Author: White Whale

If you are serious, you have read somewhere the transcript of the testimony John Kerry gave–what he lied–with respect to atrocities committed by Americans.  In almost all cases, the reports were complete fabrications, and the soldiers alleged to have seen them could not even have been in Vietnam at the time.

At the same time, decades of determined lies and deception have hidden from view the very real atrocities committed CONSTANTLY, and with high level support and direction, by the Communists. 

As one example, Cambodia fell in large measure because we cut off assistance, and if memory serves because the Vietnamese communists lent them support (although they later had a falling out: people forget that the Vietnamese have long been oppressed by the Chinese, and had cultural differences).  There, wires WERE routinely attached to testicles.  There were houses where dozens of people were tortured to death EVERY DAY, for no reason other than that, as one example, they owned glasses and were thus viewed as “intellectual”.  It was the reign of Satan on earth.  Nothing crueler could be imagined.

But the war in Vietnam wasn’t much better.  Let me excerpt “The Human Cost of Communism in Vietnam” once more.  WE MUST REMEMBER THESE THINGS.

About the Vietcong record of terror in South Vietnam there can also be little dispute, because the facts are too well established.  Since 1960, when the insurgency was first getting under way [this was compiled in November 1971], Communist terrorists have killed  over 36,000  South Vietnamese civilians; they have kidnapped 54,000 [what fate awaits these people?  Slavery?  It seems likely].

The terror is not savagery for savagery’s sake.  Neither is it the work of undisciplined soldiers, operating without instructions (as a unit of American soldiers did at My Lai). On the contrary, it is a deliberate policy, conceived at the highest level and communicated in detailed directives to Vietcong units at all levels. . .

Organized terror–of a ruthlessness and on a scale that defies civilized comprehension–has been a cardinal aspect of Communist policy from the very first day of the Vietcong insurgency.  By and large the Western world knows of only a few of the more massive and gruesome terrorist incidents–like the massacre that took place in the Montagnard village of Dak Son in November 1967, when the Vietcong attacking with flamethrowers, moved from hut to hut, incinerating alive more than 250 villagers, two thirds of them women and children.  In addition, 200 Dak Son villagers were kidnapped, never to be heard of again.  But the thousands of small incidents of terror–equally merciless, equally gruesome, and which account for far more victims than the big incidents–with exceedingly rare exceptions go unreported.

If did not make the press, for example, when on October 27, 1969, the Communists booby-trapped the body of a People’s Self Defense Force member whom they had killed–so that when relatives came to retrieve the body, four of them were killed in the explosion. Nor did it make the press in May 1967 when Dr. Tran Van Lu-y told the World Health Organization in Geneva that over the previous 10 years Communist terrorists had destroyed 174 dispensaries maternity homes and hospitals; had mined or machine gunned 40 ambulances and had killed or kidnapped 211 members of his staff.

If the Free World knew little or nothing of this day-to-day terror despite the presence of hundreds of correspondents in South Vietnam, what chance is there that the Free World would know anything at all about the bloodletting that would inevitably take place if the Communists came to power, expelled the western press corps, and then proceeded to deal with its enemies?

 That bloodletting happened.  Hundreds of thousands were killed, and millions were physically abused and tortured in “reeducation” camps.

If I seem at times paranoid, I would ask you a simple question: how much of this did you know?  Put another way, can anyone plausibly claim that the actual history of Vietnam has not been thoroughly hidden from public knowledge by an educational system seemingly run by people willing to ACCEPT these horrors.

Communism is evil.  It is horror. It is putting serial killers in charge of the prisons, and installing sadistic psychopaths in all positions of power, then concealing the whole thing with a carefully planned pattern of lies.

One cannot deny the effectiveness of the habitual–reflexive–lying by the Left.  Joe McCarthy said that one Communist in government was too much.  And he was right.  How many pedophiles are too much in an orphanage?  And plainly, as evidenced by Harry Dexter White, Alger Hiss, and others, there WAS an effort at Communist infiltration of our government.  Perhaps most tellingly, Obama’s idol Saul Alinsky complains right at the beginning of “Rules For Radicals” how hard it was to be a Communist in the early 1950s’.  THAT WAS THE GOAL.  We had then many would-be traitors, even as we have many today.

Getting Obama elected required completing retooling our perceptual process, such that we no longer judge pedophiles, and think that there is no limit to the number appropriate to an orphanage.  Up is down, black is white, good is bad, and truth telling is lying.  I am not exaggerating.  What Obama has gotten away with is staggering.  What the Left in general has gotten away with is staggering.

Consider the arrest and release of Bill Ayers.  He not only worked for the overthrow of our government, but actively dreamed of turning the American people over to Cuba and Vietnam and North Korea, and allowing for mass reeducation (euphemism for psychological and physical torture) and mass murder.  In what historical period other than our own would he not have been shot, or at least put in jail for the rest of his life for treason? In what historical period other than our own could he go from aspiring Hitler to teaching the teachers of our young?

Now we read John Kerry is to be made Secretary of State.  At this point, some history is in order.

The Vietnam War, as we know it, began when Ho Chi Minh became a Communist around 1919-1920, and cofounded the French Communist Party.  He spent the 1920’s and 1930’s as a Communist organizer, mainly in Vietnam, but if memory serves he traveled, and met Stalin several times.  I believe he even lived in Russia for some years in the 1930’s.

Since French rule was odious, many revolutionary groups emerged in the 20’s and 30’s.  Ho Chi Minh issued consistent orders to kill the leaders of opposing groups, particularly when others were focused on resisting the Japanese, and just after the revolution began in 1946.  Let me quote to you from a pamphlet any serious student of the war in Vietnam should read, “The Human Cost of Communism in Vietnam”.  It was a summary prepared for Congress in the period (1972) when we were still deciding whether or not to betray both the valiant efforts of our soldiers, and our ally South Vietnam.  But I get ahead of myself:

 The elimination of their opponents was one of the most common means the Communists used to establish Vietminh control over the entire nationalist movement.  Against people whose interests or political convictions made them incorrigible enemies of the Vietminh, the Communists practiced a policy of physical extermination from the very beginning of the revolution. [a few names: Bui Quang Chien, Vo Van Nga, Nguyen van Sam, Pham Quynh; the list goes on]

So what happened is that all TRUE nationalists, all true Vietnamese patriots, all true pure anti-colonialists were simply butchered by the Communists, from the very start.

In 1954, if memory serves, France quit.  In 1956, Vietnam was split in two.  One sees the argument that there should have been a vote, but this ignores the fact that the North was already a Fascist State, and had already killed at least 50,000 people considered ideological deviants.  No election in such a condition can mean anything.

During the partition, the North left many partisans behind, and began nearly immediately to infiltrate dogmatic Communists into the south to sow terror.  They used both force and lies.  Force was they come into a village in the middle of the night, have the only guns to be seen, and demand both food and soldiers.  If denied they rape the women and shoot a few men.  Then they come back the next night with the same demand.  Faced with this choice, it is not surprising many eventually consented.  Lies: they tell you everything will be golden sunshine if they can just get the Americans and their Vietnamese running dogs out of the country.

America, facing a global battle for perceptual positioning, sees this gradual invasion of the South by the North and decides to take action.  The war eventually becomes a proxy battlefield between the Soviet Union–which bankrolls the North (and to a lesser extent China, which provides massive amounts of manpower to the North, so they can field more soldiers)–and America.

While not vital militarily, Vietnam is seen as a proving ground as to the resolution of America in the face of constant Communist efforts to win allies.  Put another way: the world was watching, to see who the better ally was.  If we had lost this perceptual battle, we would have become more isolated diplomatically, and eventually militarily.

Around 1965, the battle of the Ia Drang River Valley is fought.  In it, American soldiers faced conventional NVA regulars, and the deaths of some 100 Americans caused the deaths of some 1,000 NVA.  General Westmoreland, in my view, concludes from this that if we can engineer enough battles like this, that through attrition our eventual victory is assured.  So he basically replicates the initial “patrol” of Hal Moore across the country.  Obviously, though, “once bitten twice shy”.  The NVA figure it out, and we never achieve a death toll like that again, until Tet.

Tet we win.  Tet is a CATASTROPHE  for the North.  They think about quitting.  Peace talks are on-going.  There, they are claiming they want no more war, while at the same time they had just launched an offensive that was designed to win converts and facilitate a full-blown revolution.  The result is a massive increase in SOUTH Vietnamese patriotism, and a large scale, generalized increase in support for America and for winning the war.  The South Vietnamese begin to realize what failure will mean. Let me quote you again from “The Human Cost”:

During the Tet Offensive of 1968, the communists occupied a portion of the city of Hue for 26 days.  When they were driven out on February 24th, some thousands of civilians were missing.,  In 1969, a series of mass graves containing the bodies of missing civilians were discovered.  Some of the victims had been shot, some had been clubbed to death, some had been buried alive [as Diem’s brother had been, decades before].  Counting those still missing–who must be presumed abducted or executed–the estimated civilian toll. .  . comes to 5,700.

It was established that the killings were in no sense random, but were carried out on the basis of explicit directives and from prepared lists of names, the Communists moving through the streets methodically with their clip boards and pulling the victims from their houses.

I’m getting long.  Net, net: we get new leadership in the form of Creighton Abrams, who realizes that the base of the NVA is the countryside, and who enables the rural Vietnamese to protect themselves, as well as providing them support needed.  They figure out who the bad guys are, and in most cases put them in jail (some of the bastards we just shoot).  With the losses in Tet 1968 and 1969, the Vietcong (who are always in some form ultimately NVA) disappear.  By 1972 they are gone.  The whole South is safe.

The war is won by 1972.  I want to repeat that: the counterinsurgency, that of people mortaring Saigon, pulling priests out of churches and shooting them, of executing mayors and police chiefs,  of ambushing American patrols is done.  South Vietnam is as safe as the American countryside.

This is why in 1972, the North launches a conventional, tank-led invasion, which is repulsed with American air power and Vietnamese ground troops.  The war is won again.  The invasion has been stopped.

Then a Congressional coup happens in America.  Richard Nixon is forced to resign from office for the crime of not admitting soon enough just when he found out about a break-in he had not authorized.  All public policy making is weakened in the aftermath of the scandal.  Communist propaganda makes it look not only like the war is not won, but that it CAN’T be won, even though it is already over.  We give up, the NVA army rolls in a little, sees that we won’t respond, despite desperate requests from ARVN, then rolls down the country.  Mass slaughter and misery follow.

John Kerry is an important figure in all this.  Let me offer some testimony from a senior NVA commander:

[the antiwar movement] was essential to our strategy.  Every day our leadership would listen to world news . . to follow the growth of the antiwar movement.  Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses.

Treason is “providing aid and comfort to the enemy”.  We have the enemy EXPLICITLY stating that aid and comfort was being provided.  The situation cannot be simpler.

Now, to John Kerry.  I won’t repeat things that have been printed elsewhere.  What I want to do is quote a text on him, and apply a few facts.  The quote is lengthy, and taken from B.G. Burkett’s excellent book “Stolen Valor”, the thesis of which is that our soldiers performed extremely well in Vietnam, were guilty of very few of the crimes they were accused of, and that most of the stain on their reputation has come from opportunists like John Kerry, cranks, and Communist propagandists.  Most of the people alleged they had commited atrocities can be shown not even to have served in Vietnam.  The Vietnam Veterans against War that Kerry attached himself to lied over and over and over and over.  Burkett documents case after case after case of this.

The VVAW’s use of fake witnesses and the failure to cooperate with military authorities and to provide crucial details of the incidents further cast serious doubt on the professed desire to serve the causes of justice and humanity.  It is more likely that this inquiry, like others earlier and later, had primarily political motives and goals.

In April 1971, the VVAW staged a demonstration it called Dewey Canyon III, “limited incursion into
Congress”.  The protest was named after an operation in 1969 that sent elements of the 3rd Marine Division into Laos.  About this same time, an ad appeared in the New York Times signed by forty-nine American servicemen from the 1st Air Cavalry urging support for antiwar demonstrations..  But as United Press International later reported, the men, members of a Mekong Delta-based helicopter unit, had neither read nor paid for the ad.

I want to pause for a moment and underscore this: deception was at the HEART of the anti-war movement.  Virtually everything they said and did was a lie.  These are the people Kerry aligned himself with.

Dewey Canyon III featured Vietnam veterans marching on Washington in a very dramatic, emotional way.  Long-haired, scruffy, dressed in camoflauge and the remnants of military garb, and draped in medals, they presented the image of men who had obviously been tested in battle [most of them had not: Kerry had, but he only served six of his twelve month rotation] and had seen the horrors of war. . .

. . .At the end of the day they held a candlelit march around the White House.  After a man who said his son died in Vietnam blew taps, the soldiers began flinging their war medals over a high fence in front of the Capital: Purple Hearts, Bronze Star Medals, Silver Stars–bits of ribbon and metal hurled in the face of a government that had so betrayed them.  Some, after throwing away what cost them so dearly, broke down and cried.

One of them was John Kerry, Vietnam Navy veteran and aspiring politician who had been among those who had organized the protest.  Kerry flung a handful of metals–he had received a Silver Star, a Bronze Star medal, and three Purple Hearts–over the fence. Kerry spoke later that week before the the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, putting a face on the anti-war movement [i.e. HELPING an anti-war movement we have already established the North Vietnamese THEMSELVES said was a major source of consolation] far different than one seen before–the scruffy hippie or wild-eyed activist.  Kerry represented the All-American boy, mentally twisted by being asked to do terrible things, then abandoned by his government.

From start to finish, the public took Dewey Canyon III at face value, not understanding they were watching brilliant political theater.  Kerry, a Kennedy protege with white-hot political aspirations, ascended center stage as both a war hero and as an antiwar hero throwing away his combat decorations..  His speech, apparently off the cuff, was eloquent, impassioned.

But years later, after his election to the Senate, Kerry’s medals turned up on the wall of his Capital Hill office.  When a reporter noticed them, Kerry admitted that the medals he had thrown that day were not his.  And Kerry’s emotional, from-the-heart speech had been carefully crafted by a speechwriter for Robert Kennedy named Adam Walinsky, who also tutored him on how to present it.  TV Reporters totally ignored another Vietnam veteran, Melville L. Stephens. . .who that same day urged the Senate not to abandon America’s allies in South Vietnam. ‘Peace for us must not come at the cost of their lives.’ Stephens said in a speech he wrote himself.

Kerry did not return from Vietnam a radical antiwar activist.  Friends said that when Kerry first began talking about running for office, he was not visibly agitated about the Vietnam War. ‘I thought of him as a rather normal vet’, a friend said to a reporter, ‘glad to be out but not terribly uptight about the war.’

The people who served from John Kerry did not fault his courage.  He did in fact get shot at in anger. What they fault is his fundamental character and integrity.  He lied for political gain.  He gave credibility to a movement that was plainly invaluable in preventing American support for South Vietnam in the final assault.  At the time, if memory serves, the USSR had the largest army in terms of numbers, America was second, and North and South Vietnam were third and fourth in the world.  All the South needed was money, air support, and naval transport, and it would still be free.

To make a long story short, John Kerry is an asshole.  All these Democrats are.  Barack Obama is an asshole.  Joe Biden is an asshole.  Hillary Clinton is an asshole.  Bill Clinton is simply a clever asshole.  These people use people, they lie, they cheat, they steal.  They care NOTHING about principle or personal integrity.  All they care about is power and how they look in a mirror.

This has been an odd week for me.  I spent some 30 hours working by myself in a 50,000 square foot building in the middle of a blizzard, second shift.

But there are times and places when you need to go to the weird, the demonic, the counterparadigmatic, the demented.  We have Halloween for a reason.

All my adult life I have read relatively mainstream books, which for me might be Paul Johnson, Jacques Barzun, etc.

[I think I actually missed commenting on his death; “From Dawn to Decadence” influenced me a lot, and I count myself a fan.  I was down in San Antonio a while back, and actually briefly entertained fantasies of meeting him, but of course it was impractical.  I would far rather have met him than any rock star or actor living or dead.  The person living I would most like to meet is Doris Lessing.]

But I have long had a habit of making perhaps every 20th book something massively contrary to dominant paradigms.  One good example is Graham Hancock’s “Fingerprints of the Gods”, or a book on UFO’s, or ghosts, or Atlantis, or the Illuminati.

What you do when you incorporate these types of things is stretch your mind.  If you think of perception as a sort of internal mirroring of what is actually in front of you, you can only reflect things for which you have a reactive surface, for which your mind is prepared.  And since we can’t know how things REALLY are, it is in my view a good practice to stretch your mind from time to time. 

OK, two wild ideas: what if Lanza was trying to PREVENT the murder?  What if somehow he knew it was going to happen, but got there too late?

Second: what if “Fast and Furious” had as its actual INTENTION providing guns to Mexican gangsters, so that they in turn could serve as enforcers or assassins as needed?

Thinking is fun if you put no limits on it.  For me, to say something is POSSIBLE is almost never to say I believe it.  Most of the time, if I don’t have to render a judgement, I don’t.  I keep a lot of things in the “could be/insufficient evidence” category.  I have no need to be right all the time.  I deal well with ambiguity, and will say that we all live with it.  Some people are just too stupid to realize it.

8 days after the Newtown massacre, the school is still being investigated.  Think about this.  We have an ostensibly simple narrative, in which a deranged kid shoots his mother, forces his way into a school, then systematically double taps 20 grade schoolers and six adults before taking his own life.  Simple enough.

But according to every account I have read, he was found with either 2 or 4 pistols, and even though his mother OWNED an AR-15, whatever they found was in the trunk of the car,  which is an inconvenient place from which to shoot anyone.  Moreover, the video I posted a couple days ago did not seem to show a Bushmaster .223 at all.

The coroner, though, says that a “long gun” was used, i.e. a rifle.  The difference between a 9 or 10 mm round and a .223 is the difference between a lager and a stout.  It’s not hard to tell the difference.  Moreover, they can do ballistics matching.

I think a reasonable guess can be made that they have not yet found the murder weapon, which is inexplicable if Lanza was the sole shooter.  Read this quote through that prism:

Although the gunman is dead, Vance said, a thorough investigation is necessary.

“We need to know were there any laws broken by anybody anywhere that may have contributed to this,” Vance said.

This is a grade A clusterfuck from a police perspective.  They no doubt did not initially treat the shooting scene as a CRIME scene, since it seemed obvious who did the shooting.

But someone may have literally gotten away with murder.  If there was security footage, they will have pulled it, but I suspect there weren’t since this was a normally safe place.  This leaves them with dusting everything, looking at everything under a microscope, and hoping they get lucky.

It may literally be the case, though, that they have shell casing everywhere from a weapon that isn’t there.  That would be interesting, to say the least.  If that is the case, I hope they have the courage and integrity to admit it.  It would  be better for all to live in doubt, than to let someone capable of murdering children systematically go free.

Noodling around for a paper on preventing successful mass murders (Hint: the shooting stops quicker if people are shooting back), I found this paper from Cass Sunstein, written just after Obama was elected and before he was inaugurated.

Sunstein does something in the Obama administration, but I forget what, officially.  He’s a czar of some sort.

The net is that he wants to claim that anyone who does not believe the dominant narrative on 9/11, or in global warming, or in a number of other things he has stuck in there, is suffering from a lack of information, and that a possible appropriate response is “cognitive infiltration” of target groups. 

Interesting.

To the House members who blocked the latest deal, I have two words: fuck and you.

As I understand it, the plan was to raise taxes on those making a million or more.  EVERYONE should have grasped that this increase was purely symbolic.  It will have no effect on our national debt, our annual deficits, and little effect on the people it was targeting.

But why the fuck do you think Democrats keep winning elections (Hint: like the one they just won)?  Because they effectively portray Republicans as the party of greedy white men.  What IN GOD’S NAME DO  YOU THINK BLOCKING THAT TAX INCREASE SAYS?  Huh?  Any answers?  I’m waiting. 

It says VOTE DEMOCRAT.

Principle is a means to an end.  Every decision any one makes about anything is a means to an end.  The principle of less government means more freedom.  More freedom is a means to greater self development.  More self development is a means to greater happiness, and happiness, itself, can be grown.  It is a proper end.

But the end, here, is less government, is it not?  Do we help or hurt that cause by giving people more reason to vote for our ideological opponents? 
I reiterate: fuck you, jackasses.

Last night I was dreaming about Christmas shopping, just sort of taking in the orgy of spending on things that happens this time of year every year, and the Doors song “My Wild Love” kept going through my head.

Think about your own childhood.  Are some of the strongest affects not related to things and not people?  Think Rosebud, who encapsulated a lost innocence in Citizen Kane (Cane?  I’m not going to look it up).  I think back to a Rat Patrol lunchbox I had when I was a kid, my first.  I didn’t know what Rat Patrol was, but I liked the jeeps with the machine guns.

Or candy.  Think back to the candies you used to eat.  Extend the sensation, and see what else is around you, what memories, long hidden, come up.

We live in a world in which the transient and frivolous characterizes most of our most important emotional moments.  The more you connect with people, the less stuff you need.  Conversely, the more alienated you feel, the more objects come to serve the role of nurturing.

“My wild love”‘s lyrics are irrelevant.  What matters is the sense of a Indian chant, of a ritual, of a communal connection.  I think my intuition was trying to grant me a clear juxtaposition.

And to the point, many tribes accused the white man of being like locusts, consuming everything in front of them.  To a great extent, this is true.  Just look out your window and imagine what it looked like 200 years ago.  For most of us, that is a very different picture.

We need cultural reform.  The Socialists want to kill our souls and put us in boxes.  This is not needed, not for human survival, not for cultural survival.

In these pages, I have proposed what I feel strongly are workable solutions to ALL our problems-spiritual, scientific, political, economic.  ALL our problems can be solved well, in ways which promote ecological sustainability, generalized well being, and happiness.

This is an interesting perspective.  You have to consider the source–black helicopter central–but the media used is NBC and the like.  The initial reports were that they found two hand guns with him (Glock and SIG were named specifically, with one a 10mm and other a 9mm if memory serves), and an “assault rifle” in the car.  There is no reason to doubt either of these claims.  But the autopsies showed that a “long gun”–i.e. a rifle–had been used.  How do we explain the contradiction of a dead Lanza a hundred yards or more from the alleged murder weapon?  Were there two shooters?  Was Lanza brainwashed, as alleged with the Batman shooting as well?  I keep an open mind, and it seems there are some plainly incongruous facts here.

As I say from time to time, I reserve the right to be stupid, to appear nuts, and to contradict myself.  My purpose is to engage with the facts at hand at any given moment to the best of my ability, as even small changes in the factual landscape can lead to large changes in my conclusions.

What we have now does not appear to make sense.  I want to be clear: the emotional costs of a large hole in the dominant story will be ENORMOUS, and the pressure to put this “behind us”–as if an unsolved murder of 20 children can ever really be put behind any serious, honest person–will be huge.

I want to add as well my black helicopter, tinfoil hat perspective, just because I CAN.

The MOMENT this attack happened my first thought was that the media narrative that had been gaining traction around the possibility of a massive cover-up regarding Benghazi, and the possibility that Obama is effectively committing treason, albeit in a deniable way (he can claim his aim was to support Syrian self defense in the face of relentless genocidal attack, even while he was making sure the jihadists got the best weapons), was going to be derailed.  There was going to be a sea change in the media weather.

As I have noted before, I count 3 other times when a sort of wind was blowing that suddenly dissipated due to some tragedy.  As I look at the month preceding the election, I had a sort of vision of a Romney victory the night before the first debate.  But I ALSO had a dream of people being voluntarily decapitated, the night before Sandy hit the Jersey short.  I don’t know what, if anything, besides normal weather caused that storm, but it FELT like a literal spiritual black cloud coming in.

This feels the same way.  We need to ask some hard, very  unpleasant questions.  Obama’s grandmother died the night of his election.  Is it POSSIBLE she was murdered?  He didn’t like her, as far as I can tell, and I doubt she was holding on for his election.  He used her illness as an excuse to fly out to Hawaii in the heat of the election–when Hawaii was not a State in contention–but also at a time when the birth certificate was threatening to become an issue.  Did he really fly out there to bully State officials into silence and then cooperation?

I will note in passing that Donald Trumps $5 million offer to give to a named charity if Obama will release his records remains unanswered.

To the point here, was Lanza a Manchurian Candidate, who got sent a GO signal by someone close to Obama?  I know: how would anyone suggest something so monstrous?  I will counter with this: how could anyone contemplate with apparent equinimity the murder of 10 million Americans, as Bill Ayers (who has dined in the White House at least once) did?  If other people are doing the shooting, you are dealing in abstractions not different than cartoons. 

And was it NOT coincidence that Ayers appeared trampling an American flag in the New York Times, on
Sept. 11, 2001?  Was someone connected both with the attack and the Times sending a coded message?

Ayers–who as I have mentioned is a strong candidate for having been the actual author (you can Google search more links) of both of Obama’s books–said ”I don’t regret setting bombs. ”I feel we didn’t do enough.” He said this on a day in which I have argued bombs were plainly used to bring down at least Tower 7, and by extension likely Towers 1 and 2.

Even if everything I just said is true, there is no reason to give up hope.  Hitler set the Reichstag fire, but the fact is that if people had not reacted by granting him more power, his quest to be a dictator would have been thwarted.  Even granted UTTER cynicism and disregard for human life–even the lives of little children–there remain many honest Americans.  Even 99% of Obama’s most robust supporters think they are helping humanity, not hurting it.

I have to admit that the shooting in Newtown bothered me much less than the revelation that Obama may be intentionally intensifying a war in Syria that might leave a million people or more dead, and then result in a dictatorship that denies the citizens basic rights they have NOW.  Assad is not angel, but the Muslim Brotherhood consists in demons who will drive all light from the country in the name of God.

Benghazi should continue to be our focus. 

I have thoughts pop in my head on occasion, especially when I am tired.  Tonight, after a very long, very tiring day, the thought popped up “I want to be an assassin”.  Now, when this happens, I ask myself “was that my thought, from my unconscious, or a communication with someone else”?  Many of you may roll your eyes, but I do believe in telepathy.  The evidence, if you actually examine it objectively–which is to say in a spirit of sincere scientific inquiry–is overwhelming.  Certainly, I am not schizophrenic.

I looked at it, and thought “that is Adam Lanza”.  He wanted to be an assassin.  He wanted to shoot people in their beds.  He wanted to be thorough.  Why did he shoot his mother four times?  Quite obviously if the first shot was in her face, that was sufficient.  I think he was living out a fantasy of being a professional, and professionals don’t leave anything to chance. 

Why did he shoot the kids twice?  Same reason: professional diligence.  Why did he pick small kids?  Because he was a coward, and he knew no one would fight him.  He shot himself the moment a man with a gun showed up.

I don’t think he was crazy in any formal way.  I think he developed a warped way of interacting with the world by doing too little of it.  Think about this: he lived in a HUGE house, he was 20 years old, and he didn’t have a job, didn’t complete the last two years of high school (in my understanding), and played video games ALL THE TIME.  He seemingly had no friends, and his mother more or less fostered a bunker mentality by believing that the end of the world was coming, or at least a general social collapse.  That house must have felt something like the house occupied by the ghosts in the Nicole Kidman film “The Others”.  He’s alone all the time, probably with an overprotective mother, spending hours and hours and hours in a hypnotic trance.  Reality testing would blur for him.  When he shot himself, he quite possibly may have been thinking he was rebooting a game.

I am very tired, so this may make no sense.  I will offer once again the excuse that it has long been my belief that the more ideas you have and express, the more ideas you will be able to have and express, and the greater the variety, the greater the likelihood you’ll occasionally stumble like the blind squirrel upon a really interesting kernel of deep truth.  Often I am exploring in the dark, and will admit as much.

Tomorrow should see a number of posts that I have in backlog.