Month: September 2021

Consider, with respect to my previous post, that for the Left “Black Lives Matter”–that is their official story, and they are sticking to it–but “All Lives” do NOT matter.  That sentiment and idea is racist.

The fundamental illiberality of objecting to the saying “All Lives Matter” is instinctively obvious to people steeped in the AUTHENTIC American tradition.  It is obvious to genuine Liberals, which is to say to people possessing genuine goodwill; to people capable of articulating a principle and applying it honestly even to people different from themselves.

And BLM at its root, is just a ploy.  A propaganda meme.  One more means of dividing the country into Us and Them to create usable political will on the one side, animated into an ugly anger against the other side, understood to be sub-human, if human at all.

As I have said often, black lives IN REALITY do not matter to the Left.  They are not trying to HELP them.  On the contrary, vegan white fem-boys from the suburbs helped burn down black neighborhoods last year, then left, seemingly without regret, or realizing or thinking or caring in any way about what they had done.

Breonna Taylor’s mother eventually called such people out, saying in effect “most of you don’t even know who the fuck I am, or care”.  The protests in Louisville kind of fizzled after that, or so I read.

And as I keep saying, if you CARE about someone, you THINK about them.  You make honest and sincere efforts to help them.

Has the Left done this with respect to blacks?  Perhaps in the 1950’s and 1960’s.  But even in the 60’s, encouraging riots–which left wing agitators DID DO–was counterproductive.  It created white flight and created most of the blighted zones in inner cities which continue to this very day.  As I have pointed out often, in 1960 or so, Detroit had the highest per capita income of any city in the WORLD.

Many factors changed this.  Global competition and union intransigence certainly played a role too.  But to my mind the CORE problem was crime, and the white perception that black people were dangerous.  You can call this racist–and certainly it is applying perceptions to all which are true of only a few–but they all saw the footage of buildings burning, and were well aware of the crime rate.

Are black people intrinsically dangerous?  Of course not.  They were, then, reacting in emotionally understandable ways to distressing and terribly unfair situations.  They are, however, NOW reacting in ways which have been programmed by the Left and which serve NOW to impoverish, not enrich, their lives.  Most of them are stuck in prisons–mental prisons–they can’t see.

People who CARE would work to alleviate real problems.  Black folks do not really have a problem with “systemic racism”.  This is a propaganda meme created by white people to use as a club mainly against other white people.  As I have pointed out, it is culturally solipsistic, in that it shuts ACTUAL black folks out, really doesn’t want or value their input, and has not even a remote ambition of intelligent policy, or policy analysis.  They simply stipulate as true whatever feels momentarily right to them, refuse to debate it–since questioning the Apostles of the Holy Church of Sanctimonious if also Insincere Anti-Racism, is itself racist.–and move on.

That their policies have made black lives WORSE for 40 years is a matter of indifference to them.  Making black lives better is really not a concern of theirs.  Feeling morally superior is.  Also, most of them are effectively on the take, and even if they could honestly say they are not engaging in outright graft, the System, writ large, provides many benefits, including political office–which is to say power and attention–and money.  None of us truly objects to more money and all it will buy.

From my perspective–and as an honest liberal I am open to feedback, and certainly willing to change my views as needed–what the black community mostly needs is schools which provide ACTUAL educations, better jobs, and some means of increasing the number of two parent homes.

As I have pointed out often over the years, with regard to two parent homes, the outcomes of white kids and black kids (and for all I know all kids of all races) are equal when it comes to being raised by single parents.  Such kids are at higher demographic risk of all the bad stuff, and are less likely to do all the good stuff.  They are at higher risk of being incarcerated, of getting a woman pregnant in their teens/being a woman impregnated in her teens, of dropping out of school, of abusing drugs/alcohol, and of being unemployed.

Now, the issue of abortion specifically touches black lives more than white lives.  Vastly more black babies are aborted, proportionately, than white babies.  As I understand the data, it is not unreasonable to view abortion as a means of birth control.  If you get pregnant, why would it matter?  You can get that thing cut out of you for free.

And of course reducing black birth rates was a key Eugenic goal–and stated clearly as such–by the founder of Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger.

[I should try and reconcile my post on abortion with the patent fact that more black babies will be born, many of them into poverty, many of them to young single mothers.

This seems likely.  All I can say is that the FACT of this law needs to be broadcast, and we can hope it changes behavior.  Most people act mostly rationally when there are real consequences.]

To to me Charter Schools are an OBVIOUS and long overdue first step.  These increase educational outcomes exponentially.  And longer term, smarter people make smarter decisions, don’t they?  Is helping people make smarter decisions not SUPPOSED to be a key goal of education?  You educate people to help them do better in life.

And economically, President Trump showed clearly that the best way to reduce black unemployment rates, and increase their overall prosperity, was to increase prosperity across the board through intelligent policies of the sort Democrats reliably oppose.

And with regard to two parent homes, they are vastly easier to maintain when times are good, and money readily available.

All our problems have solutions.  Our MAIN problem is that we have many people in our midst who BENEFIT from the problems of the many, and particularly the problems of black folks.  They have every reason to resent and resist actual black advancement.

And ponder how ludicrous it is in California that the white guy is supposed to be the one who protects and cares about black folks–even though he just locked them in their homes for a year, and is trying to get rid of their police protection even in a time of increasing crime; and the guy who is ACTUALLY BLACK is the face of the KKK.

For those with eyes, the landscape is covered with a thick fog of lies which, like most lies, are not intended to help anyone but those telling them.

Not only did they do the best job of balancing common humanity with policy, but their response was also just about the only SCIENTIFIC one.

And it WORKED: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-remove-most-remaining-pandemic-restrictions-this-month-2021-09-07/

https://covid19.who.int/region/euro/country/se

1,400 new cases but no new deaths.

As I said a year ago, locking people down fucks their immune systems up. It might prevent those in younger children from developing properly outright.

Masks don’t do shit.

And Herd Immunity is most solid and safest based on NATURAL immunity.  Sweden was very open relative to most of the world for most of 2020, and even though they are using the vaccinations, in my own view those vaccinations are secondary to the fact that nearly every man, woman, and child was EXPOSED to COVID.

As Tegnell confessed, their failed to protect their elderly properly, but that was an issue of execution, not planning.

For all intents and purposes, they did the Great Barrington Declaration, which was the obvious SHORTEST PATH BACK TO NORMALITY, as well as the one least abusive to common decency, which is to say the one least contemptuous of human suffering and indignity.

Sweden, which never masked up, and never cancelled school for most kids under 16, and never locked down anything like most of Europe, has the best health right now, and are ending all restrictions outright.

Science is about congruence between stated aim and result.  What we have been using in America is not science.  It is absolute bullshit, that is only being bought by people because our media has been bought, and because most Americans were never educated properly.  They were taught compliance and obedience to authority–to officially anointed “experts”–not critical thinking and the scientific method.

And by the way, their death rate was lower than our own.  I did the math the other day.  They were about 1 death in 615 I think it was, and we are at 1 in 512.  By literally every metric, numerically and morally– and this will eventually include mental health indicators and economic indicators–their response was superior.

And as said, their number SHOULD be lower.  They failed in some specific tasks, but even in failure they are significantly better than us.

They should give themselves the Nobel Prize.

The following will most likely be a bit disjointed since I had a long day, but I want it out of my head tonight, so it won’t bother me tomorrow.

The following started with a Facebook post by a friend of mine, who is very left wing, but who I am not responding to since I genuinely like her otherwise.  I think she is misguided, even though I would never say something that patronizing to her and expect to be able to hug her again.

It was a meme saying essentially that we don’t hesitate to pull the plug on brain dead people, particularly old people, so how can anyone say anyone able to do that values the human heartbeat.

Whoever wrote it, I think, thought it was a mike drop, but I of course was appalled that someone would conflate someone who had lived a full life and had no prospect of future consciousness, which is to say life; and a fetus which had yet to draw its first breath, much less a baby which was born viable, and still in danger in some places, or so I understand.

I commented on my own page that a metaphor occurred to me that a seed is different from a sprout, itself different from a seedling, then a tree, then wood.

Teasing that out a bit, I will offer another analogy that I posted elsewhere, but not, I don’t think, here: the situation as regards abortion with the Left is that a fetus is more or less in an indefinite, Schroedinger’s Cat situation: it is human if wanted, but not human if not wanted, and it can switch from human to non-human and back again as often as the woman changes her mind.

There, I called this philosophically unacceptable, as indeed it is.

Within the first analogy, the baby converts from a sapling to wood and back to a sapling, depending on the whim of the woman.

And it then struck me that the underlying notion is that HUMAN LIFE GENERALLY has to be subject, within such a paradigm, to the same logic.  Why is the Left so murderous?  Well, some people it wants, and some it doesn’t.  And the people it doesn’t want aren’t people, so killing them is no crime.

Then it hit me that the reason for this dogmatism is that the same rigid and unempathetic mindset is applied to the political discourse itself: people who have the right opinion are human, and those who do not are not.  No point in talking to them.

Where and when have you seen a Leftist EVER admit that a baby is a human being, in PRINCIPLE?  They won’t do it.  Emotionally, they live with the contingent, Schroedinger’s Cat image.  They only know if the death of a baby is a tragedy if they know how the mother felt.  If her boyfriend punched her in the stomach in a drunken rage and she miscarried, oh the tears and wailing.  But if she herself chose to abort that same baby at the same time, then it was her choice.

Do you see the problem here?

And here is the perspective that occurred to me, that I am calling a new argument.

It is not technically true that the government’s laws are “on” the woman’s body.  The laws concern the DOCTORS who perform the procedures.  No one is telling her she can’t have an abortion: they are saying she can’t use the COMMUNITY to do it.  She cannot ask the rest of us to tacitly endorse her decision.

Now, the argument all of us have lived with since we ourselves were not aborted long ago is that if “abortion is illegal then we will return to back alley abortions”.

In important respects, this is a ridiculous claim. Most importantly, no one is proposing banning ALL abortions.  They are still legal.

And women KNOW how to prevent pregnancy, outside of rape, which is really not anything anyone is talking about any more any way.

For a woman to get pregnant, she has to have insufficiently protected sex.  If it is voluntary, then the risk which led to pregnancy is something she could and should have controlled.

I see people say “the man should have too”, but the man does not get pregnant.  If he wants to wear a condom, that’s great, but the ultimate responsibility OBVIOUSLY lies with the person who bears the consequences.  This is simple fact.  It is plain moral logic, that would be comprehensible, I think, in any non-decadent culture.

And here is the analogy I will offer, whose direct validity I have not decided on.  It is perhaps not exact, but I will offer it anyway.

The fact is that because heroin is illegal, much of the heroin that is on the street is dangerous.  If it were legal, and sold by pharmacies (and by the way, I would most likely not oppose this), then a lot less people would get bad stuff and die.

The argument could then be made, using roughly the same logic, that heroin MUST be legalized, since people using it will die if it isn’t.

But heroin is illegal.  Should the law be concerned with what happens to people who break the law?

All public laws reflect moral norms that are sufficiently common that our elected politicians see fit to encode them in law.  Our system, by design, is intended to allow for many moral norms.  As I have pointed out often, there is no reason Minnesota cannot try and replicate Sweden (complete with Islamist crime and terror), and Texas, well, be Texas.

Differing understandings, within the broad rubric of the Constitution, which as I have said OBVIOUSLY  does not speak to abortion.

{Roe v. Wade, if you study the history, was a set-up.  Effectively it was left wing radicals intentionally and by long design creating bench legislation.  It was a planned operation, controlled and directed by a group of people to the explicit purpose of getting the Supreme Court to affirm a “right” which did not exist in the Constitution.]

In my personal view, the window should be the first trimester, but what for me is not at issue is that if a baby is born breathing and crying, it should not be murdered.  If you grant that infanticide is wrong, then it becomes a question of where to draw the line.  Fetal heartbeat is one such place.

So to sum up, getting pregnant is something which only happens after a decision is made by the woman.  If she is drunk, she chose to get drunk.  If it was a bad decision, it was her bad decision.  If this sounds unfair, perhaps it is, but only women can get pregnant.  Life is not fair in many ways.

She takes a risk.  The risk is pregnancy, and currently in Texas, the risk is that if she does not abort the baby, if she does not want it, before it has a heartbeat, then she either can’t abort it legally, or has to go out of State to get it done legally.  She can also legally abort it herself, but that is of course dangerous.  What she wants is safety, not unreasonably.

But if we grant that the State has the right to set a timeline from when the act of abortion becomes infanticide and thus murder, then that is a law she needs to be aware of, and take into consideration.

Not often commented on, but one key aim of such legislation is REDUCING THE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS.

It is the same aim with banning heroin: we want less of it used.

And if she knows what the law is, is there not reason to suppose her behavior WILL CHANGE?  That her decision patterns will change?  That she may do a better job of preventing pregnancy, with any number of options, including the pill, IUD’s and others?

Again, I am tired and perhaps offering some non sequiturs, but I don’t think so.

Let me try my logic again:

1. The 4th Amendment does not guarantee a right to abortion on demand.  Specifically, it does not require States to permit medical professionals to perform abortions for any period of time.
2. This logically means that communities who want to do so can ban DOCTORS and nurses and other medical professionals from performing this procedure, within specific constraints, such as how far along the baby is.
3. If a woman KNOWS this–and she obviously should–then she KNOWS she is risking creating problems for herself if she a) gets pregnant; and b) takes longer than 6 weeks to abort the baby.
4. The fact that she is at higher risk of health complications should she decide to abort after 6 weeks is not the problem of the law, which deals in personal behavior and individual responsibility.

To my mind, the big red flags in all this are the denigration of personal responsibility–which is reinforced by allowing the negative consequences of bad decisions to manifest, and reduced by sheltering people who make bad decisions from the consequences–and the refusal of the Left to admit to any consistent and non-ironic definition of when life begins.

The latter refusal, as I have commented, has led logically to the rationalization of infanticide, and to the political theater of televised abortions which have the specific aim of incensing those who view fetuses as human beings.

There is plenty in here to make people mad, and I probably should not post it without sleeping on it, but shit, I’ve already posted lots of stuff to make people mad in the past.

The net is that discussion should be possible, but it is not possible on this topic because the whole thing requires sincerity with respect to what human life is and its value.  You cannot have a values based debate with people who just want to keep their options open.  For them, some human life has value, and some doesn’t, and it varies, depending on their political goals and current needs.  That is more or less the root of it.

But the whole “My body my decision” involves a doctor.  They don’t want government taking their hands of them, but rather keeping them off of the doctors, so the doctors can put THEIR hands on the babies.

One last thing: infants feel pain after a relatively short period.  Anyone who would not torture a mute puppy–that can’t make a noise so you know you are inflicting agony on it–should consider that human fetuses are just as sensitive after a certain point.

Again, if we were trying to share a common humanity which differed in specifics, that would be one thing.  But we aren’t.  The people we are fighting don’t believe in our humanity in important ways at all.  I honestly believe this, because I see it.

One last, last thing, only tangentially related: ponder how you NEVER, NEVER hear people like Fauci and Walensky talk about the human consequences of their policies, of the screaming and miserable children, the suicides, the depressions, the old people dying alone, all of it.

Contrast this with Tegnell of Sweden, who actually DID agonize, more or less publicly, about balancing policy with common humanity. I personally think he did a great job.  He is virtually the only one on Planet Earth that I can recall making such an effort.

In recent months, I will not infrequently have unpleasant dreams that seem to in effect be the release of unpleasant emotional realities that were always there, but unacknowledged.  You “know” a lot of things you don’t admit to yourself.  All the COVID freaks know, unconsciously, that they are being lunatics out of a deeply rooted emotional need for submission to a place and purpose which our world has not provided them.  The cult comes out of the NEED for a cult of some sort.

But last night, after having a few drinks with a few bar friends, the emotional tone of the whole thing came back to me: none of us really have a PURPOSE in life.  I felt this.  It is a painful feeling.

Me, I’m yammering continually.  But do I REALLY believe I am making a difference, or likely to?  On some level, I was told last night, no.  Or at least not until last night.  Maybe that feeling was released because something else became possible.

I did have a very brief moment a few days ago where I thought success for me was possible.  I was crushed as a child, and that FEELING has never been possible for me.  That is a big part of the reason I think so much: it is in compensation for feelings that have not been accessible for me.

So that is good.

But I think most Americans are passive nihilists.  It’s not so much that we consciously reject God, or morality, or virtue, or purpose, but that we don’t EMBRACE it.  There is nothing really there, no spirit, no purpose.  It feels pointless, but we don’t let ourselves feel that.  We watch football.  We get in groups and cheer and “party” and lie to one another.  That is what we do.

More active nihilism would be the Commune of 1870-1871 in Paris.  I was listening to a short lecture on that last night.  It is where we get, in my understanding, the word “Communism” from.  It is highly romantic for many.

But when the French government was retaking the city, they–the Communists–burned as much of Paris as they could.  They destroyed beautiful buildings, priceless art.  They beheaded hundreds of statues.  They would have burned the Louvre, if French soldiers had not prevented them.  If I understood correctly, the Louvre had a library that they DID burn.

They more or less literally acted like scorned lovers who said “if we can’t have you, then NO ONE CAN HAVE YOU.”  In an actual romantic relationship, they clearly would have murdered their lover, and then probably committed suicide.

This spirit is what we are facing in America today.  The Left more or less WANTS to destroy America, since the dominant idea is that destruction is creative, and if you tear one thing down, something better MUST replace it.

This is of course inferior psychology.  There is a patina of political and philosophical theory, but the emotional basis of all this is despair, alienation, and rootlessness and purposelessness, all of which are fostered and encouraged by the political philosophy and theory.

They tear people down first–and recruit broken people–who are then to tear down society.  Fires everywhere: that is the aim.

I might comment as well that the emptiness dream was followed by visiting a Get Rich Quick seminar.  I was in some hotel, where they asked you to spend thousands of dollars on trinkets, as a way to get rich, and of course they got rich in the process.

Many people have gotten rich peddling ideas of middling quality on how other people could get rich.  Every book on getting rich made money for its author, and there are hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of such books.  I recall a cartoon from some years ago where the dad sends away for a $2 book on how to get rich.  It comes in the mail, and the only text is “get everyone to spend $2 on your book.”

But the idea of striking it rich–especially quickly, which is an illusory idea for nearly all–is a big part of our culture too.  So many dream of winning the lottery.  That dream keeps many people going.  I’ve stood behind them at the gas station.

So that is a feeling too.  The aim is to get at the feeling, the “that-ness” of experience, to allow what was latent the ability to “speak”.  It’s not easy.  We hold so much back, for so many reasons, but in important respects, for self protection.  We don’t feel what we can’t process, or which some part of us doesn’t think we can process (how smart that part is is an open question for me), so if you want to expand your experience, you have to improve your emotional digestion.

Think about it: if some part of you offers a feeling, and says “what do you think of this”, and some other part of you says “HELL NO I HAVE ENOUGH TO DO ALREADY’, then that first part will go silent.  Your experience will contract.  You will see and feel less, and your “world”–which in your conscious mind really is what you can consciously perceive–will contract.

That’s a bit of a jaunt.  I have a picture of myself climbing a hill in Scotland with my walking stick and wearing something Victorian.  Why?  Because I CAN.

Thinking about this, standards have evolved about what used car dealers can and cannot say about cars.  If they lie, or intentionally mislead a consumer, they can be sued and sometimes prosecuted.

When it comes to the business of providing “information” about current events, there really is no standard.  No one can–or SHOULD–be prosecuted for lying.

So why would not everyone lie?  Well, if the MAIN business is actually providing the service of informing people about current events, then companies that lie are providing an inferior product, and in a truly competitive market inferiority means, ultimately, less revenue, and less profit, and less money in the pockets of those running the thing.

And empirically, in my understanding, the ratings of most of the left wing media are down considerable.  With Trump gone, most people are no longer tuning in nightly for their dopamine hit of outrage.

Integrity is a business value.  In news, convincing people you have integrity (which, to be clear, does not necessarily imply that you DO) amounts to a claim of a better product.  You are offering better quality.  People tend to buy more from people they trust and respect. Walter Cronkite was not completely honest, but he was perceived to be, and although I have not dug up the data, I’m sure his ratings were very good throughout his career.

And I will add that lies are most effective when delivered by people who are truthful most of the time.  Even if they make you pause, the overall pattern will bring most people back to belief/credulity.

I wonder about Tucker Carlson.  I truly love many of his monologues.  He lambastes people who deserve it, and points out all sorts of ludicrous lies told by Democrats.

I really did think he needed to hit election fraud harder, though.  I can’t make up my mind on all that.  As he says often, they do their best to only deal in facts, so perhaps I can forgive him.  But I mistrust readily, so even with him I am guard, and virtually everyone else I can’t even watch.  Sheryll Atkisson and John Stossel are the only other two exceptions I can think of.  I trust them.

What is a Conspiracy Theory, really?  Does it consist in much more than the sense that some powerful elite/cabal is controlling events in such a way as to serve their own selfish goals to the expense of everyone else, and concealing this fact because if it got out, people would be angry?

And to this you might add the sense that this fact is known but hidden.  The News people KNOW this, but won’t discuss it.

And of course the rebuttal, such that it is, is that if such and such a thing were true WE WOULD KNOW IT.  Someone would tell us.

As far as the news, this obviously isn’t true.  What is a news/journalistic organization anyway?  It is a for profit provider of a specific service.  They are paid by how many people consume their service, and specifically, how many PAY for their service.  For entities like CNN this is mostly advertisers.

At root, when you really get down to it, all these companies are for sale.  Their services are going to be precisely what someone who controls them SAYS they are going to be.  Full stop.  This is known and acknowledged by all.

Anyone who controls both the news entity itself, as well as the bulk of paying advertisers, can control the content.  This is not really subject to dispute.

You may say, well, journalistic ethics and all that.  Well, you can have ethics and not have a job, right?  Or you can have a job and no ethics.  Your choice.  They don’t care.  You are a body in a seat.

And with regard to the first element, do not all bodies of belief partake in this basic emotional sense of threat?  The Left believes “Big Business” is trying to control all our lives, and take away our freedoms.  It’s ridiculous–within broad boundaries, particularly given that most Big Business is now enthusiastically Democratic–but that is what they believe.

Conservatives believe–in my view with considerable justice–that Left wing politics and politicians are being used to vitiate the Constitution and erode our freedoms, with the end goal being their complete elimination.

Christians believe that Satan is out there trying to subvert all of us.

Atheists believe that all talk of spirituality is dim witted, and that Christians are in general trying to ruin their lives.

It goes on and on.  Most people, if you frame the thing correctly, are to lesser or greater extents conspiracy theorists.  And why not?  Powerful people scheme, don’t they?  WE ALL SCHEME.  It is just that the schemes of the powerful affect more people.

And news is for sale.  This is obvious.  This applies, obviously, even to so-called Public Radio, which if it did not deliver the sort of news its subscribers want, would be out of “business” in a New York minute.

In the same way most families don’t want the stories told of the crazy Uncle or Aunt or Cousin, no group wants the crazy people in their midst talked about.

Conspiracy theory, in the end, is just applying to the world what we all know to be true in our own personal lives.

9/11 OBVIOUSLY involved elements of the US government, certainly in the cover up, but almost certainly in the planning and execution.

My logic is this: Tower 7 was unquestionably brought down by explosives.

NIST is competent, but they delivered a farcical and clearly scientifically invalid assessment.

Ergo, pressure was brought, internally, not to do a proper investigation.

Ergo, elements of our government were involved in the cover-up.

And logically, if our government were completely innocent of wrong-doing, why would they want to cover up the FACT that explosives certainly brought down Tower 7, and almost equally certainly Towers 1 and 2?

Tower 7 is easier, because it was not hit by a plane, and because not only does burning office furniture not bring down skyscrapers, they CERTAINLY don’t take 8 hours to do it, much less do it at freefall velocity, and symmetrically.  Nothing in your office will burn 8 hours.  Look around you.  One hour, tops.

But there are huge issues with both Towers 1 and 2.  If you want to be informed before you render your next opinion, spend some time here: https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/evidence-overview

That is all prologue.  I can’t say with assurance that, say, Dick Cheney had something to do with this.

But it seems certain to me both that some of our intelligence agencies participated in this–the CIA almost certainly, in my view–AND that some of our other intelligence agencies must KNOW this.  These people are smart.  They are not sheep.  They pick up on clues, both small, and, as here, blinking neon pink signs saying “PROBLEM HERE”.

So what gives?  How has all discussion and all honest investigation been shut down?

Here is what I propose: there have been many competing narratives created, all of which support the end goals of a core elite, but which vary in their details.

What got me thinking about this was the notion that flitted through my mind while I was doing some bicep curls.  You know, Bro-ing it, but without the backwards baseball cap.

Let us say that the architects–some of them–of 9/11 were desperately worried about terrorism, and needed a reason to 1) shut down terrorist training camps in Afghanistan; 2) take actually effective action to prevent Saddam Hussein from acquiring nuclear weapons; and 3) get passed into law the level of surveillance THEY thought they needed to prevent terrorism.

You can see this easily enough, can’t you?  A core group, concerned that most Americans were complacent sheep, and unwilling to DO WHAT IT TOOK to prevent terrorism.  Such sheep were in marked contrast to the hard and serious men (and a few women) who were CLEAR EYED.  It wasn’t just a possibility that we would get hit with nuclear terrorism, but a CERTAINTY if we didn’t do WHAT IT TAKES to prevent it.

3,000 something people died 9/11.  A lot less died than could have died, if they had just detonated the buildings right after the planes hit.  The death toll could have easily been 10,000 or more.  Most of those who died were above where the planes hit, or so I understand.

So you do the math: 3,000 dead (they would have had an estimated range), compared to 250,000 dead if a nuke goes off mid-town Manhattan.  It’s ugly math, but serious men and women have to do that sort of thing.  It’s the only way.

Does this sound plausible to you?  It does to me.

But where are we now?  We just handed the Taliban a larger territory then they had, tens or hundreds of billions of dollars worth of weaponry, and spent the last 20 years training them how to fight us.  And they have signed a de facto alliance with China.

How does THAT math work?  If Dick Cheney WAS the architect, and that WAS his plan, where are we now?  How did that make sense?

Yes, Iraq is under control.  We have that going for us.  But for most people, the connection with terrorism was primarily with Afghanistan.

So not only was all this not worth it, we moved BACKWARDS, after spending trillions of dollars, and depriving thousands of kids of parents, and thousands of parents of their children.

So imagine that the “terrorism” story was just one story within a larger one.  What if the REAL power in this world just used that story to manipulate people like Dick Cheney and to a lesser extent George W.?

Here is something really interesting, at least to me: the story on the pipeline in Afghanistan in Wikipedia has been significantly modified from the version I read a couple years ago.  It  is always interesting to me when stories disappear (as one recent example, the stories discussing Luc Montagnier’s critiques of these jabs recently got “edited” in my DuckDuckGo search engine.  Same words “Luc Montagnier COVID”, but everything after May just disappeared.  DuckDuckGo may be better than Google, but they are for sale too.  There are also SEO processes that I think anyone can do, and certainly that you can pay for).

My memory is not perfect, but it is very good.  If something makes an impression on me, it is there more or less indefinitely.  I forget a lot too.  Most things are not worth remembering.  History, however, in general IS.  If not dates and specific names, trends and general feelings.

Here is the simple history, as I recall it, which has been ablated: an oil or natural gas pipeline was going to be built across Afghanistan.  The Taliban either opposed it or were asking for too much money.  The US invaded, construction started again, and it was completed some years ago.

Here is a complicating consideration: that version, which I recall reading, which carries emotional memory with it, is now gone.  Can’t find it.

The most obvious reason, the one most people who were not me would go to instantly, is that I am misremembering.  This is obviously possible.

A second possibility is that the internet has been reset to include only one version of reality, which is not accurate.  Is that technically possible?  Of course.  Easy.  This is of course an unlikely thing, but I will add to the mix the fact that my power was flicked on and off while I was doing my internet search.  This hasn’t happened to me ever that I can recall.  It’s certainly not common, and the timing is interesting.

We all need to be cognizant of the fact I have pointed out several times that Joe Biden could drop a load of shit on the White House lawn, be filmed and photographed doing it, and the story STILL disappear completely.  Gone.  Never happened.  Conspiracy theory.

Here, though, is yet a third idea: the Taliban were put back in power because the Afghan government was not cooperating properly with this project, called TAPI seemingly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkmenistan%E2%80%93Afghanistan%E2%80%93Pakistan%E2%80%93India_Pipeline

Hell, maybe they got a bonus in advance for pledging full cooperation and diligence, in the form of US weapons and even cash.

Saudi Arabia seems to have played a role, as a nation state, in 9/11.  What was their core issue?  The threat of Iraq.  They invaded Kuwait.  No reason not to just keep going the next time, especially if they had nukes.  So they manipulated US intelligence fears to achieve their own ends.

Everybody only gets a piece of the picture.  Everyone might be saying “Mistakes were made, but either not by us, or not on purpose.”

The image I guess I am trying to convey is of course first and foremost a very complex situation and world.  Many competing interests are pursuing their interests in clandestine ways that involve lying.  Sometimes the lies of multiple players happen to all serve their agenda, so they cooperate.  Sometimes they don’t.  Everyone, though, always has an interest in protecting the lie.

Possibly some group exists which, to some larger or lesser extent, knows all the lies, and all the interests, and is itself manipulating THEM for ITS interests, which presumably include at a minimum the creation of a global government they control.

And what I will suggest is that all widely conditioned fears are politically useful and usable.  You are training people to be told what to do without asking appropriate questions.

The threat of terrorism enabled all sorts of things which would not have been possible pre-9/11.  And it is very possible that the REAL threat of terrorism was never significantly more than the REAL threat of COVID.  In the same way Trump haters had to concoct hate crimes, the purveyors of terror fear had to create THEIR OWN terror event.  It did involve actual terrorists of the vanilla variety, but as supported by terrorists of the false flag and professional intelligence operative variety.

COVID is of course the new terrorism.  It has, in fact, spoiled terrorism for me.  It no longer concerns me.  My only real concern is my government.  THAT I fear, and with considerable reason.  Look at what they have done in Australia with NOTHING, abso-fucking-lutely NOTHING.  Australia has one of the lowest death rates from COVID in the world.  The Flu has to be not just a bigger risk, but a MUCH bigger risk.  How is all that even possible?

I will end with a very odd news story I will add some comments to: https://nypost.com/2021/08/24/australian-new-network-broadcasts-satanic-ritual/

Did you see this?  Inexplicably, a seeming Satanic ritual shows up on the EVENING NEWS.

Look at the setting: it looks like studio of sorts, doesn’t it?  One of those training or meeting rooms with dividers that can be rolled out or pulled back?  It LOOKS like a broadcast.  It LOOKS more or less literally like the sort of thing a local televangelist might put out on public access on a Sunday.

Was this broadcast being created at that TV station?  Was it streaming during the newscast, such that the person switching from the live report back the anchor hit the wrong button momentarily?  That seems the likeliest explanation.

That, then, would logically imply that Satanism is sufficiently advanced in that area that it can be practiced within a normal television studio, and that there is enough outside interest that a broadcast makes sense.

In my own view, demons exist.  I have seen them many times.  We are all interconnected.  Everything is interconnected.  So no doubt some of what I have seen was connecting with and resonating with energies within me that were primal and awful.  That is what I am processing.  That is what trauma looks like.  It is chaotic, highly charged, and impossible to integrate with rational thought.

So are the lockdowns in Australia just an act of mass sadism, and perhaps even literal Satanism?  They are IRRATIONAL.  They are not a policy response in proportion to the danger, and obviously will fuck a lot of people’s minds up even more.  They make no sense, from a scientific or moral perspective.

Sex is a way of being with another human being, which involves pleasurable physical contact.  I suppose at higher levels, you BE sexually.

Sex is not a thing, but all of our language tends to reduce it to a process of possessing and consumption.  I suppose much blame there must accrue to men, who do tend naturally to think of possessing women.

But you “have” sex, “get” laid, “get” lucky, you chase “sex”, you want “sex”.  Even the phrase “sexual intercourse” is better than the expressions we tend to use.  What men are describing is finding a woman sufficiently horny and/or trusting and/or loving that she will get naked with them and allow them into her body; knowing full well, I might add, that the man is most likely not going to make her feel emotionally well, even if he can contribute pleasurable physical feelings.

For many women, I think attention itself is almost as good as love.  We live in a world where almost no one is fully present any more, any where.  I was talking with a woman some years ago who had read and reread “Fifty Shades of Gray”–as many women seemingly did–and although I forget her exact words, the impression I had was that what attracted her was not particularly the weird stuff he did with her, but the fact that she was his sole-what?–object of attention.  He was THERE, in the room with her.  He was THINKING about her.  She was, for a time, his world.

So many women feel unseen by the men in their lives.  I guarantee my wife felt unseen by me.  I didn’t know any better.  Even though I am writing this, I am not completely sure I know better–which is to say would do better–NOW.  They make up for it, mostly, of course, with their female friends.  Still, they wish there were something they could do or say to bring him back to her, more often, and better.

And is not consuming porn really a much more efficient way of getting sex in a world infested with a Consumeristic mythos?  I suppose it would be better if Amazon offered sex on demand (that’s not a suggestion Jeff, even where legal) from a Consumeristic standpoint, but logically that sort of thing is not far off.  Sex robots are the logical apotheosis of getting and having sex.  They actually ARE objects, who will do whatever you tell them to do, within their limits.

The day is coming, and most likely already here, when you can get your sex robot, program any porn you want, and have more or less literally bought “sex” from an object.

But when you love a woman deeply–I suppose–you are moving towards the spirit in her, and she to you, ideally.  At its highest level, it is an almost intrinsically spiritual act.

When you own an object ardently, you are moving, yourself, towards being an object, are you not?  To stasis?  To a world where nothing changes as long as nothing breaks?

So many of us want to be puddles, when our destiny is and always has been to join the river.  And I suppose in that metaphor it is not a question of forgetting who you are, but remembering.