I remember reading Paul Johnson’s book Modern Times. (I just looked it up online and I can download it for cheap! ) The book is history from 1920 to 2000. I don’t remember much about it but I remember how evil the twentieth century was because leaders wanted to bring heaven on earth. Isn’t that strange? They made some places a living hell in order to make a paradise. In retrospect it was lunacy.
I think the genius of the founders was that they didn’t write “in order to form a perfect union …” but “in order to form a more perfect union …” They were not after an utopia on earth they were after better not best.
We are living in an age where new people are spouting Utopian ideas. Free this and free that can be had by anyone for being alive. We will let everyone live the lives they were meant to live. Peace and harmony will reign. I’ve seen this movie before. It didn’t end well.
In brief — the EU has no leverage if the UK “negotiates” from a position of independence. EU tactics are only effective when the EU still has a grip on the UK.
Heaven knows that the UK will be fine without the EU, and suffers in its grip. Only committed EU project aficionados argue that the UK will somehow lose out just because it isn’t stuck in a just-so set of “deals” with the Eurocracy.
of note — the fearsome “no deal” options doesn’t mean “no deal ever”. it means UK gets the Hell out of the EU and then negotiates as a free, sovereign nation — like any other on the planet. This is advantageous to the UK and a terrible prospect for the EU, which is exactly why the EU claims (unconvincingly) that the UK had better grab a deal quick before there’s no deal to be had.
Any deal concuded before Brexit will be to the EU’s advantage, or it will not be accepted by the EU. Any deal concluded after brexit will be to the advantage of the UK, or it will not be accepted by the UK. This is because the power shifts from the EU to the UK upon Brexit.
So despite the EU’s laughable “warnings” to the UK, the EU will in fact accept any extension, any delay, any any anything other than a no-deal brexit. “Mon Dieu, anything but zat! Zat vould leave us viz — nothing!“
The perpetrator of the New Zealand mosque shooting wrote a so-called manifesto. Much is being said about it, and dishonestly, much is being said about us, ordinary Americans who support Trump. That is wrong and should be set straight.
I read it, I have digested it for a bit, and here is the through-line, along with the patented Haakon Dahl analysis.
The kook, who shall remain un-named here, was
“… a communist, then an anarchist and finally a libertarian before coming to be an eco-fascist.”
He describes himself as preferring neither left-wing nor right-wing, he despises conservatism as a front for corporatism, he supports socialism if defined carefully, and parts with the enviro-left for their refusal to seriously limit population growth, especially in the most fertile segments of populations; conveniently enough for him, non-whites in general.
He has three main pillars (it seems) to his current position; white separatism (supreme but equal, if you will), eco-radicalism, and fascism as a means to both of those ends. The government he most admires is the Communist Red China. He admires Donald Trump
“as a symbol of white identity and common purpose [but] … As a policy maker and leader? Dear god no.”
So much for supporting Trump.
His manifest purpose in shooting up a mosque full of unarmed Muslim civilians is to discourage non-white — especially islamic — migration to white (culturally and racially) countries. A second (but perhaps equal) purpose is to accelerate and strengthen the progress of western societies to civil war.
His over-arching rationale is pure Alinsky:
“To agitate the political enemies of my people into action, to cause them to overextend their own hand and experience the eventual and inevitable backlash as a result.
To create an atmosphere of fear and change in which drastic, powerful and revolutionary action can occur.
To add momentum to the pendulum swings of history, further
destabilizing and polarizing Western society in order to eventually destroy the current nihilistic, hedonistic, individualistic insanity that has taken control of Western thought.
Finally, to create conflict between the two ideologies within the United States on the ownership of firearms in order to further the social, cultural, political and racial divide within the United states. This conflict over the 2nd amendment and the attempted removal of firearms rights will ultimately result in a civil war that will eventually balkanize the US along political, cultural and, most importantly, racial lines.”
Understanding that his methods are, like Breivik before him, intended to cause just the reactions that we see now, we may better understand the intent behind his slanderous citation of Candace Owens as his main radicalizing influence.
… the person that has influenced me above all was Candace Owens.
Each time she spoke I was stunned by her insights and her own views helped push me further and further into the belief of violence over meekness. Though I will have to disavow some of her beliefs, the extreme actions she calls for are too much, even for my tastes.
His seeming non sequitur in singling out Candace Owens as a figure of admiration, radicalization, and calls to excessive action is worth examining. After all, it is already being examined in great detail by those hostile to Owens, and to us, and who at any rate grew up in the same fever-swamps of communism and anarchism that the kook did.
Why would he say this? He sees himself as a “uniformed combatant” in a race war which he admits that few see as legitimate. His answer here is disingenuous, which is not only a handy thing for a supporter of Candace Owens (I am, I do) to say, but it is demonstrably true. Even if he is open-minded enough (he is evil, not stupid) to listen carefully to what Owens says despite her obvious (don’t tell anybody!) uh, blackness, his quip that she calls for actions too extreme even for him is a dead give-away. He is not merely trolling, as claimed by many half-correct analysts who unconvincingly attempt to dismiss this passage. Instead, this is a targeted attack against a very successful movement which is eroding one of the greatest racial divides in American history — the fifty-year political divide between blacks and whites. The last thing this kook wants is harmony, accord, and teamwork between people of different races. He winkingly refers to her “extreme” desires, while viciously painting her in his own uniform of racial hatered and polarization. His weaponized “claim” upon Owens affiliates him with her in the same way that grabbing a person to use as a bullet shield constitutes a friendly hug.
The action — the atrocity itself — is designed to terrorize potential Muslim migrants. The document, however, is designed to confound western democracies. Our corrupt western media’s refusal to cover this event honestly is falling right in line with the kook’s desires — as predicted.
Only honest and forthright discussion and analysis of the document and the evil kook who wrote it can defend against the inevitable abuse of good people by bad ones in positions of power.
Curse his name, but read the document, in order to understand how it is already being used against you.
The days when we could ignore things to any positive effect are gone. If you do not wish to view the doc, don’t worry — you don’t have to. After all, I did not view the video of the massacre*, but I am grateful for the efforts of those who did and were able to characterize the contents. But it is already widely viewed, and the “experts” in the media who do not share your interests, but who instead hate you and want to defeat you, will be more than happy to explain why it is your fault, and you should shut up , not read the document, and just let some more big government laws erode your remaining rights. As intended by the kook who wrote it.
He’s evil — not stupid.
* When video of the gruesome murder of Daniel Pearl surfaced, I decided not to watch it no matter what the various value might have been, and have never knowingly, intentionally watched the death of any human being except in say firefighting and damage control classes, or on the news or in similar settings. As Dennis Prager says, the real environmental catastrophe is the pollution of the soul. I am grateful for those who relate the facts from that particular frontier which I will not breach.
George Washington wrote something like “The United States has no quarrel with the Mussulman”, right before explaining that we did , however have a quarrel with the white-slaver Barbary Pirates interfering with our merchants, so, with the best will in the world, we’d be raising a Navy to scuttle ‘em as soon as we could get a Constitution. Sentiments distinguées, etc.
But that was back in the days when Muslim men (“Mussulmen”) were men! Those corsairs were a dashing lot! You could tell by looking at ‘em what their intentions were.
And who was more powerless than Muslim women? Scarcely even visible, in purdah, swaddled to the eyebrows when they did venture out. Not allowed to raise their eyes or voices to men.
i guess we still feel kinda sorry for them, don’t we? We still expect them to be timid and silent and deferential.
So we get a real frisson when they defy the received knowledge and run for office, in th process becoming foulmouthed purveyors of bigotry like the harridan Tlaib…but oh the spectacle of Omar, sporting the hijab, the very symbol of female inferiority, taking a seat in Congress ( thanks to her immigrant Somali constituency). We love that !
And Jew hatred? Uh, well…right! we can’t really imagine what she has gone through..
You‘ve come a long way, baby!
Wait: “baby”? In 2019 we don’t think of or treat women as infantilized (At least we didn’t till #metoo came along…)
Except Muslim women. There’s a feeling of how much they must have been through, how much they had to overcome. It’s like the line about a dog walking on its hind legs…
So we protect and coddle them, excuse and condone their bigoted remarks and Congress will even act to shield them from what, to any other politician, would be the inexorable consequences thereof.
No wonder the Muslim men plotting to gain cultural dominance in the US have sent their women out as the vanguard!
Personally my motto is “Balance”. This sounds better than “Symmetry” but that is a better word for the meaning I want. It does not mean moderation because I can be immoderate if I have someone balancing that out in my life. I can play offense as long as someone is running defense for me. “Don’t always talk and don’t always listen.”
In machines as with people, that loud noise you hear is a balancing problem.
As to Ratburger.org, I just hope are motto is “Don’t be stupid.” Easier said than done. A lot of what is great about this site is the dumb things we don’t do.
As for you, what is the small phrase or sentence that best describes your way of life or thinking?
This is actually as huge moment in the ebb and flow of Liberty, for which we are ever indebted and attuned to our common-law progenitors in the Scepter’d Isles.
This gets better and better as it goes, and the closer attention you pay, the more rewarding it is.
Listen to this, lie back, and think of England!
As the Speaker points out, he is not closing anything off here, but throwing down a glove. If the government does not come up with something better to talk about, they will face the prospect of sailing past March 29, the legally required Brexit date, with no deal, and without the fortitude to actually go. This would leave the UK, Ireland, the EU and the rest of the world in an awkward position, similar to the declared but largely unfought “phoney war” preceding main hostilities.
The government is overwhelmingly likely to come up with “something different” and then have it voted upon, but that does not change what happened here. A representative body has once again had enough of being worn as a prophylactic for the centralized government to dork the populace under cover of representation.
I once had a history teacher who said that all of history is the story of the centralization and decentralization of power. I have found this an immensely informative, illuminating lens through which to view the various factual accounts of history. It sheds light not only on the events of the times related, but on the biases of the person telling the story.
As the Speaker points out, this rule has not needed enforcing in over 100 years. This is, as he says, not because it is held in low repute, but because the rule (that you don’t drag the same damned thing through for vote after vote “until they get it right”) is held in such regard that it has not been necessary to block a vote on those grounds. Centralized government has either not dared to treat the representative body so poorly, or (as in WWII), House and Crown were probably aligned before a second vote. This event and its fallout over the next couple of weeks should reverberate through history.
Meanwhile, it’s nice to see it as it happpens. Click-bait headlines are everywhere. I feel that this time, the cheese is worth the snap.
I was wondering how people handle situation when they are seeing red and about to blow their tops. Everyone reacts differently. Actually getting angry can be one of the best things in one’s life. It gets people off the dime and going in the right direction.
If I sense I am losing it I try to slow down my speed of communication. I do this because when I get angry I am likely to write and say things that I will regret. It helps to go for a walk or talk to a friend to restore my cool.
What are your top five ways* to deal with anger?
I find it offensive when people who don’t know or care about a situation say stupid things like, “Calm down, Dude!” It reminds me of a saying a Japanese told me. “I can bare the suffering of 10,000 people easily.”
* If you are Irish, I will just assume that your number one way is getting drunk.
Okay, here’s what I think. I think that the MCAS (which pushes the nose down, even right into the ground), whether it’s an AoA sensor failure or a logic error, is such a late-breaking addition to the aircraft that it did not fit into promised benefits of the plane — namely (and this is the baseless part) a promise that pilots would not have to re-certify, or extend their type rating, or whatever it’s called.
If Boeing sold the planes based in part on the commonality of the platform not just in a general sense (parts, infrastructure, training, etc) but on a specific claim that pilots would not need to upgrade on some critical training piece, then this might explain why Boeing was so reluctant (as it seems) to disclose the new behavior of the aircraft.
Remember that the addition of MCAS only came about after certification testing for the airplane itself showed an unwanted nose-high moment at high angles of attack. Everybody agrees that’s a bad thing, like being drawn to a fall. So in order to get the airplane back into regs, they had to add this logic to the control machinery just to counteract this new upward-pithing moment, and only under specified conditions. Of course it was supposed to be invisible to the pilots — of course it was. So Boeing decided that pilots need not be bothered with additional training. After all, none of us get additional training when the anti-lock brake system on the new model of car is changed — we just keep driving, and let the regulators keep us safe.
Which is where this story really starts to go south. So to speak. Boeing convinced the FAA that the addition of MCAS made the plane safe without requiring pilot re-training. If this is the way it happened, then this is the real failure. It might also explain why the US was the last to ground the plane — the FAA also would very much like for this story to not be happening, in light of their involvement.
Boeing has over 5,000 orders for this plane. I suspect that figure is now out-of-date high.
I do not know what constitutes a change large enough to require a significant re-training for the pilots. But I think we’ll hear it soon enough.
Yuh, I’m white. That’s me in a very recent picture, in the little circle appearing at the end of this post.
Now, personally, the only way I can get slave ancestor creds is via the enslaved Irish people involuntarily transported to these shores.
But that’s not true with a lot of other white people, those who can claim Eastern European descent. That’s where we get the word “slave”: from “Slav”. (Or maybe vice-versa, but you take my point. )
My Irish slave ancestry bona fides come from the raids of the Barbary Pirates on the coastal villages of Ireland . Sometimes the entire village was taken.
And from the many Irish and Scots who came here as indentured servants.
But if you’re a Slav (and take my word for it, based on recent trips to Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Ukraine: you are very white, SPF 50 white!) then you know about the Ottoman practice of taking tribute in children each year, to train as the fearsome Jannissaries, cut off from their heritage and loyalties, the Sultan’s most ferocious troops, raised to fight and die in the service of his bloodthirsty, power-hungry creed.
O yes, I claim solidarity with my white race-kin kidnapped and enslaved by the devotées of Mohammad and /or by the English penal system,and I endorse my blood-right to reparation or vindication.
Are you laughing, O Ratty? Are you thinking: how hyperbolic, how ludicrous?
Betcha wouldn’t be, if a black person had posted this.
And no, it isn’t a joke on my part. Read it and jeer—or weep.
I hope this post does not come off as self-serving. (I would never wait on myself. The tips are lousy.) I occasionally get involved in things that turn out more to be the work of others than mine. This is why I am thankful.
I do appreciate the connection everyday I can have here. I get so much out of the experience of reading your stuff. You make the site what it is.
This next part is like saying water is wet. John Walker is a great programmer.
I write a weekly book review for the Daily News of Galveston County. (It is not the biggest daily newspaper in Texas, but it is the oldest.) My review normally appears Wednesdays. When it appears, I post the review here on the following Sunday.
By MARK LARDAS
Mar 12, 2019
The Great Escape is probably history’s most famous jailbreak. In 1944, 76 men tunneled out of a German prisoner of war (POW) camp. The escape has been discussed in many books, starting with escape participant Paul Brickhill’s 1950 book “The Great Escape.” It was also the subject of a 1963 movie.
“The Great Escape from Stalag Luft III: The memoir of Jens Müller,” by Jens Müller, is a first-person account of the escape by one of three men who successfully reached Allied lines during the escape.
The book covers more than the escape. It’s Müller’s story of life as a POW, starting with the flight when he was shot down through his return to Great Britain. Müller was Norwegian, studying engineering in Switzerland when World War II started in 1939. After the 1940 German invasion of Norway, Müller left school to join the Norwegian forces in exile.
He became a Spitfire pilot serving in a Royal Air Force Norwegian squadron. After escaping, he served as a flight instructor in Canada. Following World War II, he became an airline pilot for Norway’s national airline.
His account is brief and straightforward, told in the words of a man who spoke plainly. He writes with a matter-of-fact tone throughout the book, even when describing startling events. He describes a three-day ordeal in a life-raft in taciturn words, and downplays his risks during the escape (50 of the 73 men recaptured were shot by the Gestapo, including almost all non-British escapees).
He wrote these memoirs in 1946 in Norwegian. It was published as Tre Kom Tilbake (Three Returned), but the book and Müller were largely forgotten over the next seven decades. This is the first English translation of the book. It includes a foreword by Müller’s son, and is annotated by editor Asgeir Ueland. The annotations provide information a modern reader might not know and information available today, which was unknown to Müller.
“The Great Escape from Stalag Luft III” offers a fascinating look at the 1940s, recapturing the feel of both the war and postwar era. A brief read; it is interesting.
Mark Lardas, an engineer, freelance writer, amateur historian, and model-maker, lives in League City. His website is marklardas.com.