Scott Ritter, 7/5/24
"Full-Scale War with Hezbollah Could Spell Israel's Doom!"
Comments here:
o
Full screen recommended.
Col. Douglas Macgregor, 7/5/24
"Israel Panic! Hezbollah Will End Israel!"
Comments here:
So, we rise from the rubble...
Friday, July 5, 2024
Jim Kunstler, "Who Turned Off the Gaslight?"
"Who Turned Off the Gaslight?"
by Jim Kunstler
"Things were bad, and they knew things were bad, and they knew others must also know things were bad, and yet they would need to pretend, outwardly, that things were fine. The President was fine. The election would be fine." - Olivia Nuzzi, "NY Magazine"
"There’s a reason that the fable of The Emperor’s New Clothes is so potent: it describes a mentally ill society that retreats into abject unreality, to avoid contending with truth. Alas, this archetypal human quandary shoves such a society towards nemesis: downfall and punishment. And that is exactly the consequence of our news media’s craven, dishonorable, degenerate behavior the past decade.
They have disordered our nation’s consensus about reality with peremptory lying about everything, in service to a political party that lies to its citizens about everything. The big question is: who or what recruited them into serving the Party of Chaos, and why did they go along?
You can explain the media’s initial repugnance to Donald Trump going back to his 2015 debut in politics. Much about him had a low-class odor, despite all the gold-plating - his origins in tawdry Queens, his career as a builder in Manhattan where the trades are mob-controlled, the Atlantic City casino debacle, bankruptcy, ditching Ivana and his mid-life playboy reputation, the tacky TV show, the increasingly mystifying hair-doo, his rough, jumbly manner of speech. Everything about him repelled the Ivy Leaguers who increasingly filled the ranks of national-level journalism.
Despite all that, Mr. Trump raised five kids successfully. The grown ones had careers and they all visibly loved him. With that and his overt masculinity, he assumed the lineaments of the archetypal Daddy, which enflamed the enormous cohort of feminists who had taken over the Democratic Party behind their avatar Hillary Clinton. And when he squeaked out an electoral victory over her in 2016, they were sure it was cheat. The menace of Daddy in da (White) house pushed them over the edge psychologically.
Daddy was all about setting boundaries, which was the antithesis to the “progressive” (and transgressive) agenda of the Dems, and was probably the reason that his talk of “building the wall” along the Mexican border drove them nuts. It signaled patriarchal control of a whole lot of other things, too. Boundaries galore!
Now, it happened that the Democratic Party was also the favored party of the DC permanent bureaucracy, which had been growing and growing for decades and had become overtly politicized during the eight years of Barack Obama. Mr. Trump threatened to downsize this leviathan government, meaning many patronage jobs might be lost. (Boundaries would be imposed!) The warrior branch of this Deep State was the Intel community. The FBI, the DOJ, the CIA, the State Dept, and elements of the military were commissioned by the Democratic Party to destroy Mr. Trump.
They used the machinery of the law to lay one trip after another on the president and effectively hog-tied him - RussiaGate, the Ukraine phone call impeachment, etc. the George Floyd anarchy - and when those operations failed to oust him, they ran the Covid-9 caper (with enormous collateral damage to the people and their economy), which enabled rigging the 2020 election with mail-in ballots. Once Mr. Trump was squeezed out-of-office, the FBI turn the J-6 protest at the Capitol into a riot, which Nancy Pelosi then converted into an “insurrection” using the House J-6 committee. The J-6 incident, they dearly hoped, would rid them of Mr. Trump once and for all.
The news media went along with every bit of that, year after year, converting each mendacious act of the party and the bureaucracy into consumable narrative, and lying either overtly about all the ops, or just omitting to report on the dark truth behind it all. Any reality-based thread that happened to leak into public view from independent alt-news reporters was branded by CNN, The New York Times, the WashPo, and many others as “misinformation” — a newish concept produced by a cadre of language Stasi skilled at inverting the meaning of anything to bamboozle the public. It appears that the news media became so invested psychologically in its own dishonest product that it began to believe its own bullshit.
Or, at least, they wanted to pretend to believe it. One of the big problems was that absolutely everything they labeled “misinformation” or “conspiracy theory” turned out to be truthful, and that was becoming an inescapable embarrassment. And then the biggest blunder they made was going along with the Deep State’s selection of “Joe Biden” in the very sketchy Super Tuesday primary of 2020. The old grifter had next-to-zero support in all the preceding preliminaries and somehow (abracadabra !) he swept the field.
By then, the Democratic Party, and its public relations arm in the mainstream media, had descended into florid mental illness. Everything they stood for post-World War Two flipped to its opposite. Suddenly, they were against free speech. They weren’t coy about it. They just made-up some new bullshit about free speech being “hate speech.” Similarly, they were against a free press. They went along with all the misinfo / disinfo bullshit the government cooked up and supported its role in suppressing the news. They were no longer anti-war, the party-of-peace. They were now pro-segregation and pro-discrimination (white people need not apply) according to Critical Race Theory (a childishly sketchy doctrine). Most of all, they were no longer skeptical of anything that the leviathan establishment wanted to do, including abridging the liberties of American citizens.
Then there was the campaign to use the most powerful human instinct, sexuality, as a weapon to disorder the minds of American children, leading even to the mutilation of their bodies - a program that unmistakably tipped toward genuine evil, suggesting that actual psychosis lay behind the Cluster-B crypto-Marxism used to justify it.
“Joe Biden” was fine with all of that, and the news media was fine with “Joe Biden” and whoever was using him as a front. Of course, it was evident during the 2020 campaign that “Joe Biden” was not up to a job as demanding as Chief Executive of the US government - and that was even apart from the dense criminal web of influence peddling discovered around him and his family, which the news media ignominiously ignored. But now the years have gone by and there’s no hiding “Joe Biden’s” rather gravely diminished mental abilities.
Last week’s debate gave away the game. It has the effect of finally turning off the gaslight that the news media has been shining over the republic lo these many years. They can no longer pretend that this president is anything close to okay in body and mind. They can’t annul the gaslighted public’s delayed realization that they’ve been subject to a concerted program of deliberate lying for a long long time.
So now, inveterate pretenders and liars, such as Jake Tapper of CNN and Maggie Haberman of The New York Times - and many others - have to pretend that they were innocently duped into supporting all the turpitudes of the Democratic Party / Deep State axis-of-evil. It is really hard to imagine that they can successfully rehabilitate their reputations. They have done immense harm to our country. It’s hard to see how the Democratic Party might survive, too, no matter who they finally put up for election this year. Of course, there’s still plenty of time left for them to destroy the country altogether. Just keep giving American missiles to Ukraine to fire into Russia and see what happens."
Thursday, July 4, 2024
Canadian Prepper, "Alert! Chaos In Washington! Most Dangerous Time In History, Nuclear Risk Is Extreme!"
Full screen recommended.
Canadian Prepper, 7/4/24
"Alert! Chaos In Washington!
Most Dangerous Time In History, Nuclear Risk Is Extreme!"
Comments here:
Musical Interlude: The Civil Wars, "Kingdom Come"
Full screen recommended.
The Civil Wars, "Kingdom Come"
Musical Interlude: 2002, "The End Is a Beginning"
Full screen recommended.
2002, "The End Is a Beginning"
"A Look to the Heavens"
Will the spider ever catch the fly? Not if both are large emission nebulas toward the constellation of the Charioteer (Auriga). The spider-shaped gas cloud on the left is actually an emission nebula labelled IC 417, while the smaller fly-shaped cloud on the right is dubbed NGC 1931 and is both an emission nebula and a reflection nebula.
About 10,000 light-years distant, both nebulas harbor young, open star clusters. For scale, the more compact NGC 1931 (Fly) is about 10 light-years across.”
○
" I do not question the presence of intelligent life on other planets;
but I do question its existence on this one."
- Dr. Ivan Desantis
"What If?"
"What If?"
"What if you slept?
And what if,
In your sleep
You dreamed?
And what if,
In your dream,
You went to heaven
And there plucked
A strange and
Beautiful flower?
And what if,
When you awoke,
You had the flower
In your hand?
Ahh, what then?"
- Samuel Taylor Coleridge
"A Cherokee Proverb"
"An old Cherokee is teaching his grandson about life. “A fight is going on inside me,” he said to the boy. “It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil – he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.” He continued, “The other is good – he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. The same fight is going on inside you – and inside every other person, too.” The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, “Which wolf will win?” The old Cherokee simply replied, “The one you feed.”
"A Cherokee Proverb"
Chet Raymo, “Caught In The Middle”
“Caught In The Middle”
by Chet Raymo
"It doesn't take a genius to recognize that human males have a propensity for intergroup violence, and that the killing is often accompanied by rape. One need only read the newspapers. The only question is to what extent these tendencies are innate or culturally inculcated. Nature or nurture? Or both? A book, "Sex and War: How Biology Explains Warfare and Terrorism and Offers a Path to a Safer World," by population biologist Malcolm Potts and science writer Thomas Hayden, dishes up a bit of both. The violence is in our (male) genes, they maintain, but it is susceptible to cultural control.
What the authors calls "behavioral propensity to engage in male coalitional violence" evolved as far back as the common ancestor of humans and chimps, they claim, although our other close relations, bonobos and gorillas, seem to have found more peaceful ways of living. Genes predispose, say Potts and Hayden, but cultural forces can alleviate the worst of male nastiness. By empowering women to be leaders in cultural, social and political spheres, the violent propensities of men can be restrained. Further, empowerment will give women control of their reproductive destinies, and will therefore result in fewer offspring. Less population pressure will reduce other factors fueling violence and conflict, the authors claim.
Anthropologist Hillard Kaplan reviews the book in the October 9, 2009, issue of "Science." He agrees that the available evidence suggests that male intergroup violence has a long evolutionary history. He believes this tendency was exacerbated into large scale warfare with the development of agriculture and the associated larger population groups and competition for fertile land. Kaplan believes that male group violence is stoked by poor economic prospect for young males. To the empowerment of women he would add education and jobs as a way to reduce antisocial behavior.
There is nothing particularly new or revolutionary about any of this. Progress? Yes, I suppose so, but we clearly have a long way to go before women exercise equal power in society, or before young men in the developing world, especially, have an economic stake in social stability. Meanwhile, as the painting above by Jacques-Louis David, "The Sabine Women," suggests, women and children will continue to be caught in the middle.”
Anthropologist Hillard Kaplan reviews the book in the October 9, 2009, issue of "Science." He agrees that the available evidence suggests that male intergroup violence has a long evolutionary history. He believes this tendency was exacerbated into large scale warfare with the development of agriculture and the associated larger population groups and competition for fertile land. Kaplan believes that male group violence is stoked by poor economic prospect for young males. To the empowerment of women he would add education and jobs as a way to reduce antisocial behavior.
There is nothing particularly new or revolutionary about any of this. Progress? Yes, I suppose so, but we clearly have a long way to go before women exercise equal power in society, or before young men in the developing world, especially, have an economic stake in social stability. Meanwhile, as the painting above by Jacques-Louis David, "The Sabine Women," suggests, women and children will continue to be caught in the middle.”
"Our Perspective..."
¨"There are some oddities in the perspective with which we see the world. The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be."
- Douglas Adams
"There Comes A Time..."
"We Americans have a saying: "It's more important what you stand for than who you stand with." I do not rely upon peer opinion to decide what is right and what is wrong. I make those decisions for myself, and even if I discover that every other human alive chose differently, that doesn't mean I was wrong. There comes a time in every man's life when he has to choose sides. I have chosen my side. I am comfortable with my decision. I do not think everyone on my side is a saint, but I know that those on the other side are much, much worse.
Sometimes a man with too broad a perspective reveals himself as having no real perspective at all. A man who tries too hard to see every side may be a man who is trying to avoid choosing any side. A man who tries too hard to seek a deeper truth may be trying to hide from the truth he already knows. That is not a sign of intellectual sophistication and "great thinking". It is a demonstration of moral degeneracy and cowardice."
- Steven Den Beste
Jeremiah Babe, "A Very Expensive 4th Of July; Debt Slaves Using Credit Cards For Vacations And Good Times"
Jeremiah Babe, 7/4/24
"A Very Expensive 4th Of July;
Debt Slaves Using Credit Cards For Vacations And Good Times"
Comments here:
The Poet: Carl Sandburg, "Four Preludes on Playthings of the Wind"
"Four Preludes on Playthings of the Wind"
“The past is a bucket of ashes.”
1
"The woman named Tomorrow
sits with a hairpin in her teeth
and takes her time
and does her hair the way she wants it
and fastens at last the last braid and coil
and puts the hairpin where it belongs
and turns and drawls: Well, what of it?
My grandmother, Yesterday, is gone.
What of it? Let the dead be dead.
2
The doors were cedar
and the panels strips of gold
and the girls were golden girls
and the panels read and the girls chanted:
We are the greatest city,
the greatest nation:
nothing like us ever was.
The doors are twisted on broken hinges.
Sheets of rain swish through on the wind
where the golden girls ran and the panels read:
We are the greatest city,
the greatest nation,
nothing like us ever was.
3
It has happened before.
Strong men put up a city and got
a nation together,
And paid singers to sing and women
to warble: We are the greatest city,
the greatest nation,
nothing like us ever was.
And while the singers sang
and the strong men listened
and paid the singers well
and felt good about it all,
there were rats and lizards who listened...
and the only listeners left now...
are…the rats…and the lizards.
And there are black crows
crying, “Caw, caw,”
bringing mud and sticks
building a nest
over the words carved
on the doors where the panels were cedar
and the strips on the panels were gold
and the golden girls came singing:
We are the greatest city,
the greatest nation:
nothing like us ever was.
The only singers now are crows crying, “Caw, caw,”
And the sheets of rain whine in the wind and doorways.
And the only listeners now are…the rats…and the lizards.
4
The feet of the rats
scribble on the door sills;
the hieroglyphs of the rat footprints
chatter the pedigrees of the rats
and babble of the blood
and gabble of the breed
of the grandfathers and the great-grandfathers
of the rats.
And the wind shifts
and the dust on a door sill shifts
and even the writing of the rat footprints
tells us nothing, nothing at all
about the greatest city, the greatest nation
where the strong men listened
and the women warbled: Nothing like us ever was."
- Carl Sandburg
Musical Interlude: James Brown, "Living In America"
Full screen recommended.
James Brown, "Living In America"
Happy 4th of July
Have a safe and happy 4th of July folks!
Full screen recommended.
John Philip Sousa, "The Stars And Stripes Forever"
o
Ray Charles, "America The Beautiful"
"A Patriotism of the Heart"
"A Patriotism of the Heart"
by Brian Maher
"Here is the trouble with America’s jingos, warhawks, drum-beaters, glory hounds, world-improvers, do-gooders and idealists: They are not patriotic. A jolting, nearly scandalous claim, it is true. Do these Americans not cry tears red, white and blue? Do they not yell about American “greatness”... American “exceptionalism”... the “shining city” atop the hill? That and more they do, yes. Yet they are not patriotic. That is the curious case we haul before the jury today.
Yes, we are stepping away from our normal beat of manna and markets… and reflecting upon the virtue of patriotism. (We first doff our cap to the late writer Joseph Sobran, upon whose insights we rely today).
Country or Empire: Famed English writer G.K. Chesterton once denounced Rudyard Kipling’s “lack of patriotism.” The fellow’s lack of patriotism? What did Chesterton mean? Kipling was chief rah-rah man for the British Empire, its loudest bugler. English civilization overtopped all rival powers, he believed - as Everest overtops all rival peaks. And as was proper… Great Britain gave the law in all four corners of Earth.
From Kipling’s story "Regulus", citing Virgil’s "Aeneid": “Roman! let this be your care, this your art; to rule over the nations and impose the ways of peace…” Substitute Britain for Rome, and you have Kipling. Why then did Chesterton deny his patriotism? The reason is subtle. Subtle… yet critical.
“He Admires England, But He Does Not Love Her” Chesterton argued that Kipling admired England because she was powerful. He did not love her because she was England: "He admires England, but he does not love her; for we admire things with reasons, but love them without reasons. He admires England because she is strong, not because she is English."
Now Chesterton. He loved England as England — its customs, its eccentricities, its people. Even, if you can believe it, its “food.” A man loves his mother. It is a wordless love, wide and deep. He requires no reason. He requires no justification. And as he loves his mother, so he loves his country. Be it China, be it Russia, be it Chile, be it Romania… it is all one.
Sobran: "Of course Chesterton was right. You love your country as you love your mother - simply because it is yours, not because of its superiority to others, particularly superiority of power."
A Spacious Patriotism: Does the other fellow believe his own mother towers high over all others? Well, friends, maybe he does believe it. But that in no way irritates, annoys or threatens the other fellow. No harm flows from it. After all... Adults allow children to cherish the fiction that reindeer fly and round men descend chimneys... A husband allows his wife to cherish the fiction that she is a superior cook or automobilist… as a wife allows her husband to cherish the fiction that he is a skillful and formidable lover... or that his bald head is actually ennobling.
These are benevolent fictions conducive to the domestic peace and happiness. In that spirit, the patriot’s attitude toward the foreigner is relaxed. It is accommodative. It is spacious. He understands this fellow’s affection for his country is essentially the affection for his mother. But a Kipling does not love his country as a man loves his mother. His country must show all others its dust. It must outrace them all… else he feels diminished.
The Patriot Loves His Country Regardless: The United States of America stables many such gentlemen. They are dizzied, wobbled, staggered by a higher American vision. Their eyes roll perpetually heavenward. To these fellows, America must always be up to something big in this world.
She must be forever charging up San Juan Hill, going over the top, storming Omaha beach, bearing any burden, paying any price... She must be beating the Russians to the moon, beating the world at basketball, beating democracy into someone’s head. Tall deeds, some of these, and fantastic attainments.
But would the patriot love America less if she fell short of the glory… if her history was a page mostly blank? He would not. It is - after all - his country. And he loves her as he loves his mother. But to that certain species of American, America must dazzle and glitter upon the world’s stage. She must be the “indispensable nation.” If not indispensable… then dispensable. If dispensable, then unworthy of his love. Hence his lack of patriotism. He is Kipling.
The Difference Between the Patriot and the Nationalist: Sobran takes their measure: "Many Americans admire America for being strong, not for being American. For them America has to be “the greatest country on Earth” in order to be worthy of their devotion. If it were only the second greatest, or the 19th greatest, or, heaven forbid, “a third-rate power,” it would be virtually worthless… Maybe the poor Finns or Peruvians love their countries too, but heaven knows why - they have so little to be proud of, so few “reasons.”
And so Sobran trains his cannons on the nationalist ideologue: "The nationalist, who identifies America with abstractions like freedom and democracy, may think it’s precisely America’s mission to spread those abstractions around the world - to impose them by force, if necessary. In his mind, those abstractions are universal ideals... the world must be made “safe for democracy” by “a war to end all wars”... Any country that refuses to Americanize is “anti-American” - or a “rogue nation.” For the nationalist, war is a welcome opportunity to change the world."
We might list some names in point... but our legal counsel is wagging his finger and shaking his head. The patriot and the nationalist babble the same American tongue. The one is therefore mistaken for the other. Yet lean in. Listen closer. You will find they speak alien languages: "Because the patriot and the nationalist often use the same words, they may not realize that they use those words in very different senses. The American patriot assumes that the nationalist loves this country with an affection like his own, failing to perceive that what the nationalist really loves is an abstraction - “national greatness,” or something like that. The American nationalist, on the other hand, is apt to be suspicious of the patriot, accusing him of insufficient zeal, or even “anti-Americanism.”
A Patriotism of the Heart: The patriotism Sobran hymns is a relaxed, natural, healthful patriotism. It is a patriotism of the heart. This patriotism flies no ideological flag, hauls no missionary cargo, steers by no heavenly star. It is the patriotism of the prairie, of the plain, of the lonely jackrabbit crossroad, of the greasy spoon, of the truckstop, of the front porch, of the pool hall... of Main Street. And his fellow countrymen? The patriot takes them as he finds them.
Might they sometimes neglect to wash behind the ears? Might they mistake the salad fork for the dinner fork? Well, sometimes they may. But they are his countrymen… and that is enough. The patriot allows himself to laugh - not at his fellow Americans - but with them.
The nationalist, meantime, does not laugh. He hectors. He preaches. He scolds.
“Patriotism Is Relaxed. Nationalism Is Rigid.” “Patriotism is relaxed,” as Sobran concludes. “Nationalism is rigid.”
We in turn conclude, paraphrasing Chesterton: "The relaxed patriot, the average American, the American who tends to his own business and sweeps his own stoop, the American who loves his country as he loves his mother - this fellow is all right. But the rigid American, the uber American, the zealous American, the American nationalist hot to put the world to rights - the American who admires America for her strength - but fails to love her as herself? This fellow... he’s all wrong."
"Of The People, By The People, For The People"
Battle of Chancellorsville, 1863
"Of The People, By The People, For The People"
by Bill Bonner
"General, I have been a soldier all my life. I have been with soldiers engaged in fights by couples, by squads, companies, regiments, divisions, and armies, and should know, as well as any one, what soldiers can do. It is my opinion that no fifteen thousand men ever arrayed for battle can take that position."
- General Longstreet to General Lee on the eve of Pickett’s Charge
Paris, France - "It’s July the 4th…it is also the 161st anniversary of the most decisive battle in the War Between the States. It is usually called the “Civil War” but a civil war is one where two groups fight for control of one government, like the English civil war, or the Irish civil war or the many civil wars in China.
The War Between the States was a war with two groups, each with its own government. The southern states wanted to go their own way – much like the Donbas and Luhansk areas of Eastern Ukraine today, who sought their independence after the Maidan coup d’etat in 2014. And like the Kyiv government today, Washington wanted to take the breakaway states back…by force.
The war began when Southerners tried to take possession of a Union-held fort built on an artificial island to protect Charleston, SC. – Fort Sumter. When the Union commander refused to give it up, the Confederates lobbed artillery shells into the fort, until the Yankees surrendered. That incident was probably not significant enough to set off a real war. But war was in the ‘air du temps’ and both sides were ‘gunning up.’ By July, 1861, hotheads on both sides were ready for action. The Northerners invaded Virginia, expecting an easy victory. Washingtonians drove out to Bull Run in their carriages, with picnic baskets, to watch the anticipated rout of the “Johnny Rebs.” It didn’t work out as planned and the gawkers soon hastened back across the Potomac.
But once underway – like an empire, inflation or a love affair – war takes on a life of its own. People lose sight of what they are fighting for and concern themselves only with winning. They use “any means necessary” – murder, mayhem, deceit, invention, starvation, poison…whatever they can come up with – to beat their opponents. Ultimately, the goal is to inflict so much pain on the enemy that he calls it quits. That is why Richard Nixon tried to bomb North Vietnam ‘back to the stone age.’ And it is why George W. Bush hit Iraq with a campaign of ‘shock and awe.’
In order to win the war, the Yankees had to conquer the South. The Confederates would win by not being conquered. But the Yankees had decisive advantages. They had industries that could make weapons and supply their armies. They had a navy that could blockade Southern ports and cripple the Confederate economy. And they had thousands of immigrants—many of them Irishmen who had come to Boston, New York and Philadelphia to escape the famine – whom they could draft into the army.
After two years of warfare, the Confederates had proved their fighting elan. They won battles, often against much superior forces. But each victory brought them closer to defeat. Because the South could not readily replace its fallen soldiers or its lost supplies.
The Battle of Chancellorsville showed Robert E. Lee’s skill as a commander. Military historians call it a ‘perfect battle.’ Union general Joseph Hooker tried to take on Lee’s army from the front and the rear in a ‘double envelopment.’ Lee, outnumbered more than two to one, managed to defeat both of Hooker’s armies. But in the battle, Lee lost his ‘right arm’ – Gen. Thomas ‘Stonewall’ Jackson -- who was accidentally shot by his own troops in the half light of evening.
Lee won a great victory at Chancellorsville. ‘Many more victories like that,’ said an astute observer on his staff, ‘and we will lose the war.’ It was then, in the spring of 1863, that the Confederates decided on a different strategy. They needed some ‘shock and awe’ of their own to bring the Yankees to the bargaining table. And they badly needed supplies. So, they invaded Maryland and Pennsylvania, leading to the Battle of Gettysburg.
What the Confederates really needed was Stonewall Jackson. He had spent 10 years teaching tactics at the Virginia Military Institute. He had studied Napoleon’s campaigns, in detail. He had watched, too, as his own troops were able to beat back more powerful Union assaults by taking protected positions and letting the enemy come to them. He had understood how, with improvements in riflery, it was almost impossible for the attacker to dislodge a well-positioned defender.
And yet, at Gettysburg, that is what Lee’s Army tried to do. By July 3rd, the battle had already been going on for three days. The Union army held the high ground. Now, on its own ground, it was the defender, not the attacker. And in the center of its main line was a low stone wall at a place aptly named, “Cemetery Ridge.”
Lee’s most trusted subordinate, Jackson, was dead. General Longstreet argued against attacking the ridge. But he couldn’t dissuade Lee. So, after noon on the 3rd, some 12,500 Confederate soldiers, under General George Pickett tried to take the ridge. They had to cross a large, mostly open area, where they were hit by artillery and rifle fire from several directions. Only a handful of them reached the stone wall, but were soon beaten back. Half of the attackers lay dead on the field. Lee retreated back to Virginia. The war went on for nearly two years more, before the the South, exhausted, finally gave up.
As Lincoln put it, the war was fought so that ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.’ But by 1865, the people of the South were ruled by Lincoln’s armies."
"Independence Day"
"Independence Day"
Classic Thoughts Re-Written for the Modern Patriot
by Contemplations on the Tree of Woe
"Any man with any measure of heroism in his blood who actually reads the texts and speeches of our Founders cannot help but to feel the call to pick up his musket and fight Britain. Moreover, the tyrannies endured by our ancestors seem almost trivial in comparison to the daily villainies perpetrated on their descendants by those who purport to rule them; shouldn’t the urgency of action be all the greater? And yet…
Perhaps I should clarify: Any man or woman who can actually read the texts and speeches cannot but help to feel the call to action. But today almost no one can actually read them. The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of Patrick Henry’s “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” speech is 11th grade; of the Declaration of Independence, 12th grade; of the U.S. Constitution, 18th grade.
According to the National Assessment of Adult Literacy, 57% of Americans have a reading grade below 9th level, and 13% have a reading grade below 5th level. Only 13% can understand the Declaration or Patrick Henry’s speech, and virtually none can understand the Constitution. And that includes all Americans. Among Generation Z, it’s far worse. They are the least literate generation in American history.
Spend a few minutes on YouTube watching our young people be interviewed on the most basic matters of our history and values. They do not know anything of the good, the true, and the beautiful; and even if they wanted to, they could not learn it because the texts are inaccessible to them. Far too many have been cognitively crippled.
If we are to properly motivate the masses, we must speak the language of the masses. I am called to action. I have spent weeks immersing myself in the Gen Z gathering hall known as “TikTok.” Today, on the 4th of July, I present our finest patriotic texts in a style that will speak to the young men and women of today. Check ‘em out, fam.
"The Declaration of Independence"
"Aight, so check this, when peeps decide to dip from the squad and do their own thing, it's only fair they spit some facts about why they're peacing out. It's just how it is, you know? We all believe some truths are just straight-up, like we're all equal, and our Creator gave us some dope rights, like life, freedom, and chasing what makes us happy.
And if the government isn't vibing with that, then we've got the right to switch it up and set up something new that'll keep us secure. That's just keeping it real. But when a long list of whack stuff happens, it's not about being salty; it's just time to bounce and do what's gotta be done. And that's where we're at with the British Crown. So, here's the tea.
Like, we're not about to ghost without giving the full deets. Let's get into it, shall we? We've been super patient and chill, trying to work stuff out with the British king. But he's been on a total power trip, acting like a toxic friend that just won't quit.
He's put laws on us that are totally unfair, messed with our courts, and has been all up in our business, trying to control our lives and telling us what to do.
And it's not like we haven't tried to talk it out. We've been sending the king all these messages, trying to get him to understand our side of things. But he's been ghosting us, ignoring our probs, and acting like everything's all gucci when it's totally not. It's obvious he's just trying to flex and show his power, and we're over it.
So, we're taking a stand and cutting ties. We're saying 'bye, Felicia' to the king and declaring ourselves as free and independent states. We'll make our own alliances, trade with who we want, and fight our own battles. We're going to stand up for each other and do everything that free countries do because that's what we are.
We're fully aware that this is a major step, so we're not going to do it without some serious thought. We respect the connections we've had with Britain, and we're not looking to cut ties unless it's absolutely necessary. But they've forced our hand, and we need to do what's best for us.
With a clear conscience and with respect to the opinions of humanity, we're putting it all on the line. We're entrusting our cause to the universe and its divine law. We're ready to face the consequences and stand up for what we believe.
In other words, it's on, fam. We're doing this. We're declaring independence.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death
Do we really need all these troops and warships for a love and reconciliation gig? Haven't we been chill enough to make peace, or do they gotta flex their muscle to win back our vibe? Don't kid yourself, fam. This is all about power and control, the final say for those in the high castle.
I gotta ask, peeps, why all this military showoff if not to make us kneel? What else could it be for? Does Britain have any beef with anyone around here to justify all this military overkill? Nah, bro, there's none. It's all about us. They're prepping these chains the Brit government's been crafting for ages.
What's our move? Do we try to out-talk them? We've been doing that for a solid decade. Got any fresh takes? Nah, nothing. We've explored this from all angles, all for nothing. Do we beg and plead? What else can we say that hasn't been said already?
Please, fam, let's be real. We've done all we could to dodge this incoming storm. We've filed petitions, we've protested, we've pleaded, we've basically thrown ourselves at the king's feet, begging him to stop the savage acts of the government and Parliament. Our pleas have been ignored, our protests only made them more aggressive, our pleas fell on deaf ears, and we've been kicked aside with nothing but contempt. After all this, dreaming of peace and reconciliation is pointless. Hope has left the chat.
If we want freedom, if we intend to keep the valuable privileges we've been fighting for, if we don't plan on ditching this epic fight we've been in, and swore never to quit till we win, we gotta fight!
I say it again, we gotta fight! Calling on our weapons and the big guy upstairs is all we've got left!
They're saying we're weak; can't handle an enemy this tough. But when will we be stronger? Next week? Next year? When we've got no defenses left and a British soldier's snooping around every house? Does doing nothing and procrastinating make us stronger? Will we gain the power to resist by just lying down and hugging false hopes, till our enemies chain us up?
Nah, we're not weak if we use what nature's given us right. Three million folks, armed for the holy cause of freedom, in a country like ours, can't be defeated by whatever our enemies throw at us.
Plus, we won't be fighting alone. There's a just God looking over nations' fates; He'll bring allies to fight with us. The victory ain't just for the strong; it's for the vigilant, the active, the brave.
Plus, we've got no choice. Even if we were cowardly enough to want it, it's too late to back down now. There's no going back unless we surrender and become slaves! Our chains are ready! You can hear 'em in Boston! War's coming and let it come! I say it again, let it come.
We can't sugarcoat this, fam. Some may shout, "Peace, Peace" but there's no peace. War's already here! The next chill from the north will carry the sound of clashing arms! Our brothers are already out there!
Why are we just standing around? What do y'all want? What's the deal? Is life that precious, or peace that cool, that we'd buy it with chains and slavery? Nah, not on my watch, Almighty God! I don't know what others will do; but for me, it's either freedom or it's game over!"
Wednesday, July 3, 2024
Jeremiah Babe, "The Economic Endgame Is Closing In, Your Money Is Disappearing As Inflation Rages"
Jeremiah Babe, 7/3/24
"The Economic Endgame Is Closing In,
Your Money Is Disappearing As Inflation Rages"
Comments here:
"Wars and Rumors Of War: The Middle East"
Full screen recommended.
Scott Ritter, 7/3/24
"This Is Why Israel Will Be Destroyed In
An All-Out War With Hezbollah"
Comments here:
o
Danny Haiphong, 7/3/24
"Israel Crushed as Iran
Exposes IDF’s Humiliating Failures"
"Seyed Mohammad Marandi, Professor of English Literature and Orientalism at the University of Tehran and advisor to Iran's nuclear negotiations team discusses how Iran has completely destroyed pro-Israel narratives forwarded by the like of Piers Morgan via its successful military operation against Israel and its ongoing support for the resistance to colonial occupation across the region. This video breaks it all down from a perspective often unheard in Western media."
Comments here:
"30 Statistics That Prove Average Americans Are Being Financially Destroyed"
Full screen recommended.
Epic Economist, 7/3/24
"30 Statistics That Prove Average
Americans Are Being Financially Destroyed"
"Even though most Americans have been struggling financially over the past few years, not everyone has been doing badly during the current economic turmoil. In fact, there are some households that are doing exceptionally well. Some articles point out that companies that cater to average Americans are doing quite poorly right now while companies that market luxury goods and services are reporting massive profits. However, overall consumer spending has been slowing down.
It looks like the majority of U.S. workers either can't spend a lot of money right now or are very hesitant to. At the same time, there is a substantial number of Americans who are splurging confidently on the finer things in life. In 2024, life is dramatically different depending on whether you belong to the "haves" or the "have-nots." These disparities are rooted in the widening wealth gap, where the affluent are accumulating even more wealth, leaving the average worker with dwindling financial resources."
Comments here:
"Revisionist History and How the Good Guys Don't Always Win"
"Revisionist History and How the
Good Guys Don't Always Win"
By International Man
"International Man: Revisionist history refers to the re-examination and reinterpretation of historical events, which can be done to correct inaccuracies, update understanding, or challenge prevailing narratives. This just sounds like applying critical thinking to history. What’s your take?
Doug Casey: The essence of critical thinking is to question every proposition and then investigating the answers for accuracy and logic. It’s important to pursue answers to their root causes and never accept things at face value.
The problem with history, certainly as it’s taught in schools, is that its many versions are presented as fact with no nuance. Looking at history is very much like examining an elephant, where one person feels a leg and thinks it’s a tree trunk, and another feels the elephant’s trunk and thinks it’s a snake.
It’s said that the CIA made up the term "revisionist history" during the 60s as an aid to debunking interpretations they didn’t like. The powers that be, the establishment, don’t like revisionism for at least two reasons.
Number one, a thorough investigation of history requires detailed and well-explained answers. That might uncover crimes involving powerful people. They might be imprisoned, bankrupted, or seriously embarrassed. Revisionist history can overthrow the ruling order, therefore rulers always oppose it.
Number two, it can overturn myth. Myth is a double-edged sword. It’s often a good thing because it can be a tie that binds a people together, even if it’s not true. However, reality and truth are usually better than myth in the long run. So, we shouldn’t be afraid of overturning myths, even if they’re useful.
In any event, much of standard history contains crimes that should be recognized. As Gibbon said, "History is indeed little more than a catalog of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind."
International Man: Why is there so much controversy and negative stigma associated with challenging widely accepted contemporary or historical events? In a free society, shouldn’t that be considered healthy and necessary?
Doug Casey: Yes. But it’s never in the interests of the Establishment to uncover crimes or overturn favorable myths. Every country romances its history to present itself in the best light possible. The average guy just accepts what he’s told. As Sam Cooke’s song, "Wonderful World", says: "Don’ know much about the Middle Ages, jus’ look at the pictures, and turn the pages."
For instance, take the Revolutionary War. It wasn’t just a revolutionary war. It could be described as a war of secession, but people don’t like to describe it that way because that makes it comparable to the War Between the States, which was another war of secession.
Revisionist history shows that the Revolutionary War was also a civil war in which perhaps a third of the country’s population was on the side of the Crown. Only a third were rebels, and the other third were neutral. The Indians and many black slaves fought for the British. But that revelation compromises the nature of our national myth, and some people who hate the idea of America like to emphasize the negatives. I, for one, like our founding myths. But I also like truth and accuracy.
The same kind of problems arise to an even greater extent in the War Between the States -which itself is a Revisionist name for the Civil War. The myth is that it was fought to free the slaves. But that’s totally untrue. The slaves weren’t freed until the middle of the war, and then only in the southern states, not in the northern states. The main basis of the war was about taxation. And secondarily, about whether new territories could be admitted to the union as slave states.
The US government’s main source of income was import duties. But the South was paying the lion’s share of those import duties, which were raised significantly to protect northern manufacturers. That was the major reason for the South seceding, not slavery. Slavery was highly controversial in both the North and South, but it wasn’t the reason for the war itself. Few talk about that because it seems more noble to have the victor be the good guy fighting to free slaves, as opposed to maintaining economic advantage.
You can’t maintain a free society unless you can debate about factual matters and what’s right and what’s wrong. However, teachers just repeat what the government says. And the narrative can change radically. Even as we speak, historic myths are being replaced by recently minted propaganda. We’re on the edge of seeing the statues of Washington and Jefferson replaced by those of George Floyd.
We’re not as bad by any means as China or the USSR, where the whole society was based on a lie, and it couldn’t even be questioned. But we’re moving in that direction with current views of political correctness and wokism.
International Man: The comedian Norm Macdonald once joked: "It says here in this history book that, luckily, the good guys have won every single time. What are the odds?" What are some historical examples of when the so-called "good guys" didn’t win?
Doug Casey: We all know the old aphorism, "I’m a freedom fighter. You are a rebel. He’s a terrorist." It’s often a matter of perception. And the fact is that everyone thinks he’s a good guy. Even the worst mass murderers like Alexander, Genghis Kahn, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao - all thought what they were doing was both good and necessary.
It’s a question of deciding who the good guys really are. Look at the battles between the Hatfields and the McCoys. They both thought they were on the right side of the issue. Or the wars between the Europeans and the Native Americans. Both sides had excellent arguments for killing each other. It’s like the battle of the Alamo. Yes, the Americans were brave and fighting for something they believed in. But at the same time, the Mexican army was quite correct in trying to kick out invaders that were violating their territorial rights.
There are many examples like that. My own view is that the "good guys" are on the side of individual liberty and have a preference for non-violence.
International Man: Most people would agree with the phrase "the winners write the history books." However, when it comes to certain historical events, the same people would likely accuse you of being a dangerous extremist promoting hate crimes. What do you make of this amazing display of cognitive dissonance?
Doug Casey: Well, it’s part and parcel of the study of history. Emotions get higher the closer we are to events. Especially where those who were involved are still alive. Major players in history are rarely saints; they usually have Machiavellian or Kissingerian morals. They’re inclined to cover up crimes or bad intentions. You’re not allowed to hold some views. If you do, you’re a heretic. And heretics are often burned at the stake.
Pearl Harbor is a good example. It’s now obvious that Roosevelt provoked the Japanese and was looking to force their hand and get them to attack. He was aware the attack was coming but was willing to sacrifice Pearl in order to make Americans righteously angry.
Yes, the Japanese were the aggressors. But at that point, they were being backed into a corner as the US cut off their oil and steel. People don’t want to believe that because they want to believe that the US is always in the right - we’re always the good guys. I’m sympathetic to that view, if only because the US is unique in having been founded on overtly libertarian principles. But that doesn’t mean its government always, or even usually, acts according to its principles.
The Kennedy assassination in 1963 is another example. I have no doubt that Oswald was a patsy. Who did it? I don’t know, but I suspect it was the CIA that Kennedy wanted to disband. It amounted to a coup d’etat. But, whatever the real facts are, they’ll never come out because it would make the US look like a banana republic, reveal criminals, and destroy more of our founding myth.
We really don’t know exactly who’s responsible for 9/11. All we know is the accepted narrative. There are all kinds of unanswered but obvious questions, like what actually happened to building number 7. Looking for the truth, even in the most intellectually honest matter, will get you accused of being a conspiracy theorist.
International Man: Given everything we’ve discussed today, what are the implications as the world is headed for its most chaotic period since WW2? What can the average person do to protect himself?
Doug Casey: There are at least three major disasters unfolding before our very eyes: Ukraine, Gaza, and potentially Taiwan. And I’m afraid that the US government is on the wrong side of all of them.
The Russians were pushed into attacking the Ukraine much the way the Japanese were pushed into attacking Pearl Harbor. It’s a border war between Kiev and Moscow that has been blown way out of proportion. The US thinks it’s clever to sacrifice Ukrainian manpower to hurt Russia.
Gaza amounts to another type of border war, albeit one that’s been going on for about 3000 years. Who really owns Palestine, the Jews or the Arabs? Why is that a concern of the US?
As for Taiwan, I suspect historians will see a lot of similarities to what happened in Vietnam and Korea. In all three, the US gets involved in a conflict on the other side of the world in completely alien cultures, millions die, and there’s a huge amount of destruction.
In all these cases, Americans are writing history at the moment. But the US, which has transformed into a degenerate empire, is now on the wrong side of history. A hundred years from now, other powers will be writing the standard version of history - not us. But that doesn’t augur well for Americans in the here and now, that’s for sure."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)