Friday, August 30, 2013


It occurs to me that our military leaders would be well within their rights to refuse an order to start a war with Syria. Their oath is to protect and defend the rule of law as embodied in the Constitution.  The geniuses who wrote our Constitution CLEARLY, beyond any hint of ambiguity, as a matter of principle, and as a result of having studied history, placed the responsibility for declaring war in the hands of Congress.  They KNEW that with that power vested in the hands of a small cabal the temptation to make war for personal or political gain would be too great to avoid unnecessary and costly conflicts which did not benefit the American people.

PARTICULARLY since we risk war with Russia--which almost certainly views Obama as a pussy, and which has already begun the process of preparing for conflict--this requirement makes a mountain of sense.

I have been disappointed at the seeming lack of courage and principle among our top military leaders on a number of topics and occasions, but perhaps this is one case where they grow some balls, and stop allowing the Executive to trample on the Constitution.  Our military has never refused orders before, but it has also never been commanded by someone who fundamentally did not like America, value our accomplishments, or give a rat's ass about the sacrifices he is asking of our men and women in uniform.

Monday, August 26, 2013

NSA, add-on note

You know, if your leaders still possess sufficient integrity to balk at the notion of granting aspiring totalitarians a perfect surveillance system--one in which, for example, NSA capabilities could be used to spy on political enemies for partisan political purposes--then you could yourselves approach Congress and ASK to be more heavily regulated, that more privacy protections be put in place.

This of course runs contrary to your organizational bent, but I ask again: what are you protecting?  If it is freedom, as codified in our national law in the Constitution, then you are going in the wrong direction.  You all know that 2 levels of contact is sufficient for almost all purposes.

You should also be intelligent enough to realize that 47 story skyscrapers do not collapse at the rate of gravity because the furniture caught on fire (somehow) and burned for 8 hours furiously.

Note to the NSA

Right after my last post I got this strong image of it being analyzed for hidden messages.  Do you do this?  Look for analogue, old school codes?  I suspect you do. You have superpowerful software algorithyms for this, no?

Let me ask this: who are you?  What do you believe?  If fanaticism is "a redoubling of effort, having lost sight of the original goal", have you not become fanatics of national security?  What are you protecting?  Freedom?  You are destroying it.  You are creating an apparatus of repression of a scale and sophistication that it makes simple phone tapping almost virtuous.  Even if you personally have good ethics, you can be fired, can you not?  You report to the President, do you not, who can sculpt your agency in any way he pleases?

I ask again: would the chaos of a nuclear detonation or mass biological attack not still be preferable to a perfect autocratic regime, in which the thirst for personal growth, for wholeness, for Goodness will go entirely unsatisfied?  In which we live like the automatons of the Thing's realm in "A Wrinkle in Time"?

You can "cure" cancer with bubonic plague.  You can prevent the replication of cancer cells by destroying the host.  But you cannot create life with death, and you cannot create freedom with tyranny.

Think carefully about the consequences of what you are doing.  What you did today, what you plan to do tomorrow.  What sort of world do you want your children--nieces, nephews--to live in?

Obama as homosexual/The future of freedom

I spent perhaps half an hour over the weekend reading what I could on allegations by Wayne Madsen that both Obama and Rahm-bo (the macho twinkle fairy) were members of  Man's Country, a gay club in Chicago.  Here is a link, typical of what you will find:

Yes, it is the Globe.  Yes, of course it is from a conspiracy website.  No, none of this is compelling in any way, if we don't grant the primary witnesses the sort of credibility needed.

What I will say though is that as I was reading this, I kept hearing in my mind radio transmissions from Benghazi: "WE ARE IN HEAVY CONTACT.  REQUEST IMMEDIATE FIRE SUPPORT.  DO YOU COPY?"  I heard the machine gun fire, and RPG's.  And then I saw someone muting the microphone, switching to a video feed, and doing absolutely nothing.  These transmissions were treated with the coldness of Det. Hoffman of Saw watching one of his victims die in agony and fear.

Clearly, two gay men from Obama's church were killed in "execution style".  This is not disputed by anyone.  A third died of apparent illness within the short time window in which the other two died.

Let me ask a simple question: given how little we otherwise know about Obama, why couldn't he be someone who gets gay sex on the "down low" as they say?  More disturbingly, why couldn't he have people in his circle who are capable of arranging murders?  I have always thought it odd that his grandmother died on the day of his election.  Why not go there, and wonder if her death was murder?  Why not allow ourselves, at least in principle, to believe the very worst of Obama?  Do you think ordinary Germans were capable of imagining the horrors of Auschwitz?  They had nothing like it in their history.  No one did, although the Soviets came close in the worst of their camps.

When you look at the treatment of Obama's patently falsified birth certificate by the complicit media, and REALLY contemplate it, it seems we are already living in an Orwellian state.  Yes, there is opposition, but it is largely irrelevant.  In fact, to the extent that we provide an object of hatred, we are USEFUL for the people who otherwise control the entire narrative--the whole worldview, sense of truth--for the majority of Americans.  They need a focal point to distract people not just from their blatant and on-going failures, but from their aggressive efforts to end the role of the Constitution outright, to implement massive, blanket propaganda in favor of tyranny.  As Commander in Chief, Obama is already on all accounts trying to indoctrinate our soldiers to believe that people who talk about human rights are somehow the descendants not of the people who created the most just nation in the history of the Earth, but rather of Southern Democrats who hated black people and burned crosses and lynched them to create compliance with their own agenda.

I will say this: if the full power of the American government is turned on the American people, it will be hard to resist.  They have nearly perfect informational efficiency, they have detailed social maps, they have names and addresses.  They can track cell phones.  There are cameras everywhere.  All freeways are monitored.

Our future depends upon those WITHIN the system who retain a commitment to freedom, and to the rule of law which enables it.  We depend on military leaders and police leaders, who perhaps out of political necessity offer lip service support to Obama's totalitarian agenda, but who fully intend the opposite of compliance when asked to attack American citizens.  We depend on people within our spy agencies who retain an actual sense of patriotism, who actually believe in freedom.

We need people with unusual skills, like former Special Operations personnel, to have plans, and networks.  OF COURSE you are being watched.  This is a logistical problem solved with low tech means.

And who watches the watchers?  Imagine the logistical demands political paranoia places on those who fear all dissent and resistance.  They have to watch the people watching the people watching the people, and until a patently illegal or immoral order is given, they can't know who will comply with certainty.  That is perhaps the only reason we still have our freedom.

Don't you wonder if FBI or NSA agents asked to monitor people for clearly political reasons sometimes ask themselves how on earth their integrity became so compromised?  They are acting like the Gestapo, even if they are not yet arresting people purely for political dissent.

I would encourage anyone who has not seen it to watch the German movie "The Lives of Others".

This is a time when it is appropriate to be afraid, but there remain many people loyal to the American Dream.  Many have simply been duped by Obama.  The people we need to worry about constitute in my view much less than 10% of the populace, and likely less than 1%.  Still, the capacity for centralized command and control by a small elite has never been greater.

Stay on your toes.

Sunday, August 25, 2013

Google Glass

Imagine if everyone were required to wear these all the time.  You would easily meet the informational requirement for a perfect tyranny.  All you need do is add Fascists.  Any variety--nationalistic or class-oriented--will do.

Google's informal motto is "Don't be evil".  The interesting thing, though, is that anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of hypnosis, and how the unconscious processes language, understands that our deepest recesses cannot hear negatives.  They will process this as "be evil".  This is simple hypnotic fact.  If you say "Don't speak" when someone is in a deep trance, people will speak.

This, in any event, is my understanding.

I will add that most Germans under Hitler, and quite likely a very high percentage of the denizens of Communist regimes-after all the talented individuals had been arrested, killed, or tortured into submission--accepted the status quo.  Given the choice of freedom in the United States, Ayn Rand's sister returned to the Soviet Union.

Freedom only means anything when you are not in lockstep with your neighbors.  If you do not value individuality, if you do not relish the struggles of personal growth, if you do not value a tradition or path which is out of the mainstream, then you do not need what the rest of us call freedom.  Your freedom is a cage, and someone who will always tell you what to do and what to think.

It is an empirically documented fact that in totalitarian regimes people can get addicted to propaganda.  They know on some level that it is between misleading and outright lies, but they can't live without it.  It synchronizes them.  It soothes them.  I would submit that in the present United States, we are quite advanced along this path.  Matt Lauer is a congenial person--or knows how to present himself as one--but we continue to borrow 40% of the massive sums that the Federal government is spending.  We continue to allow Obama to trample the law.  We continue to tolerate all of the precursors of a perfect police state.  Nobody wants to hear about any of these things, or if they are made unavoidable by the fact that Fox continues to tell at least some of the truth, people want the stories sanitized.  They WANT to be lied to, and there are plenty of folks out there only too happy to oblige them.

I would question whether they allow actual individualists at Google, or whether one would want to work there.  No doubt there is great diversity of clothing, "lifestyle", race (of course), but I wonder how well accepted anyone would be who considers abortion to be not a choice, but the murder of an unborn child that IS qualitatively different from the removal of a gallstone or wisdom tooth.  How well accepted would someone be who values their religion--which teaches that homosexuality is wrong--over the culture we are all taught in school?

Saturday, August 24, 2013

Getting in touch with your inner Spider

I had an odd experience the other day.  As I have almost certainly mentioned, I encounter evil in dreams on occasion, with Voldemort being likely the most common.  I have conquered him on a number of occasions, and he causes me no fear when he appears.

The night before this happened, I had dreamed incidentally of him.  He was there, but not in a contextually important way.  Anyway, I was thinking about the need to INTEGRATE him, to get in touch with my dark side, establish open communication, and eventually to clean the place out with good clean light.

I had stopped to gas up.  This thought occurred to me between getting out of my car, and reaching the pump.  The moment I got to the pump a huge spider lowered itself from the top.  It is the biggest spider I can recall seeing outside the zoo since I was a kid when we saw a tarantula in Arizona.  It was at least 3" from (let's call them) spidertip to spidertip, and probably 4-5".  I don't have a particular fear of spiders, but when they get to a certain size the thought of them crawling on me still freaks me out a bit.  It came down, hovered a moment, then scampered back up. It felt like a synchronicity to me, but of course it can be interpreted in any way a person desires.

I have been activating and encouraging a feeling of hatred and anger in myself.  I am looking at it.  We all want to view such feelings as foreign to us.  Towards this end one of the most common strategies is to project outward, then blame inappropriate, unhelpful, or unnecessary reactions on factors at work "out there".  Criminals had to react the way they did: what other choice did they have?  You would have done the same thing in their shoes.  Maybe, maybe not.

I look at people like Oprah Winfrey and Al Sharpton, and they have inner spiders.  They have ugly, repulsive, slimy, clinging, violent content in their characters.  We all do, but in their particular cases, this has more generalized consequences.

Oprah, for example, wants to live in the past.  She wants to run what was once a thriving media empire, without EVER engaging black people in the places that REALLY matter to them.  Her shows have always been for white people.  She doesn't want to deal with ghetto violence, or the fact that the kids in these places grow up in hellholes.  She wants to gloss all that over, and return to a time and place of clearly recognizable stereotypes and roles.

In my view, leftists in general uses  political talking points--I can't grant Leftism the status of a philosophy, outside of the moral imperative of conformity--to avoid dealing with the darkest aspects of their own psyches.

They can hate the Right for allegedly hating others, usually with ZERO evidence.  Psychologically, though, this works.  I think this trend is most pronounced in the post-cultural--those who have offered up all shreds of inherited identity--but is clearly present everywhere.

On the right, as an example, does the charge of being cold not sometimes carry truth with it?  Is it not sometimes true that we DON"T care about the sufferings of others? Or being excessively intellectual: is this not a form of violence?

At any rate, this process is helpful for me.  I have found the whole Saw series very therapeutic.  I have in the last few days identified with the Detective Hoffman of Saw V.  It is an evil, but it is an evil I need to see, since I "have it" too.  We all do, and can only innoculate ourselves against it by seeing it, accepting it, then building light around it; by allowing free perceptual motion, and allowing our inner healers to do their work.

I'm about to watch Saw VI.  As always, I am a bit squeamish, but actually have grown to look forward to these "experiential" exercises, to see what flows.  I have learned that if hate flows, to accept it.

I will add, in this regard, that the most active hate-mongers are precisely those who think they are not proffering hate at all, but fact.  Rightists do not hate leftists, in general, but they sure as hell hate us, and view the whole process as something close to "scientific".  Communists actually use that word.

As an end note, it would be interesting to see Oprah--who might actually consider it--do a few Holotropic Breathwork sessions, if she approached them with sincerity (you can "come down" at any time just by avoiding the breath for a few minutes).

Thursday, August 22, 2013

Preexisting Conditions

I get angry sometimes at how stupid people are.  It may be that I am smarter--at my best--than most people, but there are many issues that really aren't that complex.

Coming to a health insurance company you have paid no premiums to, and with whom you have no previous relationship, with cancer, is no different than coming to a car insurance company you have never paid a nickel with a car you just wrecked, and asking them to pay for it.

Insurance is risk-pooling.  Once a risk has become manifest, it is not longer risk-pooling: it is charity.

Without exaggeration, I can say that Obama, by forcing insurance companies to pass the costs along of people who were either unable to purchase insurance policies (because of Democrat and Union sponsored legislation prohibiting selling directly to end users, as in California), or unwilling to so, is adding the insurance premiums of everyone else to the Welfare roles of this country.  We are subsidizing, more or less directly, those who either made bad choices, or were prohibited by law from making good ones.  Our insurance premiums should literally be seen as a sort of coerced expansion of Medicaid.

One can call this clever, while retaining a clear sense that the underlying psychopathology is profound.  This is nuts.  It is insane.  We have much better options, that work to everyone's benefit, rather than working to equalize all of us in mediocrity and bankruptcy.

My own treatment of this topic is here.

Feel free to steal from it in whole or part, and use for anything but deception and fraud.  I make no claims of ownership on the contents.

Democrats and protecting American workers

There was a time when Democrats actually stood for workers, rather than the union bosses and the campaign contributions they are able to bring.

I just did work at several construction job sites in Arizona and Texas, and it dawned on me that it is ODD, not that the vast bulk of workers were Hispanic, but that most of them did not speak English.  Are they illegal?  If so, why are they working?  Are they citizens?  If so, why the hell don't they speak English?  And if they have Green Cards, why?  We are not suffering from a labor shortage.  On the contrary, we are suffering the longest period of high unemployment that has afflicted this nation since the LAST time we handed the government over to socialists during the Depression they made Great.

Australia has very high relative labor wages, and I don't doubt that a big part of it is due to a relative imbalance in favor of workers.  They have few people relative to the work they have to do.  This drives wages up.  What we have in  America is the opposite.

One electrician I talked with left Austin because there were Hispanics--again, folks that don't speak English--who were willing to work as journeyman electricians for what most native-born Americans get as apprentices ($15/hour in this case).

How is the on-going effort by the Democrats to make this situation permanent not a patent abrogation of ANY sense of responsibility to the "working man"?  OF COURSE it is a betrayal.  The current crop of Democrats fundamentally hates America, and this includes American workers, particularly white American workers.

There was a time when a sober person could believe that the Democrats were looking out for the little guy.  That time has long passed.

Godwins Law updated

I propose that the decontextualized accusation of racism be treated as a de facto admission of intellectual bankruptcy.

As I think about it, I see the word Fascist far less now than I did under Bush. It has perhaps lost its rhetorical effectiveness, not least becsuse those who used to use it most are now in the position of defending governmental overreach of an extent never even contemplated under Bush.

Home is where the heart is

I got this for a fortune cookie a couple of weeks ago, and it occurred to me that if you can find your home in YOUR heart, then you are always home, no matter where you go.

This is possible.  I have mentioned Kum Nye a number of times, and will discuss this further on a day on which I have not overindulged in the sleep vitamin.

Monday, August 19, 2013


Im sitting here, wondering how best to marshall and oeganize my energies to defeat the materialistic paradigm, and all the profoundly bad--entropic--consequences which flow from it, and I want. somebody to ask, someone to show me the way. Then it occurs to me that someone has to have the ideas. If it is not me, it must be someone else( inrealitu, of course, many someones, or so I hope), and the price THAT person will pay will also be solitude, and the necessity of learning to accept ambiguity, and to adapt behavior to feedback; to learn, to try again, snd again accept doubt and uncertainty as a necessary consequence of doing the thing right.

Sunday, August 18, 2013


I was talking with a couple of Moldovan women tonight, here on what amounts to work/study in the United States. They are both going to be sad when they leave. I think those of us who are free and prosperous forget how unfree and poor much of the world is. I asked about Mafia, and they said the government is the mafia. They are corrupt. We forget in America that the world over many opportunities only go to people who belong to certain groups.

This was the same thing an African cab driver told me. I want to say he was from Eritrea, but I can't recall for certain. What I do recall is that most jobs were only available to a certain group. Those who were not members of that group were subjected to racism much worse than that visited on Southern blacks during the worst of Jim Crow. For his part, he loved how in America anyone willing to work hard could get ahead.

That is absolutely, categorically not true to this very day in much of the world. It is sickening to me, in those rare occasions when I allow myself to think about it, how awful insults are which the Left levels against what is in nearly all respects the most humane, decent nation ever to bless the planet. It is our very compassion and humanity which they wield as weapons against us. This is evil.


I was apparently mistaken in claiming that Hasting's car engine was found behind the car. It is still a very odd thing how far from the crash site it was found. Here is what appears to me to be a good treatment of the topic:

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Brennan and Hastings

Today, an intrepid San Diego reporter reported that current CIA-chief Brennan was the target of Michael Hastings before he was killed in very suspicious circumstances. To my mind, the salient piece of information is that even though he was allegedly killed when his car collided at high speed with a tree, his engine was BEHIND the car by a hundred feet or more. To state the obvious: objects in motion tend to stay in motion. This is a basic principle of inertia learned by most high school students.

The allegation is that Brennan, while employed as a "counter-terrorism" czar was apparently engaged in the suppression of free speech. The use of the alleged threat of terrorism has in my view proven a very useful tool in the shrinking of civil liberties. It has allowed a metastasizing State to take away basic rights right in front of us, and has gotten a pass even from alleged conservatives, since it is "for our own protection". Yet, as I have shown, Tower 7 MUST have been brought down with explosives, which makes the standard narrative of 9/11 simply untenable, and the involvement of would-be totalitarians a near-certainty.

Now, the link is gone. I can't access it. It was here:

This nation is falling into a Fascist dictatorship as I write. The Left loves Obama because he can't do any wrong because he is an apparently articulate half Negro. The right lets him get away with Constitutional abuses because they are cowards, and because they still buy this nonsense about terrorism, and the nonsense about the drug war--which also facilitated the initial development of a surveillance State, and relaxed rules regarding search and seizure. Our enemies live on Wall Street. They live in high priced luxury suites, and influence policy nearly at will.

Whoever you are, keep speaking. You will be silenced when speech is no longer possible. We are still far from that point. Don't be a coward. This war is far from over.

Voter ID Laws

One point only: any argument that the requirement to prove you are registered to vote is "racist" is ipso facto racist, because it is claiming that black people, in particular, are too STUPID to do the things the rest of us take for granted. In my view there is no other way to look at this. There is no ambiguity. I am, to be clear, not claiming this to be the case. I think black people can and should be held to the same standards as whites. It is the NAACP that is making this argument.

Monday, August 12, 2013

Whistle Blowing

I want to make one point only: no secrety order, no gag order, no requirement to remain silent is legal if it is intended EITHER to cover up patently illegal activities, or the full transparency required by law for all governmental agencies. Even if an activity is not illegal, per se, all governmental activites--including all military activities--are to done in the open at some level of security clearance. Any act to cover anything up for political purposes is ILLEGAL, and whistleblowers for that reason alone should be immune from prosecution. Congress: fight some offense, you cowardly pieces of shit. Go find the people who know something and protect them.

Wednesday, August 7, 2013


I don't like divulging my locations--they tend to be sundry, as I am a traveling man--but I will admit to being in Scottsdale for business. Not that sort of business--no suit, no golf shoes.

As it happens, I have some connection with Phoenix. A salient memory was this sense of feeling superior because I read dense books (I didn't understand). As I begin--baby steps, very beginning, Beginner's Mind because I KNOW I am stupid--to find a better way of living, one thing that has become clear to me is the extent to which the rejection of others was protective. Insular intellectualism is a form of weakness. We are fortunate in America that the "intellectual" is not a cultural icon. We are in my view quite literally better off viewing people like Jerry Rice (my favorite all-time football player, although Joe Montana is a very close second) as heroes than assholes like Sartre and Noam Chomsky. The former do not make us smarter; the latter make us stupider.

I will state as a general guideline that it is ALWAYS preferable to remain in place to going backwards.

Anyway, I was enjoying a pleasant evening at a pleasant night spot, and watching the people. You know what? People are people. Most people have a short list of emotional drivers, and think only as much as they have to. This is OK. This is BETTER than people who think compulsively, particularly if they are imbibing the pessimism and angst of the last century of intellectualism.

I remember sitting next to a guy at a bar who was more or less trying to read the Penguin Classics. To him, this was the way life should be lived. To me, I was thinking that virtually the entire output of fiction and art generally from roughly 1850 to the present has tended to make of life something puzzling or infuriating, or saddening, for which there is no answer. Not to put too fine a point on it, this is unhelpful. I will discuss my meditative discoveries in another post, but suffice it to say that Existentialism was invented 2,500 years ago, except that the thinkers then were competent, and dealt effectively with the consequences of their ideas.

Anyway, the evening out ended with two completely random women paying for my meal and drink. Maybe they just watched "Pay it forward". Maybe I looked poor (yes: I am not a clothes hound). Maybe I looked disconsolate (even though I was quite enjoying the after-effects of what I had at the time thought was a weak meditation; as often happens, I go outside, and everything looks different). Whatever it was, it was a nice thing to do. This has never happened to me, and my server was surprised too.

I will ask this: what is more profound, wanting to do something nice for someone; or struggling through a Ph.D thesis on some obscure facet of Jude the Obscure? What best works to build a better society? Who is more likeable?

I may go so far as to describe myself not as an "aspiring curmudgeon", as I once did, but a recovering one.

And Thank You, two random ladies.


I read this article in an article on Scientism by Steven Pinker in the New Republic. .My issue is simple: he has conflated speculation--unexamined paradigms--with Science outright. Our best evidence is that the mind and brain are severable. This evidence is empirical and scientifically repeatable. It belongs within the realm of what is called science, but it will not be included by mediocre and haughty minds like his. Our best evidence is that the universe is interactive, that it specifically interacts with our minds; that we in some measure cocreate what is called reality. Mediocre and haughty intellects refuse to examine the implications of this idea. They assume because it is convenient for them that whatever they are studying is "out there", and not "in here". They assume their minds can someone be objective, when our best evidence is that this is a fanstastical notion, every bit as irrational as the belief that Christ occupies the host. These people frustrate me, because they lie constantly while proclaiming their love of truth. If they were willing to examine ALL the evidence on all topics which has been produced honestly--take as one example the evidence for Remote Viewing--then they could be called scientists. This would be a most excellent thing. I have among other things often thought that morality itself is a matter for science--not in the sense of studying neurons, but in studying the correspondance between cognitive inputs and behavioral outputs, and affective health and well being. Buddhism is scientific, in a formal way, at least in its premises and many of its practices. Until honesty prevails, though, such people are merely clever technicians: of words or experiment, it doesn't matter. They don't warrant much respect, nor does the worldview which arises from their demonstrably wrong empirical assumptions. There is no room in science for assumptions. There is simply empirical and non-empirical. They live in the realm of the non-empirical, while claiming the contrary. This makes them hypocrites of the worst sort.


One of the greatest propaganda victories of our recent history is the idea that when two ideas seemingly oppose one another, that the "true truth" is "somewhere in the middle". This is a patent falsehood. If I stipulate that gravity operates at 9.8 meters squared per second, and you claim it is 5 meters, the truth is not about 7.5. But practically, in public dialoguq, leftwing radicals get away with this constantly. What they do, to be clear, is abuse the goodwill of honest people to make lies plausible. They take everything that works in America--our fundamental honesty, decency, concern with doing "the right thing--and pervert it in the interests of an insane appetite for power, the only good they know. What I would propose here is that truth is more like the bullseye on a dart board, and various guesses best understood as relatively closer or farther from the center. Now, it can happen that two guesses are equidistant from the center, but on opposite sides. This is the ONLY case where the idea that the truth is somewhere in the middle would be true. Most of the time, different guesses would share many common accurate ideas, but differ both in the exact details of their mistakes and their accuracies. To further complicate this idea, but bring it closer to my view of reality, imagine both the guesses and the truth they are trying to approximate as being little swirls of smoke, in constant rotation, and drifting here and there, sometimes dramatically. What is an accurate truth today could become quite wrong tomorrow. What was actual racism in the past is in almost all cases today a simple concern with truth, the future, and common decency. And when speaking of moral truths, they are based upon the ideals actually in place. The present America cannot be judged by its past ideals. If one wants, as an example, to look at our treatment of the Indians, one must also look at the activities of all other nations at that time, and the ideals informing them. One must look at the Belgian Congo, and Rhodesia. One must look at the slave states of the Islamic world, and the serfdom of Russian peasants. If one studies actual American history, and compares it to the world, the simple fact is that our nation has been by far the most principled, idealistic nation in human history, even if we have often failed to adhere to our ideals. The point is that these ideals can be invoked, and people CARE. That is how leftist propaganda operates: it uses words with high meaning content to Americans to trick them, and is thus most effective precisely on those people who LEAST need to be upping the moral ante. One can't use the propaganda used here in Russia. One can't use it in China. One can't use it in the Middle East, or any Islamist nation. One can't use it in most of Africa, where tribal loyalties continue to make the most vicious sorts of racism and social exclusion ubiquitous. The truth of a moral intention is its sincerity. Do you actually want to improve the world? That is good. However, as I state over and over and over: you are NOT sincere--you are a sanctimonious asshole--if your actions are not constantly rconciled with the actual OUTCOMES of the ideas you espouse. If you claim to oppose racism, but persistently assume as a matter of course that black people are inferior, then you are worse than open racists. You are worse than the KKK, who were at least open about their aims. What has been the effect of half a century of what is called "compassion" by the thoroughly disingenuous? Hell. That, has been the outcome. Detroit. East St. Louis. East Palo Alto. Philadelphia. Trayvon Martin.