Understanding the Presidential Electoral System of the USA 
Wednesday, October 14, 2020, 07:52 PM
Posted by Administrator
Understanding the Presidential Electoral System of the USA

A lot of confusion and far too much ignorance surround the US Presidential Elections. Accusations of the election being undemocratic abound, but are grossly unjustified and merely represent a fundamental understanding of the form of government and political nature of the United States of America, confusion based largely on the fact that the United States of America is nothing like the Constitution describes it should be.

The election of the President of the United States of America reflects the type of system of government and the nature of the union, as described by the US Constitution. The common mistake made in describing the United States of America is that it is a democracy. A democracy is direct government by the people. The founding fathers saw this was not suitable for a large country spread across many cultures, belief systems, ecosystems, and even types of climate. Instead, the founding fathers, who represented thirteen independent colonies, decided America would be a representative republic, where states had equal power to each other and in proportion to their populations.

This was a very practical solution to a serious problem: the use of democracy to steal resources or otherwise exploit smaller colonies – states. That is, the founding fathers had to answer the concerns of colonies which feared their resources would be taken by more populous or powerful states and that these states would have far more influence in federal government.

And so, the Constitution created an electoral college, based on the same system which determines the makeup of the federal government. Congress is elected by the people, the Senate was chosen by the states, and the President was also chosen by the state using electors representing the same number of congressional representatives and senators of each state.

So, the President of the United States, is not represented by the people, because there is a separation that people fail to see between the administration of the federal government, which is the president's duty, and the people of the nation. The president presides over the federal government, which is supposed to be differently but less powerful than the state governments, from the perspective of individual lives.

In other words, the President of the United States of America is NOT the president of the people, he is the administrator of the federal government. And as such, he is elected accordingly, not by democratic vote.

Today, the electoral college is especially important, considering the results of recent elections, especially 2016 when Donald Trump did not receive a majority of votes from Americans but did win the election because of the electoral college. Yes, most people feel unrepresented, but the fault is their own because the President of the United States does not represent the People of the United States America, but rather the Government of the United States of America.

view entry ( 175 views )   |  permalink

The Fundamental Flaw of American Democracy 
Saturday, October 10, 2020, 06:05 AM
Posted by Administrator

Lack of representation is the fundamental flaw of American democracy and why America has a two-party system that is only superficially two parties. What this means is that after the voting is done, in every place in America where a vote takes place, those whose candidate did not win an election, do not have representation.

This is actually a strange concept to most of the world, and taken for granted by Americans. But the meaning and importance of this fundamental aspect to American politics must be understood because they are vital to understanding and trying to solve long-standing political problems in America.

From the presidential election down to city council, democratic elections in America produce a form of democracy that is socially toxic. In each contest, especially those for representation in government, there are almost always only two choices (one choice is far more common than more than two). A vote takes place and decides the winner. For those elections to select a representative, obviously those whose candidate wins are represented. What isn't so obvious and thus isn't considered, is that those who don't vote and those whose candidate they vote for doesn't win, are not represented in what is supposed to be a democracy, where each and every person can have a say.

The reality is that in a representative republic, as is America per its Constitution though not necessarily in practice, democracy exists in a form that is essentially mob rule. The harshest aspect of this reality though is the ease with which this form of democracy can turn into anything but democracy relative to how difficult it is to maintain anything close to democracy.

Having and maintaining democracy requires an informed voter. This requires a voter be well and properly educated including learning to reason objectively in order to make informed decisions. It also requires a voter that is morally mature(see Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development, the theory for which also acknowledges the need for a mature and informed voter).

When the media cannot be trusted to provide objective information which the voter can use to make decisions, the democratic process can easily be at the hands of those who control the narrative – the media, and those who control the media. And when the education of a society is such as to keep the people dependent upon the society for everything including their very identity, moral maturity becomes impossible.

Without the ability to understand the decisions they make, people cannot have democracy. Instead, they have the appearance of democracy and literally anything goes as a form of government in reality given the illusion of democracy hides complete dependence and that complete dependence allows for complete control. Thus, in this form of government and with people in the worst possible condition, the form of government in America ranges somewhere between a fascist dictatorship and mob rule with nothing good in between.

Consider how a voter feels if they are a Democrat living in eastern Washington; where the ballot was typically comprised of sometimes more than half of the offices uncontested, that is, only one candidate and always Republican. In every single election there is on a ballot in Eastern Washington, not a single Democrat has representation in their own governance, except if perhaps Congress or the Whitehouse are controlled by Democrats. And it is this incidental representation that is the biggest problem with American politics because it pushes things towards mob rule by encouraging completely artificial solidarity which is more like exclusion than inclusion.

Fortunately, this nature of American politics is not enshrined in the Constitution. Unfortunately however, the nature of the system is the result of the nature of humanity itself. America was supposed to be a noble experiment in the potential for human beings to govern themselves. What it has proven instead is the greatest opportunity to exploit human weakness by those humans who are by their own nature incapable of understanding the harm they cause to the species and thus themselves.

The lesson here though is not how to fix American politics. The lesson here is that it cannot be fixed. America was inevitable as it represents human ideal and the reality of failed potential; a dilemma afflicting the human experience: Human beings, at their potential, are ideally suited to true democracy where none rule over others. But there are some human beings who cannot see human potential and instead see only themselves. To these humans, failure to achieve potential provides opportunity for exploitation of dependency, not to mention the opportunity to convince others of dependency where it need not even exist.

America is a failed experiment representing the failure of human beings everywhere to achieve their potential. America's fall then is inevitable, as is the fall of all modern human society because they are all not based on human beings at their potential. Indeed, if there was such a society, it would truly be a model of human democracy.

What can you do with this information? You can't fix society, but you can understand what's wrong. This gives you the ability to decide how to deal with it, especially if your understanding allows you insight into how well you can do in society and perhaps even where to go and how to be as comfortable as you would like. It also gives you the ability to decide to rise above society and find a way to survive it's inevitable collapse. And of course you also have the choice to simply disbelieve and continue as you are; which most people would do.

Good luck whatever you decide.

view entry ( 215 views )   |  permalink

Why You Shouldn't Vote Democrat, EVER 
Monday, October 5, 2020, 07:29 PM
Posted by Administrator

The United States of America was founded as a union of independent states. This tradition held for over half a century before America became embroiled in an existential sociopolitical conflict over the morality of slavery.

At it's founding, America was a nation built on the notion that owning another human being was a right, and this is enshrined in the US Constitution, as in Article IV, Section II, the final paragraph which, prior to the 13th Amendment freeing slaves, read as such:

“No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.”

So prior to the civil war, slavery was legal, and enshrined in the US Constitution.

However; as the country grew and cities began to grow and which were based on industrial labor rather than slave labor as supported traditional industries in the south, such as cotton and tobacco. As such, big cities and newer territories had little need for slavery.

The problem started when these big city dwellers set their sights on outlawing slavery, and at any cost. This was obviously a major issue in social and political circles, as non-slave states eventually began passing laws which violated the above article of the US Constitution and which deprived southern states of their rights under the US Constitution.

Slavery was going out of fashion, even in the south; but the efforts to end slavery which usurped the Constitution and in doing so factually harmed slave supporting states was the issue which led several states to, in a concerted effort, declare their independence from the United States of America, per America's founding documents which clearly justified the action of these states, which then banded together to form their own union of states, the Confederate States of America.

Perhaps the prevailing thought at the time was that slavery, the indenturing to servitude of another human being, and the recognition that blacks were in fact human beings, was a pressing issue that all of the world supported. Yes, that could be said to justify some of the actions taken by the union against the Confederate states.

The civil war was therefore an unjust war of aggression by people espousing the ideology of democracy as opposed to the representative republic which the US Constitution clearly established. The United States of America, on the heels of a national sentiment to end slavery, destroyed itself by violating its own founding documents to take back territory justly and rightfully ceded by states which were opposed not to the policies of the United States of America so much as by the methods and violations of their own policies in attempting to assert it's will upon the southern states.

If any of this sounds familiar, it's because the Civil War has never ended, and, in due time, the war will once again be fought, and this time around, the rightful side will win and America will become two nations, one which believes in “democracy,” the other which believes in the US Constitution.

But what does all this have to do with the Democratic party?

Everything, because their sentiment, their ideology, is no more than a continuation of the overbearing tactics deployed to destroy America before the Civil War, which means as long as Democrats have any power, America has none. Every time you vote for Democrats, you piss on the US Constitution.
view entry ( 217 views )   |  permalink

Was the Civil War Won Justly by the Union? 
Thursday, October 1, 2020, 12:04 PM
Posted by Administrator

The short answer is no. The long answer is it is a difficult question that requires mankind to face himself and his own evil.

The premise of the Civil War is said to have been slavery. But the issue was not slavery itself; this was not an issue in the minds of those who founded the United States of America. It was, at the time of America's founding, simply “normal” for there to be slavery.

The problem is, people changed and started to realize that slavery was wrong. But these people decided that instead of letting everyone come to change their minds that they would enforce their will upon them. Thus, using the concept of democracy, the people of the big cities who did not continue to rely upon slave labor – the growing middle class urbanites – attempted to inflict their will upon a minority of states.

Again, while slavery was the issue, the reason for the Civil War was simply an overreach of federal power by the US Government in attempting to inflict the will of the majority of states upon a minority of states. These states reacted by attempting to form their own union, separate from the United States of America.

No, that union was not founded on slavery. It was quite literally founded on the notion of freedom, in this case, the freedom to continue an institution the rest of the world also continued but which a class of people, city dwellers who didn't have to rely economically on a pool of cheap labor (because they WERE that pool of cheap labor) had decided to stop supporting.

And so, perhaps now you can understand why the American Civil War is not extensively taught in school (I never learned a thing about it in California nor in the two years I was in school in Oklahoma even.) It was not taught because it was not a just war, rather it was an event in the history of the United States of America that would have taught us today that yes, indeed, America is an authoritarian state, run by oligarchs and through mass-manipulation of people through ignorance and propaganda campaings.

Perhaps another civil war is coming. Perhaps this time, the right side will win.

By the way, look at the history of slavery in the south. It was already unpopular by the time the Civil War started. And propaganda was easier to spread back then – no internet. So people had to believe what they were told, and I have to imagine that newspapers did not tell the story about the Union trying to take away people's slaves, but rather that the Union was trying to inflict the will of the majority of states onto a minority of states at a time when the nature of the United STATES of America was far more clear than it is today.

I know which side I would be on. How about you?
view entry ( 195 views )   |  permalink

The Problem with La Paz - From a Sailor's Perspective 
Thursday, September 10, 2020, 05:42 PM
Posted by Administrator

For sailors, La Paz, Baja California Sur, Mexico, has traditionally been a gathering point for people coming to or leaving the Pacific cruising grounds. Itself the gateway to the Sea of Cortez and it's formerly glorious cruising opportunties, La Paz also became the gateway to and from Hawaii and the South Pacific islands.

Unfortunately, La Paz is no longer able to host sailors as it has grown far too corrupt and expensive for anyone but a very few to come here. And that's partly because of the people who are here. But that isn't the core of the problem with La Paz. As with every other problem in life, the answer can be found in pure and simple greed.

Long ago, a man came to La Paz with a dream of sailing the world with his family. Instead, he found financial opportunities here in La Paz, and eventually established La Paz as a sailing center, eventually encouraging an entire important sailing rally to make La Paz their final destination. But his greed caused him to build infrastructure for satisfying that greed, all the while still appearing to support the sailing community.

As exemplified by the fact that the club has forgone the annoying formality of an election this year, evaded not because of the coronavirus lockdowns as the voting is done by mail and most members aren't actually in La Paz, but for other, more nefarious reasons; namely the candidates for office and their intent to change how things are (including yours truly, candidate for Commodore), this man's efforts do not support sailing and sailors, but the ability of himself and his friends to make as much money as possible.

People coming to La Paz are wondering why slip fees at marinas in La Paz are on par with prices in San Diego, even in spite of the horrible conditions of these marinas and lack of reliable services. Their wonder can cease if they were to pay attention to the boats leaving the marinas for a few hours with tourists on them. These tours are unregulated, and are paid for by all boaters because the marinas in La Paz, unlike just about every other marina in the world, do not charge boarding fees for charters. These boats make tons of money on charters, but none of that goes to the marina except in the form of slip fees. And that means that marinas charge a lot of money so they can capitalize on the money being made on charters, which is wholly unregulated, untaxed, and insanely profitable, bringing in typically in the range of $1000 per hour AND UP!

But this isn't the worst of what's wrong with La Paz. The real problem is the nature of the man who brought sailing to La Paz, and who also founded API, Mexico's private corporation that also acts as the nation's sole port authority. That's right, an American founded Mexico's port authority. And given the level of corruption obvious in Mexico, any fool can know that this man, and now his son, wield immense influence over boating matters in La Paz and throughout all of Mexico.

The problem is, this man is one who believes that if you are not of the same faith, you are not worthy of his favor. And worse, this man will yield his power to destroy anyone who crosses his path, or the path of anyone who knows him well enough to garner such powerful favors.

Sadly then, La Paz is dead as a cruising location. Mazatlan is far better. I hear that instead of the $20 a foot they are charging here in La Paz, that it's only $0.40/foot. Sorry La Paz, we'll take our business elsewhere, somewhere where the people won't be so selfish.
view entry ( 201 views )   |  permalink

A Startling Conclusion on Research Into the Nature of COVID-19 Lockdowns 
Sunday, August 23, 2020, 10:09 AM
Posted by Administrator

Sorry, couldn't think of a better title.

I have been curious as to why these irrational and illogical events, rules, regulations, hints, suggestions, and mandates surrounding a mysterious coronavirus have persisted and across so many cultures.

I have in fact come to a startling conclusion: The Pandemic Plan, as the US version of this pre-planned action is called, was designed for one thing and one thing only: to give the world over solely to the elite.

The final datum that drove this conclusion is perhaps the most dramatic and revealing; if you consider a perspective other than the narrative we are being fed - that is, if you consider that the Pandemic Plan was in fact an engineered holocaust; this event makes perfect sense. Further, the response from officials is incredibly telling.

For example, from Boris Johnson, the prime minister of Great Britian, we have this little gem:

“nobody knew early on during this pandemic… that the virus was being passed asymptomatically from person to person.”

It's a coronavirus. ALL coronaviri spread asymptomaticaly and the safer assumption would have been to assume it did. This is preposterous and represents an obvious lie.

But what is most disturbing is the nature of this particular lie, because it was used to shore up the death toll, to fake a disease that was far more deadly than it really is: because this line was used by Johnson to justify the decision to place known-infected patients in with the most vulnerable, by placing known-positive and untested hospital patients in elderly care homes and failing to provide adequate measures to control the spread of the virus.

Multiple local and national governments enacted this exact same policy, and it was enacted early on, prior to lockdowns even. The net effect was to vastly prop up numbers of deaths from the virus.

The problem with this lie as with any lie is that time tells the truth and right now, we are seeing the truth about this virus: that it does not kill anyone who is not already dead or dying. We know this because we know that the average age of people dying is the same or higher than the average life expectancy for the particular location of the outbreak.

If the average age of those dying from COVID-19 is the same as or higher than the average life expectancy, it can only mean one thing: this virus is not dangerous. It does not shorten the life expectancy and therefore does not contribute to increased fatalities over anything else. Think about how the age can be higher than the life expectancy: it means that paying attention to this virus is saving people from what would have killed them otherwise: people's lives are being extended because they are receiving medical care for the virus, which can only happen if the virus isn't actually deadly. No, it doesn't mean that no one dies who has the virus. What it means is that it isn't actually the virus that kills. No one really dies from the virus, they just happen to die with it.

The reality is, COVID-19 is actually a comorbidity, not a cause of death. If not one single healthy person has died from the virus, as is the case, then the virus itself cannot possibly be deadly, even to a sick person. What the virus does then is to affect the immune system's ability to protect people from the diseases from which they are already suffering.

So, folks, the startling conclusion is that this virus doesn't actually kill anyone. Not one single person has died by the virus. All the fatalities listed, if they died because they had the virus, are from something other than the virus. The virus just pushed them over the edge is all.

A virus that can only kill with comorbidities is not a virus that can kill and therefore cannot be a direct cause of death.

So, if the virus doesn't kill; they why are we being told it does? Why are we being made to fear something that isn't even as bad as the flu or the common cold?

Events which have occurred during the lockdown are the best indicator of the real purpose of the lockdown; but I'm afraid most people will be unable to see this because of their lack of temporal perspective - their inability to see how events develop over time and what they can lead to (something the human brain is actually designed for and quite good at!). What has happened is a complete loss of social cohesion, an inability for people to protest (except as prescribed) in any meaningful way and related to a complete inability to communicate which provides for a convenient means to manipulate public opinion and even elections. So you have people isolated and lied to in order to manipulate the power structure. And you have expansion of that power structure: the central banks have been handing money - YOUR MONEY - over to the elites hand-over-fist for months now and the wealth gap has grown more in a few months than it did in decades previously. And what of this transfer of wealth? You have expanded and deepened poverty? To what end? War, of course. Because we also have bickering and fighting over economic and border territorial issues, and that can only lead to war. How convenient that the vast majority of the world's population are being driven into poverty, driving them to other means of survival, which makes joining the military all that much more appealing.

This Pandemic Plan is an engineered holocaust. And it has all the appearances of being engineered by the elite in order to simply eliminate all the "non-essential" people to their needs. That the world is overpopulated is obvious. Perhaps the elite have finally decided to do something about it. I know you and I have never sat down and dicsussed the population of the planet and what dangers it represents. But I also know the elite have, and do: Bilderberg; World Economic Forum, Davos, etc.

I have seen the Pandemic Plan. It is real. It exists. And they do not hide it. But they do hide it's intent. But, intent can always be teased out by following the events. And that the Pandemic Plan was enacted in response to a virus that is obviously not dangerous can only mean that the plan had nothing to do with protecting the global population from a dangerous virus. Given the nature of the elite, only one possible conclusion can be drawn:

The Pandemic Plan represents an engineered holocaust.
view entry ( 222 views )   |  permalink

The Rich Are Buying History 
Sunday, July 26, 2020, 08:54 AM
Posted by Administrator
The only conspiracy that exists is the one to convince people that conspiracies exist in order to distract people with the idea of a conspiracy theory instead of paying attention to the cooperative efforts of greedy, self-interested, pathologically self-centered people who sometimes just happen to use the same means to achieve the same goal of self-enrichment.

What I write here are my observations and conclusions. Nothing more, nothing less.

The wealthy elite have a lot of money to spend. And they love to spend it. But something odd is happening: Wealthy people are buying Nazi memorabilia for outrageously inflated prices and donating it to Jewish organizations.

The rich didn't get that way by making poor financial decisions. Collecting has its benefits, and often those benefits are in fact financial. But buying something and giving it away is purely financial investment in virtue-signalling.

But what about buying artifacts for the express purpose of ensuring their destruction, at least in the sense of the market? Obviously, Jewish organizations which receive Nazi artifacts aren't going to sell them for financial gain. They are therefore in essence destroyed from the perspective of and therefore market of potential collectors.

This is buying history so it can be destroyed. Whether you agree with it or not, it is using money essentially exploited from you to erase history - much like you or people like you are being physically exploited by the Black Lives Matter organization in order to do it's bidding of erasing history.

I make this observation for one reason: to demonstrate the absurdity of the entire notion of wealth. Wealth, strictly defined, is the accumulated ability to create. The wealthiest a person can be is to be able to make things from thin air. In a society where the wealthiest you can be is to have as much money as can be, it should be obvious that what the society values more is the accumulation of a substitute for the actual ability to create.

I make this observation so that hopefully you can draw the same conclusion I have: that wealth has nothing to do with money and because society values a figment over reality; that society has no credibility in reality and therefore exists only as a concept.

Do be careful in drawing conclusions here as you may find that you yourself have no value in reality if you are one who has built yourself - or rather let yourself be built - wholly in concept rather than in reality.

I reason, therefore I exist in reality.

Imaginging you exist in concept only gives you no place in reality. If you are one who chooses what to believe, as most people do and therefore most likely you do whether you believe or will admit it or not; you exist only in concept. It's not too late to wake up to reality and manifest yourself as something more than just a concept.
view entry ( 229 views )   |  permalink

Can Fossil Fuels be Used to Undo Climate Change? 
Sunday, July 19, 2020, 10:03 AM
Posted by Administrator

You betcha!

This article started out as a question of being able to sustainably use fossil fuels in light of the impact of conversion to non-fossil fuel energy would have if the world decided to simply dump fossil fuels one day.

All those people working in fossil fuels don't have to be out of jobs. In fact, there could be a lot more people working in the industry and on those oil fields if mankind decided to use fossil fuels intelligently.

What is wrong with fossil fuels is the pollution created in their use. We extract oil from below the surface of the planet, and that's it. We pull it out, modify it, change it, burn it, convert it to something else, and leave it out of the ground – most of which goes into our atmosphere as the fossil fuels are merely oxidized (burned.)

But an intelligent way to use fossil fuels is certainly possible.

What do we use fossil fuels for? Plastics, and fuel. Mostly fuel. Plastics are a side effect of having to do something with the heavy components which cannot be easily oxidized. So we mostly use oil for it's energy.

So why do we need to extract oil? Why not simply extract the energy and leave everything else underground? That seems like quite an intelligent thing to do.

The concept is simple: make power plants that utilize fossil fuels and locate the power plants at the oil fields, at the source. So, instead of transporting all that oil and fuel around the world and the dangers it entails; why not run power lines instead of pipelines and send absolutely pure, clean, “green” energy from the sources of oil to the people who need it's energy?

But here's the clincher: There are a lot of oil wells, with a lot of oil in them, far more than we could ever use the energy from today. But instead of using that “free” energy to fuel our society and it's wanton destruction of our planet even further, why don't we take advantage of the opportunity and actually use fossil fuels to gather up the pollutants created by our past fossil fuel use, and put those pollutants back in the ground along with the waste products now created by this proposed sustainable use of fossil fuels.

Why not?

Because there is no motivation to fix the problems society has created, because society is run by greedy rich people who don't care about the planet, the future, or you.

Maybe we should have someone else in charge for a change?
view entry ( 212 views )   |  permalink

Could Trump Pull the US Out of NATO? 
Saturday, July 11, 2020, 05:23 AM
Posted by Administrator

In short, Yes.

Trump is a deal maker. Trump is also a gambler; something people forget when considering his business empire which includes his casino. And, as I believe his tax records will demonstrate, he is the head of a kingdom - his own - which he destroyed financially.

These are, to me, indicators of a man willing to do what it takes the get the deal done. And in his case, his being president is the deal.

So, we must ask ourselves, would Trump's chances of being perceived of as popular enough to win the election motivate him to pull the US out of NATO?

What I am asking myself is, under what circumstances would Trump do this. And I believe he would do so at the last minute - before October (so it cannot be called an "October surprise"), and that he would ultimately change his mind, or if he were able to do so soon enough (next week?) that he might pull off getting NATO members to pay up as he's been demanding.

My observation, one I am certain is shared by many, is that Trump cares about one thing: Trump. Consider that when pondering whether or not the man in the Whitehouse might not do something "crazy" like pull the US out of NATO and risk destroying a long tradition of using Russia as a bogeyman to create fear in the voters.

There is another question I am asking myself, as a poker player: what will Trump do if his bluff is called?
view entry ( 183 views )   |  permalink

Analysis of BLM Protests in America 
Monday, July 6, 2020, 09:21 PM
Posted by Administrator
In April 2014, I made history as a journalist, being the first to have discovered and reported on the regime change operation ongoing in Ukraine. It would be several WEEKS before any other news outlet would report on this.

My research followed USAID and the NED, the National Endownment for Democracy. Here, the Democrats and Republicans work together in harmoney waging unconventional warfare against unsuspecting nations using diplomatic cover.

In the Ukraine for example, the NED organized the protests as well as the counter protests and arranged for snipers to kill protesters in order to facilitate agitation of events, to step up the violence.

The tactics used by the NED are well documented throughout their history of operation. Primarily, they work with non-profit organizations in order to foment anger at the government. These non-profits will then recruit protesters and even go so far as to train them and provide signs and even protest materials even going so far as to provide weapons such as molatov cocktains and even guns. They create unrest which turns to violence in order to amplify the opposition voice and cause an electoral or other form of coup to topple the existing regime and replace it with one of their own.

And this is precisely what is going on in America right now.

Black Lives Matter has been hijacked by what we can all agree now is the "deep state" and is being used to foment a regime change operation in America. And this is being conducted by the Democratic AND Republican parties.

What's especially sick about this effort is that racism is being used as an issue where it is not the issue. As I argued in an earlier blog entry (http://www.disperser.info/blog/index.php?entry=entry200618-102357), cops killing unarmed black people isn't a racism issue; it's a power issue that just happens to coincide with racism which is prevelant among police officers.

The issue of race is being thrust into people's faces as being the problem where it is not. And in doing so, it creates a racial element where there was none. Most people know that cops don't kill unarmed black people just because they're black but rather because they can get away with it. And that's the problem - that police officers are executing state power with fatal results against citizens of a supposedly free nation, and are not held to account.

And when you tell people, especially non-blacks who are family of victims of police impunity, that the issue is one of race, those people, myself included as a near-victim of this impunity, will flatly reject the notion of racism.

But now you have black people being empowered by a false notion of racism behind the issue which is really state power and impunity in its execution. And so you have actual racially motivated behavior, behavior that is fomented by corporate virtue-signalling.

So now you have the public perception that the whole issue is about race, allowing the government to freely get away with whatever it wants because it has successfully distracted the people from the real issue.

In the meantime, people are at each others' throats, racial issues which weren't an issue at all are not causing violence and fatalities nationwide. People are at each others' throats, and racial tensions are at an all time high.

America is in flames, people are at each others throats, and why? Because Hilary Clinton and her ilk can't get over the fact that a dumb, ugly, stupid, failed real estate mogul turned reality TV star showed her up and took her planned position of power over an American people dumb enough to think anything good about a cunt like that.

Just in case you thought anything about all of this was about you. You're just fodder folks. Get over yourselves and stop letting yourself be hoodwinked by everyone.
view entry ( 202 views )   |  permalink

Welcome to the New, Covid-19 World 
Monday, July 6, 2020, 11:04 AM
Posted by Administrator
It's official folks, COVID-19 is here to stay. It is not going to go away, ever.

Evidence is pouring in and while science is busy using their training to procedurally analyze the data - assuming they are trying to do so - I have already analyzed the data and come to a preliminary conclusion.

Sars-Cov-2, the virus which causes COVID-19, is a coronavirus. And like all coronaviri, it cannot be vaccinated against. But, unlike, for example, Sars-Cov-1, Sars-Cov-2 cannot be eliminated and will remain circulating through the population forever.

Study after study shows that infection is far more widespread than assumed, than "should be" based on the notion of lockdowns actually working (a laugable assumption from a scientific perspective mind you). Yet while more and more of the population are found to have been infected, few people retain antibodies, which means, the virus will always remain a threat because it cannot be vaccinated for.

We know this because the antibodies are disappearing from people who have been infected. Those who survived, which comprises the vast majority, should have immunity to COVID-19, represented by the presence of antibodies for the virus. But while initially present, they are disappearing, which means the body will not permanently remember the virus and will have to go through the process of making new antibodies once exposed to the virus again.

What a vaccine does is mimick exposure by presenting either pieces of the virus or an "attentuated" version of it, a live virus that has been selectively altered to ensure it looks like the virus to the immune system but doesn't act like the virus. This allows the body to make antibodies, which are supposed to remain.

That our bodies are not making the kinds of antibodies that remain to fight off the virus means two things: we will always be susecptible to COVID-19; and we will only have to worry about it if our immune systems cannot handle what is otherwise a very simple virus any healthy immune system can handle.

What we have here, with Sars-Cov-1, is a new version of the common cold that kills people who are exposed to it and whose immune systems have failed. It just means that people who can't survive on their own, won't if exposed to this virus. In other words, it means that people whose lives are supported by medical support due to an absence of a functional immune system aren't going to continue to live on that medical support.

In the end, it really just means fewer people living out the ends of their lives in hospitals and hospices under the care of the medical industry.
view entry ( 219 views )   |  permalink

Solving America 
Tuesday, June 30, 2020, 04:38 AM
Posted by Administrator
America is a unique nation.

Here is a nation which is unique in that, built into the founding laws of the country, the citizens can band together to form militias to oversee their own safety; yet no one does.

In America right now, these first months of 2020, if you weren't aware; Democratic party affiliated and supporting persons and entities have organized gullible masses of people to participate in demonstrations and riots while Republicans and their supporters have sparked violence and both have fanned the flames of racial tension to incredible heights; all documented steps in their very own regime change operations used to, per their words, "spread democracy" around the world.

But America neither has nor advocates Democracy, it advocates and shoves capitalism down the throats of everyone, including her own people.

But there is a solution, built into America's founding documents and enshrined in her most fundamental laws. There can actually be Democracy in America. There is only one problem: Democracy requires participation of the citizenry of a nation. Americans aren't known for doing things for themselves. America is a full service nation, full of people who expect full service, who are now demanding it in the streets - though only at the behest of those similarly motivated enough to organize them.

But if Americans could, a solution is quite easily and handily available. Two simple things are all that need to happen; both of which however require all citizens to participate at some level:

The first is citizen militias. America was founded by citizen militias. People who banded together and used their weapons to fight the oppression of a controlling central government located on a faraway island. The US Constitution memorializes this fact and suggests a path to maintain freedom in the second amendment, which states that "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.) So if a militia is necessary to maintain the freedom of the state, where are those militia?

The answer is, people assume that the National Guard is their militia. But who was called upon to put down the rioters who were organized from the people? And how many regular people join the National Guard? And does the National Guard really represent the people, or the government? Considering that after a tank was stolen from the National Guard in San Diego and subsequently their tanks were ordered seized and dumped in the ocean, and that the second amendment says the government can't restrict arms ownership by citizen militias, that would either mean that the government violated the Constitution, or more likely, the National Guard isn't a citizen's militia, but a government military that actually polices the people!

No, people have to form their own militias. These militia should be in charge of policing, not a private, government, corporate police force (most cities are in fact corporations). Instead of organizing demostrations and riots, why aren't people organizing militias?

The answer perhaps lies in the second solution; a citizen's government using existing infrastructure. In this scenario, the jury pool is used to select potential candidates for US Congress, the House of Representatives specifically (the Senate could be chosen through a Jury pool, but only on a state level per the Constitution), who, just like jury duty, have a duty to fulfill as citizens in a citizen-governed political system (Democracy) and can choose not to fulfill that duty for whatever reason.

From these two simmple ideas there is an easy solution to everything that is wrong in America. Imagine if people formed militias, replaced police forces, and then replaced Congress with people elected from candidates chosen from the jury pool or something similar. As soon as the government was seated, you would have a true democracy, and for the first time since the founding of America at that.

Clearly this is possible from a technical standpoint. But equally clearly is that it will never happen precisely because of how divided America is. Militias wouldn't form to oversee security and maintain justice; but to enact revenge or to attack their perceived enemy.

This is and could only be a problem because people in America are not allowed to think for themselves. Censorship, "cancel culture", "gatekeeping", labeling someone racist, "deplatforming" people for their views - these are all meant to stifle free speech - under the guise of supposedly protecting the vulnerable from hate speech. America is a democracy, government therefore is largely self-service, meaning waiting for someone to protect you from someone else's views is beyond the mandate of the nation, and thus the individual's responsibility. Free speech trumps personal sensitivities.

As long as Americans are lead in how they think, there can never be either democracy nor freedom; except for those who maintain the military and police that is.
view entry ( 190 views )   |  permalink

Why Trump is the Best Pick for President in 2020 
Monday, June 29, 2020, 12:08 PM
Posted by Administrator
Donald J. Trump, who has done more to destroy the standing and physical, social, and political infrastructure of the United States of America than any person, entity, act, or event since the American Civil War, is now the ideal candidate to oversea America in it's present state.

Allow me to explain:

Trump has a great deal of experience dealing with empires he has destroyed. His father gave to him a vast real-estate empire. Trump destroyed it. And yet, he was able to maintain that empire despite gutting it financially and otherwise. Trump turned it around, made a name for himself out of it, and became President of the United States of America.

Plus, it was, after all, Trump himself who gutted the empire he sits atop. As such, who could possibly be more qualfied to run an empire Trump has destroyed when no one else has the same experience Trump has.

Yes, Trump destroyed the empire his father gave him, just as he destroyed the American empire. But what he created in place of what he destroyed with his own empire speaks volumes to his capabilities with this empire he has now destroyed.

We all know Trump's retention of the presidency is an inevitability. And if you can't think of Trump's being President again a good thing in termms of his being uniquely qualified; then perhaps you might just consider it a good punishment that he be given charge of the country for another four years because that way, he can prove himself, and if he can't, he will certainly take the Republican party down with him.

I think I might just break my America boycot and vote for Trump. I know he cannot possibly repair the damage he did and restore America to it's former "glory," but I'm sure interested in seeing what he does with America as his personal ego toy.
view entry ( 187 views )   |  permalink

I Almost Died at the Hands of US Police 
Saturday, June 20, 2020, 03:01 PM
Posted by Administrator
In early 2012, I was forced to contact the FBI and Humboldt County Drug Enforcement Task Force (after being told by the CHP and the actual Sheriff of Humboldt County himself that no such entity existed) in order to mitigate the numerous incidents of myself and my neighbors nearly be killed by San Diego residents who were working for an illegal marijuana farm 2 miles from my home on Johnson's Road in Humboldt County.

The operation was busted, but present at the bust was a plain clothes officer whose face I would never forget and would unfortunatley see again soon.

Not long after, I was told that my life was under threat by the people who ran the marijuana farm. They had been told by the federal officer that I turned them in. This officer then looked up my information through his access to the NSA database, found my email address and other information, found out I had purchased a pistol and not registered it, and that I was selling my car.

He contacted me under false pretenses to view the car, never showed up of course, and was lying in wait for me in the redwood forests he patrolled (Forest Service Officer), and was planning to murder me and use the excuse that I had an illegal pistol on me.

Well, I'm not as stupid as he assumed, and he couldn't even find my pistol at first; which I had placed in my car to protect me from the marijuana growers who had threatened my life, and because the sheriffs and FBI both refused to even respond to my messages that I was being threatened.

I was pulled over on a dirt road, M4A1's painted in camoflauge were drawn with round chambered. When they discovered I did not have the pistol they assumed I had, you could see the disappointment in the eyes of this man I then realized had been protecting the marijuana farm, and privately profiting from it.

This event happened after I had already decided that I wanted to leave the country; a decision I was to finalize the first of June. I decided on July 15th to sail myself to freedom, so I would never have to deal with a corrupt American law enforcement officer; which all of them are, completely and totally.

America is lost. There is no freedom, only privilege that you simply haven't lost...yet.
view entry ( 211 views )   |  permalink

Killing by Cops is Not Racism 
Thursday, June 18, 2020, 06:23 AM
Posted by Administrator
The protests in America are not about racism.

Racism does not cause cops to kill black people. There is another, more sinister problem afoot and no one seems to notice that it is really what most people are upset about and have taken to the streets to express.

Cops are not just wrongfully killing unarmed black people; they are just killing disporportionately more black people than other races. The problem, which is staring you right in the face, is that cops are killing unarmed people.


Why would a cop shoot a man in the back three times after being shot at by your own taser taken by the man running away from you?

Because you are pissed off.

So is this a question of a less-armed black man, or of a cop who has used his badge and position of authority and trust to enact personal revenge in a moment of anger?

What is the expectation of society, what is YOUR expectation of the behavior of police in a situation which can get emotional? Do you not expect objective treatment of the situation and people, a presumption of innocence, and a desire to peacefully resolve a matter? Or do you expect the cops to shoot anyone who doesn't behave as they are expected to?

Cops have a warrior mentality because the vast majority are ex-military fresh from US military adventurism abroad; unecessary and costly conflicts which give us military training and a military mindset in what is supposed to be an officer of peace.

And yes, some people, disproportinately black people, also have a warrior mindset, which leads to elevated emotions which = sometimes leads to violent responses.

Who is paid to not have that mindset, to rise above their emotions, to understand that they are going to be taunted, to be trained how to ignore it? Black people? Or perhaps cops?

What you are seeing then, are not protests against the killing of 7 times more black people than white people by cops; what you are seeing are protests against the use of state power to enact personal revenge and other excesses and abuses of the state against the people, against YOU.

You aren't out there protesting too because you believe these protests are about something you don't believe is really a problem.

Do you really believe police killing unarmed people isn't a problem?

Are you sure you shouldn't be out trying to tell your government to stop abusing it's power to keep you down and help the rich take from you?

You could always just assume someone else will figure it out.

Maybe you should stop just believing and start actually thinking?...!
view entry ( 164 views )   |  permalink

<<First <Back | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | Next> Last>>