…almost 140 years after Darwin’s seminal book, we do not understand the powers and limitations of natural selection, we do not know what kinds of complex systems can be assembled by an evolutionary process, and we do not even begin to understand how selection and self-organization work together to create the splendor of a summer afternoon in an Alpine meadow.
The Islamist Dream: The Decline Of Western Civilization
The West has signed its own death warrant.
Evidence supporting that statement is obvious: errant Muslims have swamped the immigration systems of Europe, and are on track to overwhelm the ethical and legal traditions of those nations. They intend to do the same in the Western Hemisphere.
Can the West be conquered by violence? Clearly not. Therefore set aside for the moment the sporadic violence perpetrated by suicidal Muslim maniacs. The real threat — which is slow and incredibly difficult to halt because it is preferred by fanatics who are grimly determined to wage a “war” that can drag on for generations — is the Islamic push to use democracy (of whatever variety) to set aside Liberty and impose Sharia.
If you believe those claims are not true, do pay careful attention to this information.
Muslims always out-breed Westerners by approximately a factor of four. Some authorities say that while women in the USA each have almost exactly the average 2.1 children (thanks to Hispanic immigrants), Muslim women have an average of at least eight children each. This newsletter leaves it to you to use a good search engine to discover the range of estimates.
In Europe in particular, Muslims often voluntarily express the intent to out-breed the infidels, take over their political systems, alter national policies, and destroy Israel. Those threats could be ignored if Islam did not harbor a fanatical fraction of would-be martyrs who are eager to die in order to intimidate and kill Islam’s neighbors.
Your next task is making sense of the horror. Mark Steyn, in an audio lecture, discusses the really important international developments. His wisdom is highly recommended.
Finally, do remember that Islam is roughly six centuries younger than Christianity. The faith inspired by Jesus and created by Paul went through eras stained by authoritarianism, dictatorial governance, devastating warfare, terror, witch hunts, unbelievable torture, as well as rabid hatred of diverse Christian sects, Jews, infidels, and Muslims. Perhaps Islam’s ethics, very much like Christian principles, will eventually mature and commit fully to tolerance and peace on earth.
The Criminal Justice System On Trial
Hillary’s problems with email are multiplying, as reasonable people suspected they might — if it were possible to produce the electronic messages themselves.
That has apparently happened. Do view this interview of Julian Assange, the head of Wikileaks.
(Viewers of the video should know two things: first, it is provided by the Russian RT network. That means it is not utterly objective; in fact, much of what appears on RT is intended to embarrass the USA and its allies, and/or promote the interests of Putin’s Russia. Second, the interviewer and Assange are both afflicted with what appears to be the opinion that if they speak clearly, they will be thought fools. One must listen, for the vocal idiosyncrasies of the two men sometimes obscure their words.)
Of course the effect of Assange’s work will depend on the answers to a number of questions. First, US voters should decide whether to believe Assange. Is he a liar?
This newsletter considers his mannerisms repulsive, but that is not germane to the issue of his veracity.
Second, one should ask whether the Wikileaks organization has ever lied to the public; evidently it has not, but that question cannot be definitively answered in the negative.Ultimately, some might say the only way one can attempt to gather information on how the email messages in question were handled would be to “interview” all of Hillary’s staff and correspondents. The FBI tried that, and made some errors, so at this point, a second attempt to conduct a proper investigation would probably prove futile. True, it might identify those who (1) can be reduced to tears by psychologically scarring interrogation and (2) those willing to go al paredon for the Dragon Lady, but how would that benefit the commonweal?
Nevertheless, a decision must be made by each citizen. Accordingly, this newsletter cringes as it admits the off-putting Assange holds damning evidence. This newsletter is convinced that Hillary should be arrested, indicted, and put on trial. She broke the law in tragically important ways.
By all means watch the interview and see whether you agree.
Then consider this newsletter’s opinion:
It might seem as if Hillary’s stupidity, hubris, and lies have caught up with her. Whether justice will be served is, however, seriously to be doubted. First of all, the cover-up began some time ago; it continues as the FBI clams up and Congress tries to pry open files that itbelieves it has the right to see.
That explains the rush to grant some of Hillary’s household helpers immunity from prosecution while others refuse to testify. The problem is simple and devastatingly difficult to solve: Hillary’s connections are numerous and powerful; she will call them in and rage at them if she feels she must. First she will insist she cannot possibly be rebuked, let alone tried; no one seated around her campfire will doubt that. Then she will implicitly threaten her minions and connections with loss of influence if they abandon her.
In Washington DC, there is no more effective threat. Only those who are utterly convinced Hillary has come to the end of her career will find the courage to shrug off her theatrics.
Well. The public has been granted a peek at how cronyism can work. Perceptive voters will take that glimpse of reality as a prediction that what could come would mock the fundamental ethics of the land. Shielded by the conspiratorial reflexes of federal workers who are little more than toadies in thrall to Hillary or to one of her satraps, federal office-holders and employees under President Hillary would feel free to abuse their power.
Remember: the federal Department of Justice stated that it would never volunteer to prosecute Hillary; then it added that the FBI, which is an investigative, not a prosecutorial entity that is accustomed to deciding when to take criminals to trial, would be tasked with that decision.
Now if Hillary is too big for the Justice Department, how can the FBI possibly call for her prosecution? The lawyers’ message to the federal cops was received, understood perfectly, and acted upon.
Further, everyone knows Hillary is likely to win the election, and what FBI director would be stupid enough to ignore that fact?
What has happened so far looks a bit like a feminist’s adaptation of Eric A. Blair’s dystopian novel 1984.
Certainly the obscene scramble to shelter Big Sister is toxic to the civil service, as well as a horrible example to young people who are eager to serve their nation.
Hillary’s True Believers need to learn that building careers by being “loyal” not to the public, but to power-hungry rascals, is actually debauchery.
The Value Of Political Debates
People relish contests, which is why sports pit people against each other. As much fun as that can be for the audience, political debates do tend to generate much more heat than light.
A better way to evaluate the ethics, goals, plans, and value of political candidates is to subject the aspirants to the probing of an intelligent interviewer.
Answering questions is close to the process involved in making policy and dealing with negative outcomes. It’s infinitely more difficult than making speeches. In a proper interrogation, the aspiring leader is not allowed any wiggle room; in a debate, (s)he is invited to bloviate.
This Will Provoke Open Hilarity And Private Loathing In The Halls Of Power
By all means see what the folks at The Convention Of States are doing. It’s monumental, to say the least.
Trump Has An Issue That Will Be Hard To Press
When the GOP candidate noted that in the event that the US Federal Reserve raises interest rates “even a little bit”, the result would be a disastrous crash of stock prices, he was on target. That issue certainly could be effective against virtually any Democrat; the problem with it, however, is that most voters don’t understand finance and economics well enough to resonate with Trump’s sentiments. In fact the politicization of the Federal Reserve should be a source of great concern to everyone in the world. Trump has a point, but driving it home will be difficult.
If you are curious, enter the words “federal reserve interest stock prices” in a good search engine, dodge all the pesky advertisements tossed at you, and try understanding what you find. (Here’s an example.) It’s a complex and controversial subject.
Links Courtesy Of The Desert Rat
Here’s an interesting quote from Front Page Magazine:
As Eve Stiglitz, the Orthodox founder of Jews Choose Trump, put it, this is the choice of more traditional and religious Jews who “put Judaism before their liberalism, whereas more secular Jews who are not as connected to Judaism or to Israel put liberalism before their Judaism. Some elections come down to policies and issues. Others delineate who you are.”
Math is hard! A clash between science and the fair sex.
Links Courtesy Of The Tramp Abroad
Should one thank the US Federal Department Of Transportation for stringent car safety regulations or the Ford corporation for building a safe car? The driver allegedly walked away from this crash with only a small laceration on his head.
Sibel Edmonds is an American journalist with an Azerbaijani-Iranian background. She had a short stint with the FBI as a translator/interpreter. She blew the whistle on some shady things she saw at the FBI, got fired, and turned into an investigative journalist who has Fethullah Gülen, the CIA and the Clintons in her sights. (See these videos: One and Two). Some observers claim she is an Erdoğan mole; I see her as more independent.
Has Fethullah Gülen seen the light or is he just trying to save his skin? Readers of German can see this. Meanwhile I am looking for an English-language article with the same content.
Big US news organizations like CNN are happy to tell you who, according to all the polls, won the first Trump – Hillary debate. Are those summaries accurate? If you assume they are, have a look at this.
Amazing: this weblog post is still available, after twelve years! John Kerry and NBC ignored it from the first, of course, but…as somebody said, “…the evil that men do lives after them”.
US voters: consider the alternative.
US Representative from South Carolina Trey Goudy asked some questions of Hillary, and the video of that is highly significant. Don’t focus on the words — pay attention to the faces of Goudy and Clinton as the interaction between the two proceeds. That will tell you a lot more than you might want to admit.
This is a good documentary dealing with the history of the personal computer.
Newt Gingrich is an example of a staunch Republican who has apparently been seduced by Donald Trump. A lot of Republicans won’t follow Newt’s example, and for many swing voters, Trump is no Ronald Reagan. It will be interesting to see whether many nominal Democrats and disillusioned Republicans decide that their refusal to support Trump is tacit support of a far worse candidate.
Penn Gillette discusses some of his views on ethics and religion as they apply to politics. He makes a lot of good points and ignores a few of the implications of his opinions. The short video is recommended as thought-provoking.
Newt Gingrich again: he made some trenchant predictions before the Trump – Clinton debate. In retrospect, they provide valuable context.
What do you call it when mass media are encouraged, and their content is very strictly controlled? The answer: Fascism. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Franco — they all wanted pervasive media that were tightly regulated. That defines “Tweety”, or whatever the dratted thing is called; do see this. Freedom of speech and press are not available on the “social media” (stupid name!).
Commentary, a periodical this newsletter highly recommends, asks: “…why is it that we’re counseled to be prudent in discussing possible terrorism but are called names if we don’t immediately judge a police shooting an act of racist murder?” Subscribe here.
The masthead includes a quote from the works of Stuart Kauffman.