base neuroses, whatever voice they may possess drowned out by verbose, tormented chapters devoted to a childhood slight, death of a pet, or dissolution of a three-day situationship. A huge proportion of alt-lit Substack is guilty of this, and a surprising (non-zero!) fraction of works published there are eventually compiled and given some form of physical distribution. Again, this sort of writing can and has been done very well, but as a rule, recent autofiction’s limited concerns would best be discharged on an analyst’s couch, or, in a more perfect world, taken out in scented markers on a wide-ruled page. Ubiquitous psychotherapy seems only to have expanded the domain of its subject, rendering the novel just another surface onto which “lived experience” may be inscribed. When literature offers nothing but the quotidian, readers' minds wander inexorably toward a stain on their shirt or maintenance of the catbox. Bores beget boredom and little else: it's a fact of life. So why are these people writing at all? To give “therapy culture” its due, a major clue can be found in the annals of contemporary psychology. Our reader’s path to enlightenment may be getting junked up by the surprising popular appeal and mass-marketing of confabulation – the process by which memory gaps are bridged by plausible, but totally fabricated, threads of meandering narrative. Two diagnostic classes that rely heavily on confabulation, narcissists and dementia patients, are sadly illustrative of a growing fraction of the rising literary milieu. Both seek to impart plausible deniability to the chaos of their half-remembered lives, position themselves as persecuted objects or the center of events, and need for you to listen to and believe them. “I’m not perfect, but I can explain,” expanded into a lifetime of shoddy fabrications -- and sometimes presented in book form. As our dominant modes of being shift toward a nexus of narcissism and outright dementia, so do our cultural products, and all but the most determined readers may soon be drubbed into accepting confabulators’ leaden alchemy as genuine magic, content as they are with their daily input of TikTok beefs and Twitter soft-blocks. Is there wisdom to be found among these shifting dunes of glitched-out memory? Just as much as anywhere else. But that’s not why we’ve turned to literature, historically, and I suspect the result – mostly indistinguishable from the nightmare we opened on – will collapse once rights to some of the above-mentioned masters’ catalogs enter the public domain and reinvigorate the idling fiction industry. For now, we’re stuck with placeholders, passively nodding at a motormouthed stranger as we wait for our bus to come in. It might be the polite thing to do, but for my part, I’ll put the cost of a new paperback toward a bottle of Melatonin and sleep this one out. Which, come to think of it, is pretty narcissistic of me. Excuse me while I compose a couple hundred pages about why, exactly, there’s nothing wrong with this…. FURTHER READING: Jonathan Sturgeon - 2014: The Death of the Postmodern Novel and the Rise of Autofiction 2014: The Death of the Postmodern Novel and the Rise of Autofiction The postmodern novel is dead. It is no longer what William James would call a living hypothesis: no committed literary novelist would now choose to write a postmodern fiction. Sure, genre and YA novelists may continue to churn out commodified,… www.flavorwire.com Prof. Sam Vaknin - Dissociation and Confabulation in Narcissistic Disorders Dissociation and Confabulation in Narcissistic Disorders (narcissistic amnesia) why narcissists and psychopaths often contradict themselves. Tomorrow's confabulation often negates yesterday's. The narcissist and psychopath do not remember their previous tales because they are not invested with the emotions and cognitions that are integral parts of real memories. www.heraldopenaccess.us Eve Attali, Francesca De Anna, Bruno Dubois, Gianfranco Dalla Barba - Confabulation in Alzheimer's disease: poor encoding and retrieval of over-learned information Confabulation in Alzheimer's disease: poor encoding and retrieval of over-learned information Abstract. Patients who confabulate retrieve personal habits, repeated events or over-learned information and mistake them for actually experienced, specifi academic.oup.com

I was born in the middle of the last century so will not be around for the end of the current one. But my grandchildren will be and, like most people with grandchildren, I hope their world will be one in which they flourish. In the middle of the last century, economist Friedrich Hayak published The Road to Serfdom, which was met with scorn by some, but perceived as a wake-up call by others. My grandchildren's lives will depend on where we are along that road at the end of this century. Will we be subjects of a centralized realm, or will we be free to pursue individual paths in a society that depends on voluntary participation in group endeavors? No matter what wonderful and terrible stuff we develop, the type of society in which we live remains the foundation for how our inventions and ideas play out. So my thoughts about the end of the century turn to the type of society we inhabit at the moment, just shy of a quarter of the way into the 21st century. Human nature did not change while the world we made careened from caves to high-rise, digital cities. We have the same frailties that plagued our ancestors, even though we have made life far easier, safer and longer with all our inventions, and will probably continue to do so. One of our frailties is our social nature. We must live in groups, and to function constructively we must be able to trust each other. The biggest failures of our society come from breakdown in trust, which in turn comes from dishonesty - or, more plainly, lying. And here in the waxing days of the 21st century we are wallowing in lies. I need not elaborate when we can no longer be certain whether or not a video image and recording is real. No one is immune from lying, though some do it with breath-taking ease in positions that matter to millions, while other simply lie to themselves about how much sleep they really need, how much time something really takes, or how buying something on credit is not really the same thing as having enough money in the first place. In our cyber society, set in a world that has been busy abandoning the old superstitions that included the Ten Commandments, lying proliferates as easily as microorganisms reproduce. Lying becomes a necessary tool of the people in charge as they discover how easy it is to sway the thinking of large numbers of people. Theodore Dalrymple, in The Wilder Shores of Marx: Journeys in a Vanishing World, described the results of institutional lying well: "...the worst thing about the system was the official lying...the less it was true, the less it corresponded in anyway to reality, the better; the more it contradicted the experience of the persons to whom it was directed, the more docile, self-despising for their failure to protest and impotent they became." This is where we are headed unless we rediscover and champion the value of truth-telling. And admit that there are many things that we think we know, that we think we are in the position to manipulate for our own purposes, that are still cloaked in mystery requiring humility and caution. No small tasks, these. They will not be solved from the top down because the top layer controlling society is simply more of us, and getting to the top is a process that, in our current culture, rewards those best able to skirt the truth. So for my grandchildren I hope that by the end of the century we have grounded our society in truth and beauty and turned away from lies and ugliness, and that trust under-girds our interactions. Getting there is not a science project. It is an ethical and moral one, and all of us need to participate. We need to reject stories that go against what we know to be true. We need the courage to confront lies - those we tell ourselves as well as those told to us. And we need to stand with the courageous ones who confront the lies used to manipulate us by those in power. Ever since humans became self-aware they have grappled with the the question of how best to live in this world, and left a rich record of their ideas. It is time to study these as much as we study science, because we all bear responsibility for how this century ends.

Note: This article was authored by a close friend and colleague, Ankit, for publication on my blog Dregs of Yore, and edited by me. Introduction Using a phrase like "When I reflect on my life..." might seem odd for someone who is just 30 years old. One imagines this expression to be used by grandparents fondly reminiscing the days of their youth to their grandchildren. However, if you find yourself using it when the past isn't that far removed, it might indicate one of two things: (a) You're experiencing a midlife crisis, or (b) There's something unresolved from your past that still carries present significance. I often encounter teenagers contemplating their future, anxious about the results of critical exams like IIT-JEE or NEET, which determine admission into India's top engineering and medical schools. Conversations about these exams on social media can quickly become contentious due to differing beliefs. Some argue that meritocracy should be the only factor worth consideration, while others contend that the costs of this rigid approach are too high. In my view, these polarised discussions miss all that falls through the cracks, focusing more on the system that shapes individuals rather than the individuals who will ultimately build the system. An Average Day in the Life of an Aspirant A small town in the state of Rajasthan, that goes by the name of Kota, is fabled for its coaching institutes for IIT-JEE, where students throng in thousands, in the hope of getting into the prestigious IITS (Indian Institute of Technology) that spawned the Pichais and Nadelas of the world. I was one of those thousands in 2008, and it was my first time living away from my parents at the age of 15. The first day was the orientation, and I remember a question posed to the auditorium packed to full-capacity with teenage kids from all across the country: “Who, among you all, was a topper at your school?” To my disbelief, all five thousand hands went up immediately. First off, every student had to stick to a demanding schedule set by the institute. Every student was trying to crack the formula for clearing these exams, and we got no help from the pamphlet that was handed to us, which broke down the number of hours of the next two years into four broad categories: Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, and Shitting (no kidding). Our day began at 7 a.m., when we got up, got ready, and had breakfast before heading to class by 8 a.m. Apparently being half an hour early for class wasn’t proof enough of my sincerity; the class was half full already. Classes went on till 2 in the afternoon, with an hour-long lunch break, then two more hours of classes in the afternoon. The rest of the day was filled with homework and preparing for the next class. Missing even one day of homework meant you'd fall behind in the following day's class, leading to a snowball effect. We typically went to bed at 2 a.m., worn out from ten to twelve hours of intense study. The Upside of This System The biggest advantage of this system is that it can set you up for life. If you endure the gruelling two-year coaching program and secure admission to one of the top colleges, you'll gain access to some of the best opportunities, skills, education, and facilities India has to offer. Being accepted into these prestigious institutions virtually ensures job placements in leading companies within India and abroad, a dream for many, especially those from smaller towns or villages. It costs an arm and a leg to put your kid through coaching institutes that promise such outcomes, and this may be the only fair shot for many of them towards upward social mobility. Try imagining yourself in place of that kid who has been tasked with pulling his family out of generations of poverty. Not to mention, kids who pull through undergo a radical change in outlook - they can take on the world. These two years act as a wellspring of confidence that can be tapped into throughout life. They become the yardstick of endurance, and every problem encountered thereafter seems smaller in comparison. The Other Side of the Story The top 5 percentile are promised a life full of opportunities. But what about the rest? For many, this is their first encounter with failure, and it can take years to break free from the cycle of self-pity—if they ever do. I was one of the lucky few who was able to articulate what happened, and not lose perspective. But for many, it remains to be the biggest regret of their lives that they couldn’t get into IIT, leading to perpetual self-doubt, a sense of inadequacy, and, worst of all, the crushing feeling of letting down their parents. For some, this even became a cause of resentment towards their parents, adding on to the baggage that one has to unpack. During these two years, most students follow the "flying route" for their school education, enrolling in schools affiliated with coaching institutes that don't require regular attendance. As a result, they miss out on typical high-school experiences. While this may seem like a minor trade-off, the broader impact is significant: an entire generation lacks interaction with the opposite gender, has weak communication skills, little to no engagement in extracurricular activities, and minds shaped solely by competition. The local newspapers of Kota are flooded with reports of student suicides and drug abuse. Meritocracy — Why It Matters For a developing country like India, it is important to have technocrats in decision-making roles and an entrepreneurial ecosystem that can reap the demographic dividend. This requires quality human capital, which is produced by institutions like the IITs. India may have a Gandhi, but it does not have a Musk. If the vision of a developed India is that of a rule-based capitalist system, then it needs more Musks than Gandhis. The vision of the government in setting up IITs was to instil scientific temperament in the youth so that we can break the shackles of our past and catapult to a more advanced economy. In the last two decades, the buzzword in India has shifted from ‘BPO’ to ‘start-up’, which implies an unprecedented shift from the erstwhile risk-averse working-class mindset to a more enterprising and exuberant disposition. The tangible contribution of the students who come out of these institutes is there for the world to see, but what they miss is how a meritocratic set-up has touched the lives of a billion people and reinforced faith in the country just like the American dream did. Caste-based Reservation and its Unintended Consequences Even within this highly competitive and meritocratic system of selection, half of the seats to these colleges are reserved for those groups that the government classifies as backward or in need of affirmative action. Additionally, they have lower cut-offs for admission. Candidates who get in solely on this basis find it difficult to compete with the others and many end up dropping out prematurely. Furthermore, those who do go on to have successful careers, are left wondering whether their victory was their own and it is often worsened by the fact that their peers do not validate their efforts. On the flip side, there is a major chunk of disillusioned students who missed out because they fell short by a few marks, and they end up bitter towards those who got in through reservation. While well-intentioned, reservation brings casteist overtones in the campus to the fore instead of equalising the playing field as it was supposed to. These impressionable young minds have friends across communities, but reservation widens the rift between them, making it difficult for students to feel genuinely happy for their classmates who gained admission through these reserved quotas. Conclusion On a micro-level, the question that needs to be asked is whether you would want to put your own kid through this ordeal. But let he who has a better alternative for stimulating talent in the country come forth, and try replacing a functional system which may be mired in a unique set of problems. My two cents will be: For those who don’t get through, life still has a lot to offer and so does India.

Attitude Leads Outcome Posted on April 21, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, attitude leads outcome, most think it’s the other way around, but they’re wrong. Good attitudes lead to success and poor attitudes lead to failure. Oh, there are examples of those who’ve got ahead with a poor attitude, but they’re also examples of corruption, graft and privilege. The heir to an estate needn’t have a winning attitude. Those with a poor one however will be wearing shirtsleeves in short order. The entrepreneur with a poor attitude is sure to go bankrupt, while the businessman with a winning one, could go far indeed. This is true for a multitude of reasons. Primarily, because business is the art of falling and getting back up again. A poor attitude will keep one on the ground at the first fall, a winning one will get them back up, no matter how many falls they’ve had. The art of falling down and getting back up is a hard one to master. No one likes to fail. We often go to great lengths to avoid it. Sometimes missing opportunities for fear of failing. The thing about anything is, the more you do it, the easier it gets. This goes for sin as well as virtue. The more we fall, and get back up, the easier it is to get back up. Your idea could be brilliant, but if it’s out of place or time, it will fail. Later someone else could make a fortune on the same idea. So success isn’t entirely based on intellect, wisdom and judgment… it has a bit of luck. As we all know, the more you roll the dice, the more likely it is to roll a hard seven. The more chances you take the more chances to succeed. If you only take one chance though… failure is assured. A winning attitude is magnetic, to customers, employees and investors. Go get ’em Liam’s positive attitude, draws people in, but is also contagious. Others become infected with Liam’s gusto. Making success ever more likely. Enthusiastic employees work harder and smarter because they’re motivated. Customers will buy from an enthusiastic person before a lackadaisical one all else being equal. Investors who catch the winning attitude are happy to invest. Because, where a business is motivated, enthusiastic, and has a winning attitude… the likelihood of profit is great. The opposite is also true if the entrepreneur has a bad attitude. They will have a hard time getting motivated employees, willing customers or investors… no matter how great their ideas, products and plans. Sad sacks seldom go far. Unless it’s on a vacation. Since someone with a defeatist attitude has already lost. This isn’t simply because their attitude is repulsive, but because one’s attitude and motivation, show up in their work. Two equally skilled craftsmen creating a piece of furniture, one is enthusiastic for the project the other unmotivated. Which one will build a better piece? We all know the answer. Another problem with a bad attitude is it’s also contagious. “A bad apple spoils the barrel…” as the saying goes. This is one way corporations are rotted from within. The executives get a bad attitude, That motivation or rather, anti motivation, oozes down the levels and once it’s corrupted the bottom, that corporation becomes a zombie company. All because of a bad attitude. If we want to get ahead, there’s no better way than to adjust our attitude. You are what you think. Control your thoughts to stay motivated. It takes will. If it was easy, everyone would be rich, motivated and have a winning attitude. That so many of us don’t… proves the difficulty in it. Few are happy when they get punched in the face. They’re called masochists. The rest of us resent it. But, we have to learn to take it, with a smile, maybe missing a tooth. Become inured to getting back up from a fall. No one likes it, but once your used to it, it becomes second nature. Like playing a guitar. It’s hard at first but as you practice you get better. A winning attitude is like playing a guitar. The more you do it, the better you get at it. Unlike a guitar though… the better you get at it, the further you go in life. Sincerely, John Pepin

President John F. Kennedy America no longer declares war; instead, we “budget.” The last war that America declared was World War II. And yet, today, we are bogged down in endless conflict. The United States has been involved in no fewer than 13 conflicts in the 24 years of the 21st century. That’s a new war every two years. This week, the US Congress reduced the pursuit of war to a mere budget. Under the yet-to-be-designated bill, titled: Making emergency supplemental appropriations to respond to the situation in Ukraine and for related expenses for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and for other purposes. The US House of Representatives rushed through a $95 Billion stop-gap appropriation principally to support the War In Ukraine but also funding the Israeli-Gaza Conflict and military aid to Taiwan. The 2024 STOU, VP Kamala Harris, President Joe Biden, Speaker Mike Johnson. It was a remarkable piece of legislative legerdemain, as Speaker of the House Mike Johnson completely switched from anti- to pro-Ukraine funding. Declaring himself a “wartime” speaker, Johnson said that we must spend $61 billion on Ukraine to be on the right side of history. “My philosophy is you do the right thing and you let the chips fall where they may…History judges us for what we do. This is a critical time right now — a critical time on the world stage..” While no one would argue that we’re living in a “critical time,” that tells us little about funding for Ukraine. It’s an assertion, not an argument. Johnson mumbles that he’s seen classified information that leads him to believe the financing of Ukraine is warranted, but he declines to reveal what those classified documents say. That’s how a “Wartime” Speaker prepares a “Wartime” supplemental appropriation, aka budget — a budget that drags the nation further into debt and further into commitment to Ukraine. Of course, Speaker Johnson is joining President Joe Biden, whom the Wall Street Journal noted six months ago: “…Looks Like A Wartime President.” It’s becoming increasingly apparent that Washington is gearing up for war. Duh! In the short three years of Biden’s Presidency, we’ve seen a disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Proxy War in Ukraine, the Proxy War in Gaza, an emerging conflict with Iran, and Operation Prosperity Guardian (the war with the Houthis). No matter how you look at it, it is a remarkable display of American military aggression. It’s a roll-up of the sleeves, bare knuckles, approach to foreign policy that we’ve never seen before. The foundation for this new American militarism is based on two concepts. First, that war is good for business, and second, that war is acceptable as long as no Americans are dying. War Is Good For Business This first foundational premise, that “war is good for business,” is remarkable in that it is the complete inversion of what the American people used to believe. In the 1960s, many of us argued that the very fact that nations might enter into war to make a profit was, in itself, immoral. It has been a Western tradition going back to Thomas Aquinas’ “Just War Theory,” in which he argues that war should only be fought to defend the homeland. He would certainly not justify war as a pursuit of profit. In his famous “Day of Infamy” speech, President Franklin Roosevelt reflects this tradition when he declares: As Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.” It was clear to Roosevelt that America was entering the war with Japan, and later Italy and Germany, not to make money but to defend the United States, which was at that point under attack. Within that context, millions of Americans volunteered to serve in defense of our country. The lines at the local draft boards stretched around the street. Future soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen were willing to risk their lives to protect this country. Regrettably, that’s no longer the case. Draft boards nationwide are empty, recruitment goals for all the major services are unmet, and the American military is progressively understaffed. It seems that men and women are not willing to die for the profitability of our Defense Contractors. And yet, that’s just how this latest supplemental appropriation was pushed through Congress: “It’s good for business.” “It will mean more jobs.” As Lindsay Graham, Senator from South Carolina, likes to say: “It’s the best money we’ve ever spent.” Profits, jobs, and a roaring economy for America. No American Lives Lost However, there is another side to this War-Business-Bonanza, a side that includes misery and death, not American deaths, but other’s deaths nonetheless. You see, while the US turns out the most advanced military equipment, bombs, guns, and missiles, those weapons are being used to maim and kill. It is generally accepted that there are over half a million Ukrainian casualties in the war with Russia, with more added each day. It is a demographic catastrophe for a country that, at the beginning of the conflict, only had a population of about 25 million. Ukraine is losing an entire generation of child-bearing age people. The War in Gaza. Likewise, the conflict in Gaza has seen over 33,000 Palestinians killed; almost all of these deaths were the result of US-supplied arms. In no small way, the American Defense industry has become the silent partner in Israel’s push throughout Palestine. And that’s how America has reduced war to a balance sheet — a profit and loss statement of “what’s good for American business is good for the World.” Today, the White House released a document extolling the benefits of promoting war (passing aid to Ukraine). It included a list of all the states that will have more jobs because America is making arms for the world. It hasn’t always been like this. There was a time when a US President talked of making peace, not war. In the Commencement Address at American University on June 10, 1963, President John F. Kennedy said: I have, therefore, chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds, and the truth is too rarely perceived — yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace. What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children — not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women — not merely peace in our time but peace for all time. Follow me here on ThinkSpot for more stories from the ValueSide.

Are the machines running us? The future might elicit thoughts of fear and dread or bring about excitement and the very best from our imaginations and creativity. Questioning where we are going is a touchstone. Where are we now? How did we arrive here and how do we get where we want to go? My mind rushes to technology and social media. We take a lot of technology for granted. Our knowledge of the machines we use hasn’t, on average evolved in tandem with their complexity. It seems we are going through a stage of adjustment. It has been trial and error. Like parents handed tablets to toddlers instead of interacting, there are some valid concerns. I was born in 1990. Seems both like yesterday and a different world. During my first decade the world seemed more directly integrated and yet also distances seemed more distant. Without GPS, social media, texting, human beings needed to tell each other where they were going to be, needed to have a routine they set. It was rare to own a cellular device. Shouting distance was the default if they weren't by a land line. You had to use networking skills. I remember being astounded by my mom and dad's ability to memorize directions. Even though texting came after voice, just like writing came after language we associate the latest with the more evolved. If you think back, body language was reading, still is. The symbols are facial expressions and stances, more direct rather than a drawn symbol. The spoken word also conveys tone, emotion, emphasis and stress. Somewhere along the way we branched off into writing and speaking having more of a divide. Now writing is often used to distance. Many opt to ignore a call and respond with a text as they don’t know how to talk to others. Though the ubiquity of podcasts and other radio serves to show the spoken word is still desired. I vividly remember my first cell phone. It was 2004. A silver Samsung, a network that doesn’t exist anymore. I thought, “I don’t know if I like the fact I am always reachable now.” I read a quote once I was unable to find expressing sympathy for those who would never know a world without mechanical clocks arbitrarily dictating days rather than work done or being driven by our whims and desires. It's funny because I did a bunch of searching trying to find the quote and Google failed me. Don’t get me started about telling someone to “just Google it” when they ask you a question! Anyways… I asked the Snapchat AI who matter of factly reported it was a quote from “The Timekeeper” by Mitch Albom. It wasn’t. I said, “No it isn’t.” It apologized saying it was actually from H.G. Wells’s, “The Time Machine”. Also wrong. I asked the AI, “did you take my question and attribute it to someone else?” It said “Sorry! Yes I did.” The result of this search is more emblematic of our time than if I simply found the quote. Social media creates echo chambers. You might think the internet exposes you to a diverse environment, yet algorithms will funnel whatever you engage with, good or bad. If you examine our roots, we archaically associated solely with our tribes, now we have access to these virtual meeting grounds more numerous than our brains are able to account for. The internet enables distant networking, finding lost family and establishes a digital archive. It doesn’t seem to alter us though. I remember a study saying we only have so many “slots” so to speak for close relationships. It was maybe this one: Your Brain Limits You to Just Five BFFs | MIT Technology Review I have known people who genuinely wonder if we are in a simulation like the movie “The Matrix”. They refer to anyone not socially cohesive as an “NPC” or non-playable character. When we gather hundreds of “friends” on social media it starts to make our definition of friendships very thin and superficial, and it erodes our sense of reality. If one is exposed to what celebrities share more than family, it starts to make them overvalue the opinions of the famous. Maybe people associate a louder imprint online with survival success. We developed based on our memory limits and time constraints. Even if we could memorize thousands of relationships, there’re only so many hours in a day. When we try so hard to expand this number, it waters down our experience. My solutions are simple. We need to affirm the value of freedom, so we are able to take responsibility for our own wellness. We need to think for ourselves. We need less input and more examination and creative works. We shouldn't overuse screens. The virtual will never replace the actual until it becomes indiscernible and then we wouldn’t know the difference. Our technology should enable us to work on the arts but we should revere the segment of society who is able to fully understand the way modern technology and engineering works. Martial arts and philosophy are needed. We should teach nutrition and self-sufficiency. When one is able to take care of themselves, only then are they able to do anything for anyone else. Gym classes should have martial arts lessons and meditation. Virtue is not defined from being helpless but by using your strength morally. We should take more responsibility for teaching the future generation. Debating with respect needs a revival. We need to relearn the ability to have spirited discourse! We should teach philosophy and psychology earlier than high school or university. Ultimately the future is set through how well we learn lessons. Our lessons are best learned when we digest them for ourselves, so above all free thought is vital.

“I hope she'll be a fool -- that's the best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool.". ― F. Scott Fitzgerald It’s not difficult to think of the archetypal fool as a bit of a derogatory term. We tend to discuss this in regard to an apprenticeship. Jordan Peterson states, “If you are not willing to be a fool, you will never become the master.” As an adolescent and in my early twenties, I’m not quite sure I understood the positive and negative aspects of both roles. I made the mistake of assuming the role of master was the more desirable one, and maybe it is, depending on the circumstances. However, there are certainly positive aspects to the alternative. The innocence, the playfulness, the light-heartedness, the “foolishness.” These traits are, actually, quite attractive. Maybe the fool is a stepping stone to mastery, but is it also a role to master returning to? Is “the fool” a primary part of femininity? We often talk about the female fantasy on Thinkspot, right? There are quite a few versions of this. However, what is the male fantasy? Maybe it’s sleeping with hoards of women while saving the world, like in Nateybakes’ comic books (lol). I’m not quite sure about this though. I think there’s a bit more to it, and it’s not fair to reduce men to this level. In addition to attractiveness, there must be a trait in women which allows men to transcend “variety” and commit to one person, at least, temporarily. Beautiful women are everywhere, but why do some seem to have more options? Evolutionary biologists say women are the choosers, but what makes a woman capable of choosing? My theory is that the most desirable trait in women, is “willingness to be a fool.” This very trait may be what many men tend to confuse with “submission” in the red pill community. What do you think, Thinkspot?

I'm doing Honor to the astringent legacy of Karl Kraus (and architect Adolf Loos) with this one. We are familiar with financial or technological booms and busts, but there are also social booms and busts, a big high and then crash, then desperate for a next wave. You can call them fashion, fads, disco, you know. With the internet having brought social media monetization and the selling of demographic marketing info - these trends, fads and disco have been ever more tightly-stapled to money. And the granularity ground more finely, the barrier to entry is low and because anyone CAN do it, those who want to follow "mimetic" fill in the blank will want to think (and say) "but EVERYONE'S doing it!" "Well if everyone jumped off a cliff, would you buy NFTs too?" Part of the "everyone is…" gets to be a feverish conviction that nothing online is serious - and that everyone is "always" BSing. Or at least they believe that one is advantaged by assuming others will be lying. That is one of the key thresholds of taking the USA into the third world - right there. But that's its own article. You see, all the social media "influence" all this "mimetic desire" this is something between sleazy sales, three card monty, propaganda, peer pressure and a manipulative, drug dealing "boyfriend." (These days, people say "gaslighting.") It sort-of-works until reality comes crashing in, the margin-call clicks on, the so-called business runs out of grants/investment to vampireize, really makes no money and descends into finger pointing and acrimony, the woman starts yelling and screaming in greater percentages of the day and night, not as docile or "coached" as she once was, the honey pot thirst traps STOP catching flies when a generation of young men have honor and standards again. It's really not worth it. But then, the internet and social media presented such a VAST array of fresh rubes and ever-changing ways to apply "Game Theory" to exploitation, (especially to people you would never meet and who had no way to punish/humiliate your anonymity) - it started with Nigerian Princes, and continues on in OnlyFans. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I tell you, this gold-plated toilet the grifters are busy licking, isn't bottomless. Myself coming out of Academia and Architecture - I have an unfair advantage of being in areas where artful lying has been business SOP for many decades. And so these areas are ahead of the curve in decrepitude. There is also, an immunity built up in me, made fairly bulletproof by having worked for (literally) conquistador-legacy sociopaths in Peru. My also coming out of Silicon Valley and theatrical performance means that I've seen "another side" of business and life, a better one, a side that "most Americans" born between 1930 and 1980 think is still the default, namely the Anglo Saxon West, aka the 1st world. A land of transparency and Work Ethic, what a Peruvian colleague of mine once said (sickly referencing the East German infra red machine-gun glacis of the Berlin wall) "you can't always live inside the German Safety Zone." And by the way, snide as he was, after his own 10 days of visiting Michigan (yes, just reg-lar Michigan) he and his partner were GLOWING to me about what a paradise on earth it was. (No Trespassing signs were a particular head trip for them, they the were accustomed to electric barbed wire in front of middle-class houses.) Why yes, it IS possible to run a civilization where people are NOT constantly scheming behind backs and following the Screwtape 48 Laws of Power and tearing each other down constantly. But demean me as he might try, my Peruvian colleague underestimated the stubbornness of German (a subset of Anglo/Saxon, and I would include Ashkenazic, which simply MEANS "German") culture. Someone was quoting Patrick Bet-David today on a podcast (who despite his excellent interview skills and provocative thought has ALWAS dripped used-car-sale level grifter-ethos to me) they quoted him about how he thinks paranoia is an ESSENTIAL part of leadership. Well, perhaps, but this IS a third world attitude. And paranoia is an attitude of weak and shrinking leadership. Nixon was paranoid in a way Eisenhower was not. Do we get ANY arguments that Nixon was the greater man, the better leader? Eisenhower ran D-Day and WON. Yet Nixon was the more paranoid. Patrick Bet-David has the wrong idea and he'd never get attention for it to begin with if the Anglo Saxons around here had not become so bloodless and sniveling. Someone like Bet-David decades ago would have been emulating the success of First World values instead of carrying in third-world values and hawking them to wannabe grifters aping his attitude to scramble at power, (Mostly just so they can get a woman, a car and a house. It's gotten that bad.) It's not Bet David's fault - he was BORN that way - and raised so too. It is OUR fault in the USA for not being better examples to him, and for not brushing him back when he sells this tripe for us to swallow and call it ice cream. You see, back to that business of artful lying: 1) academia and architecture vs the (pre social media) contrasted with 2) tech industry and Theatre. Category 1, you have a saturation of hidden agendas, chamber pots are urns and urns are chamber pots, merit and talent are secondary to kinship in the formation of a dominance hierarchy, and a "game" is always afoot. Category 2, For software development - and hardware, the things won't WORK when people scheme, hide and lie. (Unless you act like Amazon.com or Twitter 1.0, but you see my point.) As much as some people like to SAY actors are liars, no, they are PERFORMERS for an audience where there is a script and everyone knows it. Theatre on stage is crippled by a lack of honesty. It happens, but the toxic nature is amplified, as with theatre, the mind and body and emotions ARE the instrument and truth MUST be delivered and diplomatically. Unlike film, where a director will lie to someone to get a reaction and then shoot it, - you can't get away with that on stage - because such manipulations only work ONCE. And that is in a nutshell the problem with all this "strategy" in personal relationships and also in online generally. With grifts - one wears NUMB to the affect. Woke PC terminology is always shifting because like a card sharp, they need to rotate the deck and change the game to keep getting away with the con. What does all this mean to social media? I have said before, I live in the future, I live in LA County where I rarely drive. I walk to groceries past trees and nice things. I go to a cigar shop that's next to a soda fountain. I walk to work and only drive for client-visits and fun. In terms of how I react and act online, I also live in the future and will tell you why. The world is sick of con-games. Clients and customers VALUE honesty and transparency. Will someone who is honest like this scare the SHIT out of grifters and liars and draw their fire? Absolutely, especially if talent is there too. (This is a chief reason why universities became stvpid.) What do you think cancel culture is? Why do you think it exists? But this is the dying song of a rotten swan. It is already ending, thankfully. People (especially Zoomers) are more immune to these manipulations and Jedi mind tricks. So, word to the wise: give it up. Whenever we catch ourselves making a front, playing some game. Stop. To quote Glengarry Glenross: Jack Lemon: "Awwww, NO what're we going to tell the COPS?" Al Pacino: "The TRUTH! It's always the easiest thing to remember." So, in the coming years, (or even months) the social drugs will start to wear thin and there will be a BIG come down - there will be grifter "overdoses" and flame-outs. (we see it already, I suspect Candice Owens is in shock-jock relapse or recovery of some kind.) - But because of the pervasiveness of this grift, of the "fake it till you make it" attitude the the Xers and Boomers never thought the millennials would take SO much to heart, this system of lies and hiding is breaking. And the lies of the 20th century, the attitudes and skills that made La Camorra and the CIA powerhouses - these intimidation and gaslight factors FAIL in the internet age, or at least are blunted. I know from experience, that honesty, sincerity and transparency (even on the X Platform! (follow me @histofarch for yet more frequent blunt absurdity)) led to profitable businesses, and strong, healthy relations. And besides, just being frank and honest is much more relaxing than all this paranoia of falseness and constant strategy. Let's grow up, shall we? So, gird your loins. I'm going to enjoy this.

The transforming accomplishment of the end of the 21st Century will be the global adoption of truly democratic government: that is, a purely democratic political structure that ensures equal participation in government by people with very little money. The mechanism that will be discovered for this radically new kind of democratic governance will actually prove to be rather simple. The government will be based on a bicameral (two house) legislature. The so-called “lower” house will be selected based on the model of the current German constitution. Each voter will vote in each national election both for the local candidate that voter prefers, and for the political party that voter prefers. All the locally elected representatives will be seated in the “lower” house. If the proportional representation by parties in the “lower” house matches the overall vote in the nation, nothing further will be done. If one party or another needs additional legislators to bring its proportion in the “lower” house up to its national proportion, that party gets to seat additional at-large legislators. Thus, every region has its voice; but the policies of the national government are controlled by the party or parties who represent the majority of the nation. There is no temptation to gerrymander such a legislature, as the policies enacted always remain under the control of the majority parties. The most successful gerrymander can only increase the number of “at-large” seats assigned to the most popular party. It is the second, “upper” house that will represent the innovative part of this new arrangement. The electorate will be divided into percentiles by personal wealth. Each percentile will thus include 1/100th of the voting population, from the poorest percentile to the richest. Each percentile will freely elect a representative to the second house of the legislature, which will have exactly 100 seats. Legislation will require the approval of both houses of the legislature. So all legislation will be endorsed both by the dominant political party or parties, and by least 51 of the percentiles by personal wealth. No policy that impacts that poorest 51% of the country can become law unless the poorest 51% gives their permission. There is no possibility of gerrymandering the “upper” house, of course, because the mathematical distribution of voters into the various percentiles is not subject to manipulation by the current government. This new form of government will preserve, in the “lower” house, all the traditional advantages of geographic representation. The political interests of geographic regions may clash based on how each region makes its living, and it’s advantageous for each of these interests to have a spokesperson. Furthermore, the voters of each region are also familiar with whatever new leadership and successful policies have emerged in each region. Lastly, since every geographic area of the country is guaranteed its spokesperson in the national legislature, each region that might possibly one day contemplate secession will know that that it has not been cut out of the governing process. But since all these advantages have been secured in the “lower” house, there is no need for the “upper” house to be based upon geographic representation. Selecting the “upper” house will require a formula for considering what your land, if you have any, is worth; for considering the value of your home, if you own one; and for evaluating the worth of your investments. These evaluations will be added to whatever cash you currently have on hand. Money and property held in common will put each of the owners in the same percentile. Each voter will be legally required to fill out a simple confidential form allowing that voter’s personal wealth to be calculated under the national formula. Once the personal wealth of all voters was determined, the list would be divided into one hundred groups of equal population. Each voter would then receive a confidential note from the government, informing that voter which percentile that voter was currently in. (The sheer educational benefit of getting that card should not be underestimated.) To the extent that rich people sought to hide their wealth from the government, it would only minimize the political clout of the richest voters. Then, on each election day, each voter would vote for a local geographic representative, for a political party, and for a representative for that voter’s percentile by personal wealth. Religious sects often create political divisions. We often vote for the candidate who shares our religion. To the extent that the country includes regions in which particular religions predominate, this geographic division is reinforced in the national legislature. If we are given the opportunity to participate in elections by proportional representation, we often vote for a party that represents our religion. But if we were also asked to vote by percentiles of personal wealth, we might begin to see what we had in common with citizens of other faiths. We would realize that we share similar economic interests with everyone else in our percentile, regardless of religious affiliation. That, by itself, will create positive breakthroughs in many nations. In the contemporary internet age, it will prove a trivial matter to arrange for candidates to be able to reach out to the particular percentile that candidate wishes to represent. Certainly, this might require us to provide basic computer services even to the poorest among us: but we should be doing that, anyway. Each percentile will be allowed to elect a representative who was not personally a member of that percentile. Salary and benefits received as an elected member of the “upper” house will not be counted in assigning people to percentiles by personal wealth – so being elected to represent a poorer percentile will not result in your being moved to a different percentile. The practical possibilities for true economic justice will be immeasurably greater as each nation adopts this form of governance, towards the end of the 21st Century.

"The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament sheweth His handiwork." Psalm 19:1 There are two ways of viewing the cosmos. Some view it as the splendid work of a benevolent Being, abundant with resources that are to be carefully cultivated for mankind's benefit and blessing. Some view it as a fragile accident of time and chance, with limited resources that must be rationed by those who deem themselves superior to the masses (and obtain for themselves the means & power to enforce their rationing.) Each viewpoint requires a certain amount of faith because, whether we acknowledge it or not, faith is the primary influence on behavior. One view, therefore, produces behavior that is optimistic, grateful, careful, inventive, orderly and humble. The other view produces behavior that is marked by envy, suspicion, jealousy, coveting, chaos, coercion, hoarding and general rancor. In terms of which view produces a culture worth living in, that seems to me to be self evident because history has demonstrated that those cultures founded on the Benevolent Being faith have been the greatest blessing for mankind. The other has produced the most heinous and destructive events known to man. So the real question that has daunted mankind since the days of the great flood is: which view will eventually win the hearts and minds of mankind? In my mind, righteousness wins the day. This Benevolent Being who created an environment that is precise and perfect for sustaining billions of life forms, especially human life, had a plan to develop the eternal choosing of goodness, rightness, fair play and loving concern for others in every human being. The Bible tells the story of Noah who, God concluded, was the only human of his generation capable of right action in relation to his kind and his God. (Mathematicians have calculated that given the recorded longevity of earthlings of the day and normal reproduction, there should have been billions of people on the earth, but like modern Amazonian tribes, murdered each other at astonishing rates.) Fast forward to the prophet Elijah fighting the depression of the aftereffects of an exhilarating victory over Baal's priests, was comforted by God with the knowledge that "7,000 have not bowed the knee to Baal." In other words, those choosing righteousness is expanding on the earth! Fast forward to Jesus Christ's ministry and promise to inject his followers with the added provision and power of His Spirit to make righteous and courageous life decisions in the face of growing hostility from both human and spiritual enemies. Today, that number is in the millions of people who believe and live their lives as if they believe in the Benevolent One, choosing to be right, and good, and loving as an expression of their devotion to Him! The more hostility these people receive for their choices, the more difficult it is to make those choices, the greater they shine through the darkness. So, as long as mankind is on the earth, that battle for the hearts and minds, namely which view of the planet we call home will people adopt, will rage on. The tools of influence will certainly continue to become more sophisticated throughout the coming century, but the question will remain. As Scottish writer George MacDonald observed, "Progress gives hope for change!"

Last year, I taught a student who had a child a year or two older than my daughter. The two girls would sometimes giggle and smile at each other over zoom while we worked through practice questions. I truly enjoyed working with her. “They will pick up on everything, just you wait,” she stated a few times throughout our sessions. I wasn’t quite sure what she meant. My daughters’ language development wasn’t as advanced as it is now. She’s recently started to speak in full sentences. I do get it now. Young children are kind of a reflection of ourselves. We are their role models at this age, and this can be beautiful and simultaneously terrifying (lol). It all started with my husband. I guess, instead of referring to my husband by his first name, I frequently call him “babe.” I didn’t think this would impact my daughter until, at about two, she began publicly and confidently referring to my husband as “Dada baby.” I received a few weird looks from family and friends when she blurted this out. She’d even point to men at the gym and look at me for confirmation while asking, “Dada baby?” Most of them just chuckled, thankfully. The next phrase she acquired was “Shoo Fly,” part of the popular nursery rhyme. We’d often sing the song, but she unfortunately adopted this phrase publicly as well. If she didn’t want another kid to get on a play structure with her at the park, she’d scrunch up her nose and shout, “Shoo fly…babay!” Like most toddlers, she definitely has a spicy side. There are some acquired phrases that are more refreshing than others. We have the eternal optimist: “It’s not that bad.” I guess I say this quite a bit. She’s now saying this, too. We have extreme ownership: “My bad.” She says this, in addition to “Sowwy,” all of the time, even when it’s not warranted (lol). In contrast, people are always pleasantly surprised to hear her say things like, “it’s a nice day outside!” And my husband especially loves when she reacts with, “that’s amazing!” Or, “that’s wonderful!” Kids are so funny. Raising them must be the single most fulfilling part of life. It doesn’t come without its moments, however. The word, “role model,” can backfire a bit. A week ago, while cleaning up, I saw a large pool of water by the bath tub. I had just given my daughter a bubble bath and we are moving in less than two weeks. The last thing we need is an extra fee or two for a leak or floor issue. I guess I “spoke” a specific word too soon and I didn’t realize my daughter was still near me after drying her off. A few days later, I took a shower and I guess I left a few watery footprints next to the bath rug. My husband walked into the bedroom attached to our bathroom, and my daughter smiles and points at the footprints. She shouts at the top of her lungs, “Daddy look! F***!”

The true purpose of Public SchoolsTo truly awaken the masses, in particular our youth, they must first be made aware that our public education system is based on a model of obedience and conformity. The Prussian model (modern day Germany) on which it is based is designed to teach them what to think, not how to think. It was first introduced in Ontario (Upper Canada back then) in the 1840's by Egerton Ryerson, son of Colonel Joseph Ryerson, who was not only an authoritarian type military man, but first and foremost, a united Empire Loyalist. It is not surprising, therefore, that Ryerson believed that monarchy gave dignity to government and acted as a check on the radical excesses of the people.The system had proven to be wildly successful at maintaining a large degree of control over societies, regimenting their behaviors, and in establishing more productive labor resources. It was generally accepted that it takes multiple successive generations of implementation for the established goals of the curriculum to be fully realized. Now, with the Woke DEI agenda and Identity Politics being added to the curriculum, there is even more reason for parents to be concerned and seek out alternative forms of education for their children.This style of education has been widely used throughout Western cultures, and has been upgraded and modified to suit the social, economical and labor needs of the given time, but the core principles of Authority, conformity and obedience are still the foundation of the system. It is the very reason why most full grown adults who have spent almost the entirety of their childhood in these institutions clamor for a ruling class, parental surrogates, or protectors, while rejecting self-ownership, independence, and genuine liberty.Completely enveloping the mind of each individual in such an adolescent state assures the continuation of power in the hands of those who seek to dominate us and plunder our resources, while giving the illusion that bowing to the demands and edicts of central planners is in fact an act of benevolence and being a good citizen. The instinct to defend oneself from external threats subsides entirely if a person an be convinced that their forced sacrifices and subjugation defines what it means to be contributors to the great good. When, in fact, it is voluntary acts of kindness, generosity, charity, and contributions that truly defines a person's merit, in terms of social/economic values. I have a lot of hope for the future if enough people can break free from their slave-psychology, and help usher in what I have termed 'Enlightenment Era 2.0 in the 21st Century. It is not only plausible, but very much possible, considering we live in the age of information. Full on human ownership was once part of the fabric of past societies, and accepted as normal until the ethical implications were thoroughly brought to light and vigorously fought against by an ever growing population of enlightened individuals. Today, nobody advocates for human ownership as it was practiced in the past. Which shows that cultures can change, and adopt entirely new ways of living socially with each other, and dealing with each other economically.For anyone that is skeptical about the validity of these claims or just want to learn more about the history of our education system, you can always take it upon yourself to Google, use any other search engine, or visit your local Library in order to seek out other literature or information regarding the history of our education system. A truly informed individual is much better suited to making rational decisions and forming opinions.Bennett (CL)

Higher Ed is Eating Everyone’s Lunch Think of an image of a college professor. Middle-aged, perhaps even older. Well-dressed. Dignified. A man or a woman, but still, you probably imagined a man. Bespectacled, of course. Tweed, leather elbow pads, mahogany bookshelves, maybe even a tobacco pipe puffing away. Strolling the campus, having deep conversations, researching, never getting rich, but living a life of quiet dignity and the pursuit of knowledge. What they don’t imagine are poorly paid, overworked, contingent laborers known as adjuncts. Or their equally unfortunate cousins, the graduate student instructors, who make up roughly a quarter of all instructors. Adjuncts and GSIs are the foot soldiers of the university systems, the shock troops filling the gaps where the regular soldiers can’t. They take heavy losses, of course, but that’s the point of mercenaries. Adjuncts make only a few grand to teach a class for a full semester. GSIs with a teaching stipend make just above the federal poverty line, something like $35k per year in most university systems. They’re expendable, and they know it. Adjunct positions still require advanced graduate degrees, but the low pay and lack of research support ensures that their focus remains elsewhere. Grad students focus on their own studies, research and career advancement—teaching courses is their Faustian bargain for financial survival. The irony is that this system undermines their future career prospects in academia. The academic job market is equal parts ruthless and over-saturated, with far more PhDs and advanced degrees granted than there are full-time positions. The tenurati (tenured elite) are able to focus on their research, perhaps a lecture or two per week, serve on a few committees, etc. This isn’t to say their jobs are easy. They’re undervalued by the system too. In fact, most of them are miserable. Even as they advance up the ladder, they never quite reach that dreamt of place of stability. There’s always a bigger fish, always someone up the chain who seems to be eating their lunch. Academia is still a medieval hierarchy, a complex system of rank obtuse to outsiders. The hypocrisy of all the ivory tower talk of equity, and social justice, stings like salt in a wound given the way academics organize themselves and behave to one another. There’s an old saying in academia: the severity of infighting is inversely proportional to the stakes of the outcome. As in, the smaller the consequences, the more brutal the fight. Ask any academic and they’ll laugh, they’ll think back to every committee meeting they ever sat in, the endless debate over minutiae of so little consequence it would make your head spin. All of this fiddling while Rome burns, while the colleges were swept out from under faculty governance by the legions of faceless bureaucrats. As a former professor, I’ve seen it myself. Once, a faculty meeting involved a seemingly endless debate over many classes each professor should teach. The administrators had just changed some arbitrary metric that, in the end, lowered the teaching load for all tenured faculty. Great, they said, but what do we do now? We’re all getting paid more to teach half the number of classes, but we still need our department to teach the same number of classes overall. The solution, of course—hire more expendable adjuncts, hire more contingent faculty to teach more and pay them less. The gap grew wider, and no one gave a shit. In these conditions, lifelong grudges, intrigue, severe burnout and even suicide have plagued many a college department over the years. One small college in Michigan had two such incidents of faculty suicide in the span of a single year. A music professor offed himself, followed shortly by a widely beloved art professor. Both tenured professors supposedly living the dream. Little was said about the incidents, they were swept under the rug, scandalous emails implicating faculty intrigue were deleted or lost. You only heard about it in rumors after the fact, hushed tones, whispers in the corridors. Nothing changed except the music department is now said to, “have issues,” and the art department got some more money and a fancy title for their replacement. All of this while the rest of the faculty are in therapy, only partially covered by their fancy health plan. All this intrigue happens at the expense of the students, of course, and boy you’d be shocked to hear the disdain with which they’re spoken of. They’re viewed, to put it mildly, as patsies, marks to be recruited into the cult. Faculty actively conspire on how best to manipulate them into declaring a major within their department. They pick their favorites to get scholarships, and openly disdain the students who don’t conform to their behavioral or aesthetic wishes. One particularly talented student was denied a scholarship because a tenured professor was offended that, “she’s missed two of my classes this semester.” Students keep the money flowing, they keep the faucets running and the lights turned on. With debt, of course. Who benefits from this? Surely not the students. Certainly not the expendable, underpaid adjunct instructors and graduate students. The tenured faculty may seem comfy from the outside, but they’re not particularly happy or well paid either. Who benefits, then? Mostly the well-paid bureaucrats, the administrators. That’s the goal, to join their ranks. I remember one department chair complaining about the administrators,, swearing she’d never be one of them… until they offered her a huge raise to become vice provost. She accepted and now makes more money than she ever would have as a professor. The purpose of a system is what it does, not what it claims to do. Don’t look at their words, look at what they actually accomplish. What higher ed manages to do year after year is continually grow its glut of fancy new buildings, bureaucrats, administrators, regulations, DEI officers, and political apparatchiks. The functionaries benefit themselves alone, the faculty are too afraid of losing their status to challenge them, and the students get shafted. Suspend all moral idealism and consider it for what it is—a grift on the dreams of the naive.

From the tenthAmendmentcenter.com Original article by Mike Maharrey. Jumping into this topic in the middle of the article... "The problem is it’s almost impossible to pass sweeping legislation that addresses every aspect of anything, much less something as far-reaching and complex as sound money and monetary policy. Success against the largest government in history requires more than tough rhetoric or big talking in social media posts. It requires a sound strategy – as the founders recognized, a step-by-step approach that can be implemented over time. The Federal Reserve and the U.S. government have monopolized money and locked us into a fiat monetary system for more than 100 years. We won’t establish a sound money system in a day by passing a single bill. Here’s a crucial point to understand: there is no silver bullet. Anyone promising one is either lying to you or more likely hasn’t made an effort to address the issue beyond posting online about how anything less than their idea is a “waste of time.” The real waste of time is trying to do too much at once. After all the time and effort, you usually end up with nothing. However, an incremental, step-by-step approach is proven to be effective. It just takes more time and energy. This is exactly how Utah has evolved into a growing haven for sound money. " < skipping a bit about the methodical step-by-step process of creating the law around sound money in Utah, but it's important reading. In my state, the democrats do this incremental approach all the time... I call it "moving the ball down the field."Here's a bit more...> "The Utah Specie Legal Tender Act has also led to the creation of the Goldback, a local, voluntary medium of exchange. Goldbacks are “gold-weight” notes made from physical gold. The 1 is 1/1000 of an ounce of Troy weight gold; the 5 is 5/1000 or 1/200 of a Troy ounce, and so on. The company created a process that turns pure gold into a spendable physical form for small transactions. It describes the goldback as “the world’s first physical, interchangeable, gold money, that is designed to accommodate even small transactions.” UPMA General Counsel Larry Hilton noted that the Utah Goldback is legal tender in the State of Utah because of the Specie Legal Tender Act “This means that under Utah State law, the Goldback is a voluntary legal tender in Utah. The goal is for the Goldback to circulate within the State.” The Goldback has been enthusiastically embraced in Utah. The UPMA estimates that Goldback acceptance may be as high as 50 percent among small business owners. Because of this strong demand – both inside Utah and from other states, the company has been able to launch Goldback editions in Nevada, New Hampshire, Wyoming and South Dakota. With more likely soon. In 2022, Utah opened the door for the use of Goldbacks to grow even further by expressly repealing the sales tax on the sale of all “goldback” notes. @Valueside and @CanadianLibertarian, what are your thoughts on the implementation of sound money in Utah, and the potential to replicate this process in other states/countries? Which states/provinces would be good candidates in the future for this type of long term (10 year + ) effort?Do you think this process could this be replicated at a city, county level?Is it possible that at some point, if we got to a critical mass of communities with sound money, fiat money would lose a war of attrition? Interested in your thoughts, thinkers! Learn more here...

Modern Courts Posted on March 29, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, what most modern courts and judges are too stupid to realize, is the court itself is on trial every bit as much as the defendant, especially when a defendant has negative political favor. Not only is the justice system’s honor on public display, before the public and world today… but they themselves will be judged as long as records are kept. In their hubris today’s judges think their illegal rulings are forward thinking. They, after all, have the benefit of two centuries of human advancement to draw upon. So why follow the dictates of a bunch of ancient ignoramuses? Forgetting, the very authority they wield is based on the writings, thoughts and constitution those ancient ignoramuses created. Undermining their own authority… and recording it. Can anything be more stupid? History is filled with examples of US courts taking the nation away from Constitutional principles. In some pie in the sky progressive power grab. Take Wickard v Filburn. FDR and the progressive intellectuals had it with capitalism. They understood they could run it better, being so smart, wise and dog gone it, just better people than the rest of us. The darn Constitution stood in the way. So the Supreme court wiped Constitutional limits away, ruling anything that effects interstate commerce can be regulated by the federal government, no matter how tangential, inconsequential or private. Opening the way for the birth of permanent Washington, also called the bureaucracy, administrative state, and deep state. History reviles those “justices.” As it does all judges that violate their oaths. The judgment in Korematsu was as anti American as it’s possible to be. The Supreme court went along with a Presidential edict, by FDR, that imprisoned American citizens, without warrant, charge or trial. Based purely on how they looked. That ruling has allowed the government to break every constitutional right we have, by calling it national security. Even to the point of murdering people… in the name of justice. The “justice” Thrasymachus opined about in Plato’s Republic. Where the strong take from the weak and call it just. Because the courts, controlled by the strong… say it is. Ruling based on political favor instead of law, precedent or Constitution. Then exploiting their knowledge of law, precedent and Constitution, to justify their ruling. Exactly backwards, and publicly, like in Korematsu. The Buck v Bell eugenics case spits in the face of our Constitution. In that illustration of why Thrasymachus was right, the Supreme Court ruled a woman must undergo forced sterilization, to protect the gene pool. She was weak, the strong decided to take her ability to have children from her… and used law, precedent and power to call it justice. These laws are still on the books today. In the US the government can, at the President’s arbitrary determination, lock up whole swaths of US citizens without warrant, charge or trial. The bureaucracy can deem you a threat to the gene pool, arrest you, and force you to undergo a medical procedure designed to harm you. Government can order you to starve on your own farm. All called “just” by the supreme court. Justice as Thrasymachus described it. As our courts gut Constitutional protections, in their ignorance and outright stupidity, they gut their own credibility. Which is why people today see courts as biased, corrupt and running contrary to their purpose, and history will record them as villains. The role of the Courts is to protect our Constitution, our Rights and limit the power of the elite. Our Thrasymachus courts have expanded the elite’s power, because judges identify with elites… not the hoi polloi. The grindstone never respects the grist. So why should the judges allow mere citizens to have rights? The grazers might get uppity. Forgetting, history has a long memory, and justice doesn’t change depending on the political favor of the defendant. Everything they rule is recorded. Proving, judges today are too stupid to know, “Always in cash and never in writing.” Sincerely, John Pepin

Libertarians fully accept and embrace hierarchical social or economic contracts that are entered into voluntarily. As long as all participants are doing so voluntarily, and have the option to opt out if the other party fails to uphold their end of the contract, libertarians have no problem with anyone choosing to set up their own commune, socialist endeavors, or any other collective arrangement. What people like myself wish to make widely known by all people is the very real fact that there is no such thing as a legitimate central planning authority. No self respecting human being would knowingly support giving other human beings carte blanche authority over every aspect of their social or economic lives. Considering the rules and edicts, depending on which political gang is in power, are continually changing, there is no way to even make a decent case for the pretense of a Social Contract any more. A Contract by its very definition sets the rules for all participants to abide by. And all participants know the rules can not change without everyone agreeing to those changes. The future of individual liberty will entail a shift from politics and central planning governments to something akin to any other business model that gives everyone personal autonomy and accountability. Getting an education, going to the Doctor, and even what we use as a economic medium of exchange, storage of value, or economic measuring tool (currency) will be done with no gang of middlemen taking their cut or dictating the rules in their favor. The future has the potential to be very bright for those who seek true liberty. However, there will be a whole lot of growing pains and a lot of suffering before that can happen. Which is why it is wise to put your social and economic life in order sooner, rather than later, so you will be one of the ones fully prepared for the transition. CL

Many citizens in Western countries consider "immigration" to be the biggest problem their countries are facing. Former Presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy reiterated this several times during his closed campaign. Donald Trump has spoken about this for years, too. For the past several days, I have seen many articles here on ThinkSpot about politics and the culture wars (degeneracy and intersexual dynamics). Then today, I read John Pepin's scintillating post about immigration titled Free Ride (do check it out; it's thought-provoking). That's when the idea of the following synthesis occurred to me or rather, when the exigence of this post compelled me. [Author's Confession—I have chosen to write this piece in an atypical conversational format instead of the typical expositional piece.] So, is immigration the biggest problem for the countries of the West? My answer is No! A big blatant no. Now that we have that out of the way, let's examine some facts about the issue. There are many "Wokies"/Regressives who have been harping on about the racial wage gap. There are many conservatives who profess vociferously that the racial wage gap is a myth. Interestingly, there are many Regressives (especially African-Americans) out there who also hate immigrants, claiming that they steal low-skilled jobs, which many Regressives consider their sacred birthright. Meanwhile, a lot of the recent discussions on ThinkSpot about issues between men and women also indicated the cultural change pervading the American consciousness today. Multiculturalism has certainly eroded American culture and continues to do so. However, is that the sole or even main contributor to the decline of the West? Additionally, an oft-quoted line in anti-immigrant rhetoric is about "getting these people here who hate our culture". Is this accurate? This brings me to my synthesis of this existential issue. The Racial Wage Gap is REAL! Yes, it is undeniable! There is a Racial Wage Gap in the United States. But, there is no Racist Wage Gap in the US. That's right! A Racial Wage Gap is not a Racist Wage Gap, regardless of how the Regressive vermin try to equate the latter with the former by using the first label. Words are the be-all and end-all of all human discourse. Our thoughts and ability to conceptualize things are completely dependent on the words we know and use. Everybody knows this or they ought to. So, what does that actually mean? And what does this have to do with the behemoth issue of immigration? Simple! Immigration is not the issue; Illegal immigration is. Many Americans sadly suffer from limited perspectives warping their comprehension, including several of us conservatives. Nonetheless, it is a fact that for the last several decades, many underdeveloped countries have been lamenting helplessly about the "Brain Drain" issue plaguing them. This, of course, refers to the fact that the best and brightest of their workforce were migrating abroad (mainly to the US) for greener pastures. What does this mean for the US? Well, when Regressives holler about how there is a racist wage gap in the US, they constantly cite how the African American earns around 70 cents for every dollar a White American makes or something around that number. Well, they conveniently ignore the fact that Asian Americans make more than White Americans, or they demean the Asians with derogatory pejoratives like "model minorities". They do this to try and refuse the logical implications of this fact. White Americans can't be racist en masse if they allow Asians to proceed while hindering only blacks and Hispanics. That's contradictory. Admittance of this error will force Regressives to admit the TRUTH about the racial wage gap and Illegal Immigration. Here is a look at the median US household income separated by ethnicity from 2021. Okay, so Asian American households are doing better than everyone else, especially blacks and Hispanics. But most Asian immigrants come legally while the Southern border spews out illegal immigrants who are mainly Hispanics and a few blacks. However, there are a few Asians who come here illegally too, through the Pacific human smuggling route, entering the US in the West. These illegals usually come from China. This is why the next set of statistics will be illuminating. That's right! The imbecilic habit of many Americans to misuse the word, Asian, to refer to only Oriental Americans/East Asians (who have epicanthic folds, or have the "Mongoloid" look as archaic and ignorant people used to call it) forget that Asia is the largest continent on earth, filled with several countries and ethnicities. This list puts Indians as the most financially successful ethnic group in the US with household incomes around 4 times more than the average African American household, 3 times the Hispanic household, and twice the White American household. Even when looking at the best-performing ethnicities, here is a list looking at the top twenty across the board. Do note how many Eastern European ethnicities feature in there. These are people from countries who were oppressed under the Iron Curtain while the pustulent Soviet Union was still alive and festering. Now, as significant as these stats are, no comprehension of culture or immigration would ever be whole and accurate without looking at per capita income as well. That's right! This was a look at average household income. Many homes have both parents working. Ergo, here we can take a glance at single income, albeit from 2018. These numbers show a more closer distribution between White Americans and Asian Americans while Hispanics and blacks still linger at the bottom. If we were to continue behaving logically, and look into the details of Asian Americans, the numbers look as follows. So, yes, not all Asian ethnicities are the same. Shocking, I know! There are low-performing ethnicities among Asians, just as there are in the US (Hispanics and African Americans mainly). Anyway, what does this all mean? Well, for starters, Indians are getting richer, as seen from the stats of 2018 and 2021. Well, Indians also have a 2% divorce rate, while black women have a 40% divorce rate. White Americans have a divorce rate of around 25%, while Asian Americans have a 12% divorce rate as a whole. The economy runs downstream from culture, after all. Finally, why are Regressives and Libtards (Never Progressives and Liberals: That's word theft) always hiding illegal immigration under the blanket term immigration? It's simple. Socialists hate legal migrants. Most of the legal migrants vote for capitalism, liberty, and meritocracy because Indians, Taiwanese, Filipinos, Sri Lankans, etc., have fled tyrannical socialist regimes. They build themselves up and, like the Cuban Americans of Florida, know first-hand how malevolent communism is. Therefore, no attempt by Democrats/Socialists/Regressives/Leftists to inflict demographic shift on the US will work with legal migrants in the fray. They need to swarm the area with illegal aliens, who will be beholden to the state, and when American women run around, refusing to have children and families, in a few years, it is quite likely that the demographics of the US will change. The voice of the people will no longer be the divine inspiration that created the greatest nation to ever exist. No, it will be a more diabolical voice. A voice of entitlement instead of enlightenment.

This topic is a nerve I have an impulse to press lately. Our culture has been working though a social cycle of high-trust peaking, and then this trust being preyed upon and monetized by a kind of rent-seeking behavior, obsession with zero-sum game, and it may well have to do with dynamics of shrinking demographics. As a cohort (not always a population - it could be a race or subculture) declines in numbers - the rates of predatory sociopathy might increase. There has been a lot of talk about sociopathy lately - and (for now at least) I'm not done with either the concept or the experience. It seems none of us are. Michael Knowles was going on about the new "sociopathy awareness" book that came out, written by Patric Gagne. Beyond the usual "pathology grifter" suspicion that is totally warranted about such a book, there are underlying dynamics that people are just barely staring to pay attention to. Gagne herself notes that cases of sociopathy are rising and are undiagnosed. As much as I dislike her general (what I would consider to be enabling) approach, it is apparent via her statistics (and by my own personal observations) that the number is rising. So what is causing this? Surely it is not a case of "born this way." I remember the attitude coming out of the 80s that "some people are just like that" and even recently, what seems to be the mainstream notion is that children of a certain temperament, "not properly socialized" newer develop proper empathy or conscience. I don't think that is the case at all. Children must be born with some great degree of empathy. A child in the womb will hear and to a great degree feel what the mother does. Babies and very young children will laugh when others laugh, cry when others cry. It is the instance of trauma, and specifically unresolved trauma, that really tends to create sociopathy. Ani I don't think I am alone in thinking that the "cluster B" disorders are properly seen on a spectrum with psychopathy on one end tilting into criminal behavior, sociopathy being more circumspect, borderline being more subtle than sociopathy and PTSD being something that we can all at least identify with. All of us are able to understand the kind of numb shock or unmoved anger where we can for a time, feel disconnected from the humanity of someone who is considered an adversary, or a threat. As this spectrum tightens, that "for a time" becomes the "ongoing steady way of life" and the adversary becomes the whole world. But that's not the limit of what we have to deal with. Just as the now-famous example of the one vegetarian family member gets the whole family on tofu, a critical mass of sociopathy can oblige the surrounding individuals to behave in a sociopathic manner. NOW - add to this the fact that drugs (especially cocaine (with what music producer Steve Albini so-directly called "numbing both physical and spiritual") but even marijuana/THC) will induce a kind of trauma as part of the high and crash itself, and we see in the USA, a coming wave of socially corrosive temperament. Are we expected to do anything about this? I hope so. One answer would be to address the trauma. For some reason, I have seen and heard therapist say that there is no cure for Borderline, and certainly no cure for sociopathy. I don't think we should be accommodationist, but there are ways of addressing this trauma. Part or the trouble (as always) is if people won't want to admit to any of it. The zero-sum mindset tends to magnetize itself to people with high amounts of empathy who are also very diligent. Skeptical people who don't work hard make terrible con-marks. Part of the trouble is that the demoralized 3rd world mindset induced by a zero-sum view leads to a dominant signal in the culture of people who are skeptical and don't work hard. High conscientiousness, low agreeability… this is the combination that "spoils the Game" for all those game theorists hoping to get away with whatever machiavellian cluster-b thought they have at the moment. The trick for us would be to decrease agreeability while maintaining or increasing empathy. Late Victorian England is a good example of this. And famously enough, Georgian England and the early Victorian were famous enough for having a fair amount of sociopathic brutality. I think the same contrast can also be recapitulated going from Late Republican Rome where women like the wife or Marc Antony did things like stab the tongue of the deceased Cicero's head with her silver hairpin, just to make a point. We have been through these transitions before. I'd like to think that the spine (or upper lip?) stiffening is already underway. We see it in anything called "based" - the spine-reinforced refusal to be moved my manipulation. SO - we have choppy times ahead - but I am a bit of an optimist. None of this happens automatically. The "little games" need to stop, the stilted pandering and pretending to identity. The rise of social media greatly scaled and amplified the reach of sociopathic action. We find that in cancel culture, yelp reviews, constant-strategy-filled relationships between men and women. But I think an immunity is building - at least it feels that way.

As a teacher and proponent of the Socratic method, I often use thought exercises with my students, prodding them toward the truth instead of spoon-feeding them as their indoctrination camps (schools) do. I am new to posting here, so I decided to post a thought exercise here to spark conversation. Please consider the following hypothetical scenario, and give your opinions in the comments. Several years ago, a veteran of many wars returned to his family home, having finally quit the military after the last war. He had been on the losing side of the conflict and finally had enough. Let's call him Tom. Tom returned home to his wife Ellen and their six children. A day later, some of the victors in the war sent a few of their soldiers to Tom's house and they seized control of the premises under threat of violence. Tom and Ellen had no choice but to abide. They had to prioritize their children's safety. A few days of harrowing misery later, the occupying soldiers invited some other people to come and live in this house. Let's call this new group, Omega. The Omegas loved the new house and began making changes around the house. They drove the kids out of the best rooms and the six children now began sharing two rooms, cramped for space. Tom felt powerless and aged quickly. A few years of living in such despair saw Tom and Ellen in the grave. When the will came, the soldiers acknowledged that the majority of the house now really belonged to the Omegas and the children could find lodgings in the meager barn on the property if they so chose. The soldiers decided that they had done what they came for, and left the house with the Omegas firmly established in the house while the six children were relegated to the squalid barn. The children tried their best to recover their stolen house but to no avail. They failed. Many years passed and the Omegas flourished in the house while the six kids managed to have families of their own, a few of whom, remained in the barn while the others fled searching for more hospitable areas elsewhere. In the meantime, the remaining family members tried to wrest back control from the Omegas but they failed, always being driven back to the barn. Sometimes, the Omegas even assaulted the barn, surrounding it so that none of the neighbors could help them even if they wanted to. Now, do Tom and Ellen's progeny have the right to take back their home from the Omegas, no matter the cost and the time that passed?

A few weeks back, I made the mistake of joining my boyfriend on a double date with another couple, a friend and her partner. As the evening unfolded, it became clear why this arrangement was ill-advised – modern times seem to have little tolerance for traditional acts of chivalry. My boyfriend takes it upon himself to open car doors for me. He bears the weight of heavy shopping bags, and ensures my comfort by pulling out my chair whenever we dine out, a habit he maintains almost without fail. When descending stairs, he often leads the way, extending a helping hand, particularly if I'm wearing heels. He readily allows me to lean on his arm when fatigue sets in after a long day. Even on hiking excursions, where my experience exceeds his, he offers assistance. Despite my playful teasing about his tendency to drive below the speed limit, he becomes even more cautious when I'm in the car. When crossing roads, he consistently positions himself between me and oncoming traffic, even if it means crossing over to the other side on divided highways. On cold evenings, he takes off his coat and offers it to me. It’s probably not just him. I saw my father doing similar things for my mother. I recall my frail grandfather, despite his failing eyesight, extending his hand (albeit in the wrong direction) to assist my grandmother down the stairs. It's evident that this sense of chivalry is deeply ingrained, likely passed down through generations. However, in a more modern social context, such displays of consideration and deference may not always be met with the same appreciation they once were, particularly among certain circles of friends. Returning to the unfortunate date, discomfort only surfaced when it was time to settle the bill, a point of contention for those who struggle to keep politics separate from romance. Typically, my boyfriend handles the bill during our outings, while I take care of expenses on trips away from home. We have a system. As the men headed to the parking lot, my friend took the chance to voice her thoughts to me. "Did it bother you that your boyfriend paid the bill without even checking if you wanted to split it?" she asked. "Well, not really. Why is it such a big deal?" I responded, bracing myself for a potentially awkward discussion. "I would have been offended if my partner did that!" she exclaimed. "It's like they think I'm incapable of paying for myself!" "I don't think it implied anything like that," I countered. "On a first date, my expectation is typically for the man to cover the bill. However, I do prefer to choose a more modest setting, like a coffee shop, to keep expenses reasonable. After that initial date, I usually suggest splitting the bill until I feel more at ease with the person. Now that we've been together for years, we tend to handle expenses jointly without keeping tabs on who paid for what." She was silent for a minute, and then went on to say, “And don’t you mind when he opens the car door for you, as if you’re incapable of doing that for yourself?” I chuckled. “No, I see it as a considerate gesture. Sure, I'm perfectly capable of opening my own car door, pulling out my own chair, or crossing the road independently, and there are times when he forgets too. But it's not about proving my ability to do so, especially when he's simply trying to be attentive and caring during a date. I enjoy cooking for him and taking care of him; why not allow him the same pleasure of taking care of me on a date?” "But you're strong and independent. Surely, you should make that clear to him," she suggested, her tone hesitant. “But if I truly am all those things, why should I feel the need to constantly assert it? I like being independent, but I also don’t want to think so much before depending on my loved ones for the smallest of things.” "But why not?" she pressed. “It kills the romance.” Image Source: It Happened One Night (1934)

Ethical Elites Posted on April 3, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, our elites have an ethics issue, they don’t have any. Our elites are people utterly lacking morals. They’re not so much amoral as immoral. Why do I say this? Because it’s obvious and no one else seems to be saying it. We have people without a conscience running the world today. Any glance at the actions of the elite over the last few decades shows unequivocally they’re demons. Who zealously attacks efforts at election integrity, other than people without integrity. Who opens the borders to their nation to criminals, sappers and terrorists? Villains who desire crime, chaos and terror in their countries. Moreover, what monster exploits law as a weapon? In doing so destroying our faith in the rule of law. These aren’t the actions of ethical characters but of immoral scoundrels. The gusto the elite display in defending election fraud is astounding. Anything that might limit the amount or severity of the fraud is crushed. It’s like they know the people hate and loathe them, and so need to use election fraud, to stay in power. If that’s the case, and only a fool would think otherwise, doesn’t that make the elite unethical, for opposing election integrity, and engaging in election fraud? Those certainly are not the actions of honest fair minded sages… but of scoundrels. You can tell when a state has become utterly corrupt. Elections are mere theater to manipulate the masses into thinking they have a say. But it’s election fraud that decides who wins. Why would the elite defend election fraud and attack any effort at election integrity? The fraud could harm them… unless they’re the fraudsters. The elite love open borders. George Soros has even named his anti human foundation, Open Borders. Since Biden pried the US border open, by executive order, and is refusing to enforce the law, untold millions of people have flooded the US. Even as the Tories in Britain, who came to power based on a pledge to cut illegal immigration, have steadfastly defended the invaders right to invade. Any criticism of the invasion, or their intent to murder their way through British society… is now illegal. Mouth off in Britain, and you’ll be arrested and extradited to Scotland, to face punishment at the hands of a lunatic court. Showing British elites are liars of the highest caliber. Heck, that’s not really true. All the elite are liars of the highest caliber. Lying isn’t considered ethical now, is it? The elite in the US and Europe are using law as a political weapon. Could there be a more unethical thing to do? Their exploitation of law to harm their political foes, Alex Jones, Kyle Rittenhouse, Roger Stone, Scooter Libby, General Flynn, and Donald Trump, obliterates the trust that took centuries to build. I, for one, have lost all faith in our court system. Probably you have as well. At least to some extent. Once law is used as a tool of political oppression, it becomes wholly useless to control the population. Because everyone sees it and its rulings for what they are. Manifestations of unjust power. Not simply unjust power, but power that misrepresents itself as fair, unbiased and honest… when we all know that’s a lie. Making judges some of the most unethical people around. Removing the fences between things creates chaos. Chaos can then be used to undermine the existing status quo, destabilizing it, to allow for a new paradigm to be built. Someone who would use such a tactic however would have to be bereft of ethics. Like our elites. Proven by their unethical stance on immigration, law and elections. There are dozens of other examples how our elites epitomize the term, villain. Their penchant for pedophilia, Covid, and the vaccine that isn’t. None of these things are ethical, moral or wise. They’re malevolent actions done by mortal demons. We have to ask ourselves, do we want people so immoral they exploit law as a weapon, pry our borders open, and engage in election fraud? Perhaps we should start demanding our elites have ethics? Sincerely, John Pepin

So here we are - a new platform as tomorrow the sky spins "backwards" for the relative motion of Mercury as seen on Earth. It may be trite - but I love the story - when the (probably Logical Positivist midwits) were spouting off to Wittgenstein abut how the present was so much more clever than the past, saying "after all, they believed the sun moved 'round the EARTH!" Ludwig smiled and was said to reply, "yes, but I wonder what it would have looked like if the OPPOSITE were true?" It is not inconsequential how the apparent-motions in the sky mark out certain cycles, certain rhythms. Over on my X Platform spouts of text - ( @histofarch ) - I picked up today on Ralph Ellis noting how he thinks one tags the start of the Age of Pisces to 6 AD as the "metaphysical" birth of Jesus. (Ralph elsewhere solidly argues but it is controversial that the historical Jesus was the King of Edessa and fought in the Jewish Revolt (this makes the fig story in Mark make MUCH more sense) so - you have a ~40 year shift back that was made to align Jesus with the astrological age of Pisces.) Regardless of one's feelings about astrological meaning - there is a GENERAL sense that even though "all times are times of transition," the transition we are in now has a special color to it. I've felt it - I felt it when I was 17, wrote long-winded mystical creation myth poetry (that one was half-good) and when in college - would not SHUT up to anyone who would listen about asking them what they felt about emergent paradigms. If anything - the liquidating effects of technology have wrenched us out of old habits. Much of the social chaos we occupy ourselves with is part and parcel with such a historical season. As the industrial revolution reshaped how humans consider the body, the information age is reshaping how humans consider the mind. We are (sadly) leaving the "era of fact" that James Burke pointed out in the written companion to "The Day the Universe Changed" series. A few decades ago, he could write about medieval people being different in great respect to us because they did not live in a world of fact as we've known it. The common ground of trusted empiricism was just not THERE and it was holy tradition, authority and the word of trusted individuals that was relied on. Anything else was held to be suspect. Sound familiar? So, in the explosion of information and the attendant "game theory" sociopath-driven fakery - we find an uncomfortable affinity with the medieval mindset. Without the "justification by faith" in reason's access to "sola scriptura," and the Baconian scientific method, (Science as mainstream has become a sinister, cynical CULT Ponzi scheme) we are thrust back into the arms of Grand Authority. (The Science, NORMS, arrrr democracy! and so forth.) Much haș been made of the "sanctity of the individual" as the root of politics, and I like it that way, but this is becoming more and more old-fashioned. People who take the shift into Aquarius seriously speak (I think accurately) about a rise of lattice networks over tree-hierarchy, (the so-called rhizome organization) and also of more communtarian feelings. But let's not kid ourselves, the dark side of that coin holds cancel culture, groupthink, chaos and a general inability to scale up into large projects. And yes, we see all this, coincident with the age of Pisces fading. I am neither exuberant nor doomerish about this transition. I'd like to be AWARE of it and find like-minded people (am starting to) who want to think on long time scales, and have "big" families and really act like Italian householders who cultivate generous land with love and joy, understanding how the earth cycles integrate to cherries being only available really in May and June, figs coming ripe around Tish a B'Av (August 13 for 2024) - there's that MARK connection again - … and even integrating recent practices like the Olivetti Factory in the 70s being set up so that workers would go back home for more than a month every year in July(?) to tend to the upkeep of small, family agricultural plots. I myself any lucky enough to stand to inherit a share in a (by now 4th generation (Strauss/Howe anyone?)) family plot in Wisconsin. I fully intend to as much as is reasonable, run that place like an Italian. You know, in the GOOD way - not like movies but like Cicero would. We don't have any kind of "mass wealth" really at all and I'm bootstrapping a 4 year old LLC into *some* good growth with a team that gets more solid by the month, but this land is there - and UNLIKE the habits of the 1970s, I don't intend to rely on rent or seek or liquidate or sell. I intend to PRODUCE. All of us - land or not - are able to in some way - participate in cultural production of some sort. And I am convinced that the specific nature of the USA (I have been in business on several continents, post graduate school in Canada and I'd pick NOWHERE else but the USA (and I'm deliberately staying in California, at least seasonally) - nowhere else but the USA to start a business.) I need to cool it with these double parentheticals! Maybe some people like them. - this isn't audio, I'm very auditory. Bringing it back home - now is the time for Mercury retro introspection and reconsidering - for about three weeks - tie up loose ends - don't be hasty, don't be impulsive (this next one is big for me) don't over-communicate or bowl people over with "everything at once." There are decisive shifts coming this year and a furthering of a split I have noticed. Let's not mince words - this is a split into decadence vs growth. "Which way Western man/woman?" I affirm and choose the side of: not drugs, rooted families, trusted community leadership (yes we DO all create that together) good public transportation, and custom-tailor fit in *everything* as we step further away from the strictures of mass-industrialism. Do we welcome people who have lived under the "yes drugs, individual alienation, distrust authority, suffer with cars and parking lots, " And for all of this - I shall CONTINUE to abide in LA County, The Pasadenas have HEALTH, let the boomers flee, let Hollywood deflate. I walk to work and have a train near me and hire non-university-degreed apprentices because I live in The Future. It's just not evenly distributed yet. I will plant oranges, lemons, and (may G-d favor me so) see grandchildren play under the oak across the street while my grown children pour wine from their great grandfather's concord vine stock I transplant here from Wisconsin. These are my dreams. Sometimes I think I see the woman I share them with. Sometimes I worry I frighten her off. But I no longer fear she doesn't exist. I just have to not miss her. We shall see.

The world is changing too quickly to keep up with. In the past it was possible to feel that you had a general understanding of what's happening in the world (and be wrong, but at least you could pretend from the comfort of your own home). Now, anyone can broadcast their wrongness, live. Is it any wonder? If you wanted, you could pull up a new random fact every fraction of a second to learn (and then immediately forget). It's an unwinnable game. If a fact can be replaced or forgotten without a second thought, it was never valuable. An infinite commodity, and the currency it can be exchanged for is a mirage. "Friends" you've never met. "Subscribers" that may be bots bought in bulk. And maybe this is just me, but I don't particularly want strangers to follow me. The things that really matter change slowly. Survival, friends (original flavor), family, purpose - meaningful things. Things you can't replace on a whim. Everything else is either related to what matters, or noise. The internet has made it impossible for anything to be heard at the volume it was said. It has to be amplified, multiplied, shared, before it even enters your awareness. So in some sense the internet is "about" feedback loops. Creators become more and more attention-grabbing, forcing their competitors to do the same to stay on top, until everyone is shouting over each other. But to be loud is to resonate with what the audience is listening for. You can't binge watch the internet. But it can binge watch you. The companies running the sites are watching. They want you to use their site. They need people in their loop to survive. They WILL bring people something that resonates or slowly fade into nothingness. Well, everyone with any sense listens the most attentively for meaningful things. The feedback loop for meaning is slow; it takes time for each person in the chain to digest. But infinite shouting makes it impossible to hear anything, while infinite meaning could spread without a word being spoken. Too much is happening to follow all of it. So don't. Set parameters. Prioritize what resonates. The internet can be a trap or a tool, but both are missing something essential: the internet is an instrument. Practice, and pay attention to the results. Not just what's measurable, but the tone. How does it make you feel? Pick a key and a tempo, but allow room for improvisation, transitions, and fun little flourishes. Try to pick notes that flow together into a cohesive, beautiful whole. End on a note that fits a major chord in your life. Then remember to leave some silence between phrases. And consider your part. You probably don't need a complicated solo for decades straight, but I bet you do have some part to play. So to those who need to hear it (myself included): quit binge watching an infinite symphony, as if you need to know every note of every part from everyone in the band. You're supposed to be listening for your cue.

image source: shutterstock In the 5th century BC, the Greek philosopher Democritus, an early contemporary of Socrates known for his cheerfulness, wrote “Sweet exists by convention, bitter by convention, color by convention; atoms and void alone exist in reality.” In its context, the Greek word used here was átomos (ἄτομος), which derived its root from témnō (τέμνω), meaning “to cut.” Átomos, with the prefixed “á” thus meant “not cut,” “uncut,” “indivisible,” or “undivided.” In that moment in the 5th century BC on the coast of northern Greece in Abdera, Democritus set forth an answer to one of the foundational questions in all of philosophy: "What is the fundamental structure of reality?" Democritus concluded that the fundamental structure of reality is devoid of any type of qualitative attributes such as sweetness, bitterness, or color. He insisted that there alone exists the irreducible atom with quantitative attributes such as shape, size, and position. Ergo, the subjective qualities of experience are considered an artifice or a convention. Within this metaphysics, existence is devoid of purpose, and everything is composed of indivisible quantized elements colliding about in an infinite nothingness. This metaphysical position, appropriately named atomism, produced the scaffolding of modern-day materialism, which has concluded that matter is fundamental. Throughout subsequent Western epochs since Democritus, the specter of atomism was then adopted in large part by scientists, academics, intellectuals, self-proclaimed skeptics, and in a word, anyone, and everyone well-respected within polite society. I argue that the sciences stand on the precipice of this old philosophical ontology, which is currently being challenged, and a slow structural change within the sciences will lead to a complete reorganization of man's understanding of the true nature of what is real and how he relates to this reality. This inner turning of the sciences is a complete reevaluation of what is fundamental and what tools can be used to rein reality into the domain of the scientific. The next century may witness the melding of a new phenomenology with science and the complete abandonment of materialism as an evidence-compatible ontology. Materialism is a reductionist naturalistic philosophy, much like atomism before it. Within materialism, the concept of “matter” is distinct from matter as defined within classical physics, which refers to that which occupies space and has mass. In classical physics, matter is an element within a greater theoretical framework used to describe causal relationships. The opposing term is an element within a philosophical ontology to describe the real. Matter within materialism is the fundamental datum of nature beyond experience that gives rise to the immaterial, which includes all mental states. But ultimately, in the last half century, converging lines of evidence have emerged pointing towards the categorical rejection of materialism."Our perceptions of spacetime and objects have been shaped by natural selection to hide the truth..." Hoffman et al. 2015 As evidence against materialism mounts, recent scientific discoveries provide compelling support for a paradigm shift in our understanding of reality. In 2015 and 2020, a small team of cognitive scientists and mathematicians from the University of California, Irvine, employed computational methods to validate two theorems within evolutionary game theory, uncovering startling implications. These two theorems mathematically support two interrelated claims: first, evolution through natural selection favors reproductive success rather than veracious percepts that accurately depict objective reality; second, because evolutionary theory does not favor veracious percepts, natural selection instead hides reality in order to guide adaptive behaviors.[1][2] As the 2015 publication states: "We find that veridical perceptions—strategies tuned to the true structure of the world—are routinely dominated by nonveridical strategies tuned to fitness. [...] Our perceptions of spacetime and objects have been shaped by natural selection to hide the truth and guide adaptive behaviors. Perception is an adaptive interface."[3] "It remains surprising that this tenet is very little challenged, as its significance goes far beyond science..." Gröblacher et al. 2007 Concurrently, the tension between classical physics and quantum theory led physicists at the University of Vienna in 2007 to conclude that external reality does not exist independent of observation.[4] Indeed, research into quantum theory published in 2013 further elaborated that experimental results are incompatible with the idea that the senses provide direct knowledge of reality.[5] The 2007 publication concluded: "Physical realism suggests that the results of observations are a consequence of properties carried by physical systems. It remains surprising that this tenet is very little challenged, as its significance goes far beyond science. Quantum physics, however, questions this concept in a very deep way."[6] Physicists at the Institute for Advanced Study and past Nobel Laureates agree that spacetime cannot be fundamental because it is a limited data structure that lacks operational meaning beyond certain measurement scales.[7]"Although awareness is assumed absent during cardiac arrest, survivors reported perceived awareness without recall or memories, transcendent experience, and diverse themes..." Parnia et al. 2023 Within the sciences of the brain, studies by leading academics in 2012 unexpectedly found that potent psychedelics decreased brain activity.[8] Again in 2019, scientists were surprised to find that the postmortem brain of experimental animals could be restored in their molecular activity given appropriate conditions.[9] And in a significant development in 2023, a comprehensive study conducted across 25 hospitals and led by a team of scientists and physicians at New York University revealed that patients reported conscious experiences during cardiac arrest.[10] These results suggest that mental states may persist at the moment of clinical death. The 2023 publication affirmed: "Although awareness is assumed absent during cardiac arrest, survivors reported perceived awareness without recall or memories, transcendent experience, and diverse themes, including fear, persecution, and features suggesting emergence from coma. Furthermore, reports of synchronized gamma oscillations [...] have raised the intriguing possibility of electrocortical biomarkers of heightened consciousness during cardiac arrest."[11] These discoveries challenge entrenched beliefs within the scientific community, signaling a shift towards a new understanding of mental states. Over the past few decades, scientific research spanning multiple fields has called into question the notion of matter as a quantitative, measurable fundamental that gives rise to mental states. Despite mounting evidence contradicting materialism, some scientists firmly resist abandoning this outdated philosophical ontology, placing themselves in an untenable position. The impending reevaluation of these fields' ideals could prompt a profound paradigm shift in man's understanding of reality. One black swan alone proves that not all swans are white, and a flock of black swans duplicates itself with each passing decade. References: 1. Prakash, C., Stephens, K.D., Hoffman, D.D. et al. Fitness Beats Truth in the Evolution of Perception. Acta Biotheor 69, 319–341 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10441-020-09400-0 2. Hoffman, D.D., Singh, M. & Prakash, C. The Interface Theory of Perception. Psychon Bull Rev 22, 1480–1506 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0890-8 3. Hoffman, D.D., Singh, M. & Prakash, C. The Interface Theory of Perception. Psychon Bull Rev 22, 1480–1506 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0890-8 4. Gröblacher, S., Paterek, T., Kaltenbaek, R. et al. An experimental test of non-local realism. Nature 446, 871–875 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05677 5. Ma, Xiao-Song et al. “Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America vol. 110,4 (2013): 1221-6. doi:10.1073/pnas.1213201110 6. Gröblacher, S., Paterek, T., Kaltenbaek, R. et al. An experimental test of non-local realism. Nature 446, 871–875 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05677 7. Hoffman, Donald D. "Spacetime Is Doomed: Time Is an Artifact". Timing & Time Perception 12.2 (2024): 189-191. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134468-bja10096 8. Carhart-Harris, Robin L et al. “Neural correlates of the psychedelic state as determined by fMRI studies with psilocybin.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America vol. 109,6 (2012): 2138-43. doi:10.1073/pnas.1119598109 9. Vrselja, Z., Daniele, S.G., Silbereis, J. et al. Restoration of brain circulation and cellular functions hours post-mortem. Nature 568, 336–343 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1099-1 10. Parnia, Sam et al. “AWAreness during REsuscitation - II: A multi-center study of consciousness and awareness in cardiac arrest.” Resuscitation vol. 191 (2023): 109903. doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2023.109903 11. Parnia, Sam et al. “AWAreness during REsuscitation - II: A multi-center study of consciousness and awareness in cardiac arrest.” Resuscitation vol. 191 (2023): 109903. doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2023.109903

The Elite Are Captured Posted on April 9, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, the government can violate our Constitution at will, because the whole government, constitutional and administrative state, has been captured by an ideology. In Federalist papers #10, Madison warned, tyranny would result if two branches were ever controlled by a single faction. If you think about it, it makes sense. The only limit in our “limited” form of government is the infighting between factions. That animosity keeps limits on how far any faction can go. If all the levers of government are controlled by a single faction, the government serves that faction, without restraint. As we see today in the US, Canada and indeed in Europe. The fly in the ointment is our unwillingness to go along. Elections are becoming a real source of concern for the progressive post modernist faction. Today we have all three branches and permanent Washington, captured by an pathological, anti American and Satanic ideology. Post modernist progressivism is nothing more than a mind virus. Our public education system is a primary vector. It’s also passed in the universities and colleges. Only those with the strongest immune systems against such things are able to fight it off. Those who are captured the most are sent to further indoctrination centers, like the World Economic Forum, (WEF) young leaders programs, and voila… the ruling class is of one mind. A diseased mind. As Klaus the varmint Schwab said, they have penetrated most governments… from the rear. The US government is no different. That pain in the derriere, bureaucracy gives you, now you know where it comes from. Post modernist progressivism is an ideology that’s melded communism and fascism into a new malevolence, its adherents are certain will save the world… from us teaming masses. First, control us, then, eliminate the surplus. Playing off people’s sense of justice, to create injustice, manipulating our sympathy, to create a pitiless culture, and it seeks our hearts, to make us heartless. The progressive wallows in unearned self righteousness. Egoistic self righteousness justifies their usurpations, crimes and fraud… since they’re doing it for our own good. Which brings us to hubris and arrogance. For only the arrogant filled with hubris would presume to choose for others. Especially when the egoist’s own life is a total mess. Being liars, corruptocrats and perverts. No wonder censorship is a must. The post modernist progressive faction posted their plans on the Georgia guide stones, for a few decades, before destroying it. Now the plan is in action the memorial’s continued existence would be inconvenient. Soon talk of them will be the stuff of conspiracy theories. Some of the highlights of that former granite obelisk are, reducing the human population by killing 6.5 billion people, global government, and a permanent world totalitarian state… from which there’s no escape. True believers are all in. They see the US, Europe and Russia as the primary impediments, and so, have to go. That’s why migration and world war is so important to them. They achieve two of their primary goals. Reduce the population and obliterates the US, EU and Russia. Opening the way to global utopia. Like in Star Trek. How do we know all three branches and the administrative state are captured by the post modernist progressive faction? By their actions… the DOJ’s selective prosecutions, the court system’s use of standing to avoid their duty, and the passivity of the legislative branch, in the face of aggression by the bureaucracy. We all know the dementia patient isn’t in charge. He’s a rubber stamp to permanent Washington. Why else do they protect the man so? That’s why “our” governments act so brazenly. The elite agree, we need to be tyrannized, then culled. The democratic element is the problem. In the US, mail in has the elite covered, but in the EU, elections are becoming a real issue. Which is why EU elites will soon pervert their elections. So globalists can continue doing whatever the Hell they want. Sincerely, John Pepin

Offending Christians Posted on March 31, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, the same people who want to make it illegal to offend anyone, go out of their way to offend Christians. The hypocrisy is astonishing. On the most holy day to Christians, the Biden administration went all in, offending Christians. By making the day about perverts. Elevating lust, pride and gluttony, above the Risen Lord. No way that could go wrong. Even as the FBI hunts down people for posting wrongthink on Facebook. By claiming it’s offensive! The elite that are intentionally offending Christians, while arresting Christians for professing our faith, since it offends other religions, clearly aren’t fair actors but zealots on a mission. That mission, judged purely buy their actions… is to eliminate Christianity. In doing so, they’re building a Beast System. Resurrection day is the most holy day to Christians. It’s the day Christ rose from the dead, proving his covenant with us and God, to carry our sins for us, having paid for them with his own flesh. All of our sins were paid for by that man at that time. So we won’t have to. All he asks of us is that we accept the gift. Instead of suffering the consequences in the forever, for our sins, they will be forgiven, and we can experience whatever is on the other side without burden. A guy offers a free gift of unimaginable value yet is loathed by the elite. The most sinful among us. I suspect Resurrection day has been under assault for centuries… else how did Resurrection day get called Easter? Named after a Pagan fertility deity. Especially, since our elite have embraced death… primarily abortion. There’s a spate of church bombings going on in Las Vegas NE. Someone is tossing explosive devices into churches and religious events. Several people have been injured. The local police, I’m sure, are doing the bang up job we’ve come to expect of them… like the Vegas mass shooting. Count on the FBI setting on their hands, they’re too busy chasing down grandmothers posting wrongthink on social media. The arson attacks against pro life adoption, and obgyn centers, has been very worrying for the elite. It might make folks think, people who dismember babies for fun and profit… are violent. The lack of effective police investigation in all these crimes stand in stark contrast, to the national manhunt the FBI did, in hunting down the evil man who put bacon on the door of a Mosque. An offensive Facebook post will get you visited by the FBI. Migrants must not be offended! That’s the role of citizens. Like Catholics who were put under FBI monitoring. Because, you know, those Knights of Columbus, raising money, donating it to charity and by doing so, improving the lot of Mankind… are clearly anti revolutionary. Like parents who go to school board meetings and speak up. The FBI’s new role is to hunt down citizens that get politically out of line, not arresting criminals. The American Geheime Staatz Police, (GESTAPO) . The local police can do that work. When they free up from assisting the FBI in early morning raids of pastors. Because we all know, anyone preaching to a group of people must speak the party line, else they’re a threat to the party. The thing about hypocrisy is, most hypocrites are smart enough to keep it hidden, as best they can. Only a retard would expose their hypocrisy publicly. Like Biden and his half witted administration has. In post constitutional Amerika, Biden’s Amerika, Christians and citizens aren’t safe in our homes, at school or church. Non Christians however, are safe anywhere in the US, (or Europe for that matter) because Christians protect them… their homes and places of worship. Even as ours are intentionally invaded. Abetted by government. One solution to hypocrisy, is to point it out, and mercilessly ridicule the hypocrites. Meanwhile, our elites are building the Beast System, one hypocrisy at a time. In a thousand years, wading in the lake of fire, the elite still won’t understand how it happened. Sincerely, John Pepin

When a woman tells her husband, 'I'm not in the mood', she is implying that her husband is a sex object whose sexuality is only relevant when she is 'in the mood' and wants to use it, and vice versa. Husbands and wives in love and marriage will never speak about 'mood' and will naturally want to please each other and are pleased to do so because they are together.All this talk about the 'woman's right to say no' detracts one from the spirit of a marriage where both the man and woman give themselves to each other' and serves to redefine marriage as an exploitative relationship that requires 'rights' for protection against each other.You can get rid of anything good by turning it into a ‘rights issue’, like, ‘You have the right to not help your girlfriend or wife up when she falls’, or, ‘you have the right to tell your girlfriend you are not in the mood to accept her present’, or, ‘i have the right to not appreciate anything you do for me’. Nonsense. But that is the ploy the corporation uses time and time again.This ploy and plot by the corporation is an effort to drive a wedge between men and women and husbands and wives so as to compromise marriage, love, and heterosexuality. Why? Because marriage becomes the greatest institution of democracy when the woman takes on her nature-endowed role as nurturer and carer, and through which, the man and sons learn virtue, and because of which they can recognise any evil outside because of its great contrast to the virtue of women. That is what drives Man to contend with it. That is the Golden thread that ties humanity to the heavens. It is no wonder that that the Indians, since ancient times, say, 'Matha, Pitha, Guru, Devam', meaning, Mother, Father, Teacher, God, with Mother being the first. Like i stated in an article i wrote elsewhere, God gave humanity the Mother so that the Mother may open humanity's eyes to God and thus achieve their humanity. edX

The Figure: Manu is referred to as the archetypal man or the first man in early Hindu texts, and is revered as both a lawmaker and a saint. He is considered the mind born son of Brahma (the Creator), symbolising the union of divine wisdom and human consciousness. In Sanskrit, the term for 'human', मनुष्य (manuṣya) or मानव (mānava), means 'of Manu' or 'children of Manu'. The name "Manu" finds its roots in the Sanskrit word "man," which means to think or to reflect. As such, Manu is often regarded as the embodiment of the human intellect. As a legislator, Manu is credited with formulating the principles and guidelines that govern human conduct, social structure, and ethical responsibilities. The Manusmriti is attributed to Manu and is believed to have been revealed by him to mankind. It delineates various aspects of dharma (duty/righteousness), outlining laws concerning familial relations, governance, justice, and spiritual practices. Despite its controversial aspects and varying interpretations, the Manusmriti remains a significant source of ethical and legal guidelines in Hindu tradition. Moreover, he is revered as a saintly figure who exemplifies spiritual insight and moral virtue. He is portrayed as a wise sage who embodies contemplation, introspection, and philosophical inquiry. Through his teachings and example, Manu inspires individuals to cultivate a deeper understanding of themselves and the world around them. Parallels: Manu ​​shares striking parallels with Minos, the mythical king of Crete in Greek mythology. Despite emerging from distinct cultural contexts, both figures embody similar roles as iconic legislators and arbiters of justice within their respective mythologies. Like Manu, Minos is renowned for his role as a lawgiver and judge. According to Greek myth, Minos received the laws of his kingdom directly from Zeus, the chief deity of the Greek pantheon. These laws, often associated with concepts of justice and order, formed the basis of Minos' governance and judicial authority. Moreover, both Manu and Minos are depicted as wise and virtuous rulers who possess a deep understanding of ethics and moral principles. They are revered as paragons of wisdom and justice, capable of resolving disputes and maintaining social harmony within their respective societies. Whether through divine inspiration or personal insight, both figures are credited with bringing about a sense of order and stability in their realms. Furthermore, both Manu and Minos occupy a significant place in the mythological genealogy of their respective cultures. Manu is considered the progenitor of humanity in Hindu tradition, while Minos is depicted as a descendant of the god Zeus in Greek mythology. This ancestral connection underscores their divine lineage and reinforces their authority as rulers and lawmakers. Philosophical Parallels: The etymology of "Manu" in Hindu mythology and René Descartes' famous statement "I think, therefore I am" both delve into the essence of human identity and existence, but from different cultural and philosophical perspectives. The etymology of “Manu” reflects the idea that human identity is closely tied to the capacity for thought, reflection, and consciousness. Manu represents not just a physical ancestor but also embodies the intellectual and spiritual potential of humanity. In Hindu philosophy, the ability to think, reason, and reflect is considered a fundamental aspect of human nature and is central to the concept of dharma (duty or righteousness). On the other hand, Descartes' statement, "Cogito, ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am), articulates a foundational principle of Western philosophy known as Cartesian dualism. Descartes proposed that the act of thinking, of being conscious of one's own existence, is the most basic and indubitable fact of human existence. Through the act of doubt, he arrives at the certainty of his own existence as a thinking being. By asserting that one's ability to think is inseparable from one's existence, Descartes underscores the centrality of consciousness in defining individual identity. Similarly, in Hindu tradition, Manu’s name signifies the essence of thought and consciousness as the defining characteristic of the human condition.

Exilio By The Ralphamale - A Fictional Story I was approached by someone close to Thinkspot and asked to come write here a little bit. I had already considered opening a SubStack, and I still might do that in conjunction with this, but I liked the guy and said yes. Why not, then? I’m in Argentinia, host of Deathwatch, my daily live stream on the internet. It used to air at night, but I started carrying this site called Nozy during the day, and their main man aired in my old slot. So, I just changed the time from afternoon until 10 P.M. EST (fuck the other “correct” acronym..it’s always EST to me). I’ve been stuck there ever since. In a way, it’s helped. I used to have an ensemble of co-hosts for the nighttime run of the show, but they’re all scumbags now. In this sick trade, you have to be ready for a turn at any point in time. Private messages leaked, fake private messages leaked, various other incendiary imagery, sneak attacks from supposed friends, the theft of your child via the courts…it’s sort of a nasty business. The pussy has been pretty good, though. Believe it or not, the pussy was fire in pretty much every case. I only ever truly loved two of the women I ended up bedding throughout this fucking insane bullshit. I’ll leave that up for debate. Not because those bitches give a single fuck, but because it’s funnier that way. I moved down here, to the lovely city of Buenos Aires, with family in-tow. You know, I’m not perfect, but taking someone’s child, leaving while they are out of town, and cutting off any access, knowledge, or photographic evidence of that child is somewhat unsavory. Many people might even call it sadistic. If you hate me online, you would say it’s justice. Or, you might not even know about that salient fact until you read this story. It’s all about the mob and the “accepted lore” at the time. I can remember this woman, Samantha, telling me she didn’t know that she was a real woman, until I had fucked her brains out about 30 times. Sexual chemistry was always off the charts. If we met even now, and there was some drinks and maybe who knows what all else, she would fuck me again. I’ve had her doing every dirty thing you could imagine, and some you wouldn’t even want to. In a way, she was the perfect partner for that era of me because she would do whatever I told her to do. She was already a slut when I met her. We both cheated on our partners to kindle our initial romance. So, I was basically a dick as well. Damn, It was hot, though. I remember the first time we fucked, in a Red Roof Inn off some highway down in the South. She asked about a condom and we both said we were clean and fucked raw right there on the spot, for about six hours. I bought a special bottle of champagne and ordered food. We both lied to our significant others about where we were. The passion was insane. The problem was she was crazy and obviously I must be a crazy motherfucker to even dedicate this to print. She was slutty, yes, but I often wonder just how much of her mind I fucked up. Sam used to tell me that it turned her on to know I fucked other woman. So, I fucked other woman. It seemed like a great set-up, at the time. Looking back on it now, I see it as her self-harming and letting me do those things because she didn’t think she was worth a shit. Subsequently, she revealed some alleged molestation from a family member when she was younger, a cousin. She was also separately when she was sixteen. Looking back now, I see it so clearly. Sam just wanted to be hurt again and again because she thought she wasn’t good enough. I often consider how I pushed her to the wrong side of that instead of the healing side. I could have been the stabilizer and instead I was the chaos agent. Looking back now, I see that all the debauchery wasn’t really worth it. Don’t get me wrong, it was a lot of fun. Fucking a pornstar with your girlfriend, cumming all over said pornstar, and then going to do an interview with the pornstar after you had just been inside her pussy…I mean it was pure rock star shit to me. Still, It put more stress on an already stressful relationship. Deep down, I think we just both wanted to be normal and love each other, but the constant push for more hedonism and debauchery was a constant theme, at least in our early days. The sad fact she never seemed to understand was, I always thought she was good enough. She was often great, actually. I guess some of this may be down to my own communication skills. I grew up romanticizing film and television. I am more of a “big gesture” type of guy. I fuck up or an am asshole for a period, but this Big Trip is supposed to show you that I really love you. In fact, that is how I show love. It doesn’t land, though. You have to be daily about it. Samantha once told me, “The best times with you are better than the best times with anyone else I’ve ever known…but the worst are the worst.” So, it’s not like I’m some innocent motherfucker. We both did drugs, mostly weed (except for her LSD trip revelation of familial molestation), until she eventually quit. We were going to have a son and she decided to get serious about all this health bullshit. I wanted to. Before and after she left me here in solitary exile, I had long stretches of sobriety. The one before we finally broke it off was the hardest. All I wanted was to hear anything back from her. I could see her checking her messages. “Just send me a picture of our child,” I thought. Tell me anything. One word from her could have stopped me from not caring again. When I don’t care, I’m a somewhat reckless and dangerous person. All I wanted was one word. I was sober, I was ready for resolution, good or bad. However, it was refused. Rest is a bit of a blur. Took a bunch of pills. Don’t remember much. Had a run in on acid in some small Mexican town. You just pay a fine here, it’s not too bad. Fucked some pussy. Good pussy, but it’s sort of empty. I’ve kind of come to the point where I think, “What’s the point of even having a bitch?” You can just go buy pussy or at least flirt with it for free. Real woman are seen to me, as I approach the age of 40, as a goddamn fucking headache. Also, if you spend any real time with these whores, as I did with Sam, they always come up in your mind, even if just for a second. Of course, they think about you, too, but it’s not the same. They laugh about how they stole your child, while you think about that time in London where the sunlight was shining just right on their hair when you snapped the photograph. Google Photos had the courtesy to remind you the other day. Then, you think why couldn’t a brick have fallen off and done its work on the bitch then and there. Women seem inherently more evil than men. It’s hard for me to one-hundred percent hate a former domestic partner. It seems a lot easier for them. The female mind seems to take particular joy in trying to humble their ex. If the ex refuses to be humbled, it only motivates them more. Plus, unless you lock these bitches out of everything (you should), they use every single piece of vulnerable information that you’ve ever given them, along with some fake shit on top, to ruin your life. Anyway, long story and that’s a bit of a teaser. I wrote it to tell you I ended up in Argentina making my own way by accident. There was supposed to be a team of motherfuckers making this work. The LSD down here is strong, but that’s not the answer. The answer is, “Trust No Bitch.” If you do have to trust one (you will), minimize all damage possible and leave as little on the record as possible. They’re by far the dirtier species. I’m now sober in one of the biggest party capitals in the world. The fucking Zionists are going to throw us into another war on behalf of Jewish interests. The US election doesn’t even matter. I’ve got about four civil cases in the US courts over silly shit. Kid stolen from me with no access or updates. Who even gives a shit anymore? Let’s just go out fighting. You know what I do have, though? This shitty fucking internet. I have 2024, which promises to be one of the most consequential years of my lifetime. That’s not a bullshit line, this time. It really will be. I’ve got Deathwatch back up off the deathbed and it’s rolling along nicely. I said to someone the other day, who was simping over some bitch who used to suck my dick: “Women are like Toyotas. They come out with a new model every year.” They’re not hard to find. They almost always aren’t special (but always think they are). Some, I assume, are good people, but stressing over some slut is the dumbest thing you can do in life. Which is why I don’t do it…much. You smashed the pussy. Nutted all inside it. Their biggest prize, they gave to you over and over again, with great enthusiasm. I let some bitch in an El Paso strip club suck my dick. I didn’t give you anything, other than some money spent on you, that you weren’t even worth. Whatever, I’m in Argentina.

The news today is that Iran seized a cargo ship owned by a Jew, and launch drone attacks against Israel. why wouldn’t they? Queers for Palestine run Biden optic, and the White House is a joke. Inclusive includes mentally derelicts and the gender psychotic to the highest policy of the land. American policy is to hold up their bums and say drill here. As if manna from heaven would be any more of a miracle drop than Biden landing his gig as Leader of the Free Workd. This is Alfred E. Newman stuff, a total farce. Biden shoots duds. That is a guarantee. China and Russia are all on board. The time is right. Trump is no slouch, and tomorrow is a different world. BIPOC is all about the revenge against the West. Jordan Peterson often comes up with “why didn’t conservatives do nothing” as such a world came into being. The thing is in a 51 49 world, the useful idiots are the only ones that can really do any thing. consevatives can’t go more conservative, but it is liberals that have lost their collective minds. Bill Maher for example. He sees babies in ovens and nine month old babies stabbed in Australia just like the rest of us. So what? It is a 99 to 1 bet he is Biden 2024. And Iran has been chanting Death to America all the while, Maher voting for the Obama Biden Team that cozies to Iran. Alls conservatives can do, other than go Marjorie Taylor Greene and Alex Jones’s crazy themselves, is to well, get married, have children, do the mom and dad thing and ride out the apocalypse. Negative birth rates, spiralling down, yea, conservatives can blame themselves for that. But nine of that won’t change liberal crazy one iota, and that is where the rot has set in. But liberals are enraptured by the reflections of their own virtuous beauty. Unlike deplorable conservatives, these students of Elaine Paegel refuse to demonize anybody, not even Hamas. But there are economic consequences of America being a joke, for Americans themselves. But liberals are gonna to liberal. Didn’t say boo about the white trash in Britain being turned into cum dumps for Asian predators, celebrate Hamas victory Oct 7, appease Iran, fund terrorism with those pallets of cash. And blame conservatives for the country going to hell in a hand basket.

This question has been cropping up in my mind again and again of late. Loving God encompasses feelings of adoration, reverence, and devotion. It involves a deep emotional connection and a desire to cultivate a relationship based on love, trust, and intimacy. Love prompts acts of worship, gratitude, and service as expressions of devotion towards the divine. On the other hand, fearing God involves a sense of awe, respect, and humility in the face of the divine's power, authority, and majesty. Fear in this context does not necessarily imply terror or dread but rather a profound awareness of God's transcendence and sovereignty. It can inspire obedience, piety, and a healthy reverence for divine will and moral principles. How does Hinduism answer this question? Finding the proper balance between these two attitudes is a complex endeavour and different traditions preach different modes of relating to the divine. At the risk of overwriting my own interpretation more than is justified over the wide-ranging perspectives encompassed by Hinduism, I would say that the relationship between devotee and deity in this faith is characterised more by intense love and devotion, known as Bhakti, than by fear. From this standpoint, love is considered paramount. The Bhagavad Gita, a central text in Hindu philosophy, elucidates the importance of devotion and love towards the divine. For instance, in Chapter 9, Verse 22, Lord Krishna says, “Those who are always full of love, who worship Me with exclusive devotion, meditating on My transcendental form - to them I carry what they lack and preserve what they have.” However, the concept of fear (or awe) in relation to God is not entirely absent in Hindu thought. Some Hindu traditions, particularly those influenced by Shaivism (worship of Lord Shiva, the destroyer), acknowledge the paradoxical nature of the divine, which encompasses both benevolent and wrathful aspects. In these traditions, fear may arise from a profound reverence for the awe-inspiring power and cosmic order (dharma) maintained by the divine. Another aspect of Hinduism which deserves mention here, is that God is not held to be the authority tasked with punishing sinners. The law of karma (actions and their consequences) evokes a certain fear among Hindus, but this fear arises not from a punitive deity, but from the recognition that negative actions lead to negative consequences. In this sense, fearing God could be seen as a form of respect for the cosmic order rather than a dread of punishment. All in all, I would say that Hinduism characterises the relationship with God to be one of love, with fear playing a very small role (if at all) in maintaining humility and reverence towards the divine. How do other faiths answer this question? In Judaism, the concept of fearing God, known as "Yirat Hashem," is deeply rooted in the Old Testament. Proverbs 9:10 famously states, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.” At the same time, Judaism also places a strong emphasis on love for God, as expressed in the commandment to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength" (Deuteronomy 6:5). This love is characterised by devotion, loyalty, and obedience to God's commandments, as exemplified by figures like Abraham, Moses, and King David in Jewish tradition. Christianity similarly emphasises both love and fear in the context of the relationship with God. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ teaches about the importance of loving God and loving one's neighbour as oneself (Matthew 22:37-39). The Apostle John reaffirms this message, stating, "There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear because fear has to do with punishment" (1 John 4:18). Here, love is portrayed as the antidote to fear, suggesting that a deep, intimate relationship with God dispels apprehension and dread. However, Christianity also acknowledges the importance of reverential fear towards God. Jesus himself teaches his disciples, "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28). This fear is not based on a fear of punishment alone but on a recognition of God's power, holiness, and judgement. Christians believe that God's love, grace, and mercy are freely given to those who trust in Him, inviting them into a relationship marked by love, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Relevance in day to day prayer Keeping aside the philosophy for a moment, the question becomes relevant in day to day prayer rituals. Take, for example, the common dilemmas encountered in everyday life, such as the moments of worry or uncertainty. The anxiety preceding a routine medical checkup. Or the guilt and fear one feels when a sinful thought crosses one's mind, followed swiftly by a prayer of apology. In such instances, the fear experienced, characteristic of a God-fearing individual, can be viewed as a factor that strengthens faith. And why not? If one experiences a fear of God each time a transgression occurs or whenever fear arises, it implies that one's thoughts often turn to God, perhaps as frequently as they do to one's own shortcomings. On the other hand, as a Hindu, I ask myself: What brings on the fear? Unwavering faith in God, or a lack thereof? More devoted Hindus than myself might argue that to give in to fear signifies a faltering faith in a deity whose omnipotence and benevolence can orchestrate miracles to guide us through adversity. They would say that God's love and forgiveness are boundless, akin to an expansive ocean capable of purifying our souls, even amidst the muddied currents of our transgressions. With the blessings of such a God, the decision to fear undermines the love of God. I have no clear answer. But that’s okay. Certain questions must be allowed to linger in our contemplation. This is not a question to which one can simply borrow someone else's answer, no matter how convincing. The answer we must find by ourselves, even if it emerges incoherently.

The Tick Posted on April 17, 2024 by john Dear Friends… Two guys, JOE and STEVE are in Steve’s apartment. Joe is relaxing on the sofa. Steve is rummaging in the kitchen. STEVE asks, “Want a beer?” Joe scratches the back of his neck. JOE says, “Yea. Thanks.” Joe rubs the back of his neck. Steve goes to the fridge. He opens it and grabs a couple of beers. Joe looks at Steve in time to catch a beer. He catches it. Opens it. He takes a gulp. Steve walks to the easy chair. He sets down. Picks up a remote. He turns on the TV. Joe stands quickly. JOE exclaims, “Argh!!! A TICK!” Joe picks at it with his fingers. Steve is concerned. JOE says, “Got it!” Joe looks at the evil little TICK. It looks back. JOE continues, “What should I do with it?” STEVE says, “Toss it in the ash tray.” In a squeaky voice the TICK says, “It burns! The ashes, they burn! I think its a chemical burn!” Steve cocks his head. Joe says, “I swear that tick is talking.” Steve gives Joe a strange look, He says, “No…?” The TICK says, “It burns! And that roach is smoldering!” JOE says, “It IS talking!” The TICK says, “Kill me! Burn me with a lighter, a magnifying glass or stick me with a pin… anything. End this pain!” Steve picks up a can of Raid. He hands the can to Joe. STEVE says, “Here use this.” Joe sprays the ashtray. Ashes go flying. The tick is encased in a foam pyramid of Raid. The TICK says, “This is worse! It still burns but now I’m sick too!” Steve picks up the ashtray. He walks to the door. Opens it. He tosses out the complaining tick. The TICK exclaims, “The sunlight burns my eyes!” Steve turns and says… “A tick is like a politician. Shows up where its not wanted, takes what’s not theirs and resents being treated like a parasite.” The End.

As a kid growing up in the 1970’s, the Cold War dangled the threat of nuclear war every chance it could find in our little minds. We were, at times, paralyzed by the thought of a nuclear bomb being dropped on our neighborhood. Our playground battles with the Russians were almost a daily occurrence. Today, a new threat by Communist China and the Russians has again brought the discussion of nuclear threat to the forefront. Russia’s President Putin has released a target map of potential sites he would focus on should he resort to nuclear arms. Prominent cities include Washington DC, New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles, as well as various military bases and critical targets around the country. Total casualties in those combined cities would approach 10 million people, according to NUKEMAP (https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/). Infrastructure within a 4.5-mile radius of the blast would be decimated. The long-term effects of nuclear fallout would render those areas uninhabitable for years to come. So, what would the future hold for these areas, and how would it affect the rest of the country? Shelter Of the survivors that remained in the nuclear zones of destruction, one would imagine that many people would seek greener pastures. They would move towards areas with more resources. Better water for consumption, food, and shelter resources would be sought. This migration would be unprecedented within the US and lead to new cities and infrastructure. They would follow routes of least resistance, such as along interstate routes. New York City survivors might travel north via Interstate 95 into New Hampshire or Maine. Those in Washington, DC, might take I95 south into the Carolinas. Chicagoans could take Interstate 80 west into Iowa or I94 north into Wisconsin. Those on the West Coast could take Interstate 5 north into northern California or Oregon. Small cities would grow exponentially with the influx of migrants. Cities like Portsmouth, NH, Davenport, IA, and Kenosha, WI, with access to air, rail, water, and the interstate nearby, would flourish during these growth periods. Infrastructure in these areas would be insufficient to meet the demands initially. Larger airports would take time to build; however, the interstate and rail systems could move building materials to spark the construction. Immigrants to these areas would be put to work in all phases of the projects. Federal monies, if available, would need to be allocated to these projects to ensure success. Water With the Potomac River feeding Washington, DC, and the Hudson River feeding New York City, these water resources may be contaminated and render the water unusable. Chicago provides a more devastating scenario as the city is upstream from the watershed region. This watershed region supplies much of the downstate Illinois region and would lead to undrinkable water for many people. Los Angeles is similar to the cities on the East Coast in that the city lies downstream from the watershed region. Let us not forget about the Colorado River, Lake Mead, and the Hoover Dam, which supplies water to seven states. If that were destroyed, it would be devastating to the country's southwest region. The Hoover Dam also supplies electricity to California, Nevada, and Arizona. This lack of resources would likely cause migration to the east along Interstate 10. Fire/Electricity Our electrical grid is outdated. The Hoover Dam was built to help with the demand due to the growth in the southeast region. However, the rest of the country is divided into four electrical grid regions: the West, the Midwest, the Southeast and Eastern seaboard, and Texas. A targeted missile to vulnerable sections of the grid could mean no power for millions of people in these regions. The reality would be that the damage done to the infrastructure would take years to repair or replace due to limitations in the manufacture of parts. With nuclear damage being done on the east and west coasts, the best-case scenario would leave intact the Midwest and Texas. This would enable the rebirth of these two regions as it takes in the migrants from other parts of the US. Food The food contamination would affect resources as some animals would die initially. If some of the nuclear silos were bombed in the upper Great Plains regions, this would lead to contamination in the Midwest as the nuclear fallout would drift eastward. The cattle and hog farms would be devastated. Inflation on those two commodities would skyrocket, and any safe meat to be consumed would be priced out of reach for most Americans. Massive population shifts would create food shortages in the region. Supply chains would be disrupted and inadequate to meet the demands. Inflation would become prominent and force many to live off limited resources from what nature could provide. People may be willing to eat contaminated beef and pork, which would lead to delayed mortality for those willing to take the risk. In conclusion The population shift to the Midwest and Southeast would cause problems with existing infrastructure and supply chain management. It would take decades for the balance to settle. A nuclear attack would affect the four basic needs in a survival situation (shelter, fire/electricity, water, and food). Our country would be thrown into chaos, and the aftermath would kill millions more as people fought for their basic needs. All of this makes plenty of assumptions. The most significant assumption is that just a few nuclear warheads reach the United States. It would only take a few well-placed missiles to disrupt our economy and livelihood. We should all pray it doesn’t come to fruition. Our kids and grandkids will live the nightmares we feared when we were kids.

Polarization, AI, Lone Wolf, and more. Join us on Thurs. April 18 with Gregg Hurwitz as we discuss polarization, AI, and his new book By thinkspotthinkspot Writers’ Contest ($1,000 grand prize) By thinkspotThoughts for the End of the Century, Butterflies and All By DanielSandersonThoughts for the End of the Century, Own Your Outcomes : Or They'll Own You! By KaizenAndrockThoughts for the end of the century - the path of the hearth fire By CraigJamesThoughts for the End of the Century: Impending US Civil War By ahol888Thoughts for the End of the Century By CanadianLibertarianThoughts for the End of the Century: Keeping The First Things First By BibleStudyCamThoughts For the End Of the Century: Progress Gives Hope For Change By HandylyonCulture in Crisis By thinkspot

Let’s turn it up to 11 For the first time in its 54-year history, NPR is enjoyable. The entertainment is not coming from the programming, though, but from the fallout from Uri Berliner’s whistleblower report at the Free Press about the ideological silo that is the broadcaster. Once Berliner got people’s attention, the extremely public record of insane proclamations from NPR’s CEO Katherine Maher came to light. That’s when the fun really began. Maher, as Matt Taibbi noted at Racket News, has no background in journalism. What she does have a background in – beyond a hodgepodge of perches at liberal organizations like the World Economic Forum, Wikimedia, the Council of Foreign Relations, and the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Labs – is fundraising. At Wikimedia, she grew its annual haul from $77 million per year in 2016 to $140 million in 2021. That’s a lot of free tote bags. She’s also the living embodiment of every stereotype of a modern progressive. She cried for Hillary while also chiding the candidate for using the words “boy” and “girl,” because doing so cancels non-binary people. She hates Trump. She’s avoiding motherhood because of climate change. She decries her own white privilege. She thinks the hippies were a little too patriarchal, racist, and misogynist. She is NPR. Hiring her as CEO was a no-brainer. Keeping her is a little trickier now that videos of her complaining about how the First Amendment is an obstacle to truth and that truth itself is also an obstacle to “getting things done” have surfaced. If she truly believes all she espouses or is instead merely a well-trained parrot is debatable. Either way, she’s a product of the system. Berliner, on the other hand, apparently missed a few crucial lessons about loving Big Brother and remains a little too committed to journalism. The truths Berliner highlighted about NPR’s lack of ideological diversity aren’t new. It’s been referred to as National Pinko Radio since the 1980s. Timing is everything, though, and for that, we have to thank him for choosing such a perfect moment. Berliner caught the wind and invited us along for the ride. Which is why Maher isn’t the enemy, but a gift. She can rally conservatives, who prefer to cede territory in a hopeless attempt at containment, into action. Alas, now is not the time for a really stupid and futile gesture, but something actually meaningful. Nonetheless, we’re just the guys to do it, especially since what I’m proposing will be even more entertaining than the current fracas. Apply for jobs in the most dreadful institutions in the land. Sue for discrimination when we don’t get them, because two can play at that game. Go to work for the government, which, I get it, but war is never easy. Land a gig in academia. Find your way inside an NGO. Once we’re in, we can start to wake up the woke, which seems difficult, but not being a depressed statist in a constant panic about the end of humanity will help. Most people want to flourish, not spend their days worrying about the end times. They also don’t want to follow all the stupid, contradictory, and ever-changing rules that the system imposes on them. We’ve all got that liberal friend who relaxes in our presence and stops sticking with the script, even mocking it a little. So, have fun with it. Go into enemy territory and follow their edicts, but turn everything up to 11. Make everyone both an oppressor and a victim, inventing new privileged classes and reasons to be aggrieved. Turn them all against one another. Help the ouroboros finish swallowing its own tail. It’s quickly slithering in that direction already, but we can expedite the process. For now is the time to stop worrying about defunding NPR or stopping various NGOs, about toppling the Mahers and combating their biases against us. Instead, it’s the time to start dreaming about building new structures atop of the rubble on which they once stood.

Moderate Inflation Posted on April 18, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, the experts claim inflation is under control, if you simply change what you buy. Instead of beef switch to pork, if that becomes too expensive, switch to chicken, and then roadkill… you see, its all in the budgeting. That’s how they come to a 3% inflation rate. After a few more years of this moderate inflation… only the rich will be able to afford road kill. The rest of us will be eating bugs, greenbriar and grass tops. Meanwhile, the federal reserve wants you to know they have it well in hand, but since raising interest rates in an election year would be bad, for the deep state president, they’ll use the wishful thinking method. That should do it. The fact is, inflation wont stop until the incentive for government to cause it, is stopped. There needs to be consequences for deficit spending. If you believe inflation has “only” gone up 3.8%, there’s a nice water front property on the Sea of Tranquility for you, I’ll sell it cheap. Insurance has doubled in my area. Food has doubled in some cases. Then again, who needs to eat? If you have a dog or cat, has your vet bill only gone up 5%? Mine more than doubled. The price of cars has gone up way more than 10%. A “cheap” car today is 20k. Electricity has risen far more than a mere 4%. Have you filled your car’s fuel tank lately? For the Bureau of Labor Statistics, (BLS) also called Bullshit, Lies and Spin, to come up with that number took some pretty brilliant lying. Then again, exposing the BLS as liars is one reason Snowden lives in Russia and Julian Assange resides in the Belmarsh super max prison. The Federal Reserve is trying to control inflation by raising interest rates. But the government spends two dollars for every one squeezed out of the little guy by higher interest rates. Milton Friedman’s theory on inflation… growth in money must match the growth in GDP to have zero inflation, if the growth in money is less than the growth in GDP, then you have deflation, and if the growth in money exceeds that of the economy, then you have inflation. Which dovetails with, John Meynard Keynes theory of economic growth, if aggregate demand exceeds aggregate supply, you have growth, and of aggregate demand is less than aggregate supply, you have recession. He didn’t make a distinction between government demand and individual demand. Aggregate demand is aggregate demand, no matter who is demanding the supply. Aggregate supply is the ability of the economy to supply that which is demanded. Therefore, the Federal Reserve raising interest rates to drive down aggregate demand, to match aggregate supply, is a fools errand. Since the government increases spending. Keeping aggregate demand higher than aggregate supply. Moreover, government spending doesn’t have the economic effect of individual spending. Economic growth is slowed by toxic government demand. Even as a dollar printed by government is more inflationary than one created by an entrepreneur. Because, a printed dollar comes into being out of nothing, while one created by economic growth, is backed by that growth. Even as taxes are a drag to economic growth. The government can lie all they want, but anyone buying insurance, eating or driving knows it’s gone up closer to 100%. We all know it. The problem is, the people that receive the newly printed money get to use it, before it triggers inflation, so they have no problem with the government’s print and spend policy. In fact, they want more of it. Since they benefit. Societal wealth in the long term, however, is being hollowed out by their profligate taxing, printing and spending. Transferring demand from the people to the State lowers the efficiency of our economy, and increases the monetary base, far in access of GDP growth. So what we have are elites who benefit from rotting our economy from the core out. That’s why we have pernicious inflation. Government’s failed policies are creating it, as they always do. Sincerely, John Pepin

As we progress into the second quarter of the 21st century, two of the most powerful “buzzwords” that continue to make themselves heard are “liberty” and “equality.” It is hard to go a long time in the world of political discussion and commentary without encountering these loaded terms. The former may be utilised in situations such as the defence of gun rights, or the debate over freedom of speech, while the latter would perhaps be used to promote tax changes that will “benefit the disadvantaged” and thus “increase equality.” These terms are inevitably broad in meaning, and even more so in their current application. It has indeed become increasingly clear that they must be elaborated upon, and their meaning defined. Overall, I argue that the term liberty, or freedom, pertains to the removal of unnecessary hindrances on the free expression of one’s will, which begets no natural assurance of equal outcomes. The term equality could, however, hold any number of possible meanings, though chief among these being equality of opportunity and equality of outcome, the former promoting liberty as a principle, while the latter promoting control and the subjugation of individual expression. Furthermore, I contend that, if we are to advance as a society in the coming decades, it is imperative that we properly understand these two powerful words. Both “liberty” and “equality” have, historically, made for wonderful rallying cries, often when used together as a call for change to an established system. However, they have been today employed in conflicting situations, and many would contend that liberty and equality do not naturally go hand in hand. There appears to be a broad consensus in the modern West that equality of opportunity is an end worth striving for, and while, historically, all would agree the common people were severely limited in their access to opportunity, today it would appear to many that we are all given a decent chance. However, the socialist-inclined members of society believe that our modern, globalist and capitalist society has not provided opportunity to vast swathes of the population, and that difficulty in life and limited success is the result of systemic “oppression.” On the other hand, many hold that it is not through such oppression that the outcomes of success in life differ so vastly, and that human beings, through their varying abilities and, sometimes too through the capricious hand of fate, do not achieve equal status. Liberty must, I contend, be recognised as the ending of the restriction of one’s ability to express individual desire over the course of his life and decisions, so long as they do not materially harm another. Such a concept does not ensure universal happiness and fulfilment, as it entails an exceptional amount of personal responsibility that would certainly not have been seen for most of human history. However, the overwhelming complexity of the modern world and the plethora of potential pathways are the challenge that inevitably faces the modern person, and it is essentially impractical to expect otherwise. Although such an understanding of liberty may not lead to the achievement of a utopian outcome, likely no other method will either. Equality is, I believe, even more problematic a term than liberty. What cannot be more thoroughly emphasised with this term is its inherent difference from “sameness.” Equality of opportunity, which the West has long worked incredibly hard to achieve, gives no assurance that men and women will earn entirely equal wages, or that different ethnic groups will achieve equal representation in higher education. Equality, when understood as sameness, will inevitably lead to contradiction and utterly defective argumentation. The only sensible use of the word is to apply to equal opportunity. Whether or not society has achieved this is another matter altogether, one that will be more easily answerable once this definition is adopted.It is certainly desirable to live in a society that promotes both liberty and equality, and should the terms be used according to the definitions I have hitherto provided, it would be possible. However, liberty with the expectation of equal outcomes is not liberty ay all, as this presupposes that all human beings possess exactly the same abilities, that being a total and nonsensical rejection of individual difference. Overall, if liberty, as a term, held strongly to the definition of: “the removal of social hindrance as far as naturally possible to allow the greatest level of individual expression of talent and personality,” and equality: “the promotion of a common, basic level of access to opportunity in order to allow for the greatest natural level of personal achievement and expression” the two concepts would no longer clash, and productive discourse could finally be achieved. Perhaps controversial is my use of the term “natural” in the above definitions. Such a word may lend itself to further consideration, and possibly debate, though it ultimately means: “without any manipulation of the basic order of things that are beyond the man-made sphere.” Liberty and equality are both lovely terms, as they are concepts. This is perhaps why so much blood has been spilled over the centuries fighting under their banners, and why today they remain widely featured in political discourse and used as personal labels. What is truly great is that we, in the West, are blessed with the ability to attain both, though to do this they must be properly understood as part of a system of equal opportunity with free choice of pursuits. As with every other aspect of life, a utopian outcome will likely never be achieved, and it is essentially paradoxical to expect that we may one day have a “perfectly free” and “perfectly equal” society. Nonetheless, the two can go hand in hand and, when understood correctly, one naturally entails the other. If we are to advance culturally in the coming decades, it is critical that these terms are not only distinctly defined, but also widely understood.

As we progress into the second quarter of the 21st century, two of the most powerful “buzzwords” that continue to make themselves heard are “liberty” and “equality.” It is hard to go a long time in the world of political discussion and commentary without encountering these loaded terms. The former may be utilised in situations such as the defence of gun rights, or the debate over freedom of speech, while the latter would perhaps be used to promote tax changes that will “benefit the disadvantaged” and thus “increase equality.” These terms are inevitably broad in meaning, and even more so in their current application. It has indeed become increasingly clear that they must be elaborated upon, and their meaning defined. Overall, I argue that the term liberty, or freedom, pertains to the removal of unnecessary hindrances on the free expression of one’s will, which begets no natural assurance of equal outcomes. The term equality could, however, hold any number of possible meanings, though chief among these being equality of opportunity and equality of outcome, the former promoting liberty as a principle, while the latter promoting control and the subjugation of individual expression. Furthermore, I contend that, if we are to advance as a society in the coming decades, it is imperative that we properly understand these two powerful words. Both “liberty” and “equality” have, historically, made for wonderful rallying cries, often when used together as a call for change to an established system. However, they have been today employed in conflicting situations, and many would contend that liberty and equality do not naturally go hand in hand. There appears to be a broad consensus in the modern West that equality of opportunity is an end worth striving for, and while, historically, all would agree the common people were severely limited in their access to opportunity, today it would appear to many that we are all given a decent chance. However, the socialist-inclined members of society believe that our modern, globalist and capitalist society has not provided opportunity to vast swathes of the population, and that difficulty in life and limited success is the result of systemic “oppression.” On the other hand, many hold that it is not through such oppression that the outcomes of success in life differ so vastly, and that human beings, through their varying abilities and, sometimes too through the capricious hand of fate, do not achieve equal status. Liberty must, I contend, be recognised as the ending of the restriction of one’s ability to express individual desire over the course of his life and decisions, so long as they do not materially harm another. Such a concept does not ensure universal happiness and fulfilment, as it entails an exceptional amount of personal responsibility that would certainly not have been seen for most of human history. However, the overwhelming complexity of the modern world and the plethora of potential pathways are the challenge that inevitably faces the modern person, and it is essentially impractical to expect otherwise. Although such an understanding of liberty may not lead to the achievement of a utopian outcome, likely no other method will either. Equality is, I believe, even more problematic a term than liberty. What cannot be more thoroughly emphasised with this term is its inherent difference from “sameness.” Equality of opportunity, which the West has long worked incredibly hard to achieve, gives no assurance that men and women will earn entirely equal wages, or that different ethnic groups will achieve equal representation in higher education. Equality, when understood as sameness, will inevitably lead to contradiction and utterly defective argumentation. The only sensible use of the word is to apply to equal opportunity. Whether or not society has achieved this is another matter altogether, one that will be more easily answerable once this definition is adopted.It is certainly desirable to live in a society that promotes both liberty and equality, and should the terms be used according to the definitions I have hitherto provided, it would be possible. However, liberty with the expectation of equal outcomes is not liberty ay all, as this presupposes that all human beings possess exactly the same abilities, that being a total and nonsensical rejection of individual difference. Overall, if liberty, as a term, held strongly to the definition of: “the removal of social hindrance as far as naturally possible to allow the greatest level of individual expression of talent and personality,” and equality: “the promotion of a common, basic level of access to opportunity in order to allow for the greatest natural level of personal achievement and expression” the two concepts would no longer clash, and productive discourse could finally be achieved. Perhaps controversial is my use of the term “natural” in the above definitions. Such a word may lend itself to further consideration, and possibly debate, though it ultimately means: “without any manipulation of the basic order of things that are beyond the man-made sphere.” Liberty and equality are both lovely terms, as they are concepts. This is perhaps why so much blood has been spilled over the centuries fighting under their banners, and why today they remain widely featured in political discourse and used as personal labels. What is truly great is that we, in the West, are blessed with the ability to attain both, though to do this they must be properly understood as part of a system of equal opportunity with free choice of pursuits. As with every other aspect of life, a utopian outcome will likely never be achieved, and it is essentially paradoxical to expect that we may one day have a “perfectly free” and “perfectly equal” society. Nonetheless, the two can go hand in hand and, when understood correctly, one naturally entails the other. If we are to advance culturally in the coming decades, it is critical that these terms are not only distinctly defined, but also widely understood.

Value, Utility and Perception Posted on April 19, 2024 by john Dear Friends, Its seems to me, value is entirely a perception, and not reality. Sometimes we value the utile but most often we value the things we’re told are valuable. No independent thinking necessary. When we do think for ourselves, our value judgments are based on our perception, and not reality. I’ve heard it said that we don’t see things… we see utility. A rock is invisible, else it’s a hammer, knife or tripping hazard. We don’t perceive “rock” as much as the things we can do with it. The same goes for money. The utility we see in things gives value to those things. That value however, is a perception, not intrinsic to the thing perceived. This value as an idea and not reality carries into the ephemeral as well. We value relationships, beauty and the sublime… though they exist within our minds, and not the world. If beauty was a universal, then everyone everywhere, would find the same things beautiful. Empirically that’s not the case. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder…” as they say. Since beauty is a central notion of value, we value the beautiful, and beauty itself is subject to personal differences, then clearly, the value attached to that beauty changes as well. Table salt is NaCl, all salt, on Earth as well as on Pluto. Table salt can be reduced to its components, reconstituted, and remains the same. Unlike beauty, which is subject to preference, can’t be deconstructed, and changes over time. The value we place on beauty then is person dependent. The ancient Chinese sage, Mo Ti it’s said, hated music. Yet others value music above all else. Proving value, like beauty, is a perception and not reality. I don’t know if it’s true, that we don’t see things, we only see the utility of them… it sounds true enough but I suspect no human quality can be reduced so. Nevertheless, it’s a starting point to examine value as it relates to utility. Different people see money differently. Some see it as the be all end all, we call them misers, others see money as a means to an end, we call them entrepreneurs, then there are those who couldn’t care less about money, we call them spendthrifts. In each case the value given to money differs depending on the goals of the individual. Showing that even money, the thing so many of us believe is a “store of value,” is nothing of the sort. It’s a perception, we value in accordance with our ideas, mindsets and goals. There’s no intrinsic value in a piece of printed paper. Except as tinder. It’s often difficult to differentiate perception from reality. Our perceptions are so tied up in our reality. Moreover, who has time and energy to burn doing so? Especially when our perceptions have so much effect on our lives. We chase money, beauty and status for the value we perceive in them. Else are told is in them. So we see value as a tangible thing. Gold is a store of value because its rare. Yet if gold became in glut, the value would go away fast. Tulip bulbs were a store of value in Denmark back in the day. Until it was discovered that the beautiful lines and streaks weren’t from genetics, but from a virus. Then the value of tulip bulbs dropped wiping out the national economy. Bitcoin’s value is perceptional as well. In every case, value is a perception… and perceptions change. Most are too lazy to think for themselves so they let others do their thinking. Allowing someone else to determine what’s valuable. Then die unhappy and unfulfilled, after spending their lives chasing the things they’ve been told are valuable, and achieving them. Because they chased the value of others and not what they themselves valued. Perhaps we should use value as a measure of that which we should seek, instead of blindly grasping after that which we’re told to seek. Because value isn’t a universal nor is it reality. Don’t let others choose what you think is valuable. Choose for yourself. Assign value to what you want, not what your told by the experts you should want. Since value is only a perception, use value to get a good life, instead of letting value use you, striving after a bad one. Sincerely, John Pepin

At a time when the government is considering a further liberalisation of our already permissive abortion legislation, RTE Investigates this week aired a documentary on “the realities of Ireland’s current abortion services” which was far from being fair and impartial. In fact, we didn’t get to hear from a single pro-life advocate, and it did not tell us that some of the experts we did get to hear from are, in fact, long-time pro-choice advocates. All in all, a very bad day’s work. The documentary, which was aired on Monday night, included several ‘sting operations’, in an attempt to “expose” pro-life agencies that offer support to pregnant women. Three health professionals were introduced in neutral terms and were asked to comment on the advice those agencies were giving. One of them, Mark Murphy, portrayed in the documentary as merely a GP, actually served as the national spokesperson for Together for Yes, the organisation leading the campaign to repeal the 8th amendment during the 2018 referendum. We were not told this. Similarly, psychiatrist Veronica O’Keane featured in the documentary. She responded in shock to some of the advice being offered to pregnant women by the pro-life agencies, but she was a long-time critic of the 8th Amendment. Again, the innocent viewers at home were not informed of this, potentially leading them to perceive those doctors as impartial experts. Yet, the most egregious example involved Dr. Jonathan Lord, who was portrayed in the documentary solely as a “consultant gynaecologist.” In fact, Dr Lord is the Medical Director of MSI Reproductive Choices UK, one of the leading providers of abortion in the UK. This chain of abortion clinics has a history of failings that put women at risk, but we are not told about this either, which is interesting given that the programme was supposed to be partly an exposé of manipulatively emotional practices. In 2016, inspectors from the UK Care Quality Commission found numerous failings at MSI clinics, including staff “bulk signing” consent forms, limited clinical oversight, poorly trained staff, and at least one case in which a vulnerable woman was given a termination despite not understanding what was going on. A further inspection in 2017 found more failings. (You can read the official reports here: https://www.cqc.org.uk/provider/1-102643434/reports ) MSI were also accused of paying their staff performances bonuses for persuading women to have abortions. MSI Reproductive Choices UK used to be called "Marie Stopes UK" but in 2020 they removed the reference to Marie Stopes as she was a racist eugenicist who wanted the "hopelessly rotten and racial diseased" to be sterilised. Inviting a representative from the most fervently pro-abortion sector to offer insight on purported "rogue pro-life agencies" is akin to soliciting commentary on animal cruelty from the CEO of a slaughterhouse corporation. The programme also presented the stories of three women who went to England to have a termination. Their unborn children were diagnosed with some anomaly that would not qualify for abortion here in Ireland as they were expected to live more than 28 days after birth. We were not told what the anomalies were. What life expectancy did the children have? Was it weeks, months or years? Is RTE now effectively campaigning for abortion to take place in Ireland when a foetus is found to have an anomaly that might not result in death for years? Would that include Down Syndrome? We know from British figures that many of the Irish women who still travel to England for abortions (206 according to the last report), do so because their babies have conditions like Down Syndrome. Even though the documentary was about the operation of our abortion law, it signally failed to tell us how the number opting for abortion keeps on increasing, probably far past the point that the average person who voted Yes in 2018 expected. It looks like 10,000 abortions took place here last year. The undercover investigation of the counselling agencies didn’t even reveal very much. For example, one of the Gianna Care counsellors advised the RTE undercover reporter to read online about the possible bad emotional effects of abortion. But shouldn’t pro-choice agencies also do this? Two RTE journalists attended, on false pretenses, a spiritual retreat for women who regret their abortion. It would have been insightful to hear from those women. RTE failed to interview them, or to interview Bernadette Goulding, the organiser of those retreats, who herself regrets her past abortion and dedicates her life to supporting women who have undergone similar experiences. Furthermore, why would a documentary purportedly focused on “the realities of Ireland’s current abortion services” fail to even acknowledge, let alone interview, women who have undergone abortions after being incorrectly told that their baby had a fatal anomaly? The programme set out to review Ireland’s abortion law and services, but the lack of balance in it was so bad, it deserves a review of its own.

Carbon Credits Are A Con Posted on April 22, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, carbon credits are simply another way for the rich to steal from the poor. By creating an entirely arbitrary market, they can “create wealth” in the form of script, and sell it to dupes. Making real money. Then that swindle increases the cost to everyone for everything. Which, obviously, effects poor people far more than the rich, who are getting richer, selling carbon credits. What makes this scam so vile, is it pretends to be virtue, when it’s in fact vice. Even if anthropogenic climate change were real, which it isn’t, the carbon credit system would still be a game. That’s why I believe that the carbon credit swindle needs to be outlawed, the swindlers charged, tried and sent to prison. Anything less would encourage the elite to come up with other scams to pull on us. The world we live in has gone to the dogs, because there have been no consequences for criminal actions, by our elites. Moreover, they’ve exploited law as a means to injustice. Using law vindictively, egoistically and unjustly. The myriad of absurd charges against Trump are proof enough. Then there’s the fact, the more criminals are allowed to commit crimes, the worse those crimes will become. It’s human nature. Ask yourself, have any of the elite been punished for any crimes in the last few decades? What were the consequences for starting a decade long war based on lies? How about consequences for the Russian collusion hoax, that tied up our government for years, and cost this nation tens of millions? Who could forget the Covid pandemic, created by the elite, along with the vaccine that isn’t? The carbon credit swindle is just another in a long list of crimes by our elites. Crimes against humanity. Because, who can argue stealing from widows, the elderly and orphans… is noble? It’s malevolent. Raising the cost of everything breaks the backs of those barely making it. If the wealth the elite skim off the poor, with inflation generated by carbon credits, forces the working poor to choose between food and electricity, that’s the price the elite are willing for the poor to pay. With their bellies full of fillet mignon, pom du terre avec fromage, and chocolate souffle for dessert, they don’t feel any hunger pains from the shortages created by carbon credits. Lowering the lot of Man to make superfluous wealth… now that’s progressive! It’s a brilliant crime. You can tell people’s intentions by their actions. Our words being a poor determiner of intent. A liar will tell you what you want to hear all day. But their actions won’t match their rhetoric. Which always means they don’t believe their rhetoric. It’s manipulation. Let’s say for example, someone is in a panic about the planet warming, and extinguishing all life… due to CO2 in the atmosphere. Forget that historically CO2 in the air has been exponentially higher than today. So much so that if you went far enough back in time you would die of CO2 poisoning. Be that as it may, I would act in a way that accords with my stated fear. I wouldn’t buy a house one foot above high tide, nor would I fly a private jet to Paris for lunch, but I would lead by example… not from a luxury suite on my personal yacht. The climate change swindle always accompanies the over population scam. The two work hand in hand. Heavens to Betsy, the planet can’t take more people, let alone handle the teeming masses of third world nations, raising their standard of living! That’s why the jet set are morally obligated to hold the poor down. It’s for the planet. If a few billion die of want, then so be it, their deaths will result in less carbon output. How virtuous of the elite, who deny themselves nothing, yet deny others life itself. Nuclear power can’t be implemented, because, “split wood not atoms.” Of course, you can’t burn wood either, because it contributes to climate change. Gas stoves are out as well since they use fossil fuel. You’ll have to eat your bugs raw. Else you could tell everyone… Carbon credits are a swindle! Sincerely, John Pepin

Back MEDITATIONS II today Its! The! SUPER REQUEST SHOW! In which Meaningwave Enjoyers Superchat their requests to get their Meaningwave song of choice played! YOU HAVE THE POWER TO PROGRAM THE ULTIMATE MEANINGWAVE LIVE SET! GET AFTER IT! TRACKLISTING Akira The Don & Johnny Cash - RAGGED OLD FLAGAkira The Don - HARD WORK (Instrumental)Akira The Don ft. Paul Harvey - HARD WORKAkira The Don & Joseph Campbell - The IndividualAkira The Don & Danika XIX - THE WISE MAN AND THE FOOLAkira The Don ft. Kamal Ravikant - I Vow To Love MyselfAkira The Don, Marcus Aurelius - BETTER THAN JUSTICEAkira The Don & Danika XIX - LITANY AGAINST FEARAkira The Don & Jocko Willink - ALL YOUR EXCUSES ARE LIESKanye West - Use This Gospel (feat. Clipse & Kenny G)Akira The Don ft. John Vervake - Steal The CultureAkira The Don, Marcus Aurelius - YOUR ABILITYAkira The Don & Jordan Peterson - DostoevskyAkira The Don & Seneca - THAT WHICH IS NOT TO THE PURPOSEAkira The Don & Jordan Peterson - The Wave (Night Driving Edit)Akira The Don & Jordan Peterson - AIM (Live In The Day)Akira The Don & Alan Watts - From a Certain Point Of ViewAkira The Don & Comic Book Girl 19 - One Step Beyond LogicAkira The Don - I AM I THINK I WILLAkira The Don & Jocko Willink - IFAkira The Don, Marcus Aurelius - BODY SOUL MINDAkira The Don & Jordan Peterson - Trapping With My DadAkira The Don & Joseph Campbell - The First Function Of MYTHOLOGY You can also listen to our streams as audio on your podcast feed of choice. STREAM HERE ‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

I was on facebook and saw a quote attributed to Bruce Lee saying you should express your anger. It made me think a bit and I decided to jot some notes. It turned into this, basically an essay. I thought it was maybe worth sharing. I didn’t edit it very much, mostly changed some of my own shorthand and added breaks in the text for readability. I feel with anger the first thing is to analyze and feel it, understand where it is coming from and why. Next one should decide it's worth, make a conclusion. If it is not worth acting on, acknowledge it's validity as a messenger and as your sensitivity and calibrate and let it go. If it is worth it, decide how to act and take action in a way where you reach a resolution and allow the motivation it gives you to fuel and energize you... Don't bottle anger and suppress it. Don't ignore it. Acknowledge it and evaluate it. Raise your awareness of it so you may let go of the things nagging the edges of your vision. If you ruminate on it without resolving it or dismissing it, you only grow anger into rage. You become irrational and destructive. If you tell yourself anger is wrong entirely and immoral, you judge yourself every instance you make a strong and emotionally felt judgment and this is an irony and a self fulfilling circular logic or lack of awareness. It's not about just automatically letting go of anger as it's felt regardless of why. It's not about rejecting anger as a bad emotion devoid of value. It is understanding why it exists and utilizing it well. You don't automatically stoke a fire through addressing anger rather than dismissing it yet if you address the offending issue angering you with more offending anger it doesn't just let it go and it does fan the fire. It's more like you recognize why it is there and decide to send the signal to a higher level than a state of raw reactionary anger… you meditate. Ultimately on the one hand you want them to understand how you feel, how their actions affected you on a gut level, subconsciously and yet also you do not want to lower yourself to the level of someone who did wrong unless it is needed for self defense. Ultimately you do want to extinguish the anger somewhat as venting is more like adding fuel rather than resolution. It gives you something to do and expends energy but releasing energy also stimulates more energy unless the act of releasing it also has a mechanism for defusing. Defusing is done through understanding and resolution. If a retaliation is done to what caused the angry reaction rather than on just anyone or anywhere it does achieve a sense of justice likely derived from the gut reaction to share the wrong back to show what it feels like rather than a true desire to hurt who harmed, though maliciousness is done as well. If you teach a martial arts student to use anger they will have bad self control and self awareness, it makes them go over the actions of aggression for its own sake like a drug. Venting does anger like an exercise. It drills it and encourages it. If you teach them to judge it or fear it they will run away and not deal with issues. Either way it is reactionary. I'm not sure if distracting is valid. If you've evaluated and dismissed rather than distracting I'd say it's moving forward whereas distracting might cause more rage to build on the edges or subconsciously. It seems it is wrong to teach a student to imagine someone they dislike or use anger as a tool for motivation unless it is a just and righteous self defense or defense of others and yet what about the motivation to defend others or yourself rather than the motivation to destroy the one who offends you? I think of stuff like DBZ, Dragonball Z where they fight monsters essentially and the idea of righteous anger but also it seems like an inflammation and disease somewhat yet also inflammation makes things heal and rebuild muscles. It teaches being reactionary as well if it's done wrong. You should sort of not want to harm others even if they harm you. A sense of justice and self affirmation seems natural when you do but it is often overdone. Why shouldn't motivation serve as motivation rather than anger or rather a sense of duty or urgency to take action when it is vital. You should get motivated to take action because you want to do the right action and anger is just one signal and emotion, there is a full array to evaluate. If you have a strong ability to analyze quickly and a strong awareness then it gives less rise to anger and you seek resolution more readily. Often anger is more distracting than motivating if it stays after the initial signal though it sometimes becomes a detached sense of "something's off" so you don't automatically assume you were wronged. Even if you were wronged you seem to try to understand why until it is outside of your ability to do anything and it still harms you, making you feel weak maybe but also strengthening your resolve. It is your decision what method to use and the way you see it when you deal with stressors and you don’t know where the end is. If you are agitated and angry and seeking resolution… still it's best to accept the situation and seek resolution and accepting doesn't mean agreeing it means seeing what is and then deciding what is the next move and seeing what is makes the next move wise. On some level it starts to feel like you do want to teach yourself through reiteration to strike back and this is a reflection of the struggle of existence yet you want to do it wisely. Distracting yourself or ruminating makes it worse. Ruminating fuels and distracting ignores. If you sit with it and do nothing until you decide why it's there and what you should d, it effectively uses the emotion for a resolution and sees it for what it is. It is a blockage, it is a sense of wrong. Deal with it effectively and you are more aware of what is right and you get strong. It's like saying any emotion is a drive, sure yes, why? Anger is not aggression, anger nor aggression are violence. It's about enthusiasm rather than overreaction it's about tuned with the moment and high energy and motivation but not based on either fear or anger and yet also utilizing these as messengers.

It seems that "wokism", a sort of modern incarnation of the concept of "political correctness", is running rampant throughout Western cultures. Russia and China have used this phenomenon to mock Western freemarket democratic systems and their attendant freedoms. Russia and China use wokism as an example of the catastrophic bankruptcy and corruption of the West.The effects of wokism are everywhere. These wokist consequences are obvious if one observes carefully and knows what to pay attention to. For example, consider:(1) The ESG movement in corporate governance(2) The seemingly frantic need for multibillion dollar multinationals to insult their customers they depend on for their revenue and their very existence. This is also true for nonprofits, like PBS and NPR, who cannot seem to resist the tendency to vilify, reject and offend the majority of their audiences. It is also true of the US military, which has gone out of its way to disparage and annoy many potential recruits, and now is having massive problems with recruiting and retention.(3) The drastic decline in rationality in the West, and a love affair of sorts with nonsense that is clearly false. Mathematics and empirical science are currently under massive attack by the "woke". According to wokists, evidence-based science is supposed to be replaced because it is "racist" or something. Data is unfair. Reason and rationality are unfair. Correct answers and grades are unfair. Degrees are unfair. Standards are unfair. Merit-based choices are unfair. Competency is unfair. And so on and so forth.(4) The re-emergence of a segregation movement in the US.(5) Classifying Martin Luther King Jr. as a pariah in some quarters, and branding MLK Jr. as a "colorblind racist" because King was in favor of equality, not equity. Equity is the opposite of equality, and requires open discrimination.(6) The championing of "anti-racism", which is really just racism in a different form.(7) A movement pushing for child sexual abuse, and the normalization and destigmatization of pedophilia, completely contrary to Western norms and precepts and laws and even common decency.(8) A war on grammar and language usage to accommodate some fringe minorities.(9) Efforts that effectively seek to remove females from the public square, including women's sports and all other venues. This is the signature of "Fourth Wave Feminism" which apparently has the goal for women to all be replaced by men pretending to be women, in the name of "fairness".(10) A movement to attack "cultural melting pots" because they are associated with the cardinal sin in wokeness of "cultural appropriation".(11) Demands to ban competency and merit in favor of selection based on proportional representation of an ever-increasing number of "identities". Except for white males, who are supposed to basically disappear, unwanted, unneeded and unwelcome according to the woke.(12) People who judge each other's virtue based on the number of "intersectional identities" they can be associated with.(13) Virtue signaling writ large.(14) Threats and intimidation, even up to and including legal penalties for not going along with these trends and demands.(15) Destruction of education at all levels, and an attendant drop in standards.(16) Replacement of productive elements in educational institutions by an ever-growing number of bureaucrats who serve absolutely no productive function. These bureaucrats are effectively leeches, and often impede whatever the mission of the institution was or is.(17) Vilification of people based on their skin color or their ancestry. This is like a sin that cannot be atoned for, and a stain that can never be erased, from birth through death and beyond.(18) The widespread sentiments and fervent convictions that life on earth is soon coming to an end. In addition, the related beliefs that most if not all humans have to be eliminated so that the earth can return to a "pristine state", or that humans must return to being hunter-gatherers living in caves (their conditions prior to the introduction of agriculture) are very appealing to many and associated with wokist beliefs.[1](19) A developing hatred for history and the lessons of history. The public, under the spell of wokism, is desperate to sanitize what came before and pretend it did not happen.(20) A frantic and deep-seated desire to engage in imperialist and colonialist practices to force others around the world to adopt these same principles and mindsets.(21) Antisemitism is almost irrevocably connected to wokism.(22) Demands that no individual have the rights of self defense or free speech, or even of independent thought and opinion. (23) The desire to conceal the existence of wokism and associated beliefs by claiming they do not exist, all evidence to the contrary. This includes things like the deployment and appearance of woke Antifa progressive shock troops, BLM, Critical Race Theory (CRT) and other critical theories and a host of other belief systems. After a while, this takes on the appearance of an example of a massive "gas-lighting" operation. Some even claim that these movements were not generated by the progressive political elements that gave birth to them, but by conservatives in some shameful disgraceful dishonest attempt to gain some advantage and to attack progressives based on these supposedly nonexistent movements and belief systems.(24) Pushing for medical "affirming care" for people with gender dysphoria. This verges on the criminal and is at least unethical. There are no studies demonstrating any long term psychological benefits from this sort of intervention. But there are plenty of other negative consequences, not the least of which are massive costs. (25) Relaxation of penalties for criminal behavior, repeat criminal offenses, excuses for criminal behavior by certain ethnic groups, lack of interest in personal accountability, a two tier or multi-tier justice system that metes out different punishments based on which tier the individual is associated with, etc. This all contributes to a breakdown of the rule of law and the traditional common law justice system, where everyone was supposedly equal before the law. (26) A frantic effort to admit millions of illegal aliens into the United States. Why would they be interested in doing this? It undercuts the very lower classes that they claim to favor. If one looks in more detail, one finds the answer. All illegal aliens are welcome except for Cubans and Venezuelans and Eastern Europeans; in other words, people likely to vote for Republicans. This is purely an effort to steal elections "by any means necessary". It has nothing to do with being nice or taking care of the disadvantaged. Instead, it is all about money and power.Wokism is taking on all the characteristics of some kind of new religion focused on "social justice" and vacuous posturing. While it is admirable to value human rights and fairness, somehow wokeness has departed from what might have been these original intentions and aims. This movement has been debauched, and it appears to be picking up steam as it evolves. Hopefully the social contagion (some might characterize it as a "mass psychosis") of wokism can be stopped, but it is not particularly apparent how this might occur, at least not yet anyway.So what is the appeal of wokism? How did it reach this point?Most will recognize that wokism originated in academia, and has now been spreading like wildfire throughout society. Wokism has been festering away mostly unseen and ignored and effectively invisible for a few decades, if not longer, and now has burst into the open. Wokism is far more prevalent in humanities departments in academia. It has almost completely taken over these portions of academia, at least in North America. And it is now making serious inroads in STEM areas as well. Wokism long ago took over University administration and governance. And it is replacing other types of thought in Law Schools and Medical Schools and even Business Schools.So what is the allure? My conjecture is that the appeal of wokism is basically founded on some realization of weaponized envy. STEM fields have gained an incredible prominence in modern society in the last few decades, if not the last few centuries, since at least the Scientific Revolution, followed by the Industrial Revolution. STEM has changed life drastically through the introduction of innovative technology and new ideas. Hardly a day or a week passes without some new stunning revelation from practitioners in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. People in the humanities have long resented this. STEM gets all the money, and the gifted students and all the attention, it would seem. But what about the humanities? Well, they feel neglected. Where I was an undergraduate, the people studying the humanities were usually referred to as "Artsy Fartsies". Everyone "knew" that these people would spend the rest of their lives pouring coffee and cleaning toilets. That is all they were qualified for, effectively. This did not sit well with humanities scholars, and they have been more than a little annoyed with this state of affairs for a long, long time.[3]I believe that what wokism represents, for people who are not technical, is some magical belief system where they can "come out on top".[4] They feel this is their rightful position. They are entitled to this prominence, according to them. They should be making all the decisions for everyone else in society. And they should have all the money and the power as well. Numerous laws have been passed by wokists making it effectively illegal to disagree with them. And they pollute the minds of the young by instructing them at an early age in wokism.Wokism is full of crazy statements and beliefs, not that different from "all women have a penis" and "all biological males can give birth". And adhering to this nonsense is sort of like a litmus test, demonstrating that the person making these assertions is somehow "worthy". Making these kinds of claims is a kind of "shibboleth" or code-word. This is how wokists can recognize each other, and determine who can "get into the club".So wokism is a tremendous weapon for the humanities scholars, who feel neglected and who feel they have no power. With Wokism, they now can demand and receive plenty of power. They can "lord it over" the STEM practitioners, destroying many STEM careers in the process. And now, it has started to spread like wildfire outside of academia, which gave birth to it, to the rest of Western Society, and is a direct attack on Western Culture.People ignore this phenomenon at their peril.[9]Notes-------[1] The Malthusian idea that we have to reduce world population by a factor of 10 or 20 very, very soon is quite appealing to these wokists. If they just allowed the natural course of events to take place, the world population would fall - of its own accord, really. With lower infant mortality rates and more educated women, particularly women in the work force, women do not want to have 10 or 15 kids each (a situation that used to exist even in North America just a century ago or so). Once fewer people have fewer children, the population will plummet. Completely naturally. In just decades.[2]But, this is too slow for the wokists, apparently. And they have frequently alluded to this in speeches and in their writings. [2] As examples of this "population shrinkage" principle, in the next few decades, if things continue on their current path, Israel will have a greater population than Germany, and Nigeria will have a larger population than China. [3] When it was widely and publicly announced that I had won numerous academic prizes and awards at the end of my high school studies, one of my neighbors contacted my father, an engineer. This neighbor was a proud intellectual, but heavily steeped in humanities traditions. This neighbor was horrified to hear from my father that I would not be pursuing studies in the humanities at University, but technical fields instead. The neighbor was incensed and offended to a maximal degree. [4] It is common for modern physicists to look at Sir Isaac Newton's career and bemoan the fact that so much of Newton's life seemed to be devoted to projects that modern physicists deem a waste of his time and talents.[5] Most of the reasons Newton is famous now are because of his contributions in gravity and motion and the calculus and in optics. Newton did most of his work in these areas in 2 or 3 years when the Universities were closed because of The Plague.In the 1980s, I met some professional philosophers who were faculty at major universities. And we eventually somehow got onto the topic of Sir Isaac Newton. The philosophers regarded Newton as a tremendous scholar in philosophy. The philosophy professors only had one issue with Newton. They felt Newton had wasted his time and talent studying worthless garbage like the calculus and gravity and motion. To them, this crap was all bullshit that only fucking morons cared about. These philosophers opined mournfully that if ONLY Newton had devoted himself purely to philosophy, he might have made something of himself.[6][5] Newton was very successful in his job at the Royal Mint. [8] And Newton also explored alchemy, in an attempt to find new scientific truths or principles buried in the alchemical texts. In addition, Newton studied the bible extensively and investigated various chronologies based on the bible.[6] There were similar comments made by Albert Einstein's supervisor at the patent office when Albert resigned to be a theoretical physics professor at Zurich University.[7] The supervisor could not understand why Einstein would waste his time on such monotonous worthless horseshit. If Einstein would just apply himself to his patent work, Einstein might eventually get promoted and really make something of himself as a patent examiner. The supervisor could not understand the "dumb" choices that Einstein seemed to be making. [7] Einstein was hired by the Swiss Patent Office as a patent clerk, third class. Einstein referred to the patent applications he read as “inconsequential babble”.[8] Apparently Sir Isaac Newton in his role at the Royal Mint was extremely innovative and clever at tracking down criminals. And this supposedly was the motivation or inspiration for Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's character, Sherlock Holmes. Along those lines, here is a link to the first episode in a podcast series about Newton's adventures at the mint, that I really enjoyed:Newton's LawEpisode 1: The Warden and the Con Manhttps://omny.fm/shows/newtons-law/episode-1-the-warden-and-the-con-manWhen Isaac Newton leaves his career as a renowned scientist to become the Warden of Royal Mint, he thinks it's going to be an easy gig. But with an economy teetering on the brink of collapse, and a entrepreneurial con man looking to win at all costs, the world's smartest man may be in over his head.[9] Numerous friends and colleagues have insisted repeatedly that wokism is just a fad, that it should be ignored, that no one should waste any time worrying about it. I beg to disagree. I am acutely aware that various movements throughout history have sought to destroy the STEM enterprise. This includes Islam after the influence of Al Ghazali's book "Incoherence of the Philosophers" and the Chinese Cultural Revolution and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and the German Nazi Regime and the Catholic Inquisition and many other similar campaigns. If we do not oppose these forces for chaos and ignorance, they will triumph. There is no doubt in my mind of this whatsoever. And the Enlightenment and its fruits will be no more.

Tomorrow at 8:30 a.m. Eastern time, the financial world will be on high alert as the Bureau of Economic Analysis unveils its first estimate of Q1 GDP. This figure holds immense significance, providing the most crucial snapshot of the economy’s macro status. Despite the possibility of revisions, this initial estimate offers Wall Street the most comprehensive view of the economy. Investors and speculators have already taken their positions, with the bond market leading. The reason is apparent: Street will use this GDP reading to speculate on the Federal Reserve’s next move. A slowdown in GDP could prompt the Fed to ease its tight money policy. Conversely, robust GDP growth could signal the Fed’s decision to maintain or even raise interest rates, a scenario that Wall Street is not keen on. GDP (green, left scale) 10 Year US Treasury at constant yield (Blue, right scale) So, we were presented with an irony: While the Street would like a moderately strong economy and especially strong earnings, it doesn’t want GDP so strong that the Fed continues to stand pat with its high (from the Street’s perspective) interest rate policy. GDP has been notoriously difficult to predict over the past year. In 2023, the economy experienced a very tepid 2.1% growth in Q2, followed by a very strong 4.9% growth in Q3. GDP finished the year in 2023 with a solid 3.4% growth, so that’s the comparison for tomorrow’s reading (3.4%). Unfortunately, almost no one believes that the economy is still growing at that rate. Virtually all analysts see the economy slowing; the average estimate is a 2.5% GDP growth rate. GDP Now, the rolling estimate of GDP by the Atlanta Fed, also sees a slowing economy, with its estimate at 2.9%. I’m hard-pressed to find anyone who sees the economy getting more robust. Yet, it is not likely that the Fed will change its stance on interest rates; at least, that is how the bond market sees it. For the last couple of weeks, bond yields have been rising, partly because bonds see the Fed standing pat and partly as a reaction to that brief rally a few weeks ago anticipating a Fed rate cut. Tune in tomorrow, an hour before markets in New York open, to see the most important data point of the quarter and an indication of the Fed’s future direction in interest rates. Follow me here on ThinkSpot for more stories from the ValueSide.

A Free Ride Posted on April 24, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, the elite have made the US and Europe a wagon, for migrants to hop on for a free ride. While us citizens are yoked to the contraption. The elite are guilty of this crime. An elite who went to great trouble, enabling it with legislation, encouraging non citizens to collect the dole. That non citizens can vote in many localities, for the faction that enabled them, is a bonus. Moreover, if casting a ballot is illegal, they can mail in their vote, no id, no signature match… no problem. Some may argue the cost in inflation is an issue. Not for the people who get the money first, Before it inflates the value of our money away. What is a bored MS13 gang member to do with their time? Crochet? Probably not. I’m sure most have more exciting ideas. It might be fun for them to drag their feet… The cost is no problem to the elite, who merely print up the money on a computer, and use it to pay for the non citizen’s welfare, social security, WIC, aid to needy families, home heat assistance, medicaid, free Obama phones, a pile of cash simply for getting here, and a free plane ticket to anywhere in the US they want to go mooch. Inflation steals the money from the citizenry without needing to put a gun to our heads. The theft is subtle and disguised, so the elite can claim, it’s “those greedy stores…” Like Eggbert’s grocer is getting rich selling potatoes for 50 cents a pound. Especially when the elite print up 60 billion, and flush it down the toilet in a foreign war… instead of using a penny of it to shore up our borders. Because that would cut off the supply of valuable freeloaders. The crime the elite expected is already paying dividends. In Australia, stabbings by members of the religion of pieces is skyrocketing. Following the trajectory of terrorism in Britain and Europe. Soon Europe, Australia and the US, will become the new Nagorno Karabackh. Crime, especially random stabbings, cause people to be uncomfortable. They’re a pain in the stomach. That discomfort leads to demands for more laws. But as Cicero said, “The more laws the less justice.” Which is obviously the goal of the elite. To create so many laws justice drowns in them. Mass shootings by illegal alien trans people is on the rise. That’s new. Even as whole sections of our cities are being abandoned because of rampant retail theft. Despite the demand from customers. There were a couple back in the nineteen sixties that came up with a plan to destroy the US. Making way for a communist takeover. They were Richard Cloward and Francis Piven. Their brainchild was to bankrupt the US by overwhelming it’s social safety net. Put so many people on the dole, the net snaps, and the US is bankrupted. Then the dollar is ruined, the people lose their jobs, resulting in general poverty, and chaos… then the Constitution becomes mere prose on friable paper. Paper the elite will be only too happy to set fire. To warm their egos by. A person who uses her right brain now and then, might look around and notice the parallels. Another, focused on his task, heedless of the outside world, a left brainer, won’t even notice. Our lack of contact with reality blinds us. The beauty of bringing in millions of people who despise us and our culture, is that they won’t simply ride in the wagon… they’ll drag their feet. What’s a bored migrant to do but pass the time engaging in crime? It’s exciting, rewarding, and with Soros prosecutors, no risk. Every illegal who works also gets welfare, wic, etc… which means, the citizen who competes with an alien for a job, has to make enough to pay his or her whole ride, and help pull too. While the person they’re competing against only needs mad money. Even as the wheels threaten to come off under the weight of the millions of new welfare recipients. Inflation is no problem to someone on welfare, the dole is tied to inflation. It’s the working stiff who gets it, and we get it alright, we get it good. It’s almost like the elite want to destroy America. Sincerely, John Pepin

Michael Knowles DEBATES Pearl Davis | "Men Should Bow Out" (youtube.com) Pearl says only 5% of women are worthwhile considering the risk, and her criteria is 'fatness, tattoos, non-traditional women', etc. I suppose that she may be taking into account the 1/3 or 1/4 of women who have had abortion as well. That could be a bottom line, for sure. What point is marriage, if there is no inherent respect for the child? 60% of marriage-age women who support abortion as a number one issue.Objectively, that could serve as a bottom line for a man to decide. It is useful for winnowing .Tattoos or blue hair one the other hand does not make a woman a eunuch. So far, Knowles is talking about traditional parishes as a counter argument. But what is that, 0.5percenters? She seems to be cleaning with the floor with him so far... His response is men suck too... He goes on to one "ought" to do. Ought one to marry someone is unmarriagable? So, if the point of marriage is to have children, or in Catholic terms, procreative and unitive, what is the percentage of women who are like that. On a similar question, the Seinfeld crew came up with, what, 15 percent even fuckable? When it comes to Pearl's criteria of fat, she is using the Seinfeld standard- the porno cam girl standard- as her criteria. Personally, my retirement plan is seeing women as tens all the way down, as far as hot potential goes, and as far as marriage potential, fat girls are capable of having babies just as easy as scrawny ones. Blue hair, tattoos, passionate is better whatever the costume, but that is not the criteria for marriage. The criteria for marriage, I think, is whether or not the girl has a passion to fill the world with your kids. The criteria for marriage is a desire that wells up in a woman to be a mother. What percentage of women, of marriagable age, want to be like that. That is what makes a woman marriagable. Anything less in the current political and social and legal environment, and it may well not be worth it for men, anything different, anything less To get pulled into the victim game of men or women's rights or men's rights, who suffers more, misses the point. But for a man to understand if a woman loves children like that, he must love them like that himself. Fathers values start well before marriage. It is not a percentage game in the end. It is a matter of knowing what to look for. And it is a matter of want, desire as deep as Abraham, wanting to fill the universe with out children. What percentage of women have that desire any more? But in terms of Abraham, all it took was one. Anything other is too two much. All any man needs is one. Oh, and of course happy wife happy life. we are joined together at the hearts. It is the nature of the species. But that is beside the point. It is not a question of happy. It is a question of a want deeper than just being happy. In a world of billions, all's it takes is one.

Join us on Twitter with Stephen Blackwood and others at 4:30 PM EST on Tuesday, April 30th. In light of the recent events occurring at higher education institutions across the US, thinkspot will be hosting a Twitter Space with our guest Stephen Blackwood (thinkspot contributor and founder of Ralston College) to discuss Ralston’s role and significance in the increasingly turbulent and contentious higher education landscape. We will explore questions regarding the purpose(s) of graduate education and its relevance in today's society. Ralston College, a revival and reinvention of the traditional university located in Savannah, Georgia, is currently accepting admissions for its third cohort of students (2024–25) in the MA in Humanities program. The program begins with immersive instruction in Ancient and Modern Greek in Greece and then delves into the major works of literature, philosophy, art, and music in the Western tradition, spanning the Roman, medieval, and modern eras. Full scholarships are available for the strongest candidates who apply by April 30th. For more details, click here.

They are treated like animals. Life in jail is appalling. It is awful in ways that most people could never imagine.” This is an experienced criminal lawyer talking about the men, the increasing proportion of our prison population, who find themselves imprisoned without a trial. On remand and locked up in vile conditions with violent, dangerous people. They are being locked up because of changes to our bail legislation which are resulting in more and more men being refused bail – shut away for months, sometimes even years before their cases are determined. Yet as I write this our media is inflamed, demanding fewer men should be let out on bail. This is the result of the death of a young NSW mum, Molly Ticehurst, apparently at the hands of her ex-partner who was out on bail facing various domestic and sexual violence allegations. “This has to stop” – demanded the Daily Telegraph, calling for changes to the state’s “failing bail laws.” During an interview with the Shadow NSW Police Minister Paul Toole, Chris Kenny on Sky News was quick to blame the magistrate for allowing bail to the alleged offender. Toole called for a complete overhaul of bail laws to ensure that even fewer accused men are given bail. The NSW government has already caved in and announced a review. Every time a crime is committed by someone on bail, we see similar demands for tightening of the laws to ensure that everyone accused of any serious crime, particularly domestic violence, is safely locked away – even before there is any attempt to examine the evidence supporting the accusation at trial. It’s easy to see why public sentiment is behind the demand to do more to protect vulnerable women in these circumstances. But the price we pay for knee-jerk responses to a very complex issue is that thousands of, both legally and factually innocent, men are locked up in jails across the country. It is very easy to argue that there will never be an offence committed by a person on bail if nobody is ever granted bail. But the true cost of such a position needs to be understood. Sure, we can reduce the risk of offending by removing bail as an option. And we can increase the likelihood of convictions by implementing a reverse onus in what we perceive to be ‘problem’ areas of crime. In fact, we can absolutely ensure that all persons suspected of committing a crime are summarily convicted, just by removing the right to a trial. But do we want to live in such a place? Right now, across this country more than a third of men in Australian prisons haven’t had their case determined by a court. In national trends, the number of unsentenced people in custody almost doubled, reaching 16,000 in the past decade. The proportion continues to go up – with a 15.5% increase in the last five years. In NSW, 42% of prisoners are now on remand – which means that they are legally innocent. Yet they are behind bars. “They are presumed to be innocent and a lot of these offences are not offences where, if they were convicted, they would necessarily go to jail,” comments Lorana Bartels, a professor of criminology at ANU, a feminist who mainly advocates on behalf of female and indigenous prisoners. Her focus is ironic given that most of the recent astonishing increase in presumed innocent people being locked up is due to what we might call “feminist offences” - offences allegedly committed mainly by males which the women’s lobby has worked hard to ensure are punished severely. That means, ideally, putting the alleged perpetrator behind bars. This feminist campaign has been a great success with a record number of prisoners on remand. In NSW, the overall remand prisoner population has increased by 74% in last 10 years and is now 92% male. Naturally our biased media plays down the fact that mainly men are being impacted. The Sydney Morning Herald falsely claims that the changes which resulted in this increase “disproportionately affect Indigenous Australians, the homeless and women.” Yet the crimes the feminists have targeted - sexual assault, domestic violence, intimidation/stalking and the like – make up 98 per cent of the increase in remand prisoners in the last 4 years, according to data provided to us by BOSCAR. Domestic violence and sexual assault account for 83% of the increase. Of course, there are shocking cases of women on remand - like Maree Mavis Crabtree, the Queensland woman who was recently released after six years behind bars. Bail had been refused after she was accused of killing her son with a poisoned fruit smoothie. But these cases are rare compared to the huge number of men finding themselves in this situation. For instance, we never hear about the men now routinely imprisoned without a trial after accusations of domestic violence. For every two men in prison who have been convicted of domestic violence, there are three who have been charged but not tried. As we know, no actual evidence is required to make a domestic violence accusation and have a man charged. A mere allegation by an angry ex-spouse is often sufficient to have her partner given an apprehended violence order and then, by setting up a few breaches of that order, put into jail. The same applies to sexual assault, as we have seen from five judges’ comments in NSW which led to the audit of current rape cases. Two years ago, I wrote about a man – I called him “Peter” - who achieved a substantial malicious prosecution payout from NSW police and prosecutors after he was arrested at the airport and taken straight to prison on the basis of his ex-wife’s false rape allegation – an allegation eventually disproved when he produced video evidence of her very obviously enjoying shagging him. I’ve seen that amazing video and described her “sitting on top of him, bouncing cheerfully.” Peter spent a terrifying month in prison on remand, surrounded by frightening men: “You are permanently on edge.” He was initially put into a cell where the toilet was full of vomit, overflowing onto the floor. Even when moved to better accommodation he learnt to stand in the filthy shower on the plastic plate used for his meals. Hideous food, sadistic guards. He lost 15 kilos in the month he was imprisoned. Another lawyer explains how the humiliations for these men pile up: “For low level offences, the police should issue notices to attend court but instead they are arresting men wherever they can find them, i.e. at home or at work. Handcuffing them and transporting them to police stations where they can then be questioned for many hours before charging them. This is all done in the traumatic cell environment where they will be ultimately searched and fingerprinted and formally charged.” “Depending on the time of the day they will then be sent to a remand facility. These facilities are horrendous, with full strip searches, three men to large concrete cells, free standing toilets in full view, 24-hour lights on, thinnest mattresses on concrete slabs, atrocious food and no entertainment of any sort.” The cells were like “hosed-out dog kennels”, an ex-remand prisoner told me, describing the damp, freezing cells. Last December I spent hour after hour trying to get through to Parklea private prison, trying to confirm they had a Chinese PhD student locked up there – I wrote about his story here. The phone was simply never answered, there was no response to the online system for trying to contact prisoners. “That’s par for the course,” his criminal lawyer told me. “These places have no interest in facilitating contact for prisoners with friends or family. Contact with the outside is heavily restricted, calls are absurdly expensive. Inmates are routinely moved to locations hundreds of kilometres from their families – and from legal support.” Imprisoned men simply disappear into the system, and it can be a mighty task even for their lawyers to find out where they are. And they are certainly not safe. “People in jail live in the midst of violence. People are arbitrarily attacked and often severely injured,” the criminal lawyer explained. There’s a young Sydney man who certainly can vouch for that. The 22-year-old had been in a sexual relationship with an older (27), very sexually experienced woman who had a porn business, and persuaded him to appear with her in porno videos. When they fell out, she accused him of rape and choking her, and trying to suffocate their baby. The appeal case was handled by the high-profile criminal barrister Peter Lavac, and ultimately thrown out. “Her lies were exposed after 55 minutes of cross-examination,” Lavac explained. When she refused to come back and resume cross examination, the crown was forced to withdraw all ten charges. But this guy had initially been represented by legal aid, had his bail refused and spent 18 months in prison on remand. During that time, he was savagely beaten, and gang raped several times. The strangulation allegation would have guaranteed he had no hope of bail. A Queensland police officer explained that in that state the criminal code was recently amended to include a specific offence of strangulation. “Once this was law, the rate of women reporting strangulation increased dramatically. This is a strong ground for police to oppose or object to bail. What I saw was the courts immediately started to remand men if charged with strangulation as part of a dv. Women’s groups soon learned that to get a man locked up was as simple as mentioning strangulation. Most police even ask if it occurred to avoid missing it.” A similar pattern has emerged in other states. Then there’s the other feminist favourite, stalking – 57% of those imprisoned for intimidation or stalking are merely accused, not convicted. Think about that – most people jailed for stalking are there solely based only on an accusation. They haven’t even received a trial. Our state governments had better start building more prisons fast given the expected tsunami of men likely to be charged with the new criminal offence of coercive control, due in the next year or so. That one is a dead certanity for denial of bail, given how hard the feminists have worked to claim coercive control is linked to domestic homicide – no matter how strong the evidence showing that is not the case – see here. So, what was it that triggered this big shift towards locking people up without a trial? Following demands from the media similar to those occurring today, bail laws were reformed in 2013 and 2021 so that the presumption of bail was revoked for some offences, requiring that courts assess bail risk and a “show cause” test that puts the onus on people charged with the most serious offences to justify why they should be given bail. Only sexual offences involving minors are on the current list but the default position is already refusal of bail for most sexual assault offences. Now the push is now on for all sexual assault offences to be included in the “show cause” list, including allegations involving lack of consent. Can you imagine the consequences if all young men being accused of such crimes were immediately locked up without a trial? When it comes to domestic violence, the reality is that in the current culture most magistrates will err on the side of caution - “in case something happens”. They will rarely give bail if they perceive that there is any risk of violence. Even with less serious offences involving domestic violence breaches, risk-averse magistrates are (understandably) readily convinced to take the easy way out. The consequence of these changes to bail laws is that the rate of bail refusals has increased by 47.3% over last 9 years according to BOCSAR. This means more and more remand prisoners even though crime rates have been on a dramatic decline. NSW Greens MLC David Shoebridge commented that this change “undermines the presumption of innocence for every citizen in NSW, and is an attack on this fundamental principle in our criminal justice system.” In 2019 an ACT man, Atem Deng had a family violence order placed on him for damaging some property. On 30 August 2019, Deng was convicted, fined and “all related charges were finalised”. Nevertheless, in October he was arrested for being at the home he and his partner had shared, despite the fact he had not had contact with his ex. Bail was refused and he was held on remand for 58 days. The experience was horrendous, including a full-body cavity search, and having his life threatened by a cell-mate. The ACT Supreme Court found that there was no basis for the charge against him because there was no order preventing him from being there. Yet when Deng sought damages for false imprisonment, the Court of Appeal dismissed the claim, saying that locking up people who were not guilty was “not uncommon.” The absolutely gobsmacking conclusion from the three court of Appeal judges was that locking up this innocent guy was “the system working, not failing.” The writing is on the wall, and it is very, very scary.

The United Nations Peacekeeping forces operate throughout the entire world. Forces are only deployed when both of the main parties in the conflict give consent to the UN. At this time, there are currently 11 UN peacekeeping missions going on throughout Earth. Let's take a quick glimpse at all eleven missions. One - Western Sahara - The people of Western Sahara have been fighting for independence from Morocco since 1991. Two - Golan Heights - The mountainous range between Israel and Syria has been in contention since 1974. Three - Abyei, Sudan - Although the civil war in Sudan has been going on for one year, UN peacekeepers have been in Sudan due to conflicts between the north and the south of the country since 2011. Four - Kashmir - India and Pakistan have been in conflict over Kashmir since 1949. Peacekeepers have been there for 75 years straight with no end in sight. Five - Central Africa Republic (CAR) - A civil war between Muslims and Christians have been ongoing since 2014. Six - Cyprus - The only reason that Cyprus is a tourist destination is because peacekeepers have been there since 1964 so that the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots will not fight against each other. Seven - Kosovo - Kosovo has been fighting for independence from Serbia since 1999. Eight - Middle East - The longest UN peacekeeping mission is still active in the Middle East since 1948. Nine - Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) - Tribal conflicts and Muslim rebels have kept peacekeepers in the DRC since 2010. Ten - Lebanon - Peacekeepers have been in Lebanon in 1978 due to their conflict with Israel. The conflict has reached a boiling point between Israel and Hezbollah. Eleven - South Sudan - UN peacekeepers protect South Sudan from Muslims in Sudan. As you can see from all eleven UN peacekeeping missions, the common denominator is that one side of the conflict is Muslims. If the UN recognizes that Islam is the world's biggest problem at this time, then you must recognize that fact as well.

President Biden's weekly economic briefing.** As we noted yesterday, today’s GDP Report is critically essential. It presages the Federal Reserve’s future actions and has tremendous political implications for the upcoming Presidential Campaign. Briefly stated, the report shows that the economy grew at a paltry 1.6% for Q1 2024, far below even the most bearish Wall Street estimate and less than one-half the growth rate of the quarter before. It’s hard to overstate just how dismal this report is. For many, the report may have come as a complete surprise following the supposed positive New Durable Goods Orders reported yesterday. While the financial press basked in the reported 2.6% gain in New Orders for March, they failed to see that this gain was in the context of a very tepid 0.3% rise for the year — a rise that was most likely due to inflation pressure rather than any real gain in the overall economy. Overall, the latest GDP numbers reveal that we’re coming to the end of the stimulative effect of Biden’s increase in Government Spending (Build Back Better). While the spending numbers remain astronomical, spending from Washington is no longer accelerating. Government spending has topped out, and the classic Keynesian stimulus is diminishing. The implications of all this are profound. The Federal Reserve will be the first to feel the heat. Its high-interest rate policy now comes into question. How long will the Fed be able to defend higher interest rates in the face of a slowing economy? And make no mistake — a GDP reading of just 1.6% is just one revision above stall speed. We’re not far from recession territory. But it will be the Biden Campaign for Reelection that will really feel the heat. One of the cornerstones of Biden’s bid for reelection has been the claim that the economy is strong. That claim just went out the window. It is now clear that this isn’t a strong economy. It’s an extremely fragile economy that relies upon increased fiscal stimulus, that is, government spending. Here, we see that as government spending has plateaued, economic growth has slowed dramatically. Biden’s last remaining claim of economic growth is the Stock Market. But even here, there are signs of danger ahead. The tepid performance of the Mag 7, those largest capitalized stocks, reveals that even the vaunted Stock Market may experience difficulty in the days ahead. When you add all this together, it’s becoming increasingly challenging for the President to defend his economic record. Follow me here on ThinkSpot for more stories from the ValueSide.

(alternate subtitle: The Fight of Our Lives) Our century is going to be defined by the victor of the current battle between our immoral self-serving leaders, and the moral self-sacrificial ones. Each group that emerges from the war will have made the bed that their future generations will be forced to sleep in, and the character of those societies will also be strongly characterized by their stance on free speech, thought, and expression. We will have either missed our last chance to preserve these fundamental rights or succeeded in defending it for future generations. The reason I say it is the last chance is because our tools for control have given us the kind of power that, previously, our societies could only dream about. With the specter of AGI looming over us, and the ghost of nuclear weapons haunting us, we have made the entire world more vulnerable to a very small group of powerful and evil people. These evil people are wolves in sheep's clothing, characterized by their clever use of language, hiding within moral words and phrases. This is a mental variation on the Trojan horse tactic. Once you accept it inside of your heart, you will suffer a great loss, even if you later discover the treachery. We find it hard to change our minds because whenever we have committed to ideas in writing via social media, or in passionate conversations amongst our friends and coworkers, we have set up our own trenches. People want to be consistent, even if they are wrong, and this feature of humanity is regularly exploited. If only the citizens of Troy had more carefully examined the gift before accepting it. Instead, large parts of society have already committed themselves to very bad ideas. Many unworthy hills have been chosen to die on. The world is wading deeper into confusion with the intentional destruction of meaning in culture, government sanctioned lies, and the increasing levels of distraction. Public debate, mainstream news, and politics are, with the exception of a few places, of abysmal quality. Good information is getting harder to find. Junk information is accumulating at exponential rates. Internet bots were already producing confusion, and superpowered LLM AI bots will only exacerbate the issues. This new technology makes it easier to both hide the truth and bury it in noise. Unfortunately for us, Orwell and Huxley were both right. Confusion breeds conflict because it destroys the best mechanism for making sense of the world, and broader cooperation among larger groups of people. Language is not the only confusion we are facing. Sex, family, money, economic systems, political systems, every single foundational requirement for stable societies is suffering from confusion. Underneath all of this is the simple, but deep idea of Truth. Objective truths are the solid foundation for which to build any structures upon. The West has made the mistake in my lifetime of trading hard solid rock for shifting sands. Bad leaders will exploit this confusion for their personal gain, and prefer conflicts with external groups as a last ditch effort to maintain their power, though they will not hesitate to mobilize internal groups against each other. Now, we do have a brief window to pull ourselves out of this mess, but time is of utmost importance. Prolonged confusion only leads to bad things because it is extremely stressful. Conflict, internal and external, will plunge societies into chaos. Longtime neighbors have already started killing each other, mostly across nation-state lines, but there is growing civil unrest within countries too. Tribalism looks to be getting stronger, and racial lines are easily exploited, especially when the tensions are being ratcheted up. Chaos is unpredictable, and there is no reliable way to know what will happen or when it will happen. Mob violence and large scale global conflict do not often come from telegraphed actions. Like a wildfire there is a spark on a dry day where the winds happen to be strong. If we fail to reclaim our institutions, and fail to replace bad leaders with good ones, this is all but inevitable. Things are too far gone at the top of the most powerful places, and the masses feel it in their bones. Majorities in all societies are sick of corruption, but we are being kept divided through distractions and red herrings. We are in a time of extreme complexity with mostly poor leadership that does not know how to navigate ambiguity. The big problem with best practice leadership today is that an oversimplified, and prideful approach that assumes to know the answers to everything already. You see this habit in corporations and governments alike. What we should do instead is to admit we do not know the answers, and run parallel experiments with a strict commitment to the truth in our observations, and accountability for lying and negligence. I did not include failure because emergent issues require a certain amount of failure for innovation. A good experiment may very well fail. If we take climate change as an example, notice that there is an extreme focus on one variable, which means that the average climate activist is not treating the problem with as much seriousness as it deserves. Serious attempts to solve problems come with a serious commitment to understand the nature of the problem in as much detail as possible. Otherwise, you could be prescribing the wrong actions. Truth, again, comes into play as a fundamental requirement for human problem solving, and prosperity. We divorce it at our peril, and without it we have no hope of getting out of our various messes. This is the fight of our lives. *Ideas for navigating complexity are derivative of Dave Snowden’s work, particularly the Cynefin Framework - https://thecynefin.co/about-us/about-cynefin-framework/

The Right Shouldn’t Defund NPR, It Should Work There By rich_cromwellMental Health as Social Credit Score By samaustenThe End of Matter By aaadedireMasculinity Under Attack By Sadhika PantLeaders of Liberty are laying the groundwork for the future. By CanadianLibertarianThe Balance Sheet Of War By ValueSideA thinkspot space with Stephen Blackwood By thinkspot

When you’re trying something newDo you remember the first time you drove somewhere new? Especially if you were moving somewhere else. Every sight, sound and every other sense was new and foreign. You might’ve felt alien. It was unmapped territory. You did not have a mental image of how far the road went, how many buildings were on it, who else was around, etc. You might have even imagined your surroundings based on clues you observed but nothing yet was fully explored, verified or memorized. There are so many details we take for granted typically and simply allow to fade into the background. Of course, much of this is simply because we have limits on how much we can readily absorb. Our attention span might not have the strength to simultaneously execute navigating unfamiliar territory, executing our daily tasks, our daily needs and then say, also mentally note how many trees line your block. We let a lot blur into the background. If we tried to study every single thing we encountered we would overwhelm ourselves and not get anything done. Of course, filtering is necessary on some level. It has some utility to see certain things in the mode of archetypes with less detail and we do need to utilize our energy effectively towards our goals and agenda. We might note a shopping center on a drive but not find knowing each store as relevant. If we did not discard some of what we observed, we would dilute our sense of meaning oddly enough. A book holds the words, sentences and ideas it holds, not every word, sentence and idea, if it held them all it would cease to have its own story. A story is also defined by what it does not have, what is missing often says just as much as what it does say. Even if some filtering is necessary, it seems wise to try to map out surroundings on an as needed basis. As there are relevant landmarks to your specific daily tasks, long term goals and simple navigation of your surroundings. One might widen the net thoroughly for their own neighborhood so they have a home turf advantage. The irony here is when we first arrive and everything seems new, we are highly observant but feel like we know nothing. On the flipside as we become accustomed to going about our day, staying true to the minimum we need to observe to get through said day, we tend to mark our immediate surroundings as “known” when truly they are often a blur on the roadside of our tunnel vision view. Do you know the types of trees growing in your neighborhood? What is the color of each house to your right and left and across the street? Do you know how many steps up to your apartment? Do you know your neighbors? As this is a martial arts website, of course the implication is “beware of your surroundings, stay observant”. While this is true, it’s not just about safety. It’s an even more hardwired human need than safety; community, friends and love. We should reach out and meet our neighbors not just as a tactical solution to clear security risks and have a communication network. We should do so because we are better off when we hide alone in our homes less. When we see each other face to face and try to connect, even if all we might seem to share in common is geography, it is vitally important to meet diverse groups of people for our learning and growing. On a side note, if you ever need to make an emergency call, being able to describe landmarks, know adjacent roads and describe neighbors houses is vital information to receive aid faster when seconds really count. If there is ever a burglary or worse, well, first of all you might prevent it to start with simply by knowing what your neighbors look like. Otherwise some stranger suspiciously lurking your neighbors home stands out a lot more when you know them. It’s important also to not simply trust someone wearing a uniform or holding tools. This is a common scam. The other method is to hide in plain sight. If we form a network with our neighbors we can ask them to keep a lookout and inform them if someone is coming by to do some work. We can provide the age old example of a cup of sugar, we can do favors for each other. We are able to form trust, build more of a traditional community where we help each other. Another factor I was thinking about while writing this is comfort zones. I think a lot of minimizing our scope comes down to either 1. Specializing our view, 2. Succumbing to tunnel vision, or 3. Adhering to a comfort zone. We get really clingy with our comfort. Even if most people seem to say they want to travel and they want adventure, sometimes it is more of an image they are seeking or an ideal because the actual reality is not the same. Ever heard of someone saying they hate their hometown but they also never leave? It occurred to me, thinking of it as a comfort zone or lack thereof is incomplete. Don’t we want a relative level of comfort even as we are challenged by a goal? We want some level of soreness when we leave the gym, sure, otherwise we might question if we worked hard enough, but we don’t want injury. We are “comfortable” with the soreness. Soreness even releases feel good chemicals in the body. So it is not so much I am asking you to abandon your comfort zone. I’m asking you to expand it. I’m also saying if we mark things as “known” mentally be it our surroundings, a subject, a skill, or anything else we do, it limits our view. It heightens our risk for danger through lack of awareness of our surroundings but also of our own ignorance. Even more vital, we do not appreciate the novel things if we need them to jostle us out of a haze before we notice anything. Even what might seem mundane is beautiful and amazing if you apply attention to it. When we open our eyes to our surroundings it allows us to appreciate the grand mystery of this world and this universe. It allows us to see the stories of those around us and make connections and hopefully grow those connections into new friendships to heal a world divided by too much screen time, too much social media and media generally. We are able to appreciate our world and aim to achieve more than just survival. We are able to strive for more than the road of least resistance, deciding to accept challenges, seek out the horizon, imagine what is out there and go see for ourselves.

Phase Two. Document Six. March, 2024 Identifying the Players: Technocrats (Part Two) Covid responses, the trans agenda, and now the technocratic dynamic, exhibit a pattern. One: someone – not an elected official or you – really really cares about something or someone. Two: because they really care, and because you are ignorant (or maybe a fascist), there must be no distracting discussion of the fine print. Three: the implementation of the solution ‘bypasses’ civil society – the tax-paying voters. Four: note that this model involves an open-ended expansion of bureaucracy simply because more caring equals more bureaucracy. This increase in ‘processes’ serves effectively to further ‘hold at arm’s length’ the citizenry. Who knows what an ‘ox bow lake’ is? In Australia, we call it a ‘billabong.’ Google it. A river changes its direction a little, and a section of that river gets cut off. Well, that’s what is going on. Society is being made into a billabong. Two types of anti-democrats – Super Poindexters (technocrats) and political activists (neo-communists) -- are ‘redirecting the river’ so that society and its institutions become cut off from the control and development of their own society. One key to understanding this dynamic is Singer’s expanding moral circle. No one wants to say, ‘Thus far and no further!’ The Western Australian Government Covid website provided the following datum: ‘a 96-yr.-old man died a Covid-involved death’ What could this possible mean? A 96-yr.-old man in a nursing home could suffer a banana-custard-involved death. Invoking the involvement of Covid is a ploy here. It’s a tactic of Really Really Caring. So, money-printing provides a theoretically unlimited supply of funding, and Really Really Caring justifies the shouting down of any desire to discuss the logical limits of how much the individual must defer to society. This is an inversion of individualism, of ‘the pioneer spirit.’ So, how is the above relevant to ‘identifying the players’? Well, with the immigration invasion of Europe last decade, it was the neo-communists (and Co.). With the trans agenda, same crowd. But did the equation change with the Covid responses? With Covid, the zealots and the poindexters double-teamed. The zealots, with the slavish assistance of the MSM, vituperated all and sundry. Meanwhile, the Super Poindexters worked with gubmints and massive corporations to advance the ‘surveillance industrial complex’ (and make a ton of money). But ‘technocracy’? Starting in perhaps the 1980’s, we’ve seem the Super Poindexters leveraging rapidly developing technologies. Three things concern us. The first is that they are so utterly self-centered that their interest in democracy is nil. The second is that a range of factors makes their project astonishingly powerful, which is allowing them to become more central players in everything, and their rapidly growing power is side-lining all other players. The third is that capitalism and nation-states (like China) have chimed in on technocracy. Let’s consider this issue later.

That’s right, I said it. I’m really not sure what the average Conan the Barbarian comic book reader looks like, but I’m one of them. 38 year old white guy who lives in suburban Texas with his wife and son. While my son is getting into Venom, I started picking up issues of Conan and some other adult oriented titles (e.g. the new Basic Instinct series from Sumerian comics). The first time I read Conan comics was years back when Dark Horse was publishing the IP. I got back into it recently as going to the comic book shop has become a common family activity I do on the weekend. Titan Comics re-launched Conan the Barbarian in 2023 and has been getting some buzz in the industry. So much so that the new Savage Sword of Conan series they launched in late February of this year has been sold out in comic shops across central Texas. One thing you’ll find in the new Savage Sword of Conan series and most any Conan comics from the past 20 years: sexually charged character dynamics. Conan stories are romance stories, but for men. The priorities are all about the basic instincts of men. Conan is an antihero who lives how he want to live and does what he wants to do. He’s after riches and glory. If someone gets in his way, they’re toast. He’s a man of duty in the traditional masculine sense too. He doesn’t chase women, but women are drawn to him. Sometimes he goes with them, sometimes he doesn’t. It’s always up to him and what’s on his current agenda. Conan hooks up with a lot of women during his travels and the relationships usually don’t last long. The women are always hot. Some certified babes. Conan wouldn’t accept less. He’s got some old flames who cross his path in various series such as Bêlit, the “fearsome yet beautiful pirate queen of the Hyborian Age.” But that’s kind of an on-again-off-again sort of thing. Then there’s the will-they-won’t-they dynamic between Conan and Red Sonja, the chain mail bikini clad warrior (and certified babe). But under the veil of that hot & sexy sword and sorcery action, Conan the Barbarian has greater subtext. Conan hates magic. He hates con-men. He hates overcomplicated & byzantine systems and the rulers who take advantage of them for their own benefit. Conan is a force for anti-corruption. Conan is all about that “what you see is what you get” lifestyle. You try to deceive him with trickery? Sorry, but your head is getting chopped off and he’s taking your gold too. Perhaps popularity for Conan rises and falls with the fluctuating disillusionment of the systems we live in. I’m sure a lot of people would like to see Conan the Barbarian deal with corrupt members of Congress, for example. Robert E. Howard created Conan and these anti-corruption narratives way back in the 1930’s during the height of the Great Depression. Time is a circle and Conan the Barbarian needs to fulfill his role from time to time. And he’s gonna get some hot tail in between time.

In this series' installment of the Hilbert Problems for Social Justice, we delve further into troubled waters of deeply held beliefs: the intersection of genetic identity, right to life, and autonomy of choice. This marks the point at which I will diverge from Eric Weinstein's examples. Where before today's examination, we focused exclusively on self-contradictory couplets, today we additionally add a problematic tercet of ideas. Each thought distinct and often discussed openly as firmly held beliefs amongst legion social justice advocates, yet countervailing. Before we continue, I would once again like to thank those who took the time to read and comment on the prior articles. There is utility in shaping this conversation and I appreciate thoughtful replies and feedback. Without your feedback it's difficult to improve the utility of my writing. Today's exploration, like it's predecessors, is not about asserting definitive answers but rather illuminating the confounding complexities that challenge progressive philosophy. Ultimately, gaining awareness of our missteps, despite potential anguish in uncovering them, invariably encourages growth. So without further ado... At birth sexual identity is immutable AND sex is not. - Being trans is immutable: https://uclawreview.org/2021/11/12/gender-the-issue-of-immutability/ - Sex is mutable: https://kim-hipwell.medium.com/on-truly-changing-sex-a7770e903810 The point brought up by Kim Hipwell, and others, that chromosomal sex immutability is only a reflection of the technological state of the art is at least theoretically correct. It is entirely feasible that in the future a "trans-shop" may exist that can, down to the DNA, modify every cell in a person's body to the preferred sex. However, by the same vein the fact that people believe that minds cannot be changed with existing or futuristic technology, but bodies can, has no rational basis. Why would the human software be free from tampering but the hardware be vulnerable to it? There are innumerate case studies of minds being altered or changed – it is the entire basis of the marketing industry. A belief that no future technology could ever exist to change/influence sexual orientation by extension, is a failure of imagination. If such a thing were true, why would there be so much ink spilled explaining why it is okay to transition, since a person's mind could not be influenced? Clearly this is nonsense, and even trans rights activists concur that minds can be and are changed. - https://www.transhub.org.au/changing-your-mind Therefore, being trans is a choice either now or in the future when technology allows for either programmatic or technical changes of orientation (or both) and not immutable. Quod erat demonstrandum. It is worth reflecting on a personal acquaintance, a woman who identified as gay throughout her life until, in her late twenties, she encountered a man who profoundly altered her understanding of her own sexuality, causing her to subsequently renounce even bisexuality. There is no accounting for the power of true love, apparently. Her anecdote challenges the notion of immutable sexual orientation. Is her experience merely an outlier, an anomaly amidst a sea of fixed identities? Clearly no. I alone, have a number of similar stories of men who experimented and later, embarrassingly, decided they no longer felt homosexual. What's the opposite of coming out, when you no longer identify as LGBTQIA+? Perhaps "re-identifying"? How the mechanism for sexual preference manifests itself is beyond the scope of this article, but it does beg the question - are all deviations from original orientation pre-determined? The answer is almost certainly no, and instead a confluence of environmental influences and biological factors play significant roles in the decidedly messy state of human sexuality. Persons considering reassignment surgery may be in very real psychological distress, presenting a serious dilemma on how best to address this emotional turmoil. How to navigate such deeply personal challenges invites a broader discussion of emotional guidance - if we believe choice play a role. We must also recognize the existence of myriad influencers vying to shape these crucial decisions. What is their goal and incentive? What defines success? A similar tercet of contradictory ideas: Gay/Trans is genetic (I was born this way), AND abortion should be allowed for any reason, AND targeted abortions of gay and trans is wrong. - Born Trans: https://www.ipl.org/essay/Personal-Narrative-I-Was-Born-Trans-FKXFM4B42DTT - Abortion should be legal: https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Abortion-Should-Be-Legal-FKJLMLWZVJ - Aborting based on a “gay gene”: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/nobel-winner-may-sue-over-gay-baby-abortion-claim-1279127.html Setting aside the dubious existence of a “gay gene," the self-contradictory ideas that abortions should be legal and that gay and trans people are “born this way” is a useful edge case and thought exercise. If such a gene existed, therein lies a scenario where gay and trans individuals could be targeted in the womb and aborted - a wholesale unacceptable outcome for trans advocates. Call it a sexuality-genocide. If any aspect of being trans creates hardships, parents of millions of children may simply test for such a gene and abortions of trans children could become normative – though unlikely due to the evangelical stance on abortion. Ironically it is conservatives, not progressives, who would be most ethically bound to protect trans lives in utero. If you think mass abortions based exclusively on immutable traits is unlikely, consider that aborting on embryonic sex and the murder of newborns based entirely on their sex was a recent horrific reality: - China's one child policy lead to ~30 million aborted females: https://www.npr.org/2016/02/01/465124337/how-chinas-one-child-policy-led-to-forced-abortions-30-million-bachelors - One Child Nation: https://www.amazon.com/One-Child-Nation-Nanfu-Wang/dp/B0875GV8SL With notable exception of specific medical conditions facing hermaphrodites and those with chromosomal chimerism, trans persons may be primarily or at least partially an environmental origin: epigenetically or extended phenotypes. De-transitioning should not be possible if choice played no role in transitioning and being trans was an immutable trait. Logically, how can you undo something that is undoable? Being trans would therefore ostensibly appear to be a choice people make (and unmake) rather than a medical immutable fact. If we believe that there is any hardship at all in being trans - and if there is not, why would trans-rights need advocacy - why would we guide anyone towards being trans? If trans is a spectrum, where some choose to be trans and others are biologically forced to transition, then there still lies a cohort for whom transitioning is non-ideal due to the medical and emotional danger. This leads us to what honest analysis may look like, without subterfuge. What are progressives accomplishing with trans advocacy, and what is the outcome if successful? Is trans ever a choice or is it always truly immutable? If we believe that trans is ever optional decision-making, should we invest in additional education to encourage people to start transitioning, or should we invest in changing the minds of those teetering on the edge who may experience a lifetime of hardship if they do transition? Is there reasonable middle ground? I hope you found this third article interesting. This series will document many of these conflated social justice issues and there will be more, God willing. Please subscribe, and comment, if you would like more of the same. If you want to know about me or my show, The RSnake Show, please visit https://rsnake.com/ for details.

“The Lord turned and looked straight at Peter. Then Peter remembered the word the Lord had spoken to him: ‘Before the rooster crows today, you will disown me three times.’” (Luke 22:61 NIV) “Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, ‘Follow me!’” (John 21:19 NIV) “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace that he lavished on us.” (Ephesians 1:7-8a NIV) The most famous person included in the gospels is easily Jesus. The second most famous person is likely Simon Peter, Jesus’ oldest and most outspoken disciple. However, while Peter appears to be the spokesman for the disciples, this also prompts Peter to say things that are out of line. While we know Peter as the disciple who declared a belief in Jesus as the Messiah (Matthew 16:16; John 6:68), he is also the disciple who Jesus calls out as Satan (Matthew 16:23), who speaks his assumptions regarding paying the temple tax (Matthew 17:24-27), who fumbles over what to say when Moses and Elijah visit Jesus on the mountain (Matthew 17:4), and who denies Jesus three times on the night of Jesus’ betrayal and arrest (Matthew 26:69-75). This famous disciple lived a life of flaws throughout his time with Jesus. While his flaws could easily invalidate him from staying a disciple, especially after disowning Jesus on the night of Jesus’ arrest when He assured Jesus that would never happen, Jesus gives Peter the gift of redemption. Following His resurrection, Jesus finds Peter and asks him three questions, gives him three challenges, and then gives him a second invitation to follow. Peter’s second invitation wasn’t like his first. Peter’s first invitation came before Peter had made many glaring mistakes and his first invitation came after a powerful miracle that happened because Peter had a sliver of faith and the generosity to let Jesus preach from his boat (Luke 5:1-11). However, Peter’s second invitation came with three years of knowledge of Peter’s failures. Even with all these failures, Jesus was still willing to invite Peter to follow. I believe Jesus offers all of us a second invitation. The invitation He offers might even be a third, a fourth, or a fiftieth one. Just like Jesus extends another invitation to Peter, He invites us, regardless of our past failures, to repent and return to Him. Jesus paid the penalty for our sin, and this allows us to lean on Him for redemption. If something happened this week that prompted doubt to enter your mind about God’s love, let the truth found in Peter’s redemption story remind you that God still loves you, and He wants to redeem you from sin; He wants to include you in His recreated new heaven and new earth for eternity! 🙏 📖 ✝️ 👍

Part four of the "Hilbert Problems for Social Justice" takes on gender vs racial politics and how the documented rules differ for different out-groups. It is precisely this lack of consistency we're after in this series. Our quest is to unravel the inconsistencies that pepper the moral landscape, seeking clarity amid the cacophony of social justice rhetoric. An anonymous reader shared a thought-provoking observation, noting the escalating 'ante' for social acceptance within these groups, "I do find it interesting that so much value of one’s leftist ideology comes from the ability to be accepted by a group that would have them. Where the blind (in poker parlance) was relatively small… a desire to find one’s self among the lost only took the desire to play dungeons and dragons or magic the gathering sneak a cigarette or the occasional hit of weed… now takes the desire to write off the entire history of your country, set aside all logic, and declare yourself as lgbtq+… the ante seems to has gotten quite larger to find a group that will have you." This reflection addresses the evolving nature of social conformity and potential alienation from mainstream norms. The goal post has moved for what is required to maintain friend groups, and perchance that is what younger generations are facing - a greater divide from normative behavior and FOMO to keep up with the out-group politic. Keep those comments coming! Today's issues stemmed from controversy arising from the Rachel Dolezal/Rachel Moore/Nkechi Amare Diallo story that broke in 2015 where she was outed for pretending to be Black, but born Caucasian. She was president of the NAACP in Spokane Washington until the story broke at which point she resigned in disgrace. In an odd irony, it turns out prior to this event, Rachel Dolezal once sued Howard University for racism against Caucasians, amongst other charges. - https://thesmokinggun.com/file/rachel-dolezal-lawsuit So with that background... People can identify as whatever they want if their strongly held belief is sincere AND Rachel Dolezal can never identify as black. - Someone else’s gender identity is whatever they say it is: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/06/28/americans-complex-views-on-gender-identity-and-transgender-issues/ - Rachel Dolezal can never be black: https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/03/03/518184030/why-rachel-dolezal-can-never-be-black These statements taken in totality create a disconcerting paradox: the societal decree that one's gender identity is sacrosanct, juxtaposed against vehement rejection of Dolezal's racial identity claim. The pitchfork wielders after Rachel’s job quickly changed their tune. No longer was her crime about her racial identity but about her honesty. Why the shift? Is it because of the obvious racism baked into the former complaint? Is trans-racial-phobia a thing? Calls for her job were despite any evidence that she would fail to work hard for the NAACP and yet: “We do not feel that she is in a position to properly reflect the values of our diverse community or the Spokane chapter of the NAACP. The questions surrounding her integrity may discredit the work that has been previously done to better the movement of social justice and equality in our community.” I ask you, dear reader, what is more diverse than a trans-racial woman? - https://sign.moveon.org/petitions/its-not-about-race-its Perhaps you're thinking that she has paved the way for more trans-racial persons in the future. If Rachel Dolezal is off the hook for representing herself as Black but was instead ostracized for not saying she was trans-racial out-loud, then perhaps it is okay for the next crop of would-be trans-racial persons to risk their job and reputation to appropriate another’s race. Knowing what happened to Rachel Dolezal, what naïve soul would test those shark infested waters? I wouldn’t bet on a warm reception, given that the verdict of public opinion is that Rachel Dolezal has created incontrovertible "harm" to the Black community. - https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/rachel-dolezal-s-claim-she-black-whitest-possible-way-deal-ncna871656 The uncomfortable questions become:If trans-racial people can harm the race that they are transitioning to, why would trans-sexual people be incapable of similar harm to the sexes they are transitioning to?If Rachel Dolezal is potentially bad at her job because she a liar, what about “closeted” people who lie about their sexuality? Are closeted homosexuals and transexuals similarly incapable of holding important positions? A kissing cousin to this line of thinking is: Cultural appropriation is racist AND replacing Caucasian characters isn’t racist. (E.g., The Little Mermaid) - Dressing up as another culture is racist: https://nativeappropriations.com/2013/10/so-your-friend-dressed-up-as-an-indian-now-what.html - Analysis: A definitive rebuttal to every racist ‘Little Mermaid’ argument: https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/17/entertainment/little-mermaid-racist-backlash-halle-bailey-disney-cec/index.html To engage in discussions over Disney casting choices might, at first glance, appear to be inane or trivial. Yet, there lies a more profound ethical landscape - one that merits attention. The act of reimagining stories for a contemporary audience embodies a form of personal expression that is, in principle, ethically sound. Throughout history, storytelling has evolved, incorporating embellishments and adaptations that breathe new life into ancient tales and myths. This practice of reinterpretation is not only permissible; it is a testament to the dynamism of human creativity and cultural tectonics. However, the ethical waters become murkier when we consider fidelity to an author's original vision. The integrity of storytelling is compromised if adaptations misrepresent the foundational intentions of the original creator without explicitly saying so. Ethical quandaries emerge not from the act of reimagining itself but from the unethical intentions of the changes, where the author's intent is obscured or misrepresented in the pursuit of presentism and social warfare. Tension between innovation and authenticity is worth discussion. In The Little Mermaid for instance, Hans describes the Mermaid thusly (translated to English), “...her skin was as clear and delicate as a rose-leaf, and her eyes as blue as the deepest sea; but, like all the others, she had no feet, and her body ended in a fish’s tail.” - http://hca.gilead.org.il/li_merma.html One could consider the word “clear” to mean transparent rather than Caucasian but given that the Mermaid eventually seduces a human it is likely that he did not mean literal translucence where her blood and organs would be visible - a rather off-putting mental image. When Hans Christian Anderson wrote, “...holding out her white hands towards the keel of their ship...” he likely didn’t mean anything other than he imagined the Mermaid as being a Caucasian woman atop and fish on bottom, in all but the most charitable stretches of imagination. And surely by saying that her eyes were “...blue as the deepest sea...” he did not mean “brown” as Halle Bailey’s eyes appear to be in the 2023 release of The Little Mermaid. Is Hollywood appropriating Danish culture, or Caucasian fish-tales? If appropriating a culture was a thing that can be done against stories, folklore, fairytales, and/or religion, yes, it appears so. What describes culture? Perhaps beyond physical traits and beliefs, it is a way of life, customs or even food. Why then, would the progressive movement blissfully enjoy spicy food anywhere outside of the western hemisphere? Capsicum was only introduced to Europe and Asia by way of the Columbian exchange. Most spicy foods should, therefore, be rebuked as appropriation of western cuisine if there was any sense to this philosophy. Indian and Chinese and Vietnamese and Thai and Pakistani and Indonesian and Malaysian and Sri Lankan and Japanese and Korean and Nepalese and Filipino diets 500 years ago were vastly more tepid. If foods marked Halal or Kosher might be marked as unique to Islamic or Jewish foods respectively, recipes and ingredients can be discussed in a cultural context. A “Mediterranean diet” has no meaning without thinking about the culture and food available in that region of the world. Appropriation of things people love or enjoy could and arguably should be seen as a sign of enjoyment, interest, and respect. It should be cultivated not admonished. A child who cosplays their favorite anime is no more that anime character than an Asian restauranteur is a Native American when he makes a spicy meal and disrespect is meant in neither action. Nor is reimagining the characters with honest motives, showing a new take on an old story, recipe, apparel, etc. This discussion extends beyond mere casting choices, and forces conversations around the criteria for 'authentic' representation. During Halloween years back whilst accompanying a small Caucasian boy dressed as Spiderman, we happened across a black couple and their young boy also dressed as Spiderman. The Caucasian boy in my charge said he was the character Miles Morales who appears to be Black in Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse and subsequent movies. The Black couple was visibly upset that a Caucasian child would appropriate a Black character. The irony was lost on them, that the very character they are referring to was a re-imaging of other Caucasian variants of Spiderman. Does any of this matter to a child? Absolutely not - they just want to have fun and there is zero racism intended. When the intent is innocent admiration we need to drop our weapons. What is better - telling a child that they can't admire another child because of their skin tone? As a child I wanted to be a Ninja - did that make me racist against the Japanese? How is this thinking progress? However, if the intent is to misrepresent that characters have any physical or cultural aesthetic or to argue any counterfactual interpretation other than what the pages actually say, is dishonest. Re-writing or lying about the author’s provable intent is disrespectful to the work. Re-imagining works in a new light with a new aesthetic or with new characters, on the other hand, has no ethical issues. How many times has Shakespeare been re-done in a modern context, like the 1996 Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes version of Romeo and Juliette illustrates. The risk comes when the themes are perverted and seen through the lens of presentism and the intent lied about. And to what end? Similar paradoxes can be written: Cultural appropriation and colonialism is bad AND renaming a group of people Latinx is good. Why rename an entire group of people based on progressive US values when the bulk of Latin America does not agree with these values or appreciate the term chosen? Forget appropriation - be concerned with forcing your values on other cultures. - One-in-four US Hispanics have heard of Latinx but just 3% use it: https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in-four-u-s-hispanics-have-heard-of-latinx-but-just-3-use-it/ These paradoxes could be more honestly and coherently written: certain groups feel that they are at risk of, and don't feel comfortable with, losing their culture; and why should they? The accompanying lies, presentism, and outright racism are unnecessary to accomplish preservation of culture. If anything, making curious people feel that appropriation is abhorrent pushes well-intentioned people from feeling welcome to educate themselves. There is a difference between cultural respect and cultural appropriation. I hope you found this article interesting. This series will document many of these conflated social justice issues and there will be more, God willing. Please subscribe, and comment, if you would like more of the same. If you want to know about me or my show, The RSnake Show, please visit https://rsnake.com/ for details.

“How might one appeal? How might one atone? I have come to feel That neither may be known. For who can say forsooth That he has been forgiven? In searching for the Truth, To madness he is driven! Upon what divine alter Must oneself be cast In order not to faulter And be redeemed at last? Where does salvation lie? How odd to so inquire; For one could not know why He ought to flee from fire.” So went the scholar’s lecture To his pupils in the hall; For retort, one might conjecture, They were void of wherewithal. Yet one lone student bold Stood swiftly to commence An ill-considered scold Of his teacher’s tall pretense. “And error, sir,” he began, “Forms foundation for your thought; You find folly in the quest of Man To seek what you see not. How could one of intellect So hastily assume The absence of an Architect Who has designed his room? Though our homes and draftsmen vary, The former in form and latter in name, The latter agree we ought be wary, For the former to flame all burn the same.” The scholar, taken aback By the audacity Of his student’s attack On his claims veracity, Paused before he spoke In response to his protester, Laughing as though at a joke Told by a witty jester. “You speak with such conviction, For that I count you brave. Yet, you suffer an affliction: You have yet to leave your cave.” “If I may,” the student started With no less confidence, “You may not!” the scholar darted From his lectern in defense. “Another interruption I shall not tolerate As I impart instruction Do not altercate.” The student, somewhat wise, Ceased argumentation. Silence at times concession implies, At others, contemplation. “As I said,” began the scholar, “Inferno is subjective; The treasures of a pauper A prince deems dull, defective. This should be the basis For all moralities: Seek not some god’s oasis, Embrace base banalities.” “No!” exclaimed the student, To the horror of the rest; Being impatiently prudent, Wayward words he works to best. “Your cynical refrain Of utter disenchantment, Akin to screams of pain On a battlefield encampment, Brings to all with ears And a humble, humane heart Fear-inspired tears, From weary eyes they part. I beseech you, sir, Consider my objections. Do not our sorrows stir With woeful soul infections.” The hall’s air hung haunted, Silence starves audition. The scholar, dumbstruck, daunted, Declared, without contrition, “Quiet, you fool! Take your leave at once! Elsewhere may you sling your gruel You call 'the Truth,' you dunce!” Search "The Godwine Cellar" Home | Substack Discover and discuss great writing with the world’s smartest readers on Substack. Substack.com

This is part four of a series of articles about the proposed EPA Superfund site on the upper Columbia River. The previous articles are available here on thinkspot. In this article, we will dive deeper into data provided in the March 2024 Human Health Assessment. As part of the work being done after the 2006 settlement agreement between Teck American and the EPA, several intensive scientific studies have been underway. The work on these studies is being done under the supervision of the EPA. In addition to the Human Health Risk Assessment which documents the impact of the pollution on humans, a baseline ecological risk assessment is underway. After that is published, there will be a feasibility study, which will outline the proposed future remediation actions to be taken. The studies will conclude with EPA’s selection of final remedial actions following which EPA will issue a final record of decision (ROD). At this time, it is anticipated that EPA will complete the ROD in 2028. Who and what was studied? The release of the Human Health Risk Assessment is significant, because it seems to have been used to justify the proposed listing of the Upper Columbia River on the National Priorities (Superfund) list. According to the executive summary, “Multiple rounds of data have been collected at the site over the past 15 years, including samples of UCR surface water, beach sediment, soil, air, and tissue (fish, macroinvertebrates, and plants).” Chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) were found in surface water, public and residential beaches, soil in the “uplands” and in wild plants, birds, fish and wild game. COPCs included lead, arsenic, zinc, cadmium, copper, and mercury. Exposure was measured in several population groups: residents, outdoor workers, recreational visitors to Lake Roosevelt, Colville High Intensity Resource Users, and the Spokane Tribe of Indians. Results of the Human Health Risk Assessment According to the HHRA Executive Summary, “The following generalizations can be made based on the results of the HHRA for the residential, recreational, and worker populations: “Residential exposure to soil sampled from 588 residential areas and 142 larger randomly selected areas exceeded lead and non-lead risk benchmarks. Removal actions were taken between 2015 and 2018 at 18 properties that were heavily contaminated. Lead in soil poses the greatest risk, the soil is generally more contaminated in areas that are closer to the international border and closer to the river, and undeveloped lands are generally more contaminated than developed (residential) land. “None of the three metals (arsenic, cadmium, and lead) monitored in air from 2002 to 2009 near Northport or at the international border exceeded risk benchmarks. “Open public beaches and the UCR are safe for recreation. Bossburg Flat Beach is closed to the public due to high lead levels, and the State of Washington is remediating the Northport waterfront. Human health risks from recreating in river water and sediment are low in other areas of the river. “Fish, other than sucker, have low levels of lead...Fish consumers are encouraged to follow the Washington Department of Health Fish Advisories for the UCR and Lake Roosevelt. “Risk to outdoor workers is minimal. Upland soil does not present a risk to outdoor workers.” And finally, regarding exposure to airborne emissions from the Teck smelter over the years, “Exposure to airborne contaminants from the Teck smelter do not pose an unacceptable risk to site residents, recreators, or workers.” Protecting the children? Let’s consider the concern regarding children’s exposure to lead. Lead exposure risk, for both current and future children is estimated based on soil levels of lead. It’s a guess, not something based on testing actual children living in or visiting the area. We should also consider that Northport is a very small, remote town. We’re talking about a small population of children who might be impacted. Why would the entire upper 150-mile reach of the upper Columbia River be designated as a superfund fund because of this tiny population? However, we don’t want any children to be endangered! Why haven’t the children living in the exposure areas had ANY blood testing done? Parents would be worried about their children if the EPA notified them of the lead exposure risk. Unfortunately, despite supposed urgency of the problem of lead exposure, the EPA has made NO efforts to get the local children evaluated. Why? Don’t they care about the children? Or, are they simply using the children as an excuse to justify the superfund designation? More questions than answers The fish are safe to eat, the water is safe for recreation, the most contaminated problem areas have already been remediated, and children do NOT appear to be in any immediate danger. Reviewing the HHRA Executive Summary leaves me with many questions about the timing of the EPA’s proposal for a superfund site. Since the worst properties have already been remediated, how much more remains to be done in the uplands? This question will probably be answered by the baseline ecological risk assessment. Without knowing the actual scope of the remaining problems, we don’t know what future remediation actions are necessary or appropriate. These points will be answered by the future feasibility study. Given these two important reports are outstanding, why would the EPA move forward on a superfund decision RIGHT NOW? In our next few articles in this series, we’re going to look at the state, tribal, and local governments impacted by the Superfund proposal. Then we’ll take a look at the Superfund rules and discover how to make a comment on the proposal. We want to understand this topic well enough to make impactful comments to the EPA. Nancy Churchill is a writer and educator in rural eastern Washington State, and the state committeewoman for the Ferry County Republican Party. She may be reached at DangerousRhetoric@pm.me. The opinions expressed in Dangerous Rhetoric are her own. Dangerous Rhetoric is available on thinkspot, Rumble and Substack. Thank you for supporting Dangerous Rhetoric! You can subscribe to the column here on thinkspot. If you'd like to hit the tip jar, it's always greatly appreciated. I'm grateful for your support! Sources: (1) Teck, Upper Columbia River Project. https://bit.ly/4chdXmx (2) HRS Documentation Record, https://bit.ly/3VsY06T 3) Executive Summary, Final site wide Human Health Risk Assessment, https://bit.ly/4asx8YV

Last time I spoke at Sydney University, the riot squad had to be called in to protect my audience from the baying mob of feminist activists trying to close the speech down. They didn’t like the fact I was speaking out about their efforts to force universities to set up kangaroo courts to adjudicate sexual assault. Funnily enough, this kerfuffle led to the Federal government calling an inquiry into free speech on campus, which ultimately led to laws which require universities to promote open discussion rather than allow activists to determine the public discourse. Obviously, those regulations haven’t had the intended impact because unruly students just go on their own sweet way. Earlier this month I was cancelled again – and this time by the Young Liberals, for Heaven’s sake. What does that say about the future of the Liberal Party when they are the ones shutting down proper debate? The University of Sydney Conservatives Club was hosting a discussion evening focussed on the Higgins rape case. I was approached three months earlier to appear on a panel, along with Chris Merritt, Vice President of the Rule of Law Institute, and author Andrew Urban. The young women organising the event did a terrific job putting together thoughtful discussion points including the use of the case for political ends, undermining of the presumption of innocence, concerns about unmeritorious cases being brought before the courts, damage to the credibility of the media, the impact of #MeToo. It was just perfect for setting the scene for civilised debate for a select audience - the event was promoted solely to the Conservative Club students. Ironically the previous event hosted by the club just two weeks earlier featured Tony Abbott and the famous UK commentator, Konstantin Kisin, who argued freedom of speech is the cornerstone of Western Civilisation. Clearly Kisin’s important message failed to impact on the blinkered views of the President of the Young Liberals, Chanum Torres, who took it upon himself to cancel me. The week before the event he suddenly announced to the female students running the event that they weren’t permitted to include me at a Conservative Club event – apparently Young Liberals NSW has final control over the Club’s activities. It is interesting to note the new NSW Liberal Senator Maria Kovacic applauded the decision to ban me - to think that this woman won the seat of the late, great Jim Molan. Chanum Torres actually suggested that hosting an event which included me could ruin the career of the art/law student who was the major organiser. It is quite bizarre and extremely alarming that this young man who presumably has set his sights on a career in Liberal politics should join the ranks of the thought police. Torres preferred the event didn’t take place at all – but the organisers stuck to their guns and initially decided to go ahead with the event, with my two fellow panellists to handle the discussion. But when it comes to promotion, once again Torres interfered, demanding that Higgins was not mentioned in the advertising for the event. The promotion simply mentioned “Lawfare in Australia,” a very bland and rather misleading presentation of the proposed discussion which was originally promoted as “Higgins Unpacked.” In the end, the event did end up being cancelled, after the other panellists decided on principal to withdraw. Apparently, Torres was not acting off his own bat, but rather had been leant on by other senior members of the organisation. And there are many Young Libs who objected strenuously to my exclusion, so there’s dissension in the ranks, with factional issues at play. Yet the fact remains that key Young Libs were determined that Higgins remains unpacked. Torres failed to answer a series of questions asking him to explain the reasoning for his decision. These included my suggestion that he may subscribe to a preferred narrative regarding the Higgins case and was concerned these beliefs might be challenged. Heaven forbid that some of the student audience might open their minds to alternative perspectives on the issue. It just shows what a great job the Brittany Higgins cheer squad has done to shut down proper discussion of true facts of this case. Given the biased media coverage it will be interesting if the Bruce Lehrmann wins his defamation action against the media – the outcome is to be announced on April 4. The general public has been so misinformed about the holes in the Higgins case that many will be outraged if the judge finds the media was wrong to promote her very dubious story. It’s a very bad look for Young Liberals to be opposed to uncensored public discussion of the social and political implications of this critical legal case. The conundrum faced by young conservatives was addressed by Konstantin Kisin, during his recent tour of Australia. At the end of his two-week tour of Australia he warned that this country has been infected by the woke virus, with people afraid to speak out on any number of issues. “While the centre left appears its extremist fringe, many on the centre right hesitate to challenge the cultural vandalism they observe for fear of being described as ‘cultural warriors’.” Was that the fear that prompted this worrying move by the Young Liberals? They know that a thorough dissection of the Brittany Higgins saga would lead to the usual twitter storm from the lunatic fringe who control so much of university culture. If that was enough to lead our future Liberal leaders to cower in fear, the future of inspiring political leadership in this country looks very bleak indeed. It’s a strange thing that this 74 year-old grandmother still has them quaking in their boots.

Our Crazy Elites Posted on March 27, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, future historians will get rich, writing about the insanity of our elites. How could the most well educated people ever, go utterly insane? That will be the theme. Millions of words will be carefully crafted into pages and books about it. Novels will be fashioned about the lives of those who allowed it to happen. Statisticians will count up the deaths in the hundreds of millions, again, because of government action. Another annul in the history of malevolent government will be written… and probably ignored by the next crop of stupid egoistic elites. Our times surpass the French Revolution, WWI, WWII, or Mao’s Great Leap Forward, by an order of magnitude. Both in the death count once it’s all over and the stupidity and malevolence of the elites who brought it about. In the moment it’s easy to forget we’re part of history. Remember, this moment will be recorded on a government data bank, in an NSA computer… forever. Perhaps as the physicists say, time moves like a film, an image of reality flickering on for a moment then gone, but the frame rate of reality is the Plank length. Each passing cell in the film of time, the wise try mightily not to surpass their past selves, in stupidity. Sadly many of us seldom achieve that goal. When you or I fail, it leads to our chastisement at the hands of fate, but when the elite do stupid things, and fail, it leads to millions of deaths and untold suffering for mankind. Each passing cell of time the elite surpass themselves in stupidity, making the world worse for themselves, and everyone else on it… for whatever stupid reason they’ve concocted. History is a recount of the exciting… not the mundane. No one cares if on Dec 2, 1805, there was a great bar fight, someone had a good meal, or if Eggbert Slokum pitched hay that day. We’re interested in the Battle of Austerlitz, the rise and fall of Rome as well as Alexander’s psychopathic conquering. Famines, wars and empires are interesting, because in them are lessons to be learned. Some are just outside our ability to comprehend. Other lessons urgently taught by history are unpalatable so are ignored. Because history’s consequences aren’t immediate, like eating night shade salad, they seem immaterial. Those who survive though, won’t make that mistake again, and will pass on the information. Unfortunately, an out of control elite leading a people to destruction, are always illiterate. The lessons of history are lost on those who are admonished by them. The elite, who are the primary targets of history’s schooling, find them unpalatable. Psychopaths intent on power, will cross any bridge, then burn it behind them. Every example of an elite or tyrant who does that is a similar tale… disaster for the tyrant, oligarchs and the people. Oh, historians might misallocate the blame to an invasion, famine or climate change… but reality is, collapse always and everywhere is the result of stupid leadership. Invasion would have been unthinkable when that state was powerful, famine is temporary and wise leadership with stores of grain can stand long periods, even as Anthropogenic climate change is man made, in that it’s made up… like King Kong. We’re in it now, we can stand and fight, run and hide or lay down and die. The choice is up to each of us to make. The smart will make it better for everyone, the stupid will make it worse, psychopaths will seek to profit, and martyrs will lay down and die. History is filled with examples of what works, what plays into the despot’s hands, and the innovative. Speaking up, refusing to lie, and even civil disobediance have worked. Uprisings have seldom restored a system, they typically install a new despot, taking revolution off the table, unless the elite start openly killing people. Its not the system, that’s bad, its the elite that are running it. They need to be removed and replaced. With people who will do their job. Overseen, by someone with the power and motivation to police them, like a Numa. Sincerely, John Pepin

Jokes, Idioms and Irreverence Posted on March 28, 2024 by john Dear Friends, How is the DOJ like a vulture? Their astounding ability to stomach corruption. The EU elites are saving the planet. They’re shutting down European farms to meet net zero targets. Where will the food come from you ask? The South American rain forest will be cleared to grow it. If a cow burps, and a progressive isn’t there to record it, are all white people still racist? They say screen writing is hard and you get rejected a lot. Not me! Everything I write passes! How do you know our rulers lack a sense of humor? They send people who write jokes to prison. Why dos the world suck like an Electrolux? When the elite open their mouths the vacuum in their heads leaks out. How is Klaus the Varmint Schwab different from his Nazi father? His father had ethics. As NATO advanced to the very border of Russia, they berated Russia for its aggression. The elite will be a thousand years wading in the lake of fire, and they’ll complain, if only they’d had more power they could have made the Beast system work. An elite, psychopath and pervert walk into a bar. The bartender says, “What’ll it be Mr Biden?” When people used to think, nuclear war was unthinkable, now that people don’t think, nuclear war is thinkable. The elite today are like dragons… they’re greedy, prideful, and burn nations to the ground. What’s the difference between the EU and herpes? Herpes is easier to get rid of. There once was a boy named George, Between his soul and mind was a gorge, A Nazi vote, A Judas goat, And a powerful bond with Satan would he forge. I, for one love to eat bugs… made into chicken. An electric knife can cut in thirds, electric emotion makes angry words, as electric cars are for the birds. What do you call shacking up for a night? Love… American style. They say the world is so complex we need the bureaucracy now… like the Middle Ages needed the Black Death. Sincerely, John Pepin

While I often voice concerns about the medical system and the influence of the pharmaceutical industry, it's clear to me that the majority of doctors genuinely strive for the well-being of their patients and recognize the importance of lifestyle medicine. Certainly, there are those who may be overly influenced by what can sometimes appear as pharmaceutical propaganda, masquerading as 'rigorous studies'. Yet, many are enlightened and aware. A glaring oversight in our current healthcare model is the lack of emphasis on lifestyle as a fundamental component of health. This is precisely the void that health coaches aim to fill. We emerge in response to this oversight, acknowledging that while most individuals, particularly those battling chronic conditions, understand the need for healthier lifestyles, putting these understandings into practice can be daunting. The challenge often lies not in knowing what to do, but in how to implement these changes sustainably and effectively, without faltering in the absence of a supportive structure. At Red Pill Health & Wellness, we bridge this gap. We don't just hand over a generic plan and send you on your way. I, Mike Vera, engage directly with you to understand your aspirations and collaborate on a tailored approach to achieve them. Have you ever felt overwhelmed by trying to make healthier lifestyle choices? Do you find it challenging to maintain consistency without someone to hold you accountable? Healthy & Awake Podcast: Apple: https://bit.ly/44pEBV6 Spotify: https://bit.ly/47KVbBM Rumble: https://bit.ly/3HPzG6V YouTube: https://bit.ly/3SKeZjn Substack: https://bit.ly/3TI9Jgw X: https://bit.ly/43sR7oa Mike Vera isn't your average Board Certified Health Coach (NBC-HWC). Armed with an MS in Exercise and Health Promotion and extensive experience as a seasoned personal trainer, he's the strategic mind behind Red Pill Health & Wellness and the engaging voice of the Healthy & Awake Podcast. With a strong foundation in cognitive psychology, Mike is adept at unveiling the hidden influences that impact our health.

After seeing this clip of Jordan Peterson and “@Destiny” debating the justifiability of Covid mandates, I thought it would be fruitful to post two key facts that should outright define the discussion. The first surrounds the lethality of Covid and the second concerns the frequency of heart damage among the vaccinated. Covid is not significantly lethal to the majority of age deciles. By April of 2021, 6.9 million cases of Covid had been confirmed in the United Kingdom and case outcomes were collated into this NHS report. Table 1, presented on page 3 shows that of the ~2.4 million confirmed cases in the 20-39 age group (which is a rather large age range), 32 individuals died. Through complicated arithmetic manipulation, we find that 2,384,233 / 32 works out to a mortality rate of 1 in 74,507. For comparison, if we consult the National Safety Council (NSC) for annual American car accident fatalities by age group, we find that in the 25-45 age bracket, the death rate stands at 33.5 per 200,000 or 1 in 5,970. That translates to a 12.5-times greater likelihood of dying in a car accident than dying from Covid. It must also be noted that the NHS report was published in April of 2021 from data collection beginning in February 2020. The first wave of Covid struck the United Kingdom in 2020 before vaccine rollout and by April 2021, only around 13% of the U.K. population had been double-jabbed (which was weighted towards the at-risk elderly). So it should be specified that you were 12.5 times more likely to die from a car accident than Covid if you were unvaccinated (within the relevant age range). By now, one should be at least somewhat perplexed by the wrathful enthusiasm that Governments took towards mandatory vaccination, but let’s also check-in on the safety profile of the vaccine: Oh oh — 1 in 35 recipients of Moderna’s booster show signs of heart damage (page 1). Heightened blood-troponin levels indicated myocardial damage in 40 of the 777 participants in the test group. This study, which was widely publicised thanks to the dauntless work of Dr. John Campbell and others, has been avidly ripped apart in the consolidated annals of the legacy press. Why? Because "signs of myocardial damage" is not strictly synonymous with clinical myocarditis. Just a good indicator. We can nevertheless say that since the myocardium does not regenerate, damage done in the wake of mRNA vaccination means that unbeknownst to the vaccine recipient at the time of jabbing, some of their myocardial health and potentially some longevity has been irretrievably lost. Shouldn’t this have been picked up earlier than March 2023 (the report’s publication date)? Yes. And Jordan Peterson was rigorously correct in say that the vaccines had in no way been tested with the rigour that would have been appropriate. So the key stats that I wanted to share in vindication of Peterson’s publicly stated stance were those: ~20 to ~40 year olds were 12.5x more likely to die in car accidents than from Covid without vaccination and 1 in 35 recipients of Moderna’s booster show signs of myocardial damage. Oh, and @Destiny's counterargument that, "Covid causes myocarditis too", was a red herring since vaccination does not lower the risk of developing myocarditis from infection.

Stopping Illegal Immigration Posted on March 30, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, illegal immigration could be stopped by the Republican controlled House, today, if they had the will. That they don’t, shows they don’t. How? By passing a law forbidding non citizens from accessing any social services. If they come here… they’re on their own. No welfare, no free phone, no free food, no free housing, no free anything… but a ticket home. Turn off the magnet and the filings fall off. They’ll have to find work to survive. Cut off the free stuff and many will simply go home. Most of all, cutting off the free stuff, cuts off the draw for people to come here. It’s common sense, no sane person pays foreigners to invade their country… unless they want their country invaded. So, why doesn’t congress act, instead of holding hearings, following squirrels and grandstanding? In what universe does it make sense to give welfare to illegal aliens? Isn’t that asking to be taken advantage of? No sane poor person anywhere on the planet would turn down that offer. It would be stupid. No wonder people are flooding into the US and EU. Heck… I should go to Mexico, re-enter as an illegal, and put in for welfare. Ride the wagon instead of pull it. The trouble is, laws are for citizens… Rights are for illegal aliens. That’s why they aren’t held to the law… but can carry weapons. Plus given thousands of dollars for showing up. There’s an old saying, “subsidize that which you want more of.” If that’s the case the elite want more illegal aliens. Since they’re so intent on subsidizing a migration to the land of milk and honey. A land being stripped of milk, honey, and prosperity. People are self interested, its a fundamental fact of human nature. Moreover, we seek the fastest way to achieve our self interest. It was necessary when everything was in shortage. In the West, everything is in glut, unless the government regulates it into shortage. Any poor person living in a place without education, infrastructure or opportunity, who is offered free money, housing and free reign of their id, will jump at the chance. It serves their self interest, but more importantly, it’s the easy way to serve their self interest. If this paradigm is maintained long enough, everyone on the planet will come to Europe and the US, to hop on the couch. Only those with eyes to see, will know better than to climb onto an overfilled hammock, swaying over a cliff, held up by a fraying rope. We’re that fraying rope. Congress has the power to reign in the Bureaucracy, that they don’t, shows they don’t want to. Instead of grandstanding, and ejecting a member of their own caucus based on an allegation, while allowing members of the other caucus to stay with actually proven crimes… the republican controlled House could pass legislation, like a budget that’s not a giveaway to the progressives, a border bill, and ban non citizens from receiving any public assistance. You know. Do their job. If republicans sweep into the House and Senate in November, and the democrats don’t blow up the world over it, count on Republicans continuing doing the same… nothing. Because they’re an integral part of the uniparty. Else they would have impeached Biden over the border, passed legislation, and a real budget. The role of Congress is to pass laws and budgets… instead, they hold hearings and grandstand. I suppose grandstanding plays to an audience, while passing meaningful legislation that addresses our societal problems, eliminates a reason to grandstand. Losing a source of publicity without accolade. The Founders would be shocked to learn the legislative branch has given up its legislative authority to the Executive Branch’s bureaucracy. Maybe they’re lazy, stupid, or are traitors who want plausible deniability. For whatever reason, the congress has passed their authority to the courts and bureaucracy, becoming a televised public court instead. A court without authority, and we all understand that a court without authority, is merely theater. How’s a theater unlike congress? In a theater… people act. Sincerely, John Pepin

“And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.” (Genesis 1:3 NIV) “When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, ‘I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.’” (John 8:12 NIV) “Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.” (John 20:1 NIV) As we look closer at crucifixion weekend, today being the day we celebrate Resurrection Sunday, there is another less thought of parallel to creation week: On the first day of creation, light entered the world. On the first day of the following week, at Jesus’ resurrection, the “Light of the World” stepped out of the tomb, and back into the world (at least for a few weeks prior to His ascension). Resurrection morning is a fascinating morning to look closely at. On this morning, two groups of witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection are present. While we often think of the women who went to the tomb (wanting to anoint Jesus’ corpse and wondering aloud about how they could get the stone moved), the other group to witness the resurrection was a team of highly trained soldiers. Following Jesus’ resurrection, the soldiers race into town with the testimony about what they saw. The first people to know of a resurrected Jesus that morning were the religious leaders. However, bias and prejudice stopped these leaders from finally accepting Jesus’ claims. They chose to take the “most valid” category of testimony in that time period and twist it into a lie -- one that is equally unbelievable. However, the disciples take the testimony of the “least valid” (but still valid) category of testimony and choose to investigate the claims. When Jesus stepped out of the tomb, Light reentered the world. The religious leaders received the highest form of testimony and chose to reject the truth. However, Jesus’ followers took the testimony they were given, and built God's Church on this truth. ✝️ While I could share more, let’s remember the testimony God gave us and celebrate the Light that reentered our world many Sunday’s ago. ✅ -- “Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali, the Way of the Sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles—the people living in darknesshave seen a great light;on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned.” (Matthew 4:15-16 NIV) “Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’Jesus replied, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter [stone], and on this rock [the declaration about Jesus] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.’” (Matthew 16:16-18 NIV)

The Story of the Most Critical Anti-Trust Action in a Generation. Tech Giants: Google/Alphabet, Amazon, Apple Computer, Infinity, Microsoft. Few organizations throughout history have exceeded the modern American mega-corporation when it comes to gathering money, power, and influence. The question becomes: are these companies so dominant that they can be considered a “monopoly?” The term “monopoly” is tricky. In the United States, we like to define it in the legal sense. Something is a “monopoly” if the law says it’s a “monopoly.” We rely on a 134-year-old law called the Sherman Antitrust Act. According to the Sherman Act, a monopoly is achieved when one company is so dominant that it can control the price and availability of a product or service. It doesn’t need 100% control, just enough to set price and availability. During the debate around the Sherman Antitrust Act, Senator George Hoar of Massachusetts put it this way: “[a person] who merely by superior skill and intelligence…got the whole business because nobody could do it as well as he could was not a monopolist…” In other words, if you’re very good at what you do, then “wa la” the American Courts will NOT consider you a monopolist. Essentially, you’re free and clear to do whatever you want. While that may have been an adequate definition in the industrial age, it is far less so in today’s information age. Today’s economy is littered with companies that are monopolies in everything but the strict legal sense, primarily because of the George Hoar loophole. For instance, America has only one company, Boeing, which makes commercial airplanes. There are just two fully integrated oil companies (able to drill, refine, and market): Chevron and Exxon Mobile. The one dominant e-commerce company is Amazon. The Apple Store, 5th Avenue, New York City In modern technology companies, we find the most egregious example of a monopoly. Google/Alphabet has the lion’s share of all search volumes; Apple has a dominant position in smartphone sales; Microsoft has the premier position in business software; and, of course, Amazon is the number one online retailer. Each of these companies has drawn the ire of the United States Justice Department. Three companies, Apple, Google/Alphabet, and Amazon, are currently facing major legal battles with Justice focused on Sherman Anti Trust violations. These cases will take years to adjudicate and involve literally hundreds of attorneys. Two of the cases, Amazon and Google/Alphabet, began with the Trump Administration and have been passed on to the Biden Administration — this means that at least two Attorney Generals have been involved in the government’s case. Although the intricacies involved are too complex to deal with, there are specific highlights we can see. Like almost all lawsuits, these begin with the question of fact: do these companies have such a dominant position in the market that they could be considered a monopoly? They do have the dominant position, as the DOJ will argue. But the counter becomes: Is this dominant position so tenuous that it could be lost at any time? It is not an easy answer. Should the judge rule that Apple, Google, or Amazon face sufficient competition that they could be toppled from their number one position, then the case against them would be thrown out. An Amazon Electric Delivery Truck. Based on this fact alone, most legal scholars feel the case against Apple is the weakest. Apple faces several substantial competitors, especially Android phones. The cases against Google and Amazon are more substantial if, for no other reason, they have maintained their dominance for a long time with few significant competitors. Influence The second part of these lawsuits is particularly relevant: Are the tech companies using undue influence? The question goes back 23 years to the U.S. Department of Justice Case against Microsoft. Microsoft has the dominant position in software, with Microsoft operating systems on most Personal Computers. Apple Computers, of course, use IOS. Microsoft was bundling their web browser, Internet Explorer, with their operating system. Internet Explorer came as a complete package when a customer purchased Microsoft’s MS-DOS. The DOJ argued that Microsoft used its dominant position in software to exclude other browser companies unfairly. Ironically, Google was/is the most crucial competitor in this field and is now the subject of a DOJ Antitrust Case. Bill Gates testifying in US (vs) Microsoft. The Microsoft Case raises the fundamental issue of influence. Did Microsoft use its dominant position in software to influence customers to use Internet Explorer unfairly? Herein lies the chief problem for today’s Tech Monopolists: Are they using unfair influence, not just in business-related issues but in fields far removed? Such is the scope and range of all of these companies that they can shape the public landscape. To create a favorable impression of whatever issue they wish to present. Their capability goes far beyond merely providing a product or service. These dominant tech companies can frame public opinion. In the case of Microsoft, it showed Internet Explorer as the quick-and-easy option. The Justice Department demonstrated that most consumers followed Microsoft’s direction and installed Internet Explorer as their web browser. Regrettably, there was no final decision in the courts. Although the U.S. District Court ruled that Microsoft violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, this was partially overturned by the U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit. Later, Microsoft and Justice reached an out-of-court settlement in which Microsoft altered some of its services. I believe that Internet Explorer’s default position was modified. The bottom line is that the issue of “Influence” still needs to be determined in the Courts. The Google Brain Trust: Eric Schmidt, Sergey Brin, Larry Page. Like many of you, I’d like to see the courts decide this principal issue: What is Google, Amazon, and Apple’s influence on not just what brands to purchase but also what news and information we see and, ultimately, what candidates we vote for? How does Big Tech influence the world we see? Of course, that desire is far beyond what we’ll probably see in these court cases. The courts will most likely produce a narrow decision based on contract law, far from the sweeping issue of general influence. Finally, Shane Greenstein, a professor at the Harvard Business School, makes an interesting point. Apple, Google, and Amazon are all placing their reputations on the line. Who knows what “business practices” will be revealed as the court proceedings unfold? American public opinion is notoriously fickle and could easily change if some unscrupulous corporate strategies are revealed. An adverse public reaction could have far more impact on these companies than a narrowly worded court decision. Follow me here on ThinkSpot for more stories from the ValueSide.

Sometimes, what's right in front of us isn't what it seems. Our brains, in their quest for efficiency, employ heuristics and biases—shortcuts that, while useful, can make us susceptible to influence. Propaganda exploits these shortcuts through narrative control, fostering group conformity via bipartisan politics, and leveraging authority to forge a consensus. These are just a few of the ways it shapes our thoughts and perceptions. Similarly, marketing mirrors these tactics but focuses on consumer behavior—crafting compelling narratives in advertising, using influencers to shape our perception of status, and catchy jingles designed to linger in our minds. These pervasive strategies don't just influence our views; they subtly nudge our behavior, often in less healthy directions. As a Board Certified Health Coach (NBC-HWC), I guide you through not just adopting healthier habits in nutrition, exercise, sleep, and stress management, but also in recognizing and countering these external influences. Our unique approach empowers you to use these very tactics for your own benefit, turning the tables on the forces that shape your decisions. Reach out to explore how we can redefine your health narrative. What unnoticed influences have you identified in your life, and how have they shaped your decisions? In what ways do you think recognizing and repurposing these tactics could lead to more empowered health choices? Share your thoughts and experiences on navigating through the noise to find your path to wellness. Healthy & Awake Podcast: Apple: https://bit.ly/44pEBV6 Spotify: https://bit.ly/47KVbBM Rumble: https://bit.ly/3HPzG6V YouTube: https://bit.ly/3SKeZjn Substack: https://bit.ly/3TI9Jgw X: https://bit.ly/43sR7oa Mike Vera isn't your average Board Certified Health Coach (NBC-HWC). Armed with an MS in Exercise and Health Promotion and extensive experience as a seasoned personal trainer, he's the strategic mind behind Red Pill Health & Wellness and the engaging voice of the Healthy & Awake Podcast. With a strong foundation in cognitive psychology, Mike is adept at unveiling the hidden influences that impact our health.

Back MEDITATIONS II today! Join in Akira and the gang in a celebration of, and an execution of... THE POWER! TRACKLISTING Kanye West x Point Point - PowerAkira The Don - OPPORTUNITYAkira The Don - How I Made Meaningwave (feat. Jordan Peterson)Akira The Don & Danika XIX - WHO WILL PLAY GODAkira The Don - Mind Over Mind (Instrumental)Akira The Don - my mind 145 G#minor - 12A - 145Akira The Don - Watch What Is Going On (Instrumental)Akira The Don - Your Biggest Enemy (Instrumental)Akira The Don & Jordan Peterson - The AntidoteAkira The Don & Danika XIX - MENTAT GENERALIST (THINGS I KNOW)Akira The Don - MENTAT GENERALIST (THINGS I KNOW) (Instrumental)Akira The Don, Marcus Aurelius - BETTER THAN JUSTICEAkira The Don, Marcus Aurelius - BEHIND CLOSED DOORSAkira The Don - BEHIND CLOSED DOORS (Instrumental)Akira The Don & Jordan Peterson - more powerful than you thinkAkira The Don & Stan Lee - Just Because Someone Has A SuperpowerAkira The Don & Danika XIX - A PAST WHICH NEVER EXISTEDAkira The Don & Jordan Peterson - StrengthAkira The Don ft. Joe Rogan - MY FAVOURITE STORIESAkira The Don & Paul Harvey - Thank You GodAkira the Don & Alan Watts - Our Revels Now Are Ended (24 Demo)Akira the Don & Alan Watts - Our Revels Now Are Ended (24 Demo)Akira The Don - Doing On The Job (Inst)Akira The Don - Ayahuasca (Instrumental)Stan Bush - The TouchAkira The Don - Self Control ft. Marcus AureliusAkira The Don - My Adopted Father (Instrumental)Kanye West - POWER You can also listen to our streams as audio on your podcast feed of choice. STREAM HERE ‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

Click here to join me Thursday, April 4th at 6pm EST for a discussion on this important topic. Does your workplace have too few black people in top jobs? It’s racist. Does the advanced math and science high school in your city have too many Asians? It’s racist. Does your local museum employ too many white women? It’s racist, too. After the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, prestigious American institutions, from the medical profession to the fine arts, pleaded guilty to “systemic racism.” How else explain why blacks are overrepresented in prisons and underrepresented in C-suites and faculty lounges, their leaders asked? The official answer for those disparities is “disparate impact,” a once obscure legal theory that is now transforming our world. Any traditional standard of behavior or achievement that impedes exact racial proportionality in any enterprise is now presumed racist. Medical school admissions tests, expectations of scientific accomplishment in the award of research grants, the enforcement of the criminal law—all are under assault, because they have a “disparate impact” on underrepresented minorities. When Race Trumps Merit provides an alternative explanation for those racial disparities. It is large academic skills gaps that cause the lack of proportional representation in our most meritocratic organizations and large differences in criminal offending that account for the racially disproportionate prison population. The need for such a corrective argument could not be more urgent. Federal science agencies now treat researchers’ skin color as a scientific qualification. Museums and orchestras choose which art and music to promote based on race. Police officers avoid making arrests and prosecutors decline to bring charges to avoid disparate impact on minority criminals. When Race Trumps Merit breaks powerful taboos. But it is driven by a sense of alarm, supported by detailed case studies of how disparate-impact thinking is jeopardizing scientific progress, destroying public order, and poisoning the appreciation of art and culture. As long as alleged racism remains the only allowable explanation for racial differences, we will continue tearing down excellence and putting lives, as well as civilizational achievement, at risk. Follow the link below to order a copy of my new book from amazon. When Race Trumps Merit: How the Pursuit of Equity Sacrifices Excellence, Destroys Beauty, and Threatens Lives: Mac Donald, Heather: 9781956007169: Amazon.com: Books When Race Trumps Merit: How the Pursuit of Equity Sacrifices Excellence, Destroys Beauty, and Threatens Lives [Mac Donald, Heather] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. When Race Trumps Merit: How the Pursuit of Equity Sacrifices Excellence, Destroys Beauty, and Threatens Lives a.co

A Guide to Social Justice Paradox - Part 3 By RSnakeWhen Race Trumps Merit: How the Pursuit of Equity Sacrifices Excellence, Destroys Beauty, and Threatens Lives By Heather Mac DonaldClick here to join us for a discussion on Race and Merit with Heather Macdonald and Phil Magness this Thursday, April 4th at 6pm EST. Manu: The First Man and Keeper of the Law By Sadhika PantRetrograde spins forward - tomorrow, tonight - I post. By DavidGetzinAcademia Isn’t a Pit, It’s a Ladder By BobbyMarsApple, Amazon, And Google: Are They Monopolies? The Government Thinks So. By ValueSideJoin the conversation Here's a reality check regarding those Carbon Tax supporting so called 'experts', who are mostly comprised of professors in Academia

The most consequential falsehood in American public policy today is the idea that any racial disparity in any institution is by definition the result of racial discrimination. If a cancer research lab, for example, does not have 13 percent black oncologists—the black share of the national population—it is by definition a racist lab that discriminates against competitively qualified black oncologists; if an airline company doesn’t have 13 percent black pilots, it is by definition a racist airline company that discriminates against competitively qualified black pilots; and if a prison population contains more than 13 percent black prisoners, our law enforcement system is racist. The claim that racial disparities are proof of racial discrimination has been percolating in academia and the media for a long time. After the George Floyd race riots of 2020, however, it was adopted by America’s most elite institutions, from big law and big business to big finance. Even museums and orchestras took up the cry. Many thought that STEM—the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics—would escape the diversity sledgehammer. They were wrong. The American Medical Association today insists that medicine is characterized by white supremacy. Nature magazine declares that science manifests one of “humankind’s worst excesses”: racism. The Smithsonian Institution announces that “emphasis on the scientific method” and an interest in “cause and effect relationships” are part of totalitarian whiteness. As a result of this falsehood, we are eviscerating meritocratic and behavioral standards in accordance with what is known as “disparate impact analysis.” Consider medicine. Step One of the medical licensing exam, taken during or after the second year of medical school, tests medical students’ knowledge of anatomy, physiology, and pathology. On average, black students score lower on the grading curve, making it harder for them to land their preferred residencies. Step One, in other words, has a “disparate impact” on black medical students. The solution, implemented last year, was to eliminate the Step One grading disparity by instituting a pass–fail system. Hospitals choosing residents can no longer distinguish between high and low achieving students—and that is precisely the point! The average Medical College Achievement Test (MCAT) score for black applicants is a standard deviation below the average score of white applicants. Some medical schools have waived the submission of MCAT scores altogether for black applicants. The tests were already redesigned to try to eliminate the disparity. A quarter of the questions now focus on social issues and psychology. The medical school curriculum is being revised to offer more classes in white privilege and focus less on clinical practice. The American Association of Medical Colleges will soon require that medical faculty demonstrate knowledge of “intersectionality”—a theory about the cumulative burdens of discrimination. Heads of medical schools and chairmen of departments like pediatric surgery are being selected on the basis of identity, not knowledge. The federal government is shifting medical research funding from pure science to studies on racial disparities and social justice. Why? Not because of any assessment of scientific need, but simply because black researchers do more racism research and less pure science. The National Institutes of Health has broadened the criteria for receiving neurology grants to include things like childhood welfare receipt because considering scientific accomplishment alone results in a disparate impact. What is at stake in these changes? Future medical progress and, ultimately, lives. Standards are falling in the legal profession, which came up with the disparate impact concept in the first place. Upon taking office in 2021, President Biden announced that he would no longer submit his judicial nominees to the American Bar Association for a preliminary rating. Why? According to a member of the White House Counsel’s Office, allowing the ABA to vet candidates would be incompatible with the “diversification of the judiciary.” This claim was dubious. The ABA, after all, cannot open its collective mouth without issuing a bromide about the need to diversify the bar. Its leading members are obsessed with the demographics of corporate law firms and law school faculties. This is the same ABA that gave its highest rating to a Supreme Court nominee who as a justice would make the false claim during a challenge to Covid vaccine mandates that “over 100,000 children are in serious condition [from Covid] and many are on ventilators.” State bar associations are also busy watering down standards to eliminate disparate impact. In 2020, California lowered the pass score on its bar exam because black applicants were disproportionately failing. Only five percent of black law school graduates passed the California bar on their first try in February 2020, compared to 52 percent of white law school graduates and 42 percent of Asian law school graduates. The lack of proportional representation among California’s attorneys was held to be proof of a discriminatory credentialing system. The pressure to eliminate the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) requirement for law school admissions is growing, because it too has a disparate impact. As a single mother told an ABA panel, “I would hate to give up on my dream of becoming a lawyer just due to not being able to successfully handle this test.” Note the assumption: the problem always lies with the test, never with the test taker. The LSAT requirement will almost certainly be axed. The curious state of our criminal justice system today is a function of the disparate impact principle. If you wonder why police officers are not making certain arrests, or why district attorneys are not prosecuting whole categories of crimes—such as shoplifting, trespassing, or farebeating—it is because apprehending lawbreakers and prosecuting crime have a disparate impact on black criminals. Urban leaders have decided that they would rather not enforce the law at all, no matter how constitutional that enforcement, than put more black criminals in jail. Walgreens, CVS, and Target would rather close down entire stores and deprive their elderly customers of access to their medications than confront shoplifters and hand them over to the law, because doing so would disproportionately yield black shoplifters, as the viral looting videos attest. Macy’s flagship store in New York City was sued several years ago because most of the people its employees stopped for shoplifting were black. The only allowable explanation for that fact was that Macy’s was racist. It was not permissible to argue that Macy’s arrests mirrored the shoplifting population. Even colorblind technology is racist. Speeding and red-light cameras disproportionately identify black drivers as traffic scofflaws. The solution to such disparate impact is the same as we saw with the medical licensing exam: throw out the cameras. The result of this de-prosecution and de-policing has been widespread urban anarchy and, in 2020, the largest one-year spike in homicide in this nation’s history. Thousands more black lives have been lost to drive-by shootings. Dozens of black children have been fatally gunned down in their beds, in their front yards, and in their parents’ cars. No one says their names because their assailants were not police officers or white supremacists. They were other blacks. UNCOMFORTABLE FACTS We need to face up to the truth: the reason for racial underrepresentation across a range of meritocratic fields is the academic skills gap. The reason for racial overrepresentation in the criminal justice system is the crime gap. And let me issue a trigger warning here: I am going to raise uncomfortable facts that many well-intentioned Americans would rather not hear. Keeping such facts off stage may ordinarily be appropriate as a matter of civil etiquette. But it is too late for such forbearance now. If we cannot acknowledge the skills gap and the behavior gap, we are going to continue destroying our civilizational legacy. Let me also make the obvious point that I am talking about group averages. Thousands of individuals within underperforming groups outperform not only their own group average but great numbers of people within other groups as well. Here are the relevant facts. In 2019, 66 percent of all black 12th graders did not possess even partial mastery of basic 12th grade math skills, defined as being able to do arithmetic and to read a graph. Only seven percent of black 12th graders were proficient in 12th grade math, defined as being able to calculate using ratios. The number of black 12th graders who were advanced in math was too small to show up statistically in a national sample. The picture was not much better in reading. Fifty percent of black 12th graders did not possess even partial mastery of basic reading, and only four percent were advanced. According to the ACT, a standardized college admissions test, only three percent of black high school seniors were college ready in 2023. The disparities in other such tests—the SAT, the LSAT, the GRE, and the GMAT—are just as wide. Remember these data when politicians and others vilify Americans as racist on the ground that this or that institution is not proportionally diverse. We can argue about why these disparities exist and how to close them—something that policymakers and philanthropists have been trying to do for decades. But in light of these skills gaps, it is irrational to expect 13 percent black representation on a medical school faculty or among a law firm’s partners under meritocratic standards. At present you can have proportional diversity or you can have meritocracy. You cannot have both. As for the criminal justice system, the bodies speak for themselves. President Biden is fond of intoning that black parents are right to fear that their children will be killed by a police officer or by a white gunslinger every time those children step outside. The mayor of Kansas City proclaimed last year that “existing while black” is another high-risk activity that blacks must engage in. The mayor was partially right: existing while black is far more dangerous than existing while white—but the reason is black crime, not white vigilantes. In the post-George Floyd era, black juveniles are shot at 100 times the rate of white juveniles. Blacks between the ages of ten and 24 are killed in drive by shootings at nearly 25 times the rate of whites in that same age cohort. Dozens of blacks are murdered every day, more than all white and Hispanic homicide victims combined, even though blacks are just 13 percent of the population. The country turns its eyes away. Who is killing these black victims? Not the police, not whites, but other blacks. As for interracial violence, blacks are a greater threat to whites than whites are to blacks. Blacks commit 85 percent of all non-lethal interracial violence between blacks and whites. A black person is 35 times more likely to commit an act of non-lethal violence against a white person than vice versa. Yet the national narrative insists on the opposite idea—and too many dutifully play along. These crime disparities mean that the police cannot restore law and order in neighborhoods where innocent people are most being victimized without having a disparate impact on black criminals. So the political establishment has decided not to restore law and order at all. CIVILIZATION AT STAKE It is urgent that we fight back against disparate impact thinking. As long as racism remains the only allowable explanation for racial disparities, the Left wins, and our civilization will continue to crumble. Even the arts are coming down. Classical music, visual art, theater—all are dismissed as a function of white oppression. The Metropolitan Museum of Art mounted an astonishing show last year called the Fictions of Emancipation. The show’s premise was that if a white artist creates a work intended to show the cruelties of slavery, that artist (in this case, the great 19th century French sculptor Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux) is in fact arguing that the natural condition of blacks is slavery. Prosecuting this nonsensical argument required the Met to ignore or distort almost every feature of the Western art tradition—including the representation of the nude human body, artists’ use of models, and the sale of art. Only Western art is subjected to this kind of hostile interpretation. Chinese, African, and Indian cultural traditions are still treated with curatorial respect, their works analyzed in accordance with their creators’ intent. As soon as a critic turns his eye or ear on Western art, however, all he can see or hear is imperialism and white privilege. It is a perverse obsession. We are teaching young people to dismiss the greatest creations of humanity. We are stripping them of the capacity to escape their narrow identities and to lose themselves in beauty, sublimity, and wit. No wonder so many Americans are drowning in meaninglessness and despair. We must stop apologizing for Western Civilization. To be sure, slavery and segregation were grotesque violations of America’s founding ideals. For much of our history black Americans suffered injustice and gratuitous cruelty. Today, however, every mainstream institution is twisting itself into knots to hire and promote as many underrepresented minorities as possible. Yet those same institutions grovelingly accuse themselves of racism. The West has liberated the world from universal squalor and disease, thanks to the scientific method and the Western passion for discovery and knowledge. It has given the world plumbing, hot showers in frigid winters, flight, clean water, steel, antibiotics, and just about every structure and every device that we take for granted in our miraculously privileged existence—and I use the word “privilege” here to refer to anyone whose life has been transformed by Western ingenuity—i.e., virtually every human being on the planet. It was in the West that the ideas of constitutional government and civil rights were born. Yes, to our shame, we had slavery. What civilization did not? But only the Anglosphere expended lives and capital to end the nearly universal practice. Britain had to occupy Lagos in 1861 to get its ruler to give up the slave trade. The British Navy used 13 percent of its manpower to blockade slave ships leaving the western coast of Africa in the 19th century, as Nigel Biggar has documented. Every ideal that the Left uses today to bash the West—such as equality or tolerance—originated in the West. *** The ongoing attack on colorblind excellence in the U.S. is putting our scientific edge at risk. China, which cares nothing for identity politics, is throwing everything it has at its most talented students. China ranks number one in international tests of K-12 math, science, and reading skills; the U.S. ranks twenty-fifth. China is racing ahead in nano physics, artificial intelligence, and other critical defense technologies. Chinese teams dominate the International Olympiad in Informatics. Meanwhile the American Mathematical Association declares math to be racist and President Biden puts a soil geologist with no background in physics at the top of the Department of Energy’s science programs. This new science director may know nothing about nuclear weapons and nuclear physics, but she checks off several identity politics boxes and publishes on such topics as “A Critical Feminist Approach to Transforming Workplace Climate.” What do we do in response to such civilizational immolation? We proclaim that standards are not racist and that excellence is not racist. We assert that categories like race, gender, and sexual preference are never qualifications for a job. I know for a fact that being female is not an accomplishment. I am equally sure that being gay or being black are also not accomplishments. Should conservative political candidates campaign against disparate impact thinking and in favor of standards of merit? Of course they should! They will be accused of waging a culture war. But it is the progressive elites, not their conservative opponents, who are engaging in cultural revolution! Most conservatives today are not even playing defense. How about legislation to ban racial preferences in medical training and practice? How about eliminating the disparate impact standard in statutes and regulations? Conservatives should by all means promote the virtues of free markets and limited government, but the diversity regime is the nemesis of both. Lowering standards helps no one since high expectations are the key to achievement. In defense of excellence we must speak the truth, never apologize, and never back down. Originally published at imprimus.hillsdale.edu

The staples of an average millennial high-schooler’s bedroom: a skateboard propped up against the wall, a closet full of Hurley, and a Tom DeLonge Signature Strat in the corner. The fact that most of us can relate isn’t an accidental coincidence. Pop-punk reigned king of the airwaves during the late-90s/early-2000s. While various sub-genres such as midwest emo and shoe gaze had already been around for a while, nobody could’ve really predicted the rise of simple four-powerchord choruses with catchy hooks. Thanks to a plethora of the era’s bands and record labels—most notably blink-182 and Drive-Thru Records, respectively—a ceaseless wave of wide-eyed dreamers invested in the scene with utmost sincerity. And so the story went that with the sound came the image and finally, the characteristics of any pop-punker the world over: wearing one’s heart on their sleeve, being overly emotional, and having a very stylized flair for the dramatic. The romanticized idea of “soulmates” wasn’t a new one and certainly not unique to any genre of music. It was, however, deeply embedded within the sentimental lyrics like an on-demand cookie-cutter. High school sweethearts were essentially doomed for inevitable heartbreak that they could then nurse with their favorite songs on repeat. This isn’t a criticism. I myself was a frontline pusher of the aesthetics in every way with scraped knees from failed kick flips and calloused fingertips from constant “What’s My Age Again?” riffing to match. I embodied the look every chance I could and while it never really did much for me in return, it did make me feel part of something bigger than myself. I suppose the same could be said for nearly all counterculture movements. The ultimate consequences to this lifestyle weren’t just a bunch of nautical star tattoos and a colorful wardrobe thanks to local PacSuns everywhere. It created a generation of excessively softened hearts. Those who would jump at the sudden sight of a failed relationship. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with wanting things to work out with a loved one. But the reality is that it often doesn’t when you’re still in the midsts of adolescent dreaming. And if it’s one thing we all eventually learn along the way toward adulthood is that there is always someone else to give our hearts to. The sea is big, the fish are plentiful. That’s one thing they don’t teach in the school of pop-punk: a goodbye is not the end of the world. Now in my 30s and having a new perspective on all-things-love, what are my lasting thoughts of it all? I can safely say that it was well worth it. Not just for the sense of belonging that it brought or the memorable concerts or even the self-made punk songs, but for the way that if one wasn’t around during that very specific time, they wouldn’t have those very specific memories. The oversized Discmans stuffed into our front pockets may’ve been uncomfortable, but the peeling back of a new CD’s sticker more than made up for it. Mostly though, those who lived through the era will always remember the subtle innocence of it all. That’s something that can’t be replaced and for that, I’m forever grateful to have experienced it.

Time is running out. I need to be at O’Hare International Airport in under ninety minutes. To go that far west, I should first head south toward the Loop and then take the Blue Line. Everything is a blur—, the studio walls, the commotion outside, the last twenty-some years. Everything blurs by. Michigan Avenue is one long, concrete-runway. It reaches the sunset and then some. Police are posted at most corners, beggars escape the wind within random alcoves, and tourists slow down foot-traffic while trying to take the perfect picture. Still—, it’s the epitome of style. Not just because everything is so designer and so glamorous and so chic—, but because it’s what keeps us coming back. The shine, the next step, the possibility that one day we too can say “we made it.” Couples exit expensive restaurants and reach for each other’s arms, interlocking them as they set off down the street toward a taxicab or café. Either way, it’s a charming sight and one that invites us to see ourselves in that exact position. We keep moving. I hear the announcer say that the Michigan & Lake stop is coming up so I pull the cord, stand up, and ready myself to walk toward the Washington station. Once there, I board the Blue Line and sit in the first open seat I see. The speeding train interweaves through the clusters of structures like a massive steel thread. If only I could reach out beyond the sealed windows, my fingertips would be able to graze the bricks themselves. Everything I’d learned from books and movies was reduced down to mere reference points when I finally moved out into the city. Nothing prepares you for the real world like stepping out into the real world. Of course it can be beautiful. Of course the sunshine beaming off of the stage at Millennium Park is perfect. But it can also be cold. The winters are rough. Ice and sleet cover the streets and everything is grey. Not a pure white with freshly fallen snow, no. It’s marred from the tar off the wheels that run themselves over the slush and dirt of an urban landscape. But even then—, something beautiful can be found within it. Something compelling. Like the city is irresistible even in mid-January, even with the dreariness of unforeseeable blizzards, because after all, it is home. It’s where you sleep and shower and see how far you can go without feeling like you’ve been left behind to fend for yourself, since here, everyone fends for themselves. Time keeps ticking. The rooftops drift by in the late afternoon sun. The ones right past the fiberglass, quickly. The ones way behind in the background, slowly. Either way, they all drift by into the recesses of our memories and only reappear once we pass through again. Coded languages are graffitied onto the stairwells of large complexes and ciphers onto the sides of small apartment buildings. They speak of some type of spiritual revolution while prayer flags are strewn through the streets—, fallen and forgotten. I don’t pretend to understand, I just accept it. I begin to think back to yesterday. The scene floods in like waves of scorching sunlight; thick fumes drift up and through the atmosphere as we take our seats, speak in pieces of broken slang, and seek peace itself. This is nighttime—, personified in two people. Stars sparkle in our eyes. The Windy City’s air courses through our veins and makes its way up toward our brains as the name stays on the very tips of our tongues; “Chi…ca…go…,” she says with such elegance. We keep moving. Time keeps ticking. The world keeps blurring by.

Not long after my ninth birthday is when I first began hearing my father violently coughing up blood on a regular basis. Rarely did I hear anymore quiet that lasted longer than a few sparse minutes from the living room where he'd sleep alone in the fold-out bed. It'd been months since I last saw him in actual clothes as he now only wore different sets of the same bland pajamas my mom probably picked out for him in a few different colors. He'd probably never again wear a nice button-up shirt. What a non-issue that must be to a healthier man whose lungs weren't rotting of cancer. They probably wore very nice, really expensive shirts everyday, like my own dad used to do before he got sick. Now, he was on his way out. That much was obvious, even to me. So when one day after school, I opened my bedroom door to find my only aunt who I hadn't seen in years, standing there cheerfully humming to herself while cleaning up my toys for me, I should've put two and two together. She stayed for the next six months. In three my dad would die in his sleep and it'd be her who'd hear the loud gasp in the middle of some random night, not realizing until morning it was actually his last living breath before his body finally gave up fighting. She stayed another three months afterwards to look after her now-widowed sister. I don't remember much from that period of my life. Since I was strategically sent away to live with distant relatives who owned a condo in Queens, it's not like I was around to make many memories anyway. If I try to think back now, it feels like lifetimes ago. All I can tap into is seeing a lot of black clothes and faint whimpering. It feels like the sounds of sobbing were never too far off. It's eerily ambiguous though. Still, the days I was able to spend with my aunt seemed like miracles. Those were the only times during that period where I'd feel truly happy. Like a much-needed return to form for the younger me who laughed constantly as a child. I loved "Mamateta," and even though nobody knows why I gave her that nickname, I used it for years. She adored me and took every opportunity to prove it. Though I left Romania when I was four, I retained many more memories of my aunt than anyone else. How she'd play with me when everyone else was too busy, or how she'd nurse the many cuts and scrapes I'd get on my elbows and knees—, these things must've left quite an impact on my single-child consciousness. I specifically remember an instance where the paper cut on my index finger was so deep that I wanted to burst into tears just looking at it. While cleaning it and putting on a bandaid, I remember my aunt saying, "it feels like there's a tiny little heartbeat inside your finger doesn't it?" I nodded. "I know sweetheart, I've had this happen to me before too." This was her amazing charm. She was easy to talk to. Such a sweet, honest lady. Though she and my mother grew up side by side, they were different people. She took after their own mom, while mine walked in her father’s footprints out of pure admiration. They were sisters nonetheless. So when Mamateta was told that she had a tumor growing within her liver this past year, it was difficult knowing the treatment she'd get wasn't going to be the world's best by any means. As the months passed, her condition worsened and last Monday she fell into a coma. I heard the helplessness in my mother’s voice when she called to tell me. You try your best in these types of situations—, to console your loved ones and make sure they know that you'll be a rock-solid crutch for them during whatever may come. You try to think two steps ahead of whatever's currently happening, just in case. The spur-of- the-moment cross-Atlantic trips have to be every grieving family member's worst nightmare. Just the logistics of it all. And in their mental condition? Of course I was preparing to jump at any request my mom would make. Life does its thing anyway though and so, 24 hours later, her sister—, whose real name is Rodica—, passed away. My family isn't part of the ultra-wealthy in Romania. And because the country's still reeling from decades of deep corruption, the middle class is virtually non-existent. Economists can explain with much more elegance than I'm able to why this is utterly unfortunate for the bottom 99%. If you aren't part of the wealthy, you're part of the poor. And because what you do to one side of the equation, you have to do to the other, they're ultra-poor. It's a sad, sad thing. Either way, my mom begins to explain the finer details of a traditional Romanian mourning process. It's not something I know anything about or ever witnessed in person. After the dearly departed are moved into the living room, they are generally laid down on the center table for viewing. For the next three days, while the men and other experienced woodworkers craft a coffin from scratch, the family serves non-stop coffee and treats to an army of mourners who will randomly pop in and out at all times of the day and night and next day and following night and so on. All this to a constant background flurry of crying, sobbing, sharing stories of precious memories, wails of disbelief, loud prayers, and who knows what else. It's a pure emotional rollercoaster, a dramatic play in so many scenes filled with neighbors from five villages over who you may have never met before, but who've heard the tragic news and wanted to come pay their respects. It's touching but definitely not something an outsider would feel immediately at home around. "And is the body at least covered this entire time?," I ask my mom. "No. For three days, they live alongside it." "Seriously?" "They have no other options. No ambulance comes and takes them away like they do here. Over there, you look after your own dead. And when the coffin is completed, they’ll place her inside and carry it out into the countryside to her burial plot in a procession through town." As selfish as this next feeling was, I didn't want my mom to go. I didn't want her to be apart of it, not these days, not anymore. After so much, I wanted her to just be able to rest, not have to endure something of that magnitude. I can't imagine three hours of nonstop crying let alone three days. Somehow, the Universe seemed to hear my inner-hopes. Our entire family begged her to stay put, to stay home, that there was nothing more she could do. So instead of having to finalize last-minute plans of getting her from one continent to another, she was able to hop on an Amtrak and spend this past week here in Chicago with me. To recharge her batteries I guess. To just be able to find some mental quiet and emotional peace. Now, as I'm close to wrapping up this essay and seeing her off downtown at Union Station for her train back home, I'm sincerely trying to put myself in her shoes. I'm sure losing a sibling you've spent a lifetime growing up with is a weird feeling to have to go through. To outlive them, to think that they could've done a bit more with their life if only they would've had more time. Maybe it makes someone think about their own mortality and where they've gotten in seeing their own personal dreams coming true. Maybe my mom’s running over all of these things in her mind to the point where there's nothing left to think about. Maybe. All I can try and do is my part as her only child, her only flesh and blood, to try and live the best life I can in her name. Time will tell how successful I'll be in doing that, but an even greater feeling though, is when we can think of our loved ones who aren't here with us any longer and not feel a bit of regret. To feel a warmth and be completely calmed by just the mere thought of their name. To feel a deep need to smile because that's what they would've wanted you to do. Like even when you want to just give in to the sadness for a second and purge yourself of tears, your body physically won't let you. A familiar presence fills your immediate space and a gentle touch directly on your heart that makes you involuntarily inhale much deeper than you have in a while. Those are the types of things I hope my mother can feel as she sits down at her window-seat and readies herself for a deep meditative trip into her inner-consciousness for the next seven or so hours. Knowing the peace and tranquility she'll emerge on the other side of this experience with, how can anyone still harbor any doubt that our souls are indeed, things which don't adhere to either the human concept or limitations of "time?" That they transcend realms of possibility. That whenever there's even the smallest hint of real love, not even the giving up of one's own body and leaving it behind for greater vessels can break a bond between two sisters.

To devour—, and willingly allow yourself to become devoured—, completely, is truly a unique experience for us humans indeed. Unique in how the human spirit is unable to bear the weight of such trauma but only once. No matter the degree of self-hatred any mind may potentially reach, none is equipped with the possibility of repeatedly placing itself on a platter for another’s digestion. Like death; it is irreversible. The blessed are spared from ever feeling it at all. We—, who know its face, memorized its hollow sockets where cloud-filled eyes hang in the shadows and can draw their dark swirls from memory—, are forever cursed to feel its warm breath on our napes. Unique in that it isn’t solely to satisfy a gluttonous urge of gorging our spiritual stomachs with another’s soul, but rather, a craving to consume. Utterly and without pause for logic or reasoning, to consume everything. Their deepest dreams, worst nightmares, most highest-held hopes; it all must be swallowed—, no, choked down! Unique in that much like Escher’s Drawing Hands, it isn’t enough to stand in pride while ingesting their very oneness. They themselves must be doing the same in return, wearing an identical smirk of self-gratification that we’ve got permanently plastered upon our own lips. Unique in that we simultaneously become both The Lover and The Loved. And it’s within that exact line of logic where we find our ability to continue sleeping when the sun sets at night. The guilt cancels itself out. We offered up our own bodies for consumption and without hesitation, they eviscerated our layers like lions, one by one, clawing and tearing and ripping us apart, forever digging deeper down until they reached the most hidden compartment of our hearts we hadn’t even known we were hiding under so much soil and dirt. Just like we’d reached theirs. A mutual feast. Unique in how once that specific door is opened, it can never be closed again. The heart won’t allow it. The soul will change its spiritual composition from that day forward, not unlike the drug addict, we are never the same. Our eyes see through a new lens now. It’s a darker shade, it makes the light harder to see, to feel. Harder, but not impossible. We must look more thoroughly for it. Somewhere, it’s still shining down in our direct line of vision, somewhere that’s a bit tougher to see through the newly descended smoke and ash and dense fog, but it’s there. It’s there and if we squint and remember that what it means to be human is both tragic and beautiful, then when we do occasionally re-find it and feel it once more on our skin, its warmth is that much deeper, it carries that much more meaning and purpose. Precisely because we know how much darkness and frigid cold there truly is all around us, waiting. Waiting for the doubt to creep back inside and whisper through the muddled trenches of our memories; “was there ever really any light at all?”

Aside from the disciples, of all the people in the gospels to be focused on Jesus, there was one group who seemed to be almost everywhere Jesus went. This group, known as the Pharisees, didn’t watch Jesus because they wanted to believe in Him. Instead, they watched Him because they wanted to catch Him breaking a law or saying something wrong. However, during one of Jesus’ miracles, the Pharisees missed being present, even if they were present in the area where this healing took place. While John doesn’t specifically mention the Pharisees by name in this passage, he simply refers to them as Jews – and these were likely the Jewish religious leaders, and many of them would have been Pharisees. John describes what happened immediately after Jesus healed the man by the pool of Bethesda by saying, “Now that day was the Sabbath, so the Jews said to the man who had been healed, ‘This is the Sabbath! It’s illegal for you to pick up your mat.’” (John 5:9b-10 HCSB) Now the healed man had a problem. He responded that he was basically just following directions. He replied saying, “The man who made me well told me, ‘Pick up your mat and walk.’” (John 5:11 HCSB) “‘Who is this man who told you, “Pick up your mat and walk”?’ they asked. But the man who was cured did not know who it was, because Jesus had slipped away into the crowd that was there.” (John 5:12-13 HCSB) The man didn’t know who Jesus was when he was healed. This is a powerful thought. In this miracle, we can see that Jesus heals based on our need and not on the condition that we respond by calling Him God. The man had no idea who Jesus was. He simply was obeying the instructions of someone he believed God had sent his way. Reading this portion of Jesus’ miracle prompts me to wonder if God is willing to act and help anyone who needs help, regardless of their current attitude and regardless of whether they will acknowledge Him. The man who was healed didn’t praise God or worship Jesus following his healing. Instead, he was caught breaking the Jew’s legalistic Sabbath laws. In this miracle, we can see a theme that is touched on in other parts of the Bible as well. This theme points us to God’s character and His love. Jesus came into this world to show God to us. This wasn’t because He wanted to help people on the condition that they would worship God with a correct frame of mind. Instead it was to counter the devil’s accusations about what God was like. Satan has done a masterful job of presenting God as a villain, and Jesus came to simply show us a different picture of God – a picture that demonstrates selfless love, and a powerful invitation to respond to His love. This miracle at Bethesda helps us see a loving Jesus and a loving God. God is Someone who is willing to help even if He doesn’t get the credit. God is willing to help even if we are trapped in rebellion against Him. This post first appeared on ReflectiveBibleStudy.com What do you think? Do you agree/disagree? Leave your thoughts below.

I’ve always been pulled by the energy and lifestyle of a big city. Nothing really strikes me the same way as walking alongside a nonstop stream of people. May it be the crowds or even the beautiful pandemonium, but there is a lure to it that I can’t exactly pin down. The best way I can describe this are through a couple of excerpts of my time in Queens (aged nine), and Chicago (aged twenty-seven), from a memoir I wrote called A Mother’s Tears, for free here. From Chapter 6 My cousin and her husband drove the entire way there with me in the backseat. They were a nice married couple who I’d be staying with for the next few months. Finally getting to their house in the suburbs, I became more excited about living there. We stayed in a small home on an average street. There was a bookshelf that I’d poke around, seeing what interests they had and trying to figure out why. We’d go outside every few days and I’d take in all there was around me with enthusiasm. As we rode the subways, I stared out their windows at all the graffiti written on the sides of buildings. We emerged from the underground and walked toward the intersections filled with cars and people. There was honking, loud chatter, sounds coming from every direction. With so much mayhem aimed at me, I suddenly felt at peace with everything that’d happened back home. I didn’t have time to think about it anymore—, I was in the city, the Big Apple, I quickly became accustomed to my surroundings. My cousin wanted to stop by a local pop-up shop in a place that was on a lower floor somewhere. We climbed down into a den of confusing commerce one only finds in cities like New York. There were cheap sunglasses that came in neon greens and bright yellows on the folding tables in the center of the room, knockoff purses hanging from the walls—, it seemed that someone could get just about anything they wanted at a very discounted price. My cousin took her time looking around at all the knickknacks on the glass shelves but I was quickly getting bored. There was more commotion outside —, I wanted to be apart of it. Slowly, I backed away from my adult chaperone and started to climb the stairs toward freedom. I exited the shop and was back on the street. I looked around me and took in the atmosphere. There were so many skyscrapers—, each towering higher up than the last. The sun’s rays reflected off the upper windows and blinded me from fully seeing the buildings’ peaks. The cars two feet away weaved through the traffic like fluid. People passed by in large groups and they all seemed to be in a hurry to get somewhere fast. I knew I was at home here—, not just in this specific city, but any city. I needed it; the beautiful frenzy which can only be found in downtowns the world over. Suddenly I felt a tug at my arm and was spun around to come face-to-face with my cousin, who looked a bit distraught and very annoyed. “Don’t ever do that again!,” she berated me. From Chapter 10 My mom and I took the seven-hour train into Union Station. Once there, we exited onto the concrete platform and headed up the steps toward the front doors with the entire Windy City waiting for us on the other side. “I’m home,” I said with a widened smile. The sun shone down on our shoulders and life was everywhere. The people circulated throughout the city’s streets and back alleys like blood cells do within pulsing veins. The buildings all seemed to grow taller towards the sky the closer we’d get to them. They surrounded us in a way only a downtown metropolis could. The commotion coming from all angles sounded like an industrial symphony—, gorgeously layered and strangely peaceful. With all of that around us, I was most excited I could live out the experience with my mom by my side. The L-trains thundered on their tracks up above—, sparks flying off in all directions. We climbed the stairs toward the Brown Line and were on our way to the northern neighborhoods. Lincoln Park was just as beautiful in person as it was in all the pictures I’d looked up the months before. Anything I’d need was a stone’s throw away. I could finish all of my errands within a single city block. One-off shops and chain stores were scattered throughout the streets, bikes and cars intermingled in a way I hadn’t seen back in Michigan, and people of all types walked in flowing waves of movement. I knew I’d found my element. Far from the rehabs and halfway homes of a near- decade prior—, I was finally feeling pure happiness. My mom and I walked down Diversey Parkway with our suitcases in tow and reached our destination within twenty minutes. What was once a rundown hotel with people overdosing in its hallways was renovated into a brand new apartment building. A small two hundred-square-foot studio on the fourth floor is where I’d sleep for the next year of my life. We got the card-keys from the front desk, rode the elevator up a few flights, and walked into an empty space smaller than the size of most kitchens, let alone a full living area. There was no furniture so we each took a corner and slept on the hardwood floor that first night. It was truly one of my favorite memories we’d ever make. The small radio we had with us played Top 40 pop songs as we disinfected everything we could before finally ordering dinner and letting ourselves enjoy the rest of the night and week afterwards in the big city. My mom left shortly thereafter with a tearful goodbye and I was back to being by myself in a new home. From one room over, I’d hear my neighbor singing show tunes. On Wednesday nights, the walls would shake from the powerful music down in the bar below. Things were tight in that small studio. The tiny closet was overflowing with clothes, underneath the bed slid a case full of shoes, and the desk-shelf combo took over half the room. The near-claustrophobic conditions made moving around tough, but once I was on the other side of my front door, I’d walk down the hall toward the elevators with confidence. I was still living in my dream city. No matter how small the space was where I slept, showered, and ate—, I’d do it all with a smile. I started getting used to my situation. The twenty-four-hour store right across the street was perfect for late-night ice cream runs. The cleaners around the corner began knowing me on a first name basis. Everything was as it should be. Slowly, I learned the layout of my new surroundings. I’d be able to stop and get groceries or pick up new bedsheets at the major chains or a pack of cigarettes from the liquor store all while walking home from the L-train. Everyone I’d pass on the street seemed to have the same type of smile—, deep down, they knew everything was interconnected somehow, in someway; the check-out ladies, the taxi drivers, the servers, bartenders, and beggars—, we were all apart of it. An energy that was always right beneath our feet, trapped under the concrete like a circuit encompassing the entire city, we felt its hold on our lives as we continued sailing through the waves and ripples of our everyday decisions. Which corner should I turn down? Which train should I take home? Who will I sit next to and what conversation may spark up which could possibly change my life forever? These were the types of questions which ran through my mind and I loved every minute of it. Fate had brought me here and I felt its grasp on my heart with each choice I made.

My oldest son was a good student in terms of grades and behavior in the classroom, but he was mediocre on standardized tests. He wasn’t bad at testing, and I am not belittling him. However, he was average. He went on to play collegiate football, get married, and have kids, all of which are considered good outcomes. But he didn't get the same consideration as my youngest son, who was a good test taker. My youngest son is a rockstar when it comes to test-taking. He has exceptional insight into the patterns within the words and numbers and always scores at the top, regardless of the type of test. He and his brother had similar classroom grades, but the nationwide tests that they both took showed them to be much different. However, he wasn’t at the absolute top of the list. The National Merit Semi-Finalist Qualifying Test (MNSQT) had a rubric that said if the student scored in the top 0.2%, they were given the label of Semi-Finalist. That said, he did well. I don’t remember the number, but he wasn’t in the top 0.2%. He began applying to colleges and playing the game of admission, financial aid, and scholarships. He didn't have the football card that his brother had, but he could appeal to reverse discrimination and get a good outcome. Unexpectedly, our son received a letter congratulating him on becoming a National Merit Minority Scholar. We didn’t know what a minority scholar was, so we investigated. We learned it is a revisitation of his test scores once all the scores from students who list themselves as Caucasian or Asian are removed. With the upper crust of test takers now out of the pool, his score became in the top 0.2%. His name was placed on a form that every university could download, and recognition was sent to his high school. As a national merit minority scholar, he got national attention. On the back end, the guidance counselor received an affidavit to complete that affirmed that Alex was a minority. His word was not enough. A copy of his grandfather’s birth certificate from Puerto Rico was all we needed, and then, the money started to flow from every corner of the country. Without applying, our son received full scholarships at multiple universities. That doesn’t sound strange, but it was. He never applied to most of the schools that offered him full tuition and fees if he had only agreed to attend their institution. They saw his singular accolade, and they wanted it as a feather in their marketing cap. Sure, he has proven himself to be a good test taker, but a lot of applicants are good test takers. They were offering scholarships without looking at his classroom grades, behaviors, criminal background, or the like because he was a minority, and they wanted to show to the world that their student body was diverse. They knew the world was drinking the Kool-aid of diversity as a nearly indisputable justification that diversity leads to all the good things in life outcomes. The mailbox filled up with offers. His phone rang. That all sounded normal. Some schools offered more than tuition and fees. Some offered airplane tickets to come. When we went on one visit, we were met by several other students who had “similar profiles.” My phone rang one time, asking for him. That didn’t seem normal. He ended up selecting one of those schools, and he has long since graduated without ever paying a dime of Fall or Spring tuition and fees. Our son was the beneficiary of a celebrated form of discrimination. At his high school graduation, I watched as his friends walked on the stage to receive their diplomas. I wondered if some of his friends who were at a disadvantage of being Caucasian were going to college for free like he was. A few were. Most weren't. Yet, that pathway is gone. Like the Jim Crow laws, it only resides in stories like these. As of the writing of this post, the National Merit website now reads, “Winners are chosen on the basis of their abilities, skills, and accomplishments—without regard to gender, race, ethnic origin, or religious preference.” There is no minority scholar referenced on the site now. That advantage our son got is now gone. The Supreme Court unwound all of this. Yet, it happened. Our oldest son was not the only beneficiary. I put the unused portion of his college savings in a new account for our grandchildren to use when they are old enough to go to school. I wondered. Had our youngest listed that he was white on the standardized test form like his brother did, he would not have received that minority scholarship and that money would not have been passed from one generation to the next. Just because the scholarship is gone, we still reap its benefits for at least one more generation.

“But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. ‘Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.’ But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.” (1 Peter 3:14‑16 NIV) “Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” (Colossians 4:5‑6 NIV) “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 5:14‑16 NIV) Most people who have been Christians for any length of time understand that Jesus challenged His followers to spread the gospel message. However, in today’s culture, many appear to have forgotten what this means. In the past decade, I’ve witnessed many friends get sucked into focusing more on the politics of today’s culture than on the freedom that comes through leaning on Jesus. I’ve seen those who share the same faith become more interested in proving a political point than in following the challenges of Jesus. However, those who choose to stand up for Jesus should remember the words of Peter, Paul, and Jesus. Peter challenges us to be prepared to give an “answer” and to do so with gentleness and respect. While people may accuse us, lie about us, and slander the name of Jesus, Peter challenges us to respond differently. We are to respond with the love of Jesus, with gentleness and respect. About the only harsh words Jesus spoke were to the religious leaders, not to those He came to show God’s love to. Paul challenges us to be wise and to make the most of every opportunity. However, he too challenges us to be full of grace in all our conversations with others. Being seasoned with salt draws attention to saying challenging truths, but the truth should never drown out the love and grace of our message. Jesus challenges us by saying that we are the light of the world. This is more true today than perhaps at many other times in history. However, as the light of the world and as a town built on a hill, He challenges us to live our lives in a way that cannot be ignored — even if we would rather be ignored. Jesus challenges us to let our light shine through our good deeds so that God will receive glory. As we look forward to the day Jesus returns, let’s together accept the challenge found in these three verses and letting God’s light and love shine through us for all to see. 🙏 📖 ✝️ 👍

Science Is Dead Posted on April 6, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, science is dead, murdered by scientists. The global warming swindle put a knife deep in its chest, the trans movement pushed it to the hilt, and DEI is twisting it. Scientists and indeed the entire new class, as Gouldner called them, are captured by an idea that’s antithetical to their core belief. The vision is so captivating though, they just can’t help themselves. I’ve heard it said that people aren’t really rational, we’re emotional, and then use our rationality to back track, justifying our emotional decisions. The new class was supposed to be above emotion and belief and totally engaged in the scientific method. Yet, as we see play out before our own eyes, the new class, including scientists, politicians and experts, have become mesmerized by a bauble… globalism. If people will kill you for a ten spot in your pocket… what would they do for a billion? The global warming scam makes the swindlers billions of dollars a year. Who gets to spend all that “carbon credit” money? Not you or I. They’ve created an entire exchange to trade their monopoly money, that turns it into real money… at our expense. Both in higher friction to business and lowering the value of our money. Amounting to economic ruin. Nevertheless, the experts who shill for the global warming scam, have a huge economic stake. The rest of us have a cube steak. So, via the “logic of collective action” the global warming connivers will work their fingers to the bone, to push the lie, while the rest of us have more important things to attend to. Billions of incentives to abandon a core ethos. The trans movement is the purest form of anti science. It actually takes empirically proven truths, and flips them upside down… and the experts are expected to “believe them.” Not only believe obvious lies, but cling to them, as if those stupid notions were their own cherished children. The experts charge on, in the face of waves of suicides, by people who’ve been “transitioned” at a young age. Empirical evidence be damned, full steam ahead! Never once considering this course is the opposite of the scientific method. Where evidence is weighed, tested and only considered proven, once the results of the tested hypothesis have been reproduced in another lab. Today’s experts and scientists have no need of methods, hypothesis and tests. Especially when those empirical tests disprove cherished theory. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, DEI, elevates irrelevant qualities above relevant ones, a perversion of the scientific method. In any job, merit is the primary quality. Not a person’s hair style, preference for toast in the morning, or skin color. DEI, abandons the rationally sought attribute, merit… changing it to skin color, religion and toast preference. Resulting in people who aren’t suited for the positions they hold. Damaging their self esteem, the company’s bottom line, and the customers interests. Rippling out to literal safety concerns as in the case of Boeing. Hiring based on irrelevant qualities, in place of relevant ones, has led to a degeneracy in our economy and the products it produces. Enlightened thinkers are supposed to be pragmatic, not blind ideologues, who detest rational discourse. All of these perversions of science boil down to politics. Global warming is political, not scientific, but no one would lower their standard of living so a political faction can have more money and power. So it has to be couched in emotional and pseudo scientific terms. Then strictly enforced with ostracism. It’s not enough to force the new class to abandon their raison d etre’ but to embrace it’s opposite. That’s one reason the trans movement has been thrust upon them. Scientists have to testify, with a straight face, they can’t tell the difference between a naked man and woman. Yet are addicted to porn. Then there’s DEI, which is killing critical thinking, as well as our economy. Let’s face facts… scientists have murdered their father, science… to sleep with their mother, politics. Sincerely, John Pepin

So there was a pleasant and thoughtful comment a woman ( @liberty5300 ) posted to one of my pieces here - I glanced at several of her own think spot posts - and read one she wrote on Andrew Tate. It was almost entirely in positive regard of him and may have come out before the revelations of his abuse and pimping, I'm not sure. But all that aside, here I want to address why he was popular to begin with for saying what I would consider to be fairly obvious things, and really not going very far with them. Firstly, the "male responsibility" rhetoric - yes, this is positive, but it is at the level of a middle school football coach who doesn't really think very much or encounter a broad variety of life situations. "I kick ASS every DAY and I do it SO HARD 'cause I'm MAYNG!" - Considering that the "everyone is equal" rhetoric alongside Gloria Steinem's 1990s (extremely harmful, I think) invocations to raise boys like we raise girls (she had a distant father and didn't have a brother, shocker), I've personally felt in my life how suffocating masculine expression cripples men inside to the point of clinical depression to live daily life in a way that denies who they are as men, even as day to day they don't realize they are doing it. AND BESIDES - women who are not on birth control tend to enjoy and like the expression of natural masculinity - that brings us to the root of what prompted my reply - this woman writing about submission. She liked what Andrew Tate said that submission is natural. I agree. It isn't a straight jacket, but it is natural and women tend to be happier in a relationship where the man lives with a kind of Leading Strength. Note, I said "kind of leading strength" that gets a "not always equal to" sign for oh: owning houses, acting all "alpha," being a "high value male" or (I'm thinking of you here, Knowles,) never sitting in the front passenger seat of a car. You can read my reply in the linked article above to really see what I think about Tate and his ape-level views on submission. What I'd like to do here is to at least touch on what I feel is lacking - namely to give due credit to how genuinely beautiful female submission is. So often it is said that it is "natural" or "biblical" or some such. All of that rhetoric feels forced. The way that it should happen, what I have been fortunate enough to receive (at least before these relationships I was in floundered for… usually issues of money (my responsibility if not always my fault) and relapses of addiction (the women's own mistakes and old trauma resurfacing)). So, a woman's submission to a man in a relationship is much more than "duty" or "biblical" or "natural." It is poetic and sits in her like a heavy magnet, restless (or even dormant but ALMOST never unconscious to her) until finding a home as the correct man's strength draws it out. So often, she pushes against this release, (knowingly and even firmly so for the ones who are playfully passionate enough) to make sure she knows his strength truly does overcome her and sweep away all else until she knows she is his whole world and he is hers. This is what it's felt like to me, anyways. Women today have been for whatever reason pushed away from such intimacy. (I think simple jealousy of lonely women has gone a LONG way to motivate the delegitimization of female submission, but I am sure there are other reasons.) I remember WAY back to 2002, my final year of college, having this DEEP conviction that it was wrong for me to want to take care of a woman. (Can you imagine the absurdity? You probably can - it's the world we've come to live in) I told my girlfriend at the time (whom I was deeply in love with but she didn't want to stay with me or work towards marriage - it got complicated later when she whiplashed that around after some not-me trauma sent on her.) I told her I wanted to take care of her, and she had a feeling that it was wrong for a man to take care of HER! But as soon as I had said the words, that I wanted to take care of her, she just melted to me, leaning and said something like "I've wanted a guy to say that to me so much." Why has this blessing - this beautiful thing - this thing humans seem to LIKE and leads to married homes and babies, why has it been drained from our lives? Hard to say, exactly. And some years after that 2002 moment, - this must have been late 2006 - no - probably early 2007. The assertion of my more-natural self as leading in relationships - (physically, emotionally and socially) had been happening and surfacing intermittently (probably drove the women bats that "he's not GETTING it!" but it's not like they had presence of mined to tell me either, its isn't easy), the one who did say somehtig was an extremely kind woman, with me in a not-super-emotional-or-serious relationship. She one day after months of us together, said to me very directly, "you're always focusing on what I want when we're together. For a while, I just want you to think about and do what you want." This miracle of empathy from her was… something very alien and foreign to me. But I needed it. And she knew that. She was happy to observe and receive it all. And I'm forever glad and grateful for the shift this made in my life. And just as an aside - so many women fairly recently for whatever reason (the distance of online interactions, "mean girl" status-competition with other women etc,) they seem to not realize how HUGE a shift in a man's life the simplest kind things from a woman will do for a man. Treating a relationship like some kind of adversarial congressional lobbying seems to be a more preferred route these days somehow - or the Karen-route of "complain to the invisible manager" for whatever displeases you. Women remembering the natural instinct to kindness, and seeing that this actually IMPROVES their lives probably, instead of "getting taken advantage of" is important. Regrading getting taken advantage of - well, stop rewarding men like Andrew Tate. Stop saying of a man you reject "he was TOO nice!" That's a whole other set of pathologies: Look what has happened two generations into a social situation where men are taught that being nice to women gets you rejected. SO - we have to end the "escalating arms race of relationship strategy" somehow. And in many ways - when things are "safe sane and consensual" as they say, a woman in her own way, letting go and submitting to the man she gives herself to, and him properly stepping up to the plate - this should help. I've felt it help. I just haven't yet had it truly last. But we're all working on that one, aren't we? Thanks for reading - this was a a pretty involved one for me. I've been listening to "Exile in Guyville" a lot these past days, releasing old pain. Can you tell?

Stupid Scientists Posted on April 7, 2024 by john Dear Friends, May God save us from stupid scientists, busily engaged in schemes to destroy the world, in an effort to save it from a phantasm. From cooling the planet by spreading chemicals in the atmosphere, to putting up bird choppers (windmills), they’re doing more harm than good. Some half wit directly injecting household garbage directly into the aquifer is doing less damage. The fundamental problem is, people with too much education, too much money and not a whit of wisdom… wielding too much power. No one asked me if I want the planet cooler. Did anyone ask you? I’m an old guy, I like it hot, Je deteste la froid. So much for my opinion… and yours. What if their experiments go awry? They could turn the Earth back into a snowball grinding away our civilization in another Great Unconformity. It’s one thing to push a swindle but quite another to believe your own lies. Then act on them. Showing a total lack of wisdom. The global warming swindle is effectively proven false. How? By dozens upon dozens of failed predictions. In science and under the scientific method, if a hypothesis is proven wrong by experiment over and over, that hypothesis is considered flawed. Not global warming. The more it’s proven false, despite data tampering to promote it, the more shrill the experts get. People who are the best liars, practice their lies, until the lie becomes the truth in their own minds. A seminal liar can take a polygraph and pass standing on her head. The trouble with this tactic is, the liar starts believing their own lies… often to their own detriment. Instead of damaging the intended victim. So we have experts, who have convinced themselves their scam is the truth, setting themselves to cooling the planet. To save it. The trouble is, none of their predictions (hypothesis) have been proven correct. Indeed they’ve been proven false many times. Yet the experts forge ahead with their plans to cool the planet. Despite their total lack of understanding how the climate actually works. One way to know their models are wrong is they discount the sun. If the sun were removed, but CO2 raised, they predict the planet would warm. A stunning prediction. Perhaps before screwing with the only habitable planet we have, it might be wise to do a few experiments on another planet, first? See what happens? Before stupid scientists make Earth uninhabitable. To meet EU climate goals the EU is shutting down farming. You may not have seen it on the mockingbird media, because the elite don’t want it common knowledge, but farmers across Europe are protesting the climate laws. Stupid scientists are convinced Europe doesn’t need farms. They stink, farmers are too independent, and farms harm the environment. Plus, most people get their food from the grocer anyway. So the experts are forcing farmers to sell their family farms, to wild the land again. EU bureaucrats are in negotiations with South American nations, to clear cut the rain forest, insuring elites stay fat. All done to save the planet from global warming. Without getting into it, wilding farms in Europe and clear cutting rain forest, is obviously environmentally counter productive. The global warming swindle has got out of hand. The stupid scientists are implementing possibly civilization ending strategies, to stop global warming… believing their own lies. Like jumping in a frozen lake to protect yourself from saint Elmo’s fire. The plasma’s harmless but the icy water will kill you in seconds. If it were just the experts killing themselves, oh well, they’re sovereign human beings, but they’re threatening us too. We just got over their last disaster, Covid, which killed millions, and the vaccine that wasn’t. Now they want to make a snowball Earth. The morons. Before it’s too late. It may be wise to contact your representative, and demand laws be passed, making it illegal to experiment with climate changing technologies. At least until we have an actual idea how planetary climate works. Sincerely, John Pepin

In today's culture, it often feels as though the collective sentiment and mainstream narratives outweigh the pursuit of truth. This pattern is visible in responses to COVID, political discourse, and even in discussions about gender and biology. It's as if our society is grappling with a malaise, having sidelined the value of truth, open debate, and diversity of thought. The consequence? Anyone stepping outside the mainstream narrative faces potential censorship, cancel culture, and targeted attacks—a reality underscored by countless examples. This is why I advocate for open discussion on my platforms, welcoming differing viewpoints. It’s an exercise in mental fortitude: engaging with opposing views without resorting to silencing or shaming. Today’s cultural sickness, as I see it, stems from a lack of mental resilience—a quality honed through embracing discomfort, much like physical strength is built through exercises like squats. Comfort may be appealing, but growth and understanding flourish in its absence. The societal trend towards prioritizing comfort over constructive conversation, frequently associated with 'woke' ideology, avoids the essential effort needed to face uncomfortable truths. Truth, however, is a complex construct, enriched by diverse perspectives and insights, underscoring the importance of open dialogue as both valuable and crucial. I stand firm in my convictions, resistant to pressures to conform, advocating for a balanced approach: be open-minded yet skeptical, and embrace the discomfort that comes with mental strength training. I refuse to succumb to mental fragility, viewing it as antithetical to the principles I hold dear. It’s not just unproductive; it’s a disservice to our collective well-being and, at its worst, a detriment to society. So, I ask you: How do you build mental strength in an era of conflicting narratives and pervasive propaganda? What are your strategies for uncovering truth amidst a barrage of competing voices? Healthy & Awake Podcast: Apple: https://bit.ly/44pEBV6 Spotify: https://bit.ly/47KVbBM Rumble: https://bit.ly/3HPzG6V YouTube: https://bit.ly/3SKeZjn Substack: https://bit.ly/3TI9Jgw X: https://bit.ly/43sR7oa Mike Vera isn't your average Board Certified Health Coach (NBC-HWC). Armed with an MS in Exercise and Health Promotion and extensive experience as a seasoned personal trainer, he's the strategic mind behind Red Pill Health & Wellness and the engaging voice of the Healthy & Awake Podcast. With a strong foundation in cognitive psychology, Mike is adept at unveiling the hidden influences that impact our health.

Oftentimes in life, there are moments which present us with two separate but equally difficult choices. And what could be more excruciatingly difficult than having to choose between love and success? Aside from the random single played through store speakers, or inside friends’ cars, I’ve never actively sought out or searched for a Taylor Swift song. I have almost zero knowledge of her career’s history or what came out when and who it was aimed at or why. But I recently stumbled upon a pretty good song. A really good song, actually. “Midnight Rain.” Not only is it easy to listen to, but it has just enough buildup that it almost feels like it wants to erupt into a last-chorus finale, even though it never does. No matter, it’s catchy as hell and just what one would expect from someone with as bright a star as hers. My point isn’t to sell you on an already established icon, but to delve into the dilemma that is at the crux of the song’s chorus: “He was sunshine, I was midnight rain / He wanted it comfortable, I wanted that pain / He wanted a bride, I was making my own name / Chasing that fame / He stayed the same, All of me changed like midnight” My question is: what would you do personally? Would you go after the emotionally stable, comfortable, and even predictable hometown life? Or would you chase your lifelong dreams (assuming that they differed enough to where you couldn't have both)? Of course, there are pros and cons to both paths, but does it really depend on the journey or is it all about the outcome? Toward life’s end, I imagine we all look back and think about what we did, how we would’ve done it differently, and where the perfect balance between regret and acceptance is. Some are perfectly happy to have become grandmothers and grandfathers with a knowledge of future generations to come, while others want to know that they’re able to enjoy their last season on this earth in comfort and that they accomplished what had always been placed within their hearts. Neither of these is the right or wrong answer. I suppose it all just depends on your personal goals. I honestly don’t know the backstory to this song other than what I can make out from its lyrics alone. But if it’s to be taken at face value, then it’s a pretty heartbreaking story with a substantial silver lining. She may’ve lost the love, but she won the world. In all honesty, this article comes from someone who used to put a lot of pressure on romantic love and where it all leads to, only to have that opinion shift into a reality where nothing matters more than success and living out deeply-held dreams. I suppose that’s what comes with wasting too much of one’s life. “Your time here is short,” my inner-self consistently whispers out to me. So I side with Taylor on this one. Some may look down at this and ask how it’s possible to go from writing about Young Thug to Taylor Swift in the blink of an eye, but it’s fairly simple when there’s actually something to write about. This being an easy example of putting some type of philosophical spin on pop culture, as well as a fun one. Finally, to be sure, some are so incredibly blessed that they’re able to have both paths merge in the middle at some point. But to most, I ask…, love or success? Because no matter what the answer ultimately is, Swift reassures us that: “I guess sometimes we all get just what we wanted.” Choose wisely, grasshopper.

The Figure: Vishwakarma, in Hindu mythology, is revered as the divine architect and craftsman of the gods. In Hindu mythology, Vishwakarma is not typically depicted as the primary creator of the universe. That role is usually attributed to Lord Brahma. However, he is considered to be the divine architect who played a role in the design of the universe, including its various components. According to some interpretations, Vishwakarma assisted his father, Lord Brahma in the creation of the universe by providing the blueprint and executing the intricate designs for the celestial bodies, landscapes, and structures within it. He is also credited with the design of various celestial weapons and divine chariots. Vishwakarma is also believed to have constructed the palaces of the gods and the majestic cities of ancient times. The etymology of Vishwakarma can be understood by breaking down the word into its constituent parts: ‘Vishwa’, meaning "all" or "entire" in Sanskrit, and ‘karma’, which translates to "action" or "deed." In Hindu philosophy, karma refers to the principle of cause and effect, where actions have consequences that affect one's present and future experiences. So, when combined, "Vishwakarma" can be understood to mean "the maker of all" or "the doer of all actions." The reverence for Vishwakarma extends beyond Hinduism, as he is also venerated in Jainism and Buddhism, where he is known by different names but holds similar significance as the divine architect and builder. In popular culture, Vishwakarma's legacy is celebrated through various folk tales, songs, and stories that highlight his ingenuity and prowess in creating marvels that transcend the ordinary. He is depicted with multiple arms, holding various tools and implements symbolic of his role as a divine craftsman. Parallels: Hephaestus, the Greek god of blacksmiths, craftsmen, and artisans, shares many similarities with Vishwakarma. Like Vishwakarma, Hephaestus is depicted as a skilled craftsman and inventor, renowned for his ability to create divine weapons and other artefacts. Both deities are associated with fire and forge, and they play pivotal roles in shaping the world around them through their craftsmanship. In some depictions, both Vishwakarma and Hephaestus are portrayed with physical deformities or disabilities. In order to symbolise the imperfections inherent in creation, Vishwakarma is occasionally described as having a limp or a hunchback, while Hephaestus is often depicted as lame or with a limp due to his fall from Mount Olympus. Contemporary Relevance: Vishwakarma is regarded as the epitome of perfection in craftsmanship. His creations are believed to be flawless and imbued with divine grace, reflecting his mastery over his craft. Artisans and craftsmen often invoke his name and seek his blessings before embarking on new projects. He is worshipped by artisans, craftsmen, architects, and engineers, who seek his blessings for success and prosperity in their fields. His festival, Vishwakarma Jayanti, is observed with great enthusiasm, especially in industrial areas, workshops, and factories, where workers perform ritual worship of their tools and machinery. It usually falls in September or October, depending on the lunar calendar.

Wall Street Trading Desk ** I’m writing this near the Market Close on Wednesday, April 10. Currently, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is down over 400 Points, all in reaction to the report this morning that the Consumer Price Index, our most widely watched measure of inflation, advanced by an annual rate of 3.5%, up from 3.2% the month earlier. Wall Street is shocked. Stocks and bonds were hit heavily, commodities were up, anticipating rising inflation, and cryptos were higher. What made today so very interesting was an apparent large bet gone wrong. It all began yesterday when a thoroughly lackluster session had an hour left. Traders felt they might even leave early, but nothing was happening. Suddenly, a series of buy orders hit the tape. In that last 60 minutes of trading, the Dow rose nearly 200 points, and the NAS was up 120. Someone appeared to know something. And that something was undoubtedly the direction of inflation. The monthly Consumer Price Index (CPI) report was due on Thursday. Someone was placing a large wager that CPI Inflation would be tame. This likely means the Federal Reserve could begin lowering interest rates, which would be a big positive for stocks. So, anyone who purchased shares yesterday would benefit today if, and it turned out to be a big IF, inflation was lower. To the whole world, it looked like someone had insider information. They knew what the rest of us did not know: the direction of inflation. Interestingly, Zero Hedge published an article later this morning confirming our worst suspicions. The title was: “Scandal Rocks Biden’s Labor Dept For Lying About Sharing Non-Public Inflation Data With Secret Group Of Wall Street “Super Users” https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/scandal-rocks-bidens-labor-dept-lying-about-sharing-non-public-inflation-data-secret-group There was one problem: whoever made this colossal bet, a bet large enough to drive the Dow up nearly 200 points, needed to be correct. That’s right. Billions of dollars were put into play in anticipation of lower inflation, and surprise, surprise, inflation rose. It wasn’t enough to cause someone to go bankrupt or out of business. But it is just the sort of thing that some fund managers would do early in the quarter to gain an advantage over all the competition. Had the manager made the right bet, they would lead in whatever sector they invest in. That kind of performance drives billions of dollars in new assets under management (AUM) into any fund that bets right. Even though they have all the tools, from analysts to AI, modern portfolio managers have incredible ways to gain economic insight. However, they’re only sometimes on the right side of the trade. And if Zero Hedge is correct, some may even use unethical means to gain an advantage. But as we’ve been telling them for months, if you want to know where inflation’s going, there is a straightforward measure: the gas pump. Follow the price of gasoline, and you’ll see the direction of inflation. CPI Inflation (blue, left scale) Price of Regular Gasoline (red, right scale) Follow me here on ThinkSpot for more stories from the ValueSide.

The Vatican has just released a new document on the topic of human dignity. Among other issues, it addresses the ethical problems of surrogacy—including the commodification of babies and the financial exploitation of low-income women who are contracted to be surrogates. Ireland is in the process of adopting one of the most permissive laws in Europe on the issue, but elsewhere, opposition to the practice is mounting. A major conference advocating for a worldwide ban on surrogacy was held in Rome last weekend. Experts at the conference argued that an international treaty is necessary to halt the practice. Although national bans have some impact, couples and single men may still travel to countries where surrogacy is legal or unregulated. This is why it is crucial for states to unite and establish a system to penalise corporations that serve as intermediaries between surrogate mothers and commissioning parents. Some countries, such as Italy, are in the process of criminalising international surrogacy, punishing Italian citizens who engage in this practice abroad. Such an approach should be adopted by every country, the conference heard. Banks and financial institutions play a pivotal role in the international surrogacy market, positioning them as critical targets in efforts to achieve worldwide abolition of this practice. At the conference, it was proposed that the responsibilities banks currently have in combating terrorism and money laundering should be expanded to include scrutiny of transactions related to surrogacy. The meeting in Rome saw the participation of international experts and activists, including the Italian Minister for Family, a representative from the Holy See, various politicians, and notably, two United Nations officials. The UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem, and a member of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Velina Todorova, attended as observers. The politicians represented a broad spectrum of political affiliations, spanning right, centre, and left-wing parties. Similarly, the experts and activists brought a diverse range of ideological viewpoints to the discussion, including feminism, conservatism, and Christian Democracy, among others. This diversity underscored a rare consensus across political and ideological divides on the perils of surrogacy, a consensus that appears to be absent in Ireland. This conference followed the launch of a declaration in Casablanca (Morocco) in March 2023, signed by 100 experts from 75 countries, calling for the universal abolition of surrogacy. The Casablanca Declaration initiative is led by Olivia Maurel, a French/US feminist activist conceived through surrogacy. The 32-year-old mother of three has faced mental health challenges from a young age, only later discovering the truth about her origins. She has since become one of the most vocal opponents of the “womb market.” At the conference, she gave a moving and powerful testimony about how surrogacy has affected her life, describing the commodification of children and women as a new form of slavery. Before the conference, Olivia Maurel had a private audience with Pope Francis, who endorsed the conference’s goals. In January, the Pope had already called for “an effort by the international community to universally prohibit this practice,” a call reiterated in the new document on human dignity. Maurel is keen to stress that that she does not come at the issue from a religious perspective because she is an atheist. The Rome conference continues the commitment of the Casablanca Declaration and aims to promote national and international initiatives, leading to the adoption of an international treaty among states. At present, Ireland is far behind the curve on the matter, lost in the pretence that any ethical problems arising from the practice can easily be dealt with.

The tactic of repeating a falsehood until it's widely accepted as truth is a powerful form of propaganda, a concept highlighted by notable figures across history, including political leaders and even within totalitarian regimes. This method capitalizes on the psychological principle known as the availability heuristic, where the ease of recalling certain pieces of information leads individuals to overestimate their importance or truthfulness. As such, repeated exposure to the same falsehood can make it seem more credible over time, a technique leveraged in various domains including politics, marketing, and elsewhere. The role of media in amplifying these narratives is particularly concerning, as it lends an additional layer of credibility to the lies, making it more difficult for individuals to discern truth from falsehood. To combat the influence of such propaganda, it's essential to remain vigilant, question widely held beliefs, especially those propagated through repetition without clear evidence, and engage in continuous learning to broaden perspectives. Encouraging a culture of critical thinking, where authority is questioned and information is critically analyzed, represents a fundamental countermeasure to the pervasive spread of these malicious efforts. As for preventing oneself from being fooled by such tactics, it involves cultivating a habit of skepticism towards too-easily-accepted truths, diversifying sources of information to avoid echo chambers, and engaging in discussions that challenge personal beliefs. By adopting these practices, individuals can foster a more informed and discerning approach to navigating the complex landscape of information and "misinformation" in the modern world. How do you spot and defend yourself from propaganda? What's an example of repetitious propaganda that you see circulating today? @snowden Healthy & Awake Podcast: Apple: https://bit.ly/44pEBV6 Spotify: https://bit.ly/47KVbBM Rumble: https://bit.ly/3HPzG6V YouTube: https://bit.ly/3SKeZjn Substack: https://bit.ly/3TI9Jgw X: https://bit.ly/43sR7oa Mike Vera isn't your average Board Certified Health Coach (NBC-HWC). Armed with an MS in Exercise and Health Promotion and extensive experience as a seasoned personal trainer, he's the strategic mind behind Red Pill Health & Wellness and the engaging voice of the Healthy & Awake Podcast. With a strong foundation in cognitive psychology, Mike is adept at unveiling the hidden influences that impact our health.

If you pay attention to current events, then you already know that former NFL running back and actor O.J. Simpson died yesterday. After hearing about his passing, I immediately reflected upon the 'Trial of the Century' that occurred during the 1990's in which Simpson was found to be not guilty of murdering his wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. I remember how divided America was at that time between those who thought that he was guilty and those who thought that he was innocent. The polls at that time encapsulated how this trial caught the attention of the country and how this trial caused everyone to see how different aspects of society affected the entire culture. If this trial caused so much division throughout the country, then imagine how much conflict will occur in the hush money trial against former US President Donald Trump that will begin on Monday, April 15. This trial will be the first trial in American history in which a former President will be the defendant in a criminal trial. This trial will be ongoing while former President Trump will be campaigning in an attempt to be elected again in the General Election in November. This hush money trial is happening because the money paid to adult film star Stormy Daniels allowed for Trump to become President in 2016. Almost 2 out of every 3 registered voters view this trial as being somewhat serious. Trump's ardent supporters could be driven off of the deep end once again if he is convicted in this trial. We all remember how his supporters fervently showed up at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. If his supporters had better organization, then members of Congress could have been killed on that day. Better organization from his supporters has the country on edge if Trump is convicted or if Trump loses the General Election in November because many people could die if another Civil War breaks out later this year. Around 620,000 people died in the first and only Civil War from 1861-1865. Hollywood is already capitalizing on this possible scenario with the movie 'Civil War' showing in theaters all over the country now. However, there is one scenario that the masses are not even thinking about the possibility that the stress of the hush money trial will put a tremendous toll upon the health of former President Trump. His health is sort of an issue now because during His Presidency he almost lost his eyesight when he stared at the eclipse in 2017, he had a colonoscopy done in 2019, and he was hospitalized for several days due to COVID complications in 2020. The stress of this trial could put Trump in a state of health in which he would have to suspend his Presidential campaign. If he has to suspend his campaign, then Trump supporters would riot. The events of this impending Civil War would ensure that we would not able to pass down the excellency of this nation to those that will be around towards the end of this century.

Narcissistic Elites Posted on April 12, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, as the small is an analogue of the large, in physics, chemistry and economics, small relationships mirror large ones. The large relationships are those between groups of people and small ones those between individuals. The analogue becomes apparent when we examine the narcissist and the source of narcissistic supply. In the family a parent is occasionally a narcissist. That parent then destroys the child slowly, feeding off their discomfort and pain, a vampire that drinks suffering. The large relationship between governments and the people is a copy of the narcissist family. They create suffering in the people, then feed off that suffering, as a parasite feeds off a host. Which means the elite epitomize narcissism. Since there’s no curing the narcissist, the only answer is separation. The narcissist loves to create turmoil. When confronted with two options, one will improve the situation, and the other will make it worse… the narcissist, and narcissistic elite will reliably choose to harm. Especially if that problem gives them more power, because they’re the only ones who can solve the problem, (they intentionally created). Our narcissist governments then are the source of most of the turmoil we as mankind face. Out of their boredom they don’t have a choice but to stir up chaos. Which means the narcissist has to move regularly, because of the turmoil they created, fleeing the consequences, and to find new victims. The narcissist government so alienates the people, they seek to replace us, with new victims. Lured in with candy and pleas to help them find their puppy. Narcissists need to be the center of attention. If the people get too much attention, our narcissistic elites get jealous. Have you noticed, any time populism is mentioned in the unbiased media, it’s always in a negative light? “Why Thurston, as you know, that’s a populist notion…” says some authoritative brainiac on CNN. Avoiding the logical conclusion, that the speaker of such a sentence is by definition… an elitist. What’s an elitist? A narcissist who’s so arrogant, stupid and lacking self awareness, they think they can run the world. All they need are enough guns. Any nod to the needs of the ruled is, heavens to Betsy, populist! How can the elite be the center of attention, if we’re paying attention to the needs of someone else? As the narcissist does in personal relationships… so do narcissistic elites in government. Narcissists have big egos and are prone to narcissistic injury. As our narcissistic elites are. I’ve noticed a few times how Biden gets out of place angry when asked a difficult question. Often challenging the questioner to a physical duel… rather than answer the question. As a narcissist would. He’s not the only elite that resorts to anger either. The elite don’t like to be confronted by their lessers. Moreover, it appears, the higher in the hierarchy a person gets, the more narcissistic they become, or is it, only the most narcissistic rise in the oven of power? No matter, the top echelons of power are always filled with narcissists. Like Kamala Harris. No one can work for the woman. Clearly because she treats them so poorly. Isn’t that how you can tell the soul of a person though? The way they treat waiters? Let’s face it, we’re the victims of narcissistic abuse… from the elite. Sadly, there’s no curing narcissism. When in a relationship with one, the only way to stop being the victim of their insatiable need for narcissistic supply… is to leave them. Because you can’t fill a narcissist’s need for validation. It’s like filling a black hole. The more it gets the more it wants. The elitist narcissists that run the world today are a black hole. Their need for power, glory and attention only grows. Not only politicians but especially the bureaucracy. An ecosystem designed by narcissists, for narcissists and run by narcissists… for the benefit of those narcissists. We have to use whatever means are at hand to root them out of power. Then limit that power so the next crop of narcissists can’t do what today’s have. Sincerely, John Pepin

To truly awaken the masses, in particular our youth, they must first be made aware that our public education system is based on a model of obedience and conformity. The Prussian model (modern day Germany) on which it is based is designed to teach them what to think, not how to think. It was first introduced in Ontario (Upper Canada back then) in the 1840's by Egerton Ryerson, son of Colonel Joseph Ryerson, who was not only an authoritarian type military man, but first and foremost, a united Empire Loyalist. It is not surprising, therefore, that Ryerson believed that monarchy gave dignity to government and acted as a check on the radical excesses of the people. The system had proven to be wildly successful at maintaining a large degree of control over societies, regimenting their behaviors, and in establishing more productive labor resources. It was generally accepted that it takes multiple successive generations of implementation for the established goals of the curriculum to be fully realized. Now, with the Woke DEI agenda and Identity Politics being added to the curriculum, there is even more reason for parents to be concerned and seek out alternative forms of education for their children. This style of education has been widely used throughout Western cultures, and has been upgraded and modified to suit the social, economical and labor needs of the given time, but the core principles of Authority, conformity and obedience are still the foundation of the system. It is the very reason why most full grown adults who have spent almost the entirety of their childhood in these institutions clamor for a ruling class, parental surrogates, or protectors, while rejecting self-ownership, independence, and genuine liberty. Completely enveloping the mind of each individual in such an adolescent state assures the continuation of power in the hands of those who seek to dominate us and plunder our resources, while giving the illusion that bowing to the demands and edicts of central planners is in fact an act of benevolence and being a good citizen. The instinct to defend oneself from external threats subsides entirely if a person can be convinced that their forced sacrifices and subjugation defines what it means to be contributors to the great good. When, in fact, it is voluntary acts of kindness, generosity, charity, and contributions that truly defines a person's merit, in terms of social/economic values. I have a lot of hope for the future if enough people can break free from their slave-psychology, and help usher in what I have termed 'Enlightenment Era 2.0 in the 21st Century. It is not only plausible, but very much possible, considering we live in the age of information. Full on human ownership was once part of the fabric of past societies, and accepted as normal until the ethical implications were thoroughly brought to light and vigorously fought against by an ever growing population of enlightened individuals. Today, nobody advocates for human ownership as it was practiced in the past. Which shows that cultures can change, and adopt entirely new ways of living socially with each other, and dealing with each other economically. For anyone that is skeptical about the validity of these claims or just want to learn more about the history of our education system, you can always take it upon yourself to Google, use any other search engine, or visit your local Library in order to seek out other literature or information regarding the history of our education system. A truly informed individual is much better suited to making rational decisions and forming opinions.Bennett (CL)

One podcaster I regularly listen to has a saying: “The more things change, the more we must depend on those things that never change.” When thinking about the last three quarters of this century (and beyond), I intentionally anchor this statement at the forefront of my mind. Before looking forward, while reflecting on the last hundred years, we’ve witnessed technology advances shifting and reshaping our lives at an ever-increasing pace. Worldwide events like COVID, or politically charged events like October 7, 2023 and September 11, 2001, act like markers in time—like chapter breaks in the story of history. Events like this can easily change the trajectory of our lives. All this draws attention to the big truth that predicting what will happen next may be a fun exercise, but it is not our most important task. Instead, developing ourselves and our characters is significantly more important. Looking forward, I see the last portion of this century being a mix of technology leapfrogging and ideologies clashing. As technology becomes the materialist’s god, those without a traditional religion will become more “religious” in their view, actions, and attitudes towards the god they helped create. However, this is nothing new, as it is simply a technological upgrade to a primitive person carving an idol out of stone, metal, or wood prior to worshiping it. As robotics technology advances and “artificial” intelligence expands into these machines, the lines will blur regarding what it means to be human. On the positive side, these technologies will solve many diseases, disabilities, and challenges facing our world. On the negative side, the value of human life will decrease because robots will appear to be more human-like, but “better”—challenging what makes humans worth preserving. While it’s easy to imagine what those with power, influence, or status should do, the usefulness of this is not as beneficial as one might think. A long time ago, I heard a saying that stuck with me: “Power attracts the corruptible.” This idea is more nuanced than the cliche that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is my observation that there are some people who live with levels of integrity that it would be difficult to imagine them becoming corrupted by power or bending to the winds of culture; having/gaining power is not a motivation for them. Imagining us with the power to influence the course of the world flirts with this power and the corrupting attractiveness of it. It also is a distraction from developing our own character or fixing our own flaws. Two thousand years ago, Jesus challenged those present along these lines: “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? … First take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” (Luke 6:41-42 NIV) In this statement, Jesus doesn’t challenge us to avoid correcting others. Instead, Jesus challenges us to correct the flaws in our own lives first. Many of the issues faced over the past centuries have been at the hands of people who focused on “fixing” others while they were even more flawed. Some might even describe our world today as a cultural war over who must change (i.e. be fixed) first. However, there is only one answer that can solve this problem: Remove your own plank first. It is possible that once you have removed the plank from your own eye, the spec in the other person’s eye will also be gone. That speck might have been a shadow cast by your own plank. However, even if the spec is still there, we will be more credible without a plank sticking out of our own eye. If the question of who must change first remains unresolved, our future will continue moving towards societal chaos, inviting totalitarianism—both less-than-ideal outcomes. I suspect we face this problem now because of decades (and generations) focused on fixing problems (especially mental/emotional/spiritual problems) through external means. Popping a pill is a band-aid, not a solution—and a risky one at that. Setting aside the side-effects that come alongside medications, we find the monetary incentive of those making the medication to develop dependence. There is no lasting incentive for anyone to make a one-dose solution—or to even try. Equally challenging and questioningly better is paying someone to listen to you vent your problems. This can help, but when the one you are paying has a financial incentive to keep you returning, be wary that resolution may not be a mutual goal. Focusing on our problems may cause our problems to multiply, rather than resolve. We see more of what we focus on. Focusing on life’s problems may not be the way to resolve them. Also, expanding our focus onto others prompts our minds to see an ever-expanding number of ways that other people are our problem. This leads nowhere good. If we want a solid foundation to build on for the last three quarters of this century, we must take steps today to grow ourselves. We must put aside blaming others and seeing other people as responsible for us. While we cannot control everything that happens to us, we can control how we respond. How we respond directly affects what happens next. Our response can bring positive resolution or a descent into chaos. As I think about the last three quarters of this century, while dreaming of the possibilities is more fun, the challenge I have for you and I is this: “To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” (Micah 6:8b NIV) Let’s seek to keep the first things first and work on strengthening our own character as we step forward into the future together.