Reading Darwin In College

Charles Darwin (1871) The Descent of Man, 1st edition, pages 168 -169:

The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

I received a comment attempting to explain the above passage - my comments are in between the ***   ***

 This passage (and a number of others from The Descent of Man) is often used by creationists to attack evolutionary theory.

***Many people attack evolutionary theory, not just the odious creationists.  That is akin to arguing the nazis attacked stalinism.  Plenty of people of all stripes attack stalinism, as they do evolution theory.***

 I won't mount a full-scale defense of Darwin here, but I can tell you that the inferred bigotry in this passage is understandable, but in truth Darwin was much more progressive than the majority of his scientific peers.

***Irrelevant.***

In fact, at the time, polygenism was broadly supported in the scientific community, while Darwin was staunchly monogenist and frequently went against conventional wisdom by asserting that all humans were genetically the same species.

***There are many versions of Darwinism and evolution, and even Darwin had to keep recasting his hypothesis as counter arguments surfaced. Again irrelevant. ***

 If anything, his views were very progressive for the era and much closer to our own. 

***Perhaps your own, but certainly not mine.***

This passage, by the way, is not about racial inferiority (although I can see why it would set off alarm bells today), it is about the growing gap between humans of all kinds and their nearest non-human relatives.

***Not true: he states his thesis -

“The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; “

He is merely addressing an objection to evolution due to the existence of gaps, nothing about “growing gaps.” ***

When you ask why they teach "it" in schools, I assume you mean Darwinian thought on natural selection. The reason why they teach Darwin is pretty obvious: Natural selection is not just a popular hypothesis, it's accepted as truth by the entire scientific community. 

***Simply not true, I’ve met countless scientists who consider it hokum.  I am a consumer of science, and I’ve passed on it since it does not measure up to science. Accepting a hypothesis as truth is religion, not science.***

There are disagreements on some elements of evolutionary theory, but literally no scientist has suggested that natural selection is unsupported. And Darwin's work is historically a game-changing moment for science and our understanding of the natural world, so yes, it should be taught. 

***Which version should be taught?***

One additional note: You're citing "The Decent of Man," which is not the source of most classroom lessons on Darwin; that would be "On the Origin of Species," which was published over a decade earlier and did not address any of the potentially offending language above. 

***The cited passage was written by Darwin in response to objections to the earlier versions.  It reflects considered and deliberate expression on the part of Darwin.  Darwin was clarifying his earlier work, and emphasizing that the theory argued the inevitability of the extermination of the negro and the Australian (meaning those some call aborigines.) This has given much comfort to progressives who need a theory for who lives and dies. For example, progressive and celebrated author and playwrite George Bernard Shaw.***

By the way, even if he had been obtusely bigoted, his scientific writing shouldn't be purged from classrooms. There are plenty of slave-owning (and likely horribly racist) Founding Fathers in American history, and we trust students to separate their great thoughts from their despicable observations on race. This is not a new issue.

***The founding fathers struggled mightily to eliminate the evil of slavery, even the slaveholding ones. The claim is science is behind this, and there is no effort, nor should be, to eliminate this odious teaching.  It is offensive enough to cause one student, a negro to be eliminated under this theory, to throw it all away in a classroom rant. Scientific racism is not a new issue.***

If anyone actually read Darwin, they might understand her despair.

Forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

aHistorical Reasoning

Comes a criticism:

“I am moved to let you know that I disagree with the idea of telling everyone your ideas and speaking openly about them to suppliers, customers, competitors and so on. I had my idea stolen as I was talking shop with someone who then passed it onto a competitor. They then switched their focus entirely to the market they were unaware of which I knew about. Occasionally I see their posters, Facebook ads and so on popping up and it just sickens me. I would not be in the situation I am in but in business if it were not for this slip and I cannot believe how naive I was. Yes they were quicker to market, and they were already in the business whereas I would've been a new entrant, so perhaps they deserve it. But I feel it really is a cruel lesson in life and business for me.  I would strongly caution against telling other people your ideas and for getting NDAs, and not revealing all details whenever possible. You should let people know your ideas only when it is absolutely necessary and there's a chance you will work with the person you are talking to. I get the argument that a lot of business ideas don't come to fruition because the owners won't share their ideas, but I think that only applies to startups needing a lot of investment, which kind of necessitates others knowing about it. Bottom line, I would've been in business by now if I hadn't been so stupid, and I would've been a heck of a lot further along the way to starting something in my true passion which is international trade. What extra time it will take me now I will only see in due course.”

Comes a response:

The error you are making in thinking is called "ahistorical."  You propose to learn from something that did not happen, and thus you imagine you lost something.  You do correctly state something did not happen, and this is where people get their certitude.  In your case you are not in business yet.  This you know, this is certain. Then you attribute this to something you cannot possibly know if it is true or not.  There is the error.

You cannot know if your idea was "stolen" as you were talking shop with someone, you cannot know if they passed it along.  You cannot know if the competitor received the information, nor can you know if they acted on the information if in fact they received it.  That is pure guess on your part.  All you can know is 1. You mentioned the idea.  2. Another company put forth the idea.  Far more likely, in life, is the idea was not unique to you, the competitor was working on the idea anyway.  You had nothing to do with the fact they were working on the idea.  A famous case is Darwin was working on natural selection, and so was Wallace.  Darwin came out first.  Wallace said it was his idea. Never mind Darwin was at it for 30 years, unbeknownst to Wallace.  (And never mind they both got the idea reading Malthus.) There are countless versions of this in all history and all cultures.  In the unlikely event you could document the idea moving from your voice, via the listener, to the competitor, all you would learn is the principle of 6 degrees of separation, and the likely event that if someone is working on an idea, that someone hears of others who are doing so too.  I cannot tell you the times I hear people are doing what I am doing.  Of course I would hear about it, because mutual connections would make it known, going both ways.

A side error here is the idea you have only one good shot, and if you miss it, you've lost something.  No, we are in service to customers.  If we can, we do, If we cannot, we do not.  If someone else beats us to something, then that is good for the customers we propose to serve.  We are evil if we delay customer needs so we might prosper.  We are evil if we inhibit others who would serve the customer better; and sooner is one way customers are better served. Why should it sicken you that others are happy with another supplier?  I in fact try to get competitors to do what I propose to do. In every instance, they have told me directly, no.  It is not their thing.  I have watched people go out of business for failure to steal the idea I offered.

To say you would have been in business by now, and a lot further along is a conclusion based on an ahistorical, that is false, premise.  You are not in business now because you are yet to serve the customer with an offering that gets enough orders to cover the suppliers minimum production run, in a workable amount of time, profitably.  There is no other reason someone is not in business.

I do not buy the idea that some ideas do not come to fruition because the owners won't share the idea.  Sheer nonsense.  If not, someone else will in time, just as I lay out above, the same idea, or there is an alternative that does the trick. The people who argue the idea that some items do not come to fruition because the owners won't share the idea are making the exact same ahistorical argument error you are making. NDAs and NCAs and secrecy and "intellectual property rights" are all about control, and not about marketing.  These things are not grounded in natural rights, and thus are easily contrary to human rights, and indeed in these applications very much are contrary to human rights.

So here is an exercise we can use today, showing the error of ahistorical reasoning.  We see perhaps a dozen Moslem nations overthrowing their repressive governments.  We saw Iran do the same thing in 1979, when the Shah of Iran was thrown out.

If we argue "Iraq could not be free of Saddam Hussein without USA intervention" as many people do, that is ahistorical.  Saddam Hussein was thrown out with USA intervention.  This much we know.  We know cannot assert Iraq would not be free of Saddam Hussein without USA intervention, because USA intervention happened, and the proposed alternative did not happen.  At the same time, we can very well assert Saddam Hussein would have been overthrown without USA intervention.  We can assert that because so many other Saddam Husseins, more or less, have been overthrown without USA intervention.

aHistorical reasoning:  Iraq could not be free of Saddam Hussein without USA intervention.

Historical reasoning: Saddam Hussein would have been overthrown without USA intervention.

Being self-employed is about personal transformation among other things.  One part of the transformation is the thinking.  Get rid of the ahistorical analysis, and the picture becomes clearer, the process simpler.

Thanks for provoking this essay!

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Have You Read Darwin?

Charles Darwin (1871) The Descent of Man, 1st edition, pages 168 -169:

The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

This is why I never cared for the hypotheses Darwin laid out.  If you actually read it, it is pretty obnoxious stuff.  I wonder why they teach it in schools.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Iguana Causes Darwin Re-write

Every field is open to challenges of innovation... Darwin missed this Iguana, which causes some theoretical problems. No problem, Darwin is updated faster than critics can keep up... and the far more likely explanation, quick mutation (slower than a suntan but faster than evolution) does not have quite the imperative behind it.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Gates & Darwin Join Forces

Following George Bernard Shaw's suggestion for getting rid of undesirables, following Darwin, the nazis came up with Zyklon B.    I believe the powers that be learned their lesson and now use slower acting chemicals to destroy populations.

Having failed to make any change in education, in spite of billions spent, Bill and Melinda Gates have thrown in the towel on education and now are getting back to their first efforts, reducing population in Africa and  Asia.  For women, for the children, all that.

The problem with capitalism is it denies us innovations to address problems because it concentrates too much power in too few hands.  Between usury, intellectual property law, and taxing the many to protect the few, freedom is so constrained that we are denied the good of all the competitors.  The Gates know their billions are safe from taxes in their "charity" as long as they stick with the program.

Update:  How come those white people who think there are too many people on the earth always work at reducing the number of people brown and darker?

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Laws To Protect Us

In example #28374636265 and #28374636266 of how government brings chaos and anarchy brings spontaneous order, let's examine -

#28374636265 -

A gunmaker says it will not sell to law enforcement any gun that is denied to citizens.  This of course reflects the fact that the 2nd amendment is about citizens having the fire power to defend themselves from the state, not about hunting.  They will continue military sales, which is and incongruent position, but it is a start.  The reasoning is the practical problem of accidentally selling an illegal gun to a citizen over a mix-up when selling to law enforcement. (A cop buying a gun legal for cops but for personal use). Every time people tell me "England outlaws guns" I think English cops are not armed either.  So the police should show leadership and disarm themselves.

And surely the powers that be know that gun regulations increase gun ownership!  Every time there is a gun grab sales take off.  And only the inner cities get gun control.  The suburbs arm up.  And the inner cities are heavily reliant on welfare.  And if welfare dries up, there will be looting.  And if looting the local Safeway will not be restocked.  And if not restocked the inner city people will spread out looking for food.  And meet a well-armed suburbs.  Wait...  could this all be on purpose?

#28374636266 -

Prohibition of liquor increased wine consumption.  Say what?

Although the number of wineries in California fell from more than 1,000 to about 150, three legal loopholes enables wine production to continue. First, wineries were allowed to produce wine for sacramental use in churches. Second, wine was allowed for medicinal purposes. The limited number of wineries that did produce continuously under Prohibition owed their survival to these two exemptions. The third and most important loophole concerned home production. According to Section 29 of the Volstead Act, each household was permitted to produce up to two hundred gallons of "non-intoxicating" fruit juice for consumption by members of the family over eighteen.

Colman notes that this loophole allowing for the legal production of homemade wine was "a boon for the grape growers." While wineries had declined in number, "acres under vine doubled between 1919 and 1927" due to the home vintner surge. This led to an increase in wine consumption. He correctly indicates that federal enforcement was weak, and sometimes non-existent, because there were few means for enforcing these laws in the case of homemade juice. An entire industry developed in order to meet the needs of producers for their winemaking supplies.

Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper eliminated DARE when he read a secret justice Department report that stated what every educator already knew, DARE increases drug use among the participants.

How come programs to make things better actually make them worse stay alive/

In the specific case of DARE, they keep changing it.  Every iteration is proven counter productive.  When challenged, the DARE minions, like Head Start, say "yes, but that is the old version.  We fixed it.  NOW it works. "  Until the new version too is proven counter productive.

Darwinists use the exact same argument.  "O yes, but that is the old version..."  Even Darwin came up with about dozen versions...

There is a something about Darwin, guns, inner cities, drugs counterproductive programs...  that somehow all tie together, and when the penny drops, people sometimes go berzerk.  Caution, harsh language.  I know how she feels, I'd like her in my classes.


Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

It Is A Fraud

Scientist found the missing link. Just in time for the 200 year anniversary of Darwin's "discovery." How do I know this is fraud? Look at the pattern: An amateur discovered it. It is the proof people needed. There is a media launch which presents it a fait accompli. It cannot be studied too closely.

One thing to keep in mind, when dealing with scientists, there is no group of people who are more gullible than scientists. For all of their insistence on "scientific method" they regularly fall for the most nonsensical evidence.

And Darwin-believers seem to be the most gullible of all, with at least four previously famous frauds:

1. The Piltdown man

2. The Java man

3. The Peking man (it hasn't been proven a fraud because it disappeared)

4. The Ernst Haeckel drawings of embryonics as proof of evolution (you probably saw these as "science" in your high school textbook, even though they were proven fakes 100 years earlier.)

These frauds (and there are actually many more) were all bird-dogged by amateurs or otherwise the uninitiated. This makes it seem lucky or sincere. It is the proof they were waiting for, specifically answers a theory doubters posed. Paleontologists are as a group doubtful on Darwinism, so in this case it answers their doubts. Science is about validity and reliability, but this "discovery" was studied secretly and features breathless celebrities attesting to it; not exactly the scientific method. This will be shown to the public for one day and then back to Norway. A public showing for once day will hardly allow other scientists to study it, and it is set in resin which rather militates against close scrutiny.

My father was an English prof and once lamented bad literature kept getting taught because it was still literature. He envied the science departments because once something was proven false, they dumped it from the curriculum.

Is Darwinism the exception? One thing you learn to do in business is look for patterns. Forget about the content or covering, and look at the pattern. Magic shows can be categorized into about three tricks, and every trick is a variation on one of the themes. Once you know the tricks, you know where to look to catch the trick being played. After that magic shows are dull. Financial scams can be reduced to probably three patterns, the ponzi scheme, cheating at cards and the pigeon drop. Once you spot the set-up, you can avoid the rip-off.

There is a fellow doing great business testing government statistics (and generally finding them wrong.) There is probably a good business testing scientific claims. It would likely be a import service, since science costs less to manage overseas than in USA.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Astounding Fraud with Gates Donations?

Accountants find astounding that fraud accounts for up to 60% of disease-fighting charity money is diverted.  Astounding?  Read Michael Maren, The Road to Hell, the donors, such as Gates and Bono must know about this already.  My guess is the outrage has to do with population control, or lack thereof due to theft of funds, ZPG being a key factor in these vaccines.

Now one of the reasons we are hated so is because people with brown skin and darker find themselves the object of eugenics worldwide.  AS I've mentioned before, not only does the Gates foundation target humans, Gates' Partner Allen is targeting their animals.

We are conditioned to reflexively acquiesce to population control, as if it was some sort of problem. It is not.  Fly over USA, China, Europe, Africa, and most of the time you are over empty space.  Darwin said the "civilized races" would "exterminate the savage races" in short order.  People who solve problems that do not exist, such a "overpopulation" need a faux science to back up their program.  Darwnism is handy, since Darwin predicted, which is a sort of permission, to exterminate people brown or darker.

The problem is not population, or race, it is freedom, or lack thereof.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Earlier I noted the who and how of oppressive government, but not the how come.  People need a narrative, and organizing principle, to rationalize they why of their actions.

National myths are popular, Virgil provided one for Rome and a particularly motley crew came up with the Teutonic master race idea of Nazi Germany.  People need a why or a how come or a raison d’etre for their actions.

Domination of others is a pretty raw excuse, both sides need a cover story, something that allows them to feel good about what they are doing, the system in which they participate.  

The modern state was ruthlessly efficient, and could expand and conquer far afield.  These voyages and expeditions opened a strange, and to many, a terrifying world.  Colonialism disrupted traditional free markets, and much suffering followed.

Malthus became convinced that modernization would lead to population outstripping food supply and wrote convincingly of his fears in the late 1700s.  In time his theories would prove nonsense, but nonetheless a belief in overpopulation is a conditioned reflex worldwide today.  There is no evidence of overpopulation, just a widespread premise that it exists.

Yes, there is famine and starvation, but never a shortage of food, merely a failure of government policy to properly distribute the food.  In fact, any policy will inevitably have winners and losers, the obese poor in USA and the starving poor in Darfur.  Either way, these are the losers in government policy.  Free markets never treat people thus.

Given the modern state’s relationship to violence, government policies can become genocidal, as in Germany, Cambodia, Soviet Union, USA, etc.  Starvation is policy failure, not market failure.

Given the putative problem of overpopulation outstripping supply, Darwin arrived at the theory of natural selection, and it fell to others to take it a step further to “survival of the fittest.“  One is not responsible for those who abuse their writings, but genocidal racists did depend on Darwin as their intellectual fountainhead.  We are told overpopulation is kept in check by natural selection (survival of the fittest) but sometimes people like to hurry up the process. hence genocide.  Here one of our best playwrights offers his ideas.

No where is it written as a premise in law that there is overpopulation, but everywhere people proceed as if this is a truth.  Forbes Magazine relates that the primary concern of the Gates Foundation is overpopulation.  Planned Parenthood gets a half billion a year in taxpayer support.  You no doubt believe the world suffers from overpopulation.  We are overwhelmed with conditioned reflex presuming overpopulation.

 It is probably more widely held worldwide than any other belief system, when you calculate how many Christians believe it to be true.  Both theories, overpopulation and natural selection, are core curriculum in any school at any level, and our society proceeds from these two premises in considering public policy.  It is just the way things are.

I am doubtful of overpopulation hypothesis since I fly a lot and see most of the earth is uninhabited.  It seems to me anyone experiencing “overpopulation” may remedy it rather easily for himself.  Move. It is quality of life, and that is decided by the individual, in freedom, not be central planner.  But the central planners use the threat of violence to keep people form exercising their human right to move.

But back to the problem, overpopulation, and the solution, natural selection.  Much government policy worldwide is ordered to assisting natural selection.

Here is a series on Soviet experiments with population control, and indeed the advanced form in which man is transformed through the process.

Note how the National Socialists are widely reviled for targeting a racial group in entirety, whereas the Soviets get a pass since they did not.  The Soviets picked on a class, not a race.  We do this in the United States too.  We have a system that defines the right people, and then advances them to the commanding heights.  You find people of all races and creeds in top positions, but they all think alike.  It is both self-selection and survivorship bias in action.  Hold these views, move on up.  One fundamental view is that the world suffers form overpopulation, and we can do something about it.

We have a wonderful construct in USA, wherein we have a truly classless society, acknowledged by one and all.  Except the people in the commanding heights privately see themselves as a separate class.  Politicians commonly exempt themselves from the laws they pass.  Government workers are given exceptional benefits.  There is a dividing line, and it is roughly along educational attainment.  Community College and below are expendable and takes orders, BA is in doubt, but advanced degrees and  above are the ruling class.  

This all sounds so harsh, but look around you, the world is a very harsh place.  How come?  Because Arab terrorists hate our freedom?  Because women do not have access to reproductive health care in some countries?  Because of overpopulation?

No, it is harsh because of violence.  The violence is fundamental to the modern state.  The people who subscribe to the state employ violence to maintain their advantages.  They rationalize their position by claiming there is a problem, and they claim they work within the scientific field of natural selection to solve the problem.  You may never actually hear anyone speak in those terms, but it is what drives policy.

Think about the line of reasoning for our economic troubles:  bank failures due to toxic assets from subprime (poor people) loans, and USA jobs going overseas to where overpopulation leads to cheap labor.  Banks made bad loans because they knew they would be bailed out.  USA sources overseas to escape govt regs on employees, to launder money and escape taxes. the masters made bad rules, and then they blame the poor for the bad results. Our economic problems are due to bad policy, not overpopulation.

Wealth is not money, but access to a range of goods and services.  There are no government services people prefer to private services.  Even the US Military top officers prefer to be protected by private contractors rather than their own soldiers. Anyone who can afford private goods and services prefers those.  And the free market makes more, better, cheaper, faster more affordable to so many more.

Self employment is a process of personal transformation.  Stepping aside form destructive nonsense is part of the process.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Bilderberg Agenda

So I did find the source of these agenda items (among a dozen or so), from the Bilderberg press release:

The key topics for discussion this year include:

• Is the economic recovery sustainable?

• Who will pay for the demographics?

But no elaboration.  Now the first one is a case of "here we go again!"

Like the BoE Gov Carney talking about the good done by QE, "is the economic recovery sustainable" is so obtuse!  What economic recovery?  Do none of these people ever step outdoors?  Do they actually believe their own economic reports?  This makes me nervous, because people who believe their own PR end up in disasters, like a Hitler believing he was winning.  Maybe the agenda is just code for public consumption, but I do truly hope that question is not addressed as posed.

The second one makes no sense, as it is.  Who will pay what for demographic what?  Demographic reports?  Censuses?  Is the idea USA will pay for Ukrainian Census?  What is that about.

Now if you understand that the powers that be, and power itself, is grounded in the Malthus/Darwin premise that there are too many people, the lower humans will die out, so extermination is just helping evolution along, then this is an odious agenda item.  It means what means will which countries use to jettison the perceived "unclaimed baggage" in each country.  it would be good to have this accurately expanded upon.

I've listened to sane, powerful policy makers and enforcers make this same point, in their own words.

Libido dominandi.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Etiology, Adaptation, & Progress of an Innovation

Innovation keeps business healthy by matching people’s needs as they change, promoting natural selection through adaptation..  In agriculture, redesigning fruit and vegetables is a biological imperative, because nature abhors consistency and adores adaptation.

Now once upon a time the socialists who run Amerika had reduced our food supply to the limits of bread being Wonder and Cheese being Velveeta.  Wine was Lancers.  That is it, folks, nothing to see, keep moving.

It got to the point that 40% of the produce department sales were in potatoes and apples, and the two kinds of apple were red delicious and golden delicious. Nature abhors stasis so much that ever-renewed varieties end up tasting like sawdust, and important benefits, like micro-doses of cyanide you get from eating the seeds are rendered empty too.

It is impossible to take the seed out of an apple and plant it and get the same fruit off the new tree.  Of the six seeds in the apple, each seed would give you a different apple tree, again, none of which would be the original whence the seed came.  Whatever fruit you might get, it is also likely to be inedible. 

Among apples, occasionally a tree would produce a fruit that is edible.  In that case, the only way to gt more of the same is to graft a branch of that tree onto another apple root stalk.  All apples in the store came from a tree made by grafting edible fruit branches on other stock. Man has done this for millennia. 

A few hundred years ago Gregor Mendel figured out how to hybridize, so we take white peas and red peas and get pink peas.  Or take attributes of apples and turn them into specialized apples.  Big breakthrough, that.

That Gregor Mendel revolutionized food production by studying the science of inheritability, adaptation and hybridization is largely unknown.  Working at the same time, Darwin developed a balderdash hypothesis of evolution and is world famous.  This is another example of where good ideas fail to gain prominence and bad ideas get adapted by the powers that be to serve the powers that be.

Anyway, nature so abhors consistency that when entire orchards of one kind of apple tree, say Braeburn, are growing to fruition, a few trees will go “sport.”  And that is an apple no one ever saw before will grow on that tree, completely contrary to all efforts at uniformity.  If that sport is attractive, then that too will be grafted and we have a new fruit.

Now, such natural progression cannot be patented, so those who hate mankind look to intellectual property rights as a way to patent a kind of fruit so not only can no one else sell it, you cannot even grow one.  Wicked.

Nature screams “have variety!” and BigAg/BigGovt will get violent if you trade raw milk or offer other than velveeta, or grow your own to share, or use a "patented" ag item.  Raw cheese an milk variesmany ways each batch, all for the good.  Govt says you must drink pasteurized (dead), homogenized (same) milk.  Very wicked.

Populations are easier to dominate if they have less food to eat and less choice.  Standing in line becomes a purpose in life.  So it was not accidental that 40% of produce sales were potato and apples, one kind.  Small biz innovators brought us variety and better quality and nutrition.  In the 1950s there were "Cheese conspiracies" where small groups would import god cheese and split it up in someone's home.  Some of these efforts grew into food chains.

But the varieties caused a problem inasmuch as the cashier/checkers could not tell one apple or potato from another, so for expediency would just ring them up as the cheapest.  Stores lost money selling better fruit and veggies.

How to solve this problem?  With something called PLU codes. They name all fruits and veggies so when a clerk enters the code the computer knows the item and gives the price.  Just print codes on labels and apply them to the fruit and veggies.

You can download the code book here.

So, put the codes on paper labels on the fruit, at random, say every three or 4 pieces, and they are marked enough for the store to find the plu when checking you out.  Hard to do by hand, so applicator guns were invented.

Hand applying labels became way too time consuming. And it was a competitive advantage for the packers to sell the fruit pre-labelled.  So machines to apply them were invented. Early machines crushed fruit, so later machines were developed to be gentler.

The PLU codes ended up getting eaten, to the chagrin of moms, so the code label stock was redesigned to be of soy “paper and ink.”  Now edible.

Next the labels were doggone sticky, and hard to pull off if that is what you wanted.  So the labels were changed from round to pear shaped.  The round part had glue and he little part had no glue.  Therefore you could easily lift the little part to pull off the whole label.

OK... but the OCD market in USA is huge, so, I am not making this up, there are labels that dissolve into soap when you wash the fruit.  The ways you can make a buck in USA!

But wait, all that paper is ugly and kind of a waste, so how about skipping the paper and just printing on the fruit itself?

And then there are people who seek out organic, and spurn frankenfoods, so what to do for them? Include the info in the code itself.

Now, because there are small business entrepreneurs, the innovators,we have much wider variety.  in time the conservators will adapt the innovations, apply their economies of scale, and the result will be more better cheaper faster to teh poit the poorest person will have the benefit of our innovation.

Innovate, on, Garth.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

How 91% Tax Will Crush the Dope Trade

I always wondered how various friends, productive members of society who merely self-medicate since we have such a brutal medical regime in the USA, can be using dope for over 40 years and never they nor their dealers ever get busted.  Well, it is a well oiled system.  They use marijuana and cocaine, whereas what is sent into the ghetto is criminalized.

A deep undercover narc explained it to me. All that dope money has to be laundered to be used.  The welfare checks go out, the crack flows in, the two are exchanged, and the shadowing forces come up with fantastic sums.  Now, it has to be laundered to be used.  If you want to transfer a million bucks somewhere to use it, you have to show you earned it.

So you have a chain of pizza joints that take in $2500 a month, or whatever.  You declare $50,000 per month, the difference being the dope receipts. You depoist the dope money in your local bank account. You pay about 30% in taxes, or $15,000.  Now, you have $35,000 a month with which you can do whatever you like.  Plus, you've paid protection money to the government and you will NEVER be busted.

As an aside, people who argue if we legalize dope we can tax it are delusional on two fronts.

1. It is already taxed, if anything the tax revenue will go down, as dope is put in food (medibles) which is not taxed in our state, and of course prescriptions (medical marijuana) is not taxed.  So you see why the state people do not want marijuana liberalization?  It will kill a huge tax base.

2. Genocide is still in play in USA. When Lincoln's "back to Africa" plan did not work out, progressives have been angling to liquidate the population with some African heritage ever since.  Crack to the Ghetto is the American "slo-cooking" way.  The reason I don't like this policy is we are denied the good of the competition from these targeted groups. I disagree with Darwin on the desirability of their extermination.  If for no other reason, as a Celt, it was less than 100 years ago the progressives were saying the same things about us.  Celts are tolerated only because we'll fight the progressives' wars for them.

So as mentioned earlier, if the fed tax rate goes to 91%, small businesses, legitimate ones, will simple spend the money inside the business on the owner and his family, before taxes.

Drug dealers will have a heck of a time trying to spend $35,000 per month within the confines of what is a legitimate expense in a pizza parlor.  It takes time to spend, and more time to spend legitimately when your money is hot.

The very best plan is freedom, deregulate, unregulate anything, something, everything.  None of that will happen because all peoples clamor to be oppressed, as first noticed in 1 Samuel 8 (and emphasized in 1 Samuel 12.)

So what is the next best thing for economic recovery.  Give 'em what they want, good and hard.  91% on top incomes, and good and hard down the line.  Who gets nailed?  Money launderers and anyone who takes home a paycheck, like corporate raiders.  Of course, the taxes will go up on the small guys too, employees (and services decrease), but then such oppression is what they clamor for when they turn in a job application.

Yes, 91%, plus unregulate medicine.  China will never know what hit them in terms of economic competition.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

What I Read This Summer

Finally got through a remarkable book on tolerance by A J Conyers.  It traces the history of the idea of tolerance, and its move from a definition grounded in Christianity to a state definition.  The shift is a fascinating read, and although I've never heard of Conyers, he is a heavyweight theologian.  The side exegesis on the Trinity and its role in modelling community is new.  The Long Truce: How Toleration Made the World Safe for Power and Profit , by A J Conyers.




 I tried to blog as I read Tombstone, The Great Chinese Famine by Yang Ji Sheng, but the point came out relentlessly.  The human toll when too much power is concentrated in too few hands is staggering.  Thirty Six Million people starved to death, that is got to death, not to mention those who suffered up to death but survived.  Communists keep pretty good records at one level if not another, so the role of the players is clear.  The point that relentlessly came out to me was point by point, we have latent every weakness China exhibited as it experienced this colossal state failure.  That is to say, it can happen here.
Tombstone: The Great Chinese Famine, 1958-1962




Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi gave a few lectures on Judaism and Zakhor, the biblical imperative to remember.  Instructive.  The Jews wrote The History, and then stopped writing history, and after living under Moslem rules, picked up the sciences, including history writing, about 500 years ago. Is history linear or circular?  What if it is faith/infidelity?  A  mind-altering way of looking at life.  Zakhor, Jewish History and Jewish Memory, Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi.
Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory (The Samuel and Althea Stroum Lectures in Jewish Studies)



 Another great group for record keeping was renaissance Florence.  Orson Wells notes that the 400 years of the Italian renaissance were times of famine, plague, civil war, economic trials and what not, and at the same time it produced Dante, Michaelangelo, Bellini, Titian, DaVinci, Fibonacci only to name a few. The same 400 years the Swiss had peace and security and they produced the cuckoo clock.  May we live in interesting times...  Gene Brucker sifts through court records from Renaissance Florence and shows us what life was like then and there from the iaring of dirty laundry, The Society of Renaissance Florence.
The Society of Renaissance Florence: A Documentary Study (Harper Torchbooks, Tb 1607)

Uber-translator of Chinese lit, maven David Hinton hikes the Mountain behind his house and ruminates on the Chinese language.  I don't speak Chinese, I barely speak English, but his fluency in Chinese art and culture will improve any China Hand.  He takes 2 dozen Chinese characters back to the roots and forward and helps explicate the Chinese character.  (He adds some Darwinism in there that is oddly jarring, tossing the academy a bone?)  He uses the Wade-Giles system instead of pinyin, which is fairly old school, and the CE and BCE (Christian Era and Before Christian Era) instead of BC and AD.  Go figure.  But I jumped from my chair when he relates the image for friends come from an image for cowrie shells, which some archeologists mistake for money but are clearly tallies.  Tallies are of who owes whom what, that is to say credit, and that the image for friends would be the means for keeping tally would be telling etymology.  Hunger Mountain, David Hinton.Hunger Mountain: A Field Guide to Mind and Landscape



 I wish I could say who turned me on to "Usury, The Destroyer of Nations" by S C Mooney, but at any rate, Mooney carefully and systematically takes on the pro-usury arguments of the Calvinists.  (Calvin is essentially the godfather of modern usury practice, although just as you cannot blame Hitler on Darwin, you can't blame the FED on Calvin.)  Mooney has read the classics and Rushdoony and North, and they get direct refutation.  Mooney is qualified to proceed from theological grounds, and his argument is based on the premise that usury is wrong because God forbid it.  My premise is more Catholic, it is wrong because it does harm, but so subtly that God was obliged to expressly forbid it, and expressly repeated by Jesus.  Of course we people learn the rules and then devote the rest of our lives searching for personal exemptions.  Mooney takes a twist that I cannot follow but it is astonishing.  one argument is usury is just rent of money, just like rent of say a horse.  Well, this can be refuted quite easily, but Mooney grants it as accurate, then goes on the say the bible forbids rentals as well as usury.  The bad guys try to make usury acceptable by analogizing it to rent, to which the repsonse is to deny the parity, easy enough.  But Mooney accepts their assertion of parity, and then says "rentals are forbidden too!  Mooney's argument I think fails on this point, but it is a remarkable bit of work to read.  This you can get free online....

I've read a lot of minor papers too, but this prolegomenous 30 pages on tontines by Kent McKeever is useful regarding non-predatory finance and insurance.  Reading the history of tontines it is at least one example of where a wicked government program was adapted by the populace and turned into a good things.  Usually policy is based on wicked public practice that is adopted by the state and made legal and far worse (ponzi scheme to social security.)  As our system comes down, we'll need to rediscover robust means of economic development.  Free, caution, opens as a .pdf.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Economic Science & Your Money

The pretense of economists is the field is one of science, in which there is no right or wrong, any more than there is right or wrong in physics.  If you increase the money supply, you spur demand, that is simple economics.  If you let go of a pencil, it drops.  That is simple physics.

If you try to argue that raising an interest rate on a currency used in an integrated worldwide economy has far wider effect than a dropped pencil, which is a local matter, they will argue it is merely a matter of scale, not kind.  And with computers, we can reckon at scales unimaginable heretofore.

The fellow who is credited with the founding of modern economics is Adam Smith.  You have not read Adam Smith, because no one reads these founding people, like Darwin and Marx.  They are generally unreadable.  If you were to read Adam Smith, you would learn that he was a moral philosopher, and his great work, shortened in title to the Wealth of Nations, was really a sort of encyclopedia (a common thing to produce in those days) of all economic ideas.  In it you'll find capitalism, free markets, communism, mercantilism, feudalism,  if only in contrast to his obvious editorial bias (if not by the terms we use today).  Karl Marx found communism in it.  Each reader finds his favorite system outlined.

But what to make of a "science" in which few people agree on definitions?  Within economics, there are many definitions, some actually opposite, of profit, money, corporation, the firm, labor, capital, interest and so on.

Where would physics be if physicists did not agree on the definition of thrust, lift and BTUs?  They may have different theories of how flight occurs, but they agree on terminology.  Not so in the "science" of economics.

 Yesterday USA's top politician and its top economist had an economic discussion in which they operated in different universes, based on definitions, in which they talked past each other and the moderator kept saying in the background "I don't understand..."

Note on the subject of the discussion, Krugman states, and I quote him:

"We live in an economy where money is not just green pieces of paper with faces of dead presidents on them.  Money is the result of a financial system that includes a variety of assets.  We are not even quite sure where the line between money and non-money is... it's kind of a continuum."

Now you are saying, "Wait... what?!  'Non-money?'  How come I've never heard of non-money?  What the hell is that?"

It's a dirty little secret.  The Greek debt is in non-money, but the Greeks are obliged to pay it in money.  Bankers and governments oblige taxpayers, ad infinitum (ad nauseum) with bonds for stadiums and wars (Seattle is getting a 3rd and 4th major league stadium, plus a multi-billion-plus 2 lane tunnel constructed under mud flats to replace an eight lane highway. San Francisco simply eliminated the rickety Bay Freeway after the Loma Linda quake damage, with no discernable economic loss.)

Here is how it works:  Seattle voters hated the idea and did not want such a tunnel.  A lawyer ran for mayor, staking his liberal credentials and lawyerly integrity on "no tunnel."  He won.  All interested parties now know the game: As the mayor says no, economic matters are arranged so the mayor and his are now and will ever be well compensated if the tunnel gets a go-ahead.  Seattle, drowning in debt and with bondholders on the hook for now FOUR new major league stadiums, is capable of having only so much more debt mulcted from the productive segment of the citizenry.

Although the mayor is "against" the tunnel he negotiates an obligation on the rest of the state taxpayers that any overruns will be at the rest of the states expense.  Now, the tunnel can command debt well beyond what mere Seattle can pay.  With all of this in place, a by-election brings in enough votes to "pass the tunnel" and the mayor "grows in his job" and now supports the tunnel project, based on a by-election in which a tiny minority outvoted a tinier minority.  Ka-ching!  Seattle still hates the idea, but too bad.

This is played out as President Obama (in his role as willing-puppet) cuts off energy resources in USA, and directs funding to the whimsical and ludicrous "renewable" sources, and funds Brazilian oil exploration, assuring when he is out of office he has access to riches beyond his wildest dreams.  They are greying his hair now, as they did Bill Clinton, so he can assume the role of sage elder statesman.

If my reading is cynical, why does it happen this way in every city, at every level, every time?

All of those bond obligations are non-money.  They must be paid off in money.  When USA builds dams in Peru, they are credited as a debt to USA in non-money, for which Peruvians must pay off in money.  Whereas the cohort of elite Peruvians who went to Harvard execute the deals, it is the common Peruvian who must pay it off.  It is not possible to pay it off, ever.  With so much wealth mulcted out from Peru to USA, Peru can never find the means locally to support local investment.

As a side note, in the science of economics, there is a strange term, "moral hazard."  Not inconceivable in a field laid out by a moral philosopher, but a strange term for a field purporting to be science.

Therefore, the problem in the "science" of economics of no set definitions, and its attending confusion, is not an accident.  It is a fundamental requirement.  Hey, who cares if the city runs up debt in terms of non-money?  Well, you will when you get less and less for more and more of your labor.  When those non-money pensions are paid out in less and less money because the value is diverted to bond holders.

USA perfected this practice overseas and brought it home.  What goes around comes around.

Iceland has said no to paying out money against non-money debts.  Iceland is recovering slowly but vigorously.  Greece is working on a way to pay off non-money debts with Greek workers money.  Greece is up in flames.  Iceland is showing the non-violent and proper response to the game.

The game is the concentration of power in the hands of a few who may oblige the many with non-money debts that must be paid in money.  The cover is economics as science.  But where science is ordered to knowledge and understanding, economics is an exercise in confusing people.

To understand it, you must understand the definition of money.  And non-money.  I suspect less than 1% of the 99% can define money properly.  Krugman can, which is why he can draw the distinction he does.  Ron Paul can too.  But they have a radically different view of the role of the state. If the 99% understood the terms properly, we'd say no.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

We Buy El Salvador's Lunch

Comes the news on USA foreign aid:

El Salvador is a recent example of corporate domination in U.S. foreign aid. The United States will withhold the Millennium Challenge Compact aid deal, approximately $277 million in aid, unless El Salvador purchases genetically-modified seeds from biotech giant, Monsanto.

Where do we get $277 million dollars to "aid" El Salvador?  Well, as long as we can lend credit, for which there is no rational limit, credit-backed dollars are unlimited.  $277 million might seem like a lot to you or me, and even El Salvador, and certainly some El Salvadorans who were educated in USA, but to Uncle Sam who admits to 16 Trillion in debt, it is peanuts.

El Salvador is a small country, but as more and more small countries are paid by USA taxpayers to buy Monsanto products, it starts to add up for Monsanto.  Please note that without USA taxpayers buying the Monsanto products for El Salvador, El Salvadorans would not buy Monsanto products.  In big biz/big govt USA, this means taxpayers must pay El Salvadorans to buy Monsanto products.  Well, not pay for, but add it to our tab, since we are putting all this on credit.

As small countries take the money and then buy Monsanto, the food control shifts from the growers to the Harvard educated city bureaucracy, and the result is the chaos of such countries as Somalia.  We have destabilized many a South American and African country with this "aid."  We did so to the USA inner cities.

How did we get here?

The watershed event was the USA leaving the the last vestiges of the gold standard in 1971, and with that broke free of any rational limit to borrowing.  With limitless borrowing, comes limitless credit, in turn which can be lent.  What is outlawed in the three great monotheistic religions, is now calculated in the trillions.

But to what end?  It is always the same thing: libido dominandi.   Lust for power drives all sorts of people and Rome was not the first to conquer territories for food, and then use food for control.  It was ever thus.

USA was supposed to be exceptional in this regard, but we have proven to be unexceptional.  With the limits off, USA got busy using, as Earl Butz noted, food as a weapon.

Time magazine (November 11, 1974), concluding its special report on the world food crisis, explains its support of triage:
In the West, there is increasing talk of triage. . . .If the U.S. decides that the grant would simply go down the drain as a mere palliative because the recipient country was doing little to improve its food distribution or start a population control program, no help would be sent. This may be a brutal policy, but it is perhaps the only kind that can have any long-range impact. A triage approach could also demand political concessions. . . . Washington may feel no obligation to help countries that consistently and strongly oppose it. As Earl Butz told TIME: "Food is a weapon. It is now one of the principal tools in our negotiating kit."

The press was no less government-controlled back in the 1970s than it is now.  Continuing the blend of theories of Malthus and Darwin, leading magazines proclaimed there are too many people and someone had to go.

Only surplus food will find its way to those nations unable to compete in the market. But not even this paltry sum has been directed to the areas most in need. The Sahelian countries of Africa, where 100,000 persons were felled by famine last year, received relatively little of this surplus food. The decision as to where the food is shipped is based on cold war politics. Last year nearly half of our food aid went to South Vietnam and Cambodia. Our "defense perimeter" certainly did not include Chile under Salvador Allende. Three days before the military coup d’état, the U.S. turned down a request to sell wheat to Chile for cash. Yet one month after the junta’s putsch, with Allende dead, the U.S. granted the new regime eight times the total credit ever offered to Allende to purchase wheat. Food for Peace has been handled as an adjunct of our military assistance programs.

The system now depends on a regime in which there is no rational limit to what can be "borrowed" against "ourselves" (meaning our kids) with the only caution beyond forbidding usury is the vague "unto the third and fourth generation."  Bill to the USA taxpayers El Salvador purchase of GMO grain?  Why not? There is no rational limit, until something goes wrong and it comes a crashing down.

What are the chances the people of El Salvador escape this deal?  What are the chances we escape this deal?   Near zero?  That is capitalism, that is democracy.

On the one hand, there is absolutely no need for these programs.  Yes, people are starving in some places, but not for a shortage of food.  People starve pursuant to political decisions.

The small business of food trade worldwide is necessary and sufficient to literally deliver the goods.  If capitalism and democracy could have delivered by now, it would have.  What proper nutrition people in fact get is the result of free markets.  Like the socialists and communists, capitalists are free riders on the success of free markets.

The most revolutionary act you can perform is to start a business.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Christianity & Slavery

I must challenge the idea that the elimination of slavery was a triumph of Christian consciousness and effort.  That slavery would be "outlawed" is in itself suspect, because name any other time the Government made things better by laws.  The only just laws are private law, such as the law merchant and common law. The part that makes me suspicious is timing: just as the industrial revolution, and usury-based business emerged, slavery as private chattel became illegal.  This should cause any observer of human affairs to say "Wait a minute..."

Just as business and the warfare state began to form alliances  (East India Company), and rewrite laws changing property rights protecting exploitation, and the usurers were unleashed to lend credit as money, and with fractional reserve at that, then who needed slavery to get the maximum exploitation of mankind?  Following Darwin, by these new means the elimination of the races to be exterminated is hastened.

Harvard Professor Orlando Patterson lifelong review of slavery is distilled in this book Slavery & Social Death.  In it, after reviewing slavery in all times and places, comes up with s a definition:

Slavery is the permanent, violent domination of natally alienated and generally dishonored persons.

He then goes on to posit various iterations of slavery against this standard, to enlightening effect.



Truly slavery as practiced in USA met this definition in its harshest sense.    And slaves as personal property was outlawed in USA after the Civil War.

But the Bible teaches when one demon is cast out Seven return to take its place.  And truly, with the 13th amendment to the US Constitution, the slavery that returned was seven times worse.  Read Oshinkys on the state slavery that followed the 13th Amendment.  And those admirers and acolytes of Lincoln, the nazis, to the heights they took state slavery.



Getting rid of something, the Bible is teaching, is not a matter of legislation and war, it is a matter of prayer and fasting (some demons are only cast out by prayer and fasting.)

And look at the typical american today.  Their circumstances are permanent, they have no effective way of governing themselves.  Election fraud is material and effective.  We are violently dominated, the police can enter our homes at will, arrest and strip search on any pretext, search us at airports and kill with impunity.   Between big government and big pharma, from birth control to mind alteration, connections in families are broken irretrievably.  And our entertainment is about ridicule, disrespect.  (Your fired!)

By lending credit, and at fractional reserve at that, usury allows the powers that be today to indenture future generations to pay for money the powers that be spend today.  Talk about natal alienation!

Did Chistianity eliminate slavery?  Not yet.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

All Hail IPR-free India!

This is not accidental, one of the agenda items of the powers that be is eugenics, getting rid of those Malthus and Darwin deemed excess.

Access to low-cost quality medicines plays a critical role in public health systems. In the last decade, the public health challenges facing developing countries have expanded beyond infectious diseases to non-communicable diseases (“NCDs”) in large part due to changing lifestyles and environmental risks. The World Health Organisation estimates that 80 per cent of all deaths from NCDs occur in low- and middle-income countries like India.

Never mind correlation is no cause, and anyway there is no correlation between population concentration and poverty, using BigPharma to control population is the point, as when the USA Centers for Disease Control ran the Tuskegee Experiments to not treat Americans of African ancestry for syphilis, to see what would happen.  As if 5000 years of experience needed to be checked.  How come they never included white folk upon which to experiment?  Well, not to worry, no one went to prison for the crime, and now ongoing secret criminal experiments continue and include white people as victims too.

Generic drugs cost a fraction of the monopoly prices charged in countries like the United States, and the presence of multiple generic competitors in India has reduced the price of cancer and HIV treatment by as much as 90 to 1,000 per cent. For instance, first-line HIV treatment that costs over Rs.16 lakh annually to treat just one patient in the U.S. costs the Indian AIDS programme approximately Rs.7,000.

Right.  And India needs to get busy making their own real drugs that work for patients worldwide.  In the meantime, the thugs in government who work for BigPharm are trying to blackmail India into participating in the continuation of the Tuskegee Experiments.

India must clearly reject the intellectual property laws which the United States is trying to force on us. These have led to an unprecedented health crisis in the U.S. itself, with spiralling prices of medicines under lengthy and multiple IP monopolies, with American insurance companies struggling to manage the cost of reimbursing expensive new medicines, all of which threaten people’s access to treatment. Current U.S. intellectual property laws have done nothing but enable pharmaceutical companies to charge exorbitant prices for medicines, such as over $1,00,000 annually for new cancer medicines and $1,000 a pill for new hepatitis C treatments. This has made health care simply out of reach for the vast majority of Americans and the issue of affordable health care has dominated the primaries in the ongoing American presidential elections. This failed model, which has allowed companies to profit from human misery and is even rejected in its own country, is not worthy of our consideration.

Go India!

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Four Truths About USA

The following occasioned this rant, in particular the comments section:

This is not new. In 2014, five black girls, aged 17, 15, 15, 15 and 14, committed three separate attacks on random white people at TempleUniversity. Struck across the face with a brick, a 19-year-old white student suffered a fractured jaw and nearly had her teeth knocked out. Her 15-year-old assailant, Zaria Estes, was given a 2 ½-6 year sentence.

What dad lets a son attend an inner city college unarmed?  What dad lets a daughter date a boy who is unable to defend her?

1. African Americans are the designated despised underclass, and are subject to scientific racist policies designed to exterminate (Darwin's words) them.  They are hammered in food, medicine, education, culture (rap), housing, and "social services" that would disgrace a gulag. The ones thriving are tolerated as stalking horses to get the ones being exterminated. The last Jews the Nazis got around to were the elite. Think Colin Powell, Barack Obama, etc. Until the reality is accepted, there is no solution.

2. The statistics regarding African Americans are all skewed to special pleading, no matter the conclusion.  Don't believe any of it.  There is nothing said today about African Americans that was not said about the Irish in the UK 100 years ago.

3. Victims lash out, and harm the innocent as well as the perpetrators.

4. It is allowed to kill someone, or a group, who is coming at you with intent to harm.

Work against the institutional racism, but be ready to kill any victim who approaches you with intent to do harm.

The end of institutional racism is separatism, an African American Autonomous Region within the borders of USA, subject to American Indian permission.  (Detroit would be peaceful and prosperous, like the Bahamas, if the African Americans there were allowed to achieve that.  See Tulsa Riots.)

Just as with the institution of the country calling itself Israel has made it safe for Jews to live just about anywhere (and the vast majority of Jews do live outside Israel), so an African American Autonomous Region would allow African Americans to live safely in USA.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post