Thursday, March 17, 2016

How Trump will get the Post-March 15 Delegates He Needs to Win the GOP Nomination

     As of March 15, Donald Trump has gained 693 of the 1,237 delegates he’ll need to win the Republican presidential nomination, putting him 544 delegates short of his goal.  With only 1,041 delegates still up for grabs, he’ll have to win at least 53% of the remaining delegates before he can grab the nomination.  How can he do it?
     I poured over many opinion polls and finally settled on an on-line polling site called isidewith.com.  Isidewith.com has two major advantages: It’s fairly consistent with other polls, and—unlike other polls—it’s updated every few minutes.
     The chart you see below was actually my working paper; but I saw no reason to redo it.  If you find any errors, please let me know.  Now let’s jump into my findings.
(Click image for full-size image)
     As I said, Trump has already won 693 of the 1,237 delegates he needs to win (Source: Wikipedia), which puts him 544 delegates away from his goal. 
     First let’s look at the winner-take-all (with no ifs, ands, or buts) states.  Even in a three-way race, Trump enjoys double-digit leads in all five winner-take-all states for which polling data are available.  The only polling data of any kind I can find for South Dakota* (with 29 winner-take-all delegates) includes Democrats, Republicans, candidates, and former candidates.)  Here are the five states, with their number of delegates in parentheses: Arizona (58), Indiana (57), Nebraska (36), Montana (27), and New Jersey (51).
     Those five states will likely give Trump 229 delegates.  By the math, this puts Trump 315 delegates away from his goal.  Subtracting 229 from the 1,041 delegates still up for grabs, Trump has to get only 39% of the remaining 812 delegates. 
     Now let’s look at the states where delegates are winner-take-all if the winner gets more than 50% of the vote (otherwise, delegates are allotted proportionally.)  They are Utah (40) and Connecticut (28).  Probably no one will get 50% of the vote in Utah, so I’m calculating that Trump will get at least 16 of Utah’s 40 delegates.  He’ll take all of Connecticut’s 28 delegates.  These 44 delegates will put Trump 271 delegates away from his goal.     
     Now let’s look at the three states that will allocate delegates proportionally.  They are Oregon (28), Washington (44, but only to candidates with 20% or more of the vote), and New Mexico (24).  I calculate that Trump will win 16 delegates in Oregon, 23 in Washington, and 13 in New Mexico, for a total of 52 delegates, putting him 219 delegates away from his goal.
     Finally, setting aside Colorado’s 37 “unbound” delegates (the mention of which recalls bitter memories of the disgraceful behavior of party leaders at the 2012 (or was it 2008?) convention), let’s look at the winner-take-all (split) states.  Some are a combination of winner-take-all and proportional (WTA/).  They are Wisconsin (42), New York (95), Maryland (38), Pennsylvania (71), and West Virginia (34).  In California (172), congressional districts are winner-take-all (WTA/CD).  Together, these six states will send 452 delegates to the National GOP Convention this summer. 
     In this final category of states, it’s not possible for me to calculate just how many delegates Trump will win, but it looks promising for the Donald.  Donald Trump enjoys double-digit leads in all six winner-take-all (split) states.  Unless he (as he once suggested) stands in the middle of Times Square and shoots somebody, he’ll get at least half these 452 delegates, which should be more than he needs to get the nomination.  He’ll probably get much more than that.
     No doubt, the GOP Establishment will try to blackmail Trump into selecting Jeb Bush or other Insider as his vice presidential running mate.  To that, I have six words of caution:
“Bush family friend John Hinckley, Jr.” 

Saturday, February 13, 2016

By their own Standards, Hillary and Albright have a “Special Place in Hell”

     By now, almost everyone must be aware of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s remark, “Just remember, there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other,” in the context that women who don’t vote for Hillary Clinton will go to an especially agonizing place in hell.  Clinton responded to Albright’s sexist remark with a rasping laugh and applause; then she reached for a drink.   When Clinton was asked later why she didn’t distance herself from that remark, Clinton gave out another rasping laugh and croaked condemnation of anyone who would disapprove of Albright’s “very light-hearted but pointed remark.” 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZCNhlmV-X0
     After a firestorm of protest over the remark, Albright apologized—well, no, she didn’t actually apologize apologize.  Actually, she kind of apologized.  No, come to think of it, she didn’t exactly do that either.  It’s more like, she repeated the remark, using different words.  She still implied that women who don’t vote for Hillary are failing in their responsibilities as women.  Check out Time magazine’s pro-Hillary valentine and see for yourself.   Do the visuals in that clip look anything like objective reporting?  Nahhhh.
http://time.com/4220323/madeleine-albright-place-in-hell-remark-apology/ 
     How do Albright and Clinton fare by their own standard?  Not very well.  By their own standards, there’s a special place in hell for Clinton and Albright.
      In 1995, a study by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization found that over 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died under then-President Clinton’s policy of economic sanctions.  In 1976, CBS interviewer Lesley Stahl asked then-UN Ambassador Albright about it, and Albright replied, “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price—we think that the price is worth it.” 
     When you get into numbers as high as 500,000, the emotional impact of that many deaths doesn’t sink in.  Okay, try to imagine how you’d feel about a school bus loaded with 75 first graders running off a cliff and killing every child on board.  Now try to imagine that happening to 6,667 school buses, each loaded with 75 first graders.  If that many school buses were lined up in Massachusetts, the buses would stretch the entire 50 miles from Massachusetts’s northern border (New Hampshire) to its southern border (Connecticut).
     In the entire state of Arkansas, there are an estimated 192,814 children under 5 years old.  (link)  Madeleine Albright justified killing 2.6 times that many—and counting, until January 20, 2001.  Roughly half the children Albright justified killing were girls, and most of them had mothers.  To further then-President Clinton’s political power goals, Madeleine Albright said that Clinton’s mass pedocide was “worth it.”  By Albright’s own standards, she has a special place in hell for not helping women.
     What about Hillary Clinton?  How well does she support women?
     In 1991, when Anita Hill accused Supreme Court justice nominee Clarence Thomas of telling two off-color jokes her presence, Hillary Clinton and a political lawyer named Gloria Allred said that Hill, as a woman, had “a right to be believed.”  (Never mind the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.)  On this basis, they unsuccessfully tried to deny Thomas a seat on the Supreme Court.
     Also in 1991, when Juanita Broaddrick accused presidential candidate Bill Clinton of rape, Kathleen Willey accused him of sexual assault, and Paula Jones accused him of exposing his privates to her, Hillary Clinton (in Willey’s words) “wrote the book on terrorizing women." (link)   The Clinton Administration, with Hillary as enabler-in-chief, attacked Bill Clinton’s victims as “bimbos.” 
     Broaddrick was audited by the Internal Revenue Service—a favorite tool of terrorism by the powers-that-be—and charges were tossed out of court because the only two witnesses to the crime (Broaddrick and Clinton) disagreed on what had happened.  On November 29, 1993, the very day that Willey publicly accused Clinton, Willey’s husband was shot to death.  Investigators ruled it a suicide.  Paula Jones eventually accepted an $850,000 out-of-court settlement from Bill Clinton.
     Hillary Clinton’s war on women didn’t stop or start there.  Recently, an audiotaped interview surface, in which Clinton bragged and laughed about a mid-1980’s case in which she managed to free a rapist pedophile whom she knew was guilty.    Here’s the audio tape:

     Former prosecutor and Judge Jeanine Pirro showed court documents revealing that Clinton falsified evidence against the 12-year-old victim of her client—and she laughed about it.  The girl was so badly injured in the rape that she was in a coma for several days; and she can never have children.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=680oj8VC61M  Yes, Hillary did “believe the accuser” in this case, but she tormented the girl just the same, and she even laughed about it.

     Women's rights involve more than "women's issues;" they involve human rights.  As such, Clinton's treatment of the grieving mothers and widows of Benghazi is an issue here.

    Within 24 hours of the murder of four Americans at Benghazi, Clinton had emailed her daughter Chelsea and to the Egyptian prime minister, telling them the facts of how four Americans had died.  At the casket ceremony, however, Hillary Clinton lied to the mothers and widows about how their sons and husbands had died.  She also went on worldwide television and repeated the lie.  She later denied that she had ever said what she was clearly on record as having said.  When a reporter said to her that either she or the grieving mothers and widows had lied, Clinton said, "It wasn't me," callously accusing the women of lying.

     If there’s a “special place in hell for women who don’t help” other women, for whom should women vote?  Hillary Clinton or someone—whether male or female—who actually cares about people?
     When you get right down to it, Hillary Clinton can not honestly claim that her election to the presidency would "empower women," either.  Her only two claims to the presidency are the X chromosome she received from her father and the name recognition she received from her husband.

Friday, January 29, 2016

So, You Think You’ve Broken the Matrix….Are you Sure?

     Thanks to the Internet and alternative news sites, we’ve seen the absurdity of believing that ordinary office fires could cause skyscrapers to collapse like three (including Building 7) houses of cards.  Fetzer and many others of his ilk post videos, and they tell us what we see in the videos.  The prearranged conclusion is that Insiders, most of whom were American citizens, and some of whom were “Muslims,” used thermite to bring down the buildings in “classic implosions.”  They point out other things to us, and we’ve learned to listen to them instead of the corporate press-titutes.
     What else have we learned from the alternative media?  For one, we learned that government officials and the press-titutes collude to slant the news after events have occurred.
     Welcome to the Outer Matrix.  That’s the buffer zone created for people who have woken up to the fact that they’re living in the Matrix and are trying to get out.  The Matrix created this buffer zone, and they’ve planted Judas goats in the alternative media to keep people from finding the exit.  Regardless of whether you’ve taken the blue pill or the red one, you’re still in one of two versions of the Matrix.  

     Think of Plato’s Parable of the Cave.  Prisoners chained in a cave see shadowy figures on a wall and think they’re seeing the real world.  At some point, one of the prisoners wriggles in his chains until he’s able to turn his head.  He then discovers that puppet masters are the reality and that the shadows on the wall are no more than illusions that the puppet masters want him to see.  At that point, he thinks he has discovered what the world is really like.  He fails to realize that the cave itself had been created by the puppet masters, and that a greater reality exists outside the cave.  His vision is still limited to what the puppet masters are willing to concede to skeptics.
     Alex Jones, a self-proclaimed alternative media leader, is a case in point.  Alex Jones’s parent company is Time-Warner, which is also the parent company of CNN, which Jones often criticizes.  Former CIA intern Anderson Cooper, a top shill for CNN, is one of Jones’s favorite targets.  Do you really believe that a shill for Time-Warner is going to make a habit of saying things that are damaging to other Time-Warner shills?  
     Jones never tires of telling about Cooper’s and CNN’s use of green-screen technology to trick viewers into thinking that Cooper was interviewing someone in front of a church in Newtown, Connecticut, when in fact Cooper was in a television studio, probably in New York.  He also excitedly tells his viewers that CNN was using crisis actors posing as witnesses or survivors of (supposedly) horrific events such as the one at Sandy Hook.  Both those revelations were all over the Internet before Jones said anything about them, and neither of them are fatal to the corporate media’s claim that the Sandy Hook shooting really happened.
     Only in the past year or so have Alex Jones and other Judas goats finally conceded what the rest of us have known for over two years: that the Sandy Hook shooting never happened.  (The red pills that Alex Jones dispenses are just placebos.) 
     For many of us, Sandy Hook was a watershed event.  We’d known (as the fake alternative media talking heads are willing to admit) that the corporate media lies to slant news events after they’ve happened.  Now we know what the fake alternative media don’t tell us until it can no longer be denied: that the corporate media acts with prior knowledge, slanting people’s perceptions of real or fabricated events even as they’re taking place. 
     Two more of Jones’s big issues are the Bilderberg group and alleged activities at Bohemian grove.  Even the sleepiest person in the Matrix already knows that businessmen and politicians cultivate relationships with each other—How can anyone expect them to do otherwise?—but Jones habitually shows up outside Bilderberg meeting sites, bullhorn in hand, making a spectacle of himself.  Despite the claim that the giant owl statue at Bohemian Grove represents the god Moloch, Jones proves only that groups of Republicans go to Bohemian Grove and act like drunken frat boys.  Jones isn’t touching anybody’s third rail; everything that he and other corporate “alternative” media shills say is well within limits of the Matrix’s buffer zone.  Jones and others like him serve as fire breaks to keep fires of protest contained.
     When Jim Fetzer appeared on the Alex Jones show, and they agreed that Donald Trump is “the real deal,” it raised my doubts about Donald Trump.  In the video above are some of the highlights of an Alex Jones interview with Donald Trump. 
  As Albert Pike (33rd Degree Mason) said, “Whenever the people need a hero, we shall supply him.”
     If you want to know what happens when a researcher really touches a third rail, take a look at Dr. Judy Wood and Rebekah Roth.  Those two women have uncovered things that are truly outside the Matrix.  They’ve gotten a little too close to the truth to suit the puppet masters.  As a result, characters such as Jim Fetzer and his guests have come at them with sharpened claws.
      I don’t know if you’ve ever witnessed a building implosion.  I stood less than a block from the Wade Hampton Hotel when it came down in 1985.  I find myself comparing what I saw that day with what I see today on 9/11 videos.
     When the World Trade Center came down, the clouds of dust should not have been as thick, as heavy, or widespread as the ones we saw.  There should have been much more rubble than we saw.  Since metal vehicles blocks from the site were burned, the papers scattered all over the streets should also have been burned; they weren’t even singed.  Thermite could have reduced the buildings to rubble, but it could not have turned them to dust, nor could it have caused a steel tower to vanish like smoke.  

     Dr. Judy Wood’s scientific explanation for these anomalies is beyond my understanding, and possibly yours, but she makes one thing clear: We may not know what reduced the buildings to thick clouds of dust, but we know what it wasn’t.  It wasn’t planes, and it wasn’t thermite.  For stating the obvious, trolls in the 9/11 “Truth” movement have viciously attacked Doctor Wood. 
         Rebekah Roth claims to be a former airline stewardess and, judging from her grasp of how airline stewardesses operate, she almost certainly is.  In her radio interviews and in her books Methodical Illusion and Methodical Deception, she points to things that the hijacked 9/11 stewardesses said that suggest (to a stewardess) that the planes were not in the air when the phone calls were made; that they were in a hangar somewhere.  She also explores the question of where the hangar was located. 
     This claim helps to answer many of the unanswered questions of 9/11, the foremost of which is, “If no planes were used on 9/11, what happened to the planes?”  As expected, the claws were sharpened and Rebekah Roth is attacked on whether she wears a wig, whether she wears glasses to look more intelligent, whether men are fooled by her because (supposedly) she’s “pretty,” whether Rebekah Roth is her real name, and whether we should believe a novelist.  In short, she’s attacked for everything but her airline experience, her facts, and her reasoning.  By providing a both a rationale and evidence for the no-planes theory, she has touched a third rail that shows she has breached the Matrix.
      In addition to accusing the Bush Administration of complicity in 9/11, Roth also accused the Israeli Mossad.  By mentioning the Israeli regime, Rebekah Roth had touched another third rail and got burned for it.  Typically, Matrix shills pretend that she hasn’t said anything about Bush Administration complicity, and they accuse her of saying that “the Jews” were solely responsible, as if religion had anything to do with it. When her critics deliberately confuse an Israeli spy organization with the Law of Moses, they show their true colors.  The Israeli regime and their media lackeys use Jews as human shields.
     There’s much more I could say about controlled opposition and how the puppet masters give skeptics just enough of the truth to steer them away from learning “too much.”  I’m not saying that we should trust the likes of Roth and Wood instead of Jones and Fetzer—or that you should trust me, for that matter.  Instead, each of us should trust himself or herself.  I’m also saying that we should be aware that, amid the honest researchers and reporters in the legitimate alternative media, there are Judas goats in false alternative media out there and we should beware of them.  As Agent Scully said, "The truth is also out there, but so are lies."
      By way of providing you with tools to aid you in your search for truth, here’s a crash course for you:


Monday, January 11, 2016

Gun Control Legislation? Disarm Congress before Disarming Citizens!


     If the American people were truly safer without guns, as Obama and many members of Congress tell us, why do Obama and congressmen feel the need to hide behind swarms of armed guards?  Why don't they follow their own advice and dial 911 when trouble strikes?
     Common sense tells us that they know, as we know, that dialing 911 sometimes doesn't get help fast enough to stay alive.  What do you do while waiting for the police arrive, assuming that they may arrive?  Turn on your laptop, start a Facebook group called "Down with Murderers," and see how many "likes" you get?  
     We’ve seen it all before, haven’t we?  In 1964, when the Civil Rights Act made racial discrimination in hiring illegal, the bill was touted as good for the American people.  Typically, the bill was written in such a way that it exempted Congress and the President from the provisions of the bill.  In 2010, when Congress signed the deceptively misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, it was also touted as good for the American people.  As usual, Congress and the teleprompter-reader-in-chief were exempted from the bill’s requirements.
     Federal laws and regulations display the same double standards in many other areas.  To give one example, when a military veteran applies for Social Security, the federal government will take nothing less than an original hard copy of the veteran's record, and it has to be certified by government bureaucrats who have physically seen and held the paper, photocopied it, and stamped it as a “true copy.”  When Barry Soetoro was running for teleprompter-reader-in-chief in 2008, all he had to do was produce a computer-generated image resembling a birth certificate, which any amateur could have produced on Photoshop in just a few minutes.  In fact, Barry's CGI'd certificate had so many flaws in it that it probably was produced by an amateur in a few minutes.  (Link) 
     Gun control is no exception to the rule that Washington’s minions create for themselves exceptions to rules.  Congressional sock puppets and the teleprompter-reader-in-chief are protected by swarms of well-armed men in uniform and in plainclothes, even as the usual suspects are arguing that the American people would be much safer from gun violence if they—that is, the American people—had no means of self-defense.  The fly in the buttermilk is that American gun owners are hard to convince. 
     I propose that we take a lesson from the world of business and economics.  Under a scheme called Free Economic Zones, some businesses can have higher taxes and more government regulation while businesses in certain zoned places can have lower taxes and less government regulation.
     I propose that we try a similar scheme for the issue of gun control.  (By the way, the term gun control, strictly speaking, is a misnomer.  The issue has never been whether there should be gun control but who should control the guns.  In my proposal below, I’m strongly pro-gun control in that I believe that guns should be controlled by as many non-governmental citizens as possible.)  Here is my proposal:
     With few exceptions, no one holding a federal job will be allowed the protection of firearms.  That includes, but is not limited to, congressmen, Presidents (or whoever is filling that capacity at the time), Secret Service agents, the FBI, the CIA, TSA petty thieves and perverts, DHS, FEMA, White House guards, and government regulators.  The sole exceptions to the requirements of this law will be active-duty military personnel during duty hours.  Whenever a military serviceman leaves the base or is otherwise off-duty, he must leave his firearm in the base armory, except when he is in the war zone of a lawfully declared war.  It will be illegal for a federal jobholder to enter a dwelling or other place that has a firearm; the consequences of this provision will apply both to the federal jobholder and to the homeowner who allows him/her to enter.  Anyone violating this law will face a mandatory five years in prison.  The provisions of this law will also apply to anyone who has contracted to work on behalf of the federal government.
     Constitutionally authorized bearers of weapons (such as city policemen) will, however, be allowed to respond to 911 calls from a federal employee in the event of an emergency.  Just in case the police don’t respond fast enough to save the federal employee’s life, pizza delivery personnel may be deputized and armed.  Then, at least, help is guaranteed to arrive in less than fifteen minutes, and they can celebrate their rescue by having a pizza.
     The goal of this proposed law is to make places occupied by federal employees as safe as other gun-free zones, such as schools, churches, and movie theaters.
     People who are slow to catch on might argue that the President and members of Congress, for example, need to be surrounded with armed men as a means of protection against people who would wish to harm them.  Well, excuse me, but that’s the same excuse that gun owners give for wanting to have guns.  Obama, Pelosi, and others of their ilk shouldn’t be allowed to get away with that lame excuse.    
     Besides, haven’t you heard the ancient Roman proverb, “The love of the people is the king’s protection”?  The ancient Romans had the idea that, if the love of the people wasn’t protection enough, the king didn’t deserve to live.
     One of the founding principles of the American Republic is that the government should fear the people—not the other way around.  The characters who demand firearms protection for themselves and for nobody else are as hypocritical as an undertaker trying to look sad at a million-dollar funeral.
     But wait a minute.  How does this argument square with the assassinations of President Kennedy, Senator Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King?  Very well, thank you.  If the CIA, the FBI, and LBJ had not had access to firearms, those three assassinations probably would not have happened.
     Yeah, let’s try it—the sooner the better.  As soon as the American people see how safe federal employees have become by living in gun-free zones, they won’t be able to get rid of their guns fast enough.  During the 2008 presidential election, Obama famously sneered at the American people for “clinging to their guns and religion.”  (Link)    
     Let’s see if Mr. Obama was right—or if America really was built on God, guns, and guts.

Thursday, January 7, 2016

46 Tips for Recognizing a False Flag or other Psyop

     “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
“The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened”.
– Josef Stalin
     There can be no doubt that false flag attacks are a reality.  Washington’s Blog has documented at least 53 false flag attacks to which government officials in various countries—including the U.S.—have later admitted.  Only the most cowardly, self-deceived individuals can doubt the existence of false flag attacks.
     Several web sites offer anywhere from three to fifteen clues on how to recognize false flag attacks.  I’ve gleaned through them and added a few of my own.  There are really too many to cover in detail in a single article.  Instead, I’ve chosen simply to list them and perhaps go into further detail a few at a time, on some future occasion.
     In a false flag attack or other psyop, several (or many) of the following phenomena are evident:
1. There is an immediate comprehensive narrative, including a convenient culprit. Law enforcement, government agencies, and the mainstream media immediately proffer a narrative that completely explains the event and encourages citizens to tie their intellectual understanding of the tragedy to the emotions they experience.
2.   The official narrative has obvious domestic and geopolitical advantages for the governing body.
3.    The narrative behind the attack serves to leverage emotions like fear, as well as patriotism, in order to manufacture consent around a previously controversial issue. (e.g. calls for gun confiscation)  Media and government officials promote a narrative against scapegoat groups and/or an agenda to deprive citizens of life, liberty, or property.
4..    Government begins to “take action” against the scapegoat or moves along the lines of the media narrative.
5.    Military training drills and police drills occur on the day of and very near the attack itself, causing confusion to obscure eye witness testimony and allowing orchestrators to plant both patsies, disinformation and backup operatives.
6.    It’s a high-profile event. According to a NewYork Times news article, mass murders (murders of four or more people at one time) occur an average of once a day in the U.S.  The overwhelming majority of mass murders are ignored, but a select few are covered 24/7.
7.    The event seems too theatrical to be real.
8..    Government or media foreknowledge (e.g. BBC announcing the collapse of WTC-7 some 20 minutes before it actually occurred).
9.    Ignored warnings.
10.. Facilitated by authorities.
11. Protocol ignored.  (In the Sandy Hook psyop, almost everyone in any official capacity violated the law and failed to follow required protocol.)
12. Official narrative contradicts boundary conditions (e.g., the narrative that a non-pilot such as Hani Hanjour taught himself to fly a Boeing 757 more expertly than an experienced Boeing pilot.)
13. Significant omissions in the official story  (e.g., the fact that, only two weeks before 9/11, Hani Hanjour was not allowed to rent a Cessna 172 due to his poor piloting skills).
14. Official narrative contradicts experience (personal or historical) (E.g., that no high-rise building in history has ever collapsed due to fire damage, yet it supposedly happened three times at the same place on the same day.)
15. No surviving witnesses) (problematic witness or patsy gets killed, drugged, or “suicided.”)
16. There is no obvious motive for the attack.
17. Family or witnesses in the event have elite or acting backgrounds
18. Fake “victims;” the same “victim” get killed in two or more separate events.
19. The same witnesses are present at two or more events. (Link)   
20. Families of “victims” appear on TV within 24 hours, showing little or no emotion, and even snigger and laugh.  “Robbie Parker”  James Foley’s smiling sister’s “duping delight”: 
21. “Witnesses” make official talking points. (E.g., 9/11 “Harley guy” claiming that WTC 1 & 2 collapsed “mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense.”) 
22. “Witnesses” speak in “officialese” (e.g., “multiple gunshots” instead of “several (or a specific number of) gunshots,” or, “I witnessed…,” instead of, “I saw…”)
23. Non sequiturs (e.g. that victims’ families wouldn’t want to know how their loved ones died; or pulling out of an illegal war would be disrespectful of “the troops;” or that “an investigation of a terrorist act would invite another such offense.”)
24.  “Witnesses” speak in generalities, so as to avoid the risk of telling too different a story as other “witnesses.”
25. Witnesses’ statements are reinterpreted or shut off by an interviewer.
26. Shooters always have new social media accounts.
27. Shooter leaves a manifesto.
28. Even before there is time for investigation, the “news” media has quickly and conveniently named and demonized the “culprit” (read: patsy).
29. Patsy has had no military training, yet he shoots extremely fast and accurately.
30. The suspect(s) have a demonstrable connection to the CIA, FBI, or another intelligence agency.
31. The suspect has no credible means of funding.  (e.g., James Holmes, an unemployed medical student who had $26,000 worth of armaments, body armor, bomb-making equipment, and other paraphernalia.  Unaccountably, he also had the skills to make the bombs, rig the booby traps, and use the guns and ammo.  Wow!)
32. Victim’s families don’t sue anyone for negligence, but receive millions in unsolicited federal payouts
33. The officially proposed solution wouldn’t have prevented the events.
34. The official narrative keeps changing.
35. At or near the same time and place as the event, officials are conducting drills simulating an event that’s virtually identical to the “real” event that is taking place.
36. Cui Bono?  (Who benefits?)
37. Key questions are never investigated and are left unanswered.
38. The case is quickly closed
39. Key evidence is conveniently destroyed before a thorough investigation can take place.
40. Clues in pop media (foreshadowing) (Use your favorite web or video search engine to find “predictive programming.”)
41. Eyewitnesses have accounts conflicting with official narrative) and are ignored
42. Credible reports of accomplices (e.g., “John Doe Number Two”) are ignored or quickly covered up.
43. Reporter or other authoritative accounts contradict official narrative (e.g. McIntyre’s (McIntyre’sfirst version)  (McIntyre’s flipflop)  and Walter’s flip flops; or FBI crime stats revealing that no murders were committed in or around Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012, the year of the alleged Sandy Hook shooting).
44. Official behavior contradicts official narrative (e.g. outbound flights arranged for the bin Laden family while bin Laden was being blamed for an atrocity, even as all other flights are grounded).
45. Terrorist PR is clearly designed for domestic consumption (e.g., when organizational initials or other PR symbols are in English when one would reasonably expect them to be in the native language of the terrorist group.  Note: the acronym ISIS stands for the English words Islamic State of Iraq and Syria).
46. Other anomalies, which may or may not be found in more than one psyop event.  “Other anomalies” can cover a wide range and be very difficult to spot or may be nothing more than anomalies. 
     Well, that’s my list.  Not everything is a conspiracy, but conspiracies do happen.  Politics, by its very nature, is conspiratorial. 

“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”      —Thomas Jefferson

Wednesday, December 23, 2015

Whole Systems Thinking and Global Warming Snapshots

     The following snapshots appeared in the December 23, 2015 edition of the Taipei Times:
Snapshot number one: “The nation [Taiwan] had its warmest winter solstice in 67 years yesterday, with the highest temperature rising above 30°C [80°F].”
Snapshot number two: “The statistics also showed that the nation experienced its third-warmest winter solstice in recorded history, only beaten by 31.5°C recorded in 1934 and 30.7°C in 1948.”

     I call these two sentences snapshots, because snapshots represent only an instant of time in a comparatively small spot.  When a snapshot is selected for publication, it’s selected from among possibly thousands of snapshots to illustrate a point that the writer is trying to make.
     In the case of literal snapshots, two photographers can attend the same lecture and take pictures of the speaker and the crowd.  One photographer selects an audience photo showing many empty seats and several disinterested people (the shot was taken during a less interesting part of the speech.)  The other photographer’s photo shows many enthusiastic listeners (during a more interesting part of the speech) packed into an area that has no empty seats. 
     It’s the same speech, the same audience, and the same venue; but the two selected photos give completely opposite impressions of how well attended the speech was and how interested the listeners were. 
     Snapshots of events can be very different from whole histories of the same events.  Let’s look at how the two above-mentioned snapshots of temperatures may be seen in the light of whole systems thinking. 

     In the light of whole systems thinking, these figures tell us that the world as a whole wasn’t especially hot on December 22; the figures apply only to Taiwan: an area only a little larger than Maryland.  It also tells us that it was hotter on that day 67 years ago (1948)—several decades before the alleged “man-made global warming” became an issue (around 1978).  You cannot reasonably infer "global warming" from a single hot day on a tiny portion of the globe.
     The only other time in recorded history that it was hotter on that date than it was this year was in 1934.  In the 37 years that global warming has been a significant issue, Taiwan has never experienced a winter solstice as hot as it was 30 years before the scare began.
     It’s also worth asking, “How do they arrive at the global temperature figures the use?”  Of course they use thermometers, but where are the thermometers located?

     Here’s a map showing the location of temperature measuring stations.  Fully two thirds of the thermometers are located in a fairly narrow band that includes only the middle two thirds of the northern temperate zone.   When more than 80% of the world is underrepresented, how accurate can the system be?
     It gets worse.  Take a look at “MeasuringTemperatures: How Temperatures are Measured,” by Dr. J. Floor Anthoni.   Measuring global temperatures is far from an exact science.

     Bottom line: Statistics, when honestly presented, are useful as a visual means of digesting facts.  They’re not by any means a substitute for facts.  Check the facts.

Friday, August 22, 2014

Why Some People have a Phobia of Conspiracy Theories

     (This article is the second version of a blog post I wrote a few months ago.  The first version was somehow lost.  No, I don’t suspect that it was destroyed by reptilian shape shifters that didn’t want you to read it.  My schedule has relaxed enough now that I’m able to write a second version of this article.  I hope it’s as informative as the first (missing) version.)

     We’ve all seen articles purporting to explain why some people are attracted to conspiracy theories.  The rationale behind the articles is that, if someone is aberrant enough to suspect that politicians sometimes have ulterior motives, this suspicion requires a socio-psychoanalytical explanation—from a safe distance, of course; and it should be performed only by someone who recognizes the danger of examining the facts for oneself.
     In a previous article, “Why Some People are Attracted to Conspiracy Theories,” I broke all the rules and presented my politically incorrect findings.  Yes, I admit it; I’m a thought criminal.
     It's highly curious that a belief in conspiracies is considered aberrant enough to warrant socio-psychological analysis; but no one seems to question why some other people are addicted to official narratives and have a phobia of conspiracy theories.  It’s as if the official narratives are the default explanation of events (like the reasonableness of wearing a hat as protection from the blinding rays of the sun), and that skepticism of official narratives is considered an oddball alternative (like wearing a lampshade over your head).
     (Actually, it’s the conspiratophobe who likes to imagine “truthers” as the sort of people who wear lampshades—probably so that people around the “truthers” will not be blinded by the dazzling light of truth.  Doesn’t it seem odd to “accuse” a political opponent of wanting to know the truth?  For what it’s worth, the opposite of truther is liar.)
     In the article, “Why Some People are Attracted to Conspiracy Theories,” I gave three commonly given explanations and showed the absurdity of all three.  To give equal time to conspiratophobes, I give three explanations for why certain other people have a phobia of anything—question, fact, or theory—that calls an official narrative into question.  Here are the three explanations:
1.    They are vain; to them, social responsibility is less important than a sense of personal reward or the approval of others.
2.    They’re either lazy or they’re moral cowards.
3.    They miss the comfort and security of their mothers’ wombs.

     They are vain; to them, social responsibility is less important than a sense of personal reward or the approval of others. This motivation is rather tricky to examine because certain virtues, such as social responsibility, are often compartmentalized.  I’ve known conspiratophobes who gave very much of themselves through organizations dedicated to helping others—deeds that brought them considerable honor and praise.  Belief in a conspiracy theory, however, calls for a similar level of commitment to the needs of others, but very few people will praise you for it.  More often, it results in disrepute and even social ostracism.
     It’s not that conspiracy deniers don’t see that there’s a problem.  Many conspiratophobes are highly intelligent, articulate people who use their intelligence in the service of self-deceit.
  
     Here’s the sort of example I’m sure you’ve seen:
     Let’s say the year is 2006.  You tell someone that the NSA has been conducting widespread warrantless wiretaps.  Year after year, for he automatically rejects any and all evidence you try to show him, declaring that it’s too evil to contemplate.  After all, we live in a “democracy.”  In a democracy “our” government would never do something that evil and authoritarian.  Fast forward to last year—Edward Snowden.  To the conspiratophobe, this is a recent revelation; (“Who could have known?” he says.)—notwithstanding that the evidence had been around since 2006.  Just as suddenly, the evil, authoritarian practice of widespread, warrantless wiretapping has become a good thing that is necessary to protect us from Al Qaeda or some other boogey man of the day.  All that is needed now is an extra-constitutional Presidential Directive defining the limits of a practice that has already overstepped constitutional limits.

     They’re lazy or are moral cowards.  When a citizen has a healthy skepticism of those in power, he assumes a burden that he had not had before the skepticism arose.  He’s required to use critical thinking skills instead of simply responding to spin doctor-generated stimuli—the same sort of stimuli that advertisers use to convince gullible people to pay twice as much for a pair of shoes as it’s really worth, all because it has a corporate symbol on it, or because the corporation has paid millions of dollars for a famous athlete to wear it in a television commercial.
     It’s not that they can’t get excited about something and generate energy as a result of that excitement.  They can get very excited about the Super Bowl, a rock star, the latest fad, or some other pointless diversion.  Those things don’t require taking a stand that someone else may oppose.  Those who find it fashionable to get excited about meaningless things are the very people who give the fisheye to people who display even a little passion about things that matter—such as the genocide of Palestinians (a sure ticket to being labeled anti-Semitic), the Bill of Rights (easily dismissed as the work of home-grown terrorists”), GMO (luddites), or the Bible (intolerance).  There’s always a convenient label to marginalize anyone who upsets the status quo, and to shut down a conversation so you can go back to your mindless game of moving dots around on your so-called “smart” phone.

     They miss the comfort and security of their mothers’ wombs.  An addiction to official narratives is key to their paradigm for “understanding” the world around them.  In their world, there are no stakeholders but themselves, and the world revolves around their desire for security and happiness.
     In their world, the news media have to tell them the whole truth at all times because the news media have only one stakeholder: the newspaper buyer or the news program viewer.  Like the babe in the womb, they fail to see the owners, investors, sources, creditors, advertisers, and others who also have a stake in the news media.  As often as not, the other stakeholders have interests that are completely against the interests of the newspaper buyer or television watcher.  (See here)
     In the world of conspiracy denial, politicians have only one stakeholder: the voter.  The conspiratophobe’s one measly vote (if he votes at all) is more than a match for campaign donors, high-powered lobbyists, intelligence agencies, foreign diplomats, international bankers, and many others—if they enter his thinking at all.  At the same time, politicians (most of whom have never created value in their entire lives) have the magical abilities to do things that everyone knows can’t be done—such as creating millions of jobs just by signing a name to a sheet of paper.  (See here.)  
     The world as imagined by your typical conspiratophobe is a world that hasn’t existed since he was in his mother’s womb, or in story books his mother read to him as a small child.  It’s a world populated by magical beings that exist only to perform miracles especially for the conspiratophobe.  In short, a typical conspiratophobe is someone who has an irrational aversion to reality because reality calls for responsibility and is sometimes uncomfortable.

     A conspiracy theorist, by contrast, is the following:
1.    Someone who believes that human events are caused by humans.
2.    Someone who believes that politicians sometimes have ulterior motives.
3.    Someone who believes that the assassination of Julius Caesar wasn't a spontaneous event.
4.    Someone who believes that Richard Nixon “knew something” about Watergate before he read it in the Washington Post.
5.    Someone who, when a politician says, “Read my lips,” also takes care to watch his hands.
6.    Someone who believes, as Lord Acton did, that “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
7.    Someone who believes that politics, by its very nature, is conspiratorial.
8.    Someone who, when a politician pats him on the back, is smart enough to know whether the politician is just feeling for a place to put the knife.  When a politician pats a conspiratophobe on the back, he’s attaching a sign that says, “I’m gullible. Trick me.”

     Here are a couple of videos that the average liar (the opposite of truther) dares not watch: