mathjax

Friday, September 1, 2017

Mankind's Unipolar Moment

Today, China and USA owe more money than they can possibly repay in the lifetime of their current citizens.

Chinese labour supply are surging and new workers will demand the same rights and benefits American workers have. China will end up saddled with the same entitlements that make first world nations expensive. Companies will leave.

The USA is coming to terms with an ageing workforce that demographically cannot sustain the industrial output of 20 years ago. America risks bankrupting their professional class that owns most of the bond debt if they can't restructure. Companies may never return.

Each has an internal crisis in the making and a unique moment for humanity.

Both are looking within to acquire assets to prop up their debts. Each would find only failure within their borders and the resultant economic collapses would inevitably spread as war to the globe.

Instead, if both China and USA loan money out to the rest of the world, to the developing nations that can grow at 3% or more, and use those external assets to fund their debt commitments back home, they would spread the prosperity outward to humanity and avoid an inevitable internal collapse.  They would bring up the standards elsewhere and thereby reduce the need for large military expenditures.

For mankind, this is humanities' unipolar moment.

Either path taken, it was at this instant in history that lead to that fateful outcome.

Saturday, July 29, 2017

King Cynic of the Senate.

I cannot tell if #Trump is more like Commodus or Nero, but I can claim that the King of Cynics in the Senate is
Senator John McCain.

Quite willing, fearing his certain and near fate, to implode the welfare of his people to stab at thee, #Trump.


Sunday, July 23, 2017

Death chirps while escaping

This poor fellow stood still too long. I hit him near his hole opening and he emitted a single death chirp as he struggled into the hole. Died mid escape. This proves that often they are critically injured yet able to get into cover.

This demonstrates my theory that Richardson's squirrels are hardy enough to escape despite injuries. You can't tell how many you've hit until you come back next time and observe empty or inactive burrows.

Sunday, June 25, 2017

Ground Squirrel Calls

Richardson's ground squirrels have 4 distinctive chirps. This is their interpretation.

Normal chatter: when talking amongst themselves the tone and cadence sounds like animal talking. Aperiodic communication, uneven tone. They are not alerted to your presence.

Oh shit!: If they let out a half-chirp and the no more sound as they dive into the hole you startled it and it crashed for cover. The local squirrels are aware of you.

Stranger Danger!: If they take cover near hole face and freeze, then they let out a periodic squeak about every 3 seconds. That means they think they are in hidden and are warning other burrows of danger. This is the perfect situation to fix them and shoot. If you can approach from concealment it's a straight shot.

Hey You!: If they are standing or squatting on back legs and emit a squeak - squeak in rapid progression they are calling to other squirrels to find them. They are not alerted to danger but they will detect any noise or movement.


Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Violence in pursuit of purpose

My throat-clearing yesterday, Buddhism and violence, was meant as a precursor to my next exploration:

Violence in pursuit of purpose.


Violence to some is abhorrent. I agree.

Violence to some serves no purpose.  To those I state, you do not understand.

All the universe for all time as we understand it is in a constant state of flux, by flux I mean energy and matter in transition. I won't describe this further but I instruct the reader to consider what any observer would see under Transport Theorem, how electromagnetic forces vary under Maxwell's equations, and of course the grandfather of all differential equations, the Helmholtz equations. If none of these awe you, then simply consider through Higgs waves (gravity) matter from across the universe is incessantly pulling on your every scrap of matter, from every direction, and will continue to pull on your remains once you cease to be whole.

There is no time nor space that is free from appearance or disappearance of matter. In fact, if you consider Lawrence Krauss' book

in fact matter can in deed appear from nothing. We can no more avoid transition than we can avoid death.

Buddhists do not fear death, if they understand, because to not accept death would be to not accept the aforementioned fact that matter and energy continues to flux without end. Even the universe, and everything in it, is posited to cease to exist at some eventual infinite moment we can only guess at. I won't mimic predictions here, because physics is incomplete at least because we can't explain dark matter. Not knowing what 70% of the universe's mass is makes any universal demise prediction as laughable as stating CO2 controls climate warming despite the fact that the trillion ton Sun, the solar energy forcing function, is discounted.

The second factor I would draw to your attention is the quest to know if mankind has free will. The great philosopher Immanuel Kant implored philosophers to work on three transcendental problems; the face of god, transcendental morality, and freewill of mankind in his Critique of Pure Reason. He also explained a lot about how other skeptics were practising more dogma than exposing it.

It's been almost 250 years since most philosophers ignored Kant, and soon with the help of MRI, CAT scans, and other natural philosophy (science) products we might soon explain the basis of that last problem faster than the entire field of philosophy could in 236 years of effort.

As Wittgenstein described, philosophers are expert at self-confusion. I digress.


Buddhists also do not hide nor deny the reality of death; any human that eats food is an accomplice to the death of other living things whether knowingly or not. No one escapes culpability. If you choose not to kill yourself upon learning this truth, then you choose of your own free will to accept your role in the death of other living things. Instead, Buddhists accept that sacrifice is necessary that we collectively may continue and serve a higher purpose. Death is not chosen, purpose is.

One cannot know right now if man has free will for certain. Let us make the case going forward with both possibilities.

To combine the two above factors:

If a man has free will he can choose to act, in some cases decide to act violently - to cause death to another living thing.

If a man does not have free will, he does not choose to act violently, but acts violently nonetheless. It appears in civil society that people do not randomly kill frequently enough, on the scale of billions, that this is not the predominant case.

All living things will die, to choose not to kill is to forestall their death until some future point in space-time.  In general, we choose not to act violently. That seems an odd way to describe it, but the fact that violence does not occur to us to be necessary is exactly the same as consciously deciding to act. I would submit that we subconsciously decide to not act - it doesn't occur to act -  more times than we consciously consider acting. But what accounts for an equivalence of the two ( choosing to not act (conscious) versus not choosing (unconscious) to act)? Logically, are they the same?

When one chooses to act violently, and one has free will, it is based on the reason that ceasing another's life at that moment serves a purpose. One has become aware of circumstances that make action purposeful. It doesn't matter what the circumstances are, it doesn't matter what the excuses are, nor the reasons. Conditions have changed that make violence important or necessary.  Necessary to whom? Necessary for what? Given above, are these even important?

To choose to end life is to purposefully change the condition of matter, now, in this moment, for a purpose. It cannot be otherwise as I have laid out. It could, in the case of non-free will violence, but as stated earlier that there are very few cases humans do that despite a multitude of compelling reasons one might ( greed, chemicals, boredom, apathy, pleasure, emotion, etc.). We decide to not act in almost all possible cases because ACTING SERVES NO COMPELLING PURPOSE.

To act is to become directly involved in the state of flux of the universe, to take possession of the course of events for another living thing. Humans are moral enough and purposeful enough to know how rare those conditions are.  But that also underlines why violence is important when those unique conditions exist.

Even the cognitive dissonance people would feel about intervening, to act to defend, to act to attack, to act to hunt, to act to kill, are all conscious awareness events that an imperative purpose has arisen. This is not just instinct, it is not just reason. It is the unmasking of a purpose for violence.

That doesn't mean violence can't be for evil purposes. That doesn't mean violence can't be self-serving. It means that - from a holistic mindful perspective - it alone exists outside the means and the ends.

I am urged to remind you that inside Buddhism one can find nihilism - anarchy - and chaos if one chooses to interpret all I have said strictly on these facts alone. Even Machiavelli might find these ideas acceptable.

But the teachings of the Buddha more than any other implore all to remember that the state of all beings is suffering and finding ways to become more enlightened is the ultimate goal, not possession and not passion. All those evil nihilistic aims have a purpose which is roughly outside the scope. If you are killing for sport, for territory, for gain, you are not Buddhist in the slightest, you are not enlightened in the least.

On the other hand, killing to prevent murder, killing to reduce global unhappiness or increase global happiness, killing to prevent evil committing atrocities, to defend the defenceless, these can all be interpreted within the eightfold path.

For example, Samma-Kammanta  (integral action) means acting with integrity. "Right action" if you learn it in the West. Acting according to understanding, acting along the beliefs of Buddhism includes respect for all living things. What is more respectful than acting to prevent harm to others?

Samma-Sati (complete awareness ) can make you aware of impending suffering or evil about to be committed against the defenceless. 

In fact, most of these are easier to interpret these paths in Buddhism as complimentary in a capitalist society than Samma-Ajiva ( right livelihood ). Right livelihood expressly forbids exploitation and yet exploiting some advantage is the essence of commerce. To my mind, you are a more noble Buddhist wielding a sword than peddling a cart. But that is not my role to judge others, perhaps those same businessmen also conduct charity.

To act violently with purpose in the eightfold path it must conform to the following:

1. It must not be personal, it must not involve anger or other emotions arising from a familiarity of the target. That would be a crime of passion. The reason you are acting is because you are nearest to the danger or able to respond.

2. It must not be profitable, the loss of one is a loss to society and must always be the least worst option outweighed by the sanctity or survival of other life. If you need to shoot at something to prove your mettle or show your worth, hunt humans THAT SHOOT BACK. They are far more dangerous than any predator.  Pick up a rifle and join a civil war. Fight for something and risk dying for purpose. We will all join you shortly.

3. It must not be glorified. There is no trophy, no recognition because that is fulfilment of lusting and passions are never for the greater good. I don't shoot trophy animals. I don't revel nor parade what I do for anyone on earth.

4. It must not be without purpose. There must be an obvious, immediate purpose that waiting, stalling, negotiating, bribing, or any other mollifying action cannot solve.

5. It must not be indiscriminate. To act without focus is itself committing evil.

6. It must be impending. To act now means there is no other choice.

7. It must be completed swiftly. One mustn’t increase suffering of the target by not completing the act.  I shoot vermin that risk my friend's horses.  If those vermin are hurt and I can reach them I smash their heads in without the slightest hesitation. Last week I hit one through the neck and he was wounded writhing on the ground. Often they run into the hole to die, but this was a case for a coup de grace. If you can't imagine smashing your target's head in to end suffering, then don't begin violence in the first place. I sleep fine because I am at peace with my purpose but I'm not proud of it either.

Violence is always abhorrent, it is always the lowest of human effort and it tarnishes more than it burnishes. There is nothing great in violence. No one violent is great because of it.

But to not act violently when the cost is great is to invite more suffering and tragedy onto an already suffering mankind.

Violence with an enlightened purpose can coexist with the eightfold path.





Monday, June 12, 2017

Buddhism and violence

Despite all the yoga mats, meditation, and facile introduction of Westerners to Buddhism, many misunderstand the global tenets of Buddhism. They assume that it is outside the norm when compared to other religions. The biggest misunderstanding is that Buddhists would never use violence.

Here is a Thai example of Buddhists advocating violence in defence of attacks by global muslim jihad.

This next passage explains the eigthfold path:

The path is a process to help you remove or move beyond the conditioned responses that obscure your true nature. In this sense the Path is ultimately about unlearning rather than learning - another paradox. We learn so we can unlearn and uncover. The Buddha called his teaching a Raft. To cross a turbulent river we may need to build a raft. When built, we single-mindedly and with great energy make our way across. Once across we don't need to cart the raft around with us. In other words don't cling to anything including the teachings. However, make sure you use them before you let them go. It's no use knowing everything about the raft and not getting on. The teachings are tools not dogma. The teachings are Upaya, which means skillful means or expedient method. It is fingers pointing at the moon - don't confuse the finger for the moon.

Remember that Buddhism like any religion is occupied by humans, ones that don't understand, others that inject their personal interpretation into it, ones that fall accustomed to luxuries that the Buddha himself would blush at. Any religion drifts and repurposes reality as needed. I wrote earlier dispelling the existence of Buddhism itself.

Recall that while the Dalai Lama possesses nothing and lives nowhere, his monk minders gather $400 per person per event to upkeep his personal well being despite that. Does this fully agree with what Buddha had in mind? While I am not here to judge another's personal interpretation, I hasten to point out there are many interpretations on many issues. 

The Buddhists you should least trust in interpretation are the dogmatic ones telling you a Buddhist can't do that. The ones that don't listen to the original meaning are just as guilty of hubris as christians or muslims.

The hang up word is "right" - right speech, right action, right livelihood...

Right in the dogmatic West is not the whole meaning.

"Right action" in the West means always do good, or never do wrong. But define what is wrong and right in a holistic Buddhist perspective? Good doesn't mean follow the law - even christians disobey the ten commandments and national law at will.  Are you certain that covers all action within a Buddhist mindset? The problem is that the original (eightfold) path guides you to decide what is best to discover (uncover) your true nature and contribute to well-being. You reach nirvana when you've shed everything else, when you attain perfection through the removal of imperfections. How you arrive was meant as a personal journey, not a church-directed one. Buddhism is not a lazy man's religion where your lot is measured for you and your role is obedience.


Thich Quang Duc killed himself in the 1960's protesting.

Does this look like a nonviolent act? This monk determined the greater good, the global happiness, was better served by his action for the benefit of others than to live in silence and contemplation as the world he knew burned.

Like anything else there is a tension between two competing goals. Global happiness and personal attainment can mean many things. If one's purpose requires violence to attain nirvanna then that is not excluded by 
Samma-Ajiva ( right livelihood )
Samma-Vayama (full effort )
Samma-Sati (complete awareness )
Samma-Kammanta  (integral action)

Sunday, June 4, 2017

Ground squirrel hunting

Richardson ground squirrels have infested the farmland around my home. They arrived from the East and now run roads and cause tripping hazards with hidden mounds anywhere that can hobble horses and humans alike.  Health care costs paying for surgeons would justify a culling season.


My friend has a farm and stables horses. He appreciates any help saving his horses. I use my soldier skills to help. Swords into ploughshares protecting livestock.

To hunt vermin efficiently one needs to understand them. I looked online and researched as best I could but since these are inglorious animals there's minimal information. I have hunted these animals for 3 years doing badly with trial & error. I've finally learned enough and killed enough to warrant documentation.

These animals have unique characteristics. Richardson ground squirrels are not blind or have poor vision so that you can sneak up and shoot them with shotguns at close range. People do get lucky but if you are trying to eradicate a region you need to get all of them not a few. They have bi-chromatic vision so unlike gophers they can see farther and can distinguish moving predators in colour. You will stand out through noise and motion. They will be alerted if you walk anywhere near their territory.

I will share with you my secret camouflage. In order to confuse them dress lower half camo earth colours. Dress top half sky in blue or grey. You seem half as tall so far away as a moving threat. This confuses them if they spot you.

Richardson’s are hard to see on the backdrop of brown burrows. Most times you will hear chirping to localize their direction rather than sighting. Once you hear them, you stalk and wait nearing the burrows. Position yourself with safe background and a good shot into the hole. Sometimes you need to approach from different paths to get a key firing arc.

Any sign of danger they rush back to burrow holes. Any alerted will evacuate 200m from the alerted zone. I strike a burrow then move downrange to attack unsuspecting mounds farther on then come back from various approaches once they resume normal behaviour.

They play in sunshine but even when distracted they are really fast movers so combined with watching your background there will be few slew to skew tracking shots safely. They run hugging the ground and they leap into holes.

If you miss the shot they might stand still or leap for the hole. The key behaviour factor is if they are in their safe zone or in the open.  When away from cover the primary instinct is flee. When near the burrow their first instinct is freeze. They will flee to the hole if they are caught in the open. Once they are near safety zone they will freeze and hug ground before scrambling for cover.

Richardson’s chirp or squeak to alert surrounding burrows. Approach downwind and be patient. Once alerted they submerge. If they are startled they chirp distinctly then run for cover. Once hidden, burrow members avoid exposure and signal others until the danger passes. They have very limited long term memory.

After about 5 minutes they will emerge to investigate. First, eyes up. Second, face up. Third, neck up. They sneak a look and then they will overcrawl the mound hole. These are the best conditions for safe shots.

The best case to shoot them is once they are alerted but at the hole face. They feel safer at the hole.

When they are in safe zone they will freeze assuming you can't see them. They freeze to avoid alerting you and many times I've missed these low bodies hiding in plain sight. Stumbling over hidden holes where brown blurs ran I've missed many concealed targets.

Do Richardsons cry out when injured? Depends. If you hit vital organs, I've never hit headshots, they will death chirp but still run into the ground. I can't tell how many I've hit because I can't be certain for all the times they escaped to die underground. I count popup heads after 10 minutes to confirm effects.

Most hits they will be silent as they run for cover or leap into the hole. They will make your hunting challenging. Using a 5.6×15mmR / .22 LongRifle against at most a 30 cm target is tough shooting compared to a 7.62mmX63mm versus a 3m long elk.

Audie Murphy learned to feed his poor Texas family shooting varmints. He went on to become the most decorated veteran after learning to shoot the hardest targets. 

Sunday, May 14, 2017

Evidence in defence of stark positions.

Herein is the proof of my previous complaints

So I was wishing my mother-in-law a happy Mother's day, and I thought to myself that I really can't accept my own behavior unless I attempt ( at least try to contact) to contact my mother. I said some harsh things earlier and now here is an example, and my interpretation for you. Recall the Noble Eightfold Path: right speech, right action, right intention.  Attempting to increase global happiness and decrease global sorrow.

I first tried directly contacting her.  I don't know her phone number because she moved and hasn't alerted me to where she is. I think she lives in Colorado but I can't be certain.  Even her 91-year old mother doesn't have any contact with her for over 4 years. I am not embellishing.


Then I tried Facebook, as only Facebook can offer, to directly message my mother.  I am blocked, no contact.


So I told my wife, Laura, and she attempted a kind message on my behalf. There was no ulterior motive to my well wishes.

Here is the response:


Now, this may seem innocuous and to be fair one can suggest I am reaching, but here what I believe she meant.

First, I am the originator of the well wishes. I am not referred to at all directly in the response. Doesn't that seem odd?  I am her oldest son.

Second, Laura is referred to with hers.  Her family. I am apart from my mother.  I am not "of the body" - to a narcissist when you sever a person from your life they are beyond your interest and beyond you. You don't need to treat non-body members with the same respect.

Third. While the response is an attempt to meet the normative standards of being nice in return, it expressly doesn't meet the requestor's (mine) needs - on purpose. It is an attempt to seem nice without conceding anything the originator hopes for.  No "I am doing great", no " we are all wonderful" and so on. 

This response is an attempt to appear nice but not be nice, not nice at all.

You see, appearances are of primary importance to a bitchface because they can't afford negative sentiment towards themselves or their actions. They can't appear to be miserable or unpleasant where it can show who they really are on the inside.

Why can I state this? Because the easiest and most socially acceptable way to respond is some variant of,

"Thank David, I hope he is well."  

or

"Thanks, I am having a great day."

 That is the easiest, simplest, considerate, direct way to handle an uncomfortable difficult situation.  It's the fewest words, contains all the right sentiments, and is about all normal as expected. It's the high EQ, simple solution. It is easiest for someone defusing a tense situation.

But she CAN'T bring herself to utter them. Think about that.


The proof lies twofold, there is NO information in return. No attempt at mutual sharing, no insight into how she is doing. 

Second, this is my mother and she never, ever asked about her son.

Here is how my mother-in-law responded to my well-wishes:
"Thanks sorry missed your call. How are you?"
Notice the difference?

Why am I picking on my mother on Mother's Day? I am not, she has no idea I am writing this and I am not attempting anything other than informing poor men who might be on the verge of suicide because their ex-wife or ex-partner is treating them badly. If their ex is like this they are in for more nasty treatment and they need to be prepared.


I am living proof that some of those people have a real complaint at how they are treated, and that they must accept and be prepared for more of the same without change because this is what they could be in for. If you know someone going through a messy breakup or divorce, please tell them about this.






Friday, May 12, 2017

Why I don't celebrate Mother's Day



My mother once told me I wasn't part of her real family.

That's why I don't celebrate Mother's day.  There, you don't have to read any more.

I'm not stating this from a place of self-pity, I can assure you I really don't spend a lot of my time rethinking old events from my past. I try not to present ideas to myself in a way that makes me feel bad (or good - remember I practice Buddhism) about me or anyone else. Maybe it's the painful events like when I was disowned that make me avoid seeking self-reflection. A majority of it is simple mindset - I can't change the past or how people act so why waste my time on their problems?

It just so happened I overheard some ads reminding people to be good to their mothers. Well that prompted me to ask myself why I don't do anything for Mother's day. Apart from the obvious ideological answer was the fact that I have a mother that acts abnormally and I chose not to deal with her and allow her to make my life and my kids' lives any worse.

My mother is a narcissist. She remarried and had other children with Dad #2. When I was home visiting my grandmother and my mother was visiting with her new kids she mentioned that her family was taking a trip to New Zealand. She meant her new husband, her new son and daughter, and herself.

When my brother asked her, jokingly, why there was no ticket for him and me, she replied that we weren't "her real family". When prompted to explain herself she replied,

"You know what I meant." She was serious.

She said it from a place of reason, her reason. What she meant partly was that we were old enough to plan our own trips and even had kids of our own. But she also meant we were not part of herself - like that old Star Trek episode when all people are connected to the society-controlling computer and when they disconnect ( "you are not of the body") from the collective they can't be seen nor felt by the hive-mind. She had removed us from herself so we weren't part of her world.

That's what narcissist do, you are either part of them and reflected in their every action or you disappear and are nothing to them. I mean nothing from their perspective not the "normal" sense.  In some ways, they don't understand how that can be or feel to other people. They don't understand the harm they are causing because they are always centred on themselves. And they can't see how other people see their actions because

She didn't realize what was implied by what she meant, and she thought that the usual reason hid what she really felt in a socially-acceptable excuse.  I didn't understand it all at the time, I wasn't that mindful then, and only pieced it all together working backwards from my own marriage disaster. The pieces of the new puzzle looked a lot like the pieces of the old puzzle.

I learned from my messy divorce that the roots of accepting cruel abuse and mistreatment from my ex-wife were rooted in my mother's behaviour I learned to accept as a child.  I didn't know any better. My biggest failings are emotional and social and the roots of those failings go way back to pre-school. I had to look back to see what was going on in the present, to realize I don't understand normal.  

Why I wrote this is to express to people that may not realize how their ex is treating them may be part of a mindset that he or she can't control. Maybe that person thinks of you as nothing and that justifies all the mistreatment in that mindset. Maybe you can't see what's normal because you are calibrated at some other point? If this behaviour sounds familiar then you might want to educate yourself to how that person thinks. If this pattern is similar then you have to realize from the other perspective how you are viewed and if you want to avoid problems accept it's an uneven relationship. Maybe that treatment won't change and you have to make a stark harsh choice. Maybe you need to avoid contact as best you can for the overall good of all parties involved.

Today is my birthday, I won't get any contact from my mother and that is OK with me. Sunday is Mother's day and I choose not to interact with my mother because she's not going to change. Besides, I'm not her real family.


If you are going through a messy divorce or separation, please consider getting some advice from one that survived a horrible, legally-nasty divorce 10 years ago.


Thursday, April 20, 2017

The North Korean System



ScottAdams blogged a very inspiring and creative solution to the Korean conflict crisis here.


How To Structure a Deal With North Korea

While it is thoughtful and reasonable, here is why it won't work. As a businessman, Scott doesn't have a rounded military experience to understand for international deal-making money isn't the end goal in most negotiations and for a powerful national organization real estate sits far lower on the list than strategic concerns. 

The smart media refers to North Korea as a regime - which literally means an authoritarian government.  It's important to understand why some words are different and why they matter.  Regime means something unique.   North Korea is a regime like an Italian mob is a mafia. Of course Italian American mobsters want to be known as businessmen, even if they are an "organized group using extortion and other criminal methods" - what businessman wouldn't want access to that kind of negotiation leverage? In either case, regime or mafia, there is a small group of powerful people operating by their own rules under a brutal code of conduct. While Scott comes up with some novel solutions that should work with reasonable people, this single factor is why Scott's novel deal conditions can't work; Scott's deal will make North Korea leadership look weak and lose face and that would undermine the "Kim Family System".




I like Scott Adams book, How to fail at almost everything and still win big, it's a good read for both enjoyment and to percolate some new ideas into your work ethos. In it, he explains one key money making technique is to have a system; a consistent pattern of doing things that ends up getting you ahead in life.

The Kim family set up post-war North Korea as a family-run brutal regime; ruling by fear of the evil Americans returning, and that the only salvation for the people is the mythically talented, and suspiciously mortal, Kim family.  You can tell it's a dictatorship because like every other regime they tell you they are democratic by putting "Democratic" and "People's"  in the nation's name ( Democratic People's Republic of Korea ) as if by telling you one thing negates the fact they act opposite.  But if you don't agree with them on this or any other point, they won't hesitate to unleash wild dogs or aim anti-aircraft guns at you. They even kill family members when it supports their goals - the family's not the peoples.

The Kim Family System - the system that keeps them in power and keeps them unkilled by the masses- is that only they can help North Korea defeat decadent Western enemies of South Korea, Japan, and the evil empire America. In return for their magnificence, the North Korean people must pledge absolute loyalty to the commands of the Kim family. Loyalty enforced by the dogs and guns aforementioned. Propaganda keeps up the pressure and the mythical abilities of the Kim family and their invincibility as the last salvation of the people. They restrict access to real information, control every aspect of life, and yes even restrict food supply to keep people from getting too happy and safe.  When the regime does fall, you will see the most angry hateful display of vengeance against any vestige of the regime. Those fat cats and autocrats that supported the Kim Family will be dragged through the streets worse than the most shameful displays from Somalia, and Iraq. For three generations, the people have suffered more at the hands of their benefactors than the enemy.

So long as the North Korea isn't attacked the Kim Family can keep claiming victory and keep ruling as they like. But in order for the scheme to be successful they need the real threat of impending war to keep doubters in check and resistance quelled. The Kim Family System won't survive peace, and prosperity. It's why they keep building nukes, it's why they run air raid drills, and it's why they shoot down US planes when they get the chance.  Grandfather and Father taught Kim Jong Un that the price of control is eternal savagery against their own people to protect the family legacy. To protect the Family System. In their minds, they are protecting the people from disaster - yet 60 years of no attack would make a reasonable person reconsider the utility of continuing this strategy. Secretly, the Kim Family System probably knows the US is occupied elsewhere but they can't let the threat disappear. Their safety depends on it.




My whole theory is backed up by Trump's bluff-blunder of extolling an "armada" approaching North Korean waters backed up by threatening talk, while the USS Carl Vinson was sailing in the wrong direction.  People who don't understand are focussing on the wrong events. Those working to make money off smearing Trump mocked him for his Mister Magoo-like precision in getting his facts wrong with a sprinkle of posturing silliness added for best effect. What makes my theory credible is that the Kim Family response to the armada was exactly as predicted if they operate like I claim; North Korea warned of a nuclear counter-strike against the United States if provoked. They held a big parade full of decoy missiles ( if you only have 20 nukes you don't put them all on display in one place you hide them in caves for a counter offensive). Then North Korea tried to launch a missile as a retaliation. It may have been defective or it may have been hacked, in any case that missile launch was symbolic. The Kim Family System gets to say, "See, we told you so, they are coming for your children - bravery comrades!", and continue to arm to defend the family interests.  North Korean newspapers sound more deluded than I could smear them:

“In the case of our super-mighty preemptive strike being launched, it will completely and immediately wipe out not only U.S. imperialists’ invasion forces in South Korea and its surrounding areas but the U.S. mainland and reduce them to ashes,” it said.

Sounds like someone else you may be familiar with threatening the "Mother of all battles"? How well did that go for him?


Trump's headfake - no matter what it's comical origin is - has exposed North Korea for what it really is - a REAL fascist regime in need of perpetual warmongering.



People can mock Trump for a rookie mistake, but young people today forget it was Eisenhower's bluff - the stated threat to use nuclear weapons in North Korea to prevent any more casualties in the Korean War, that probably started the Kim Family System down the dead-end path they are on now. The old people that could remind them are playing Canasta in retirement homes. Few Koreans even remember that time so they shouldn't be so quick to judgement. Americans have had their back for 60+ years.

The best course of action for Trump is to let China try to handle the problem - to save face - and if and when that fails do one of two things: tactical strike to kill Kim Jong Un and/or impose 50% tariffs on Chinese goods UNTIL North Korea dismantles their nuclear arms and program. He could even give China the choice of which they want. Let them fail and then pointedly act because time is running out.  If the Kim Family System ever gets threatened internally they won't hesitate to distract their own people by sending them to annihilation in a war. But in a regime no one can act without approval of the boss, otherwise they turn the dogs and guns on you. While Kim Jong Un's men claim they would carry out his dying orders I doubt that, they live in a world where lying to the boss is how you survive. Few Americans have lived in a post-Communist regime as I did for six months - they don't understand that under Communism it's Orwellian double think that keeps their sanity. North Korea and North Korean leadership especially doesn't want a war either as they would end up losing everything they have. As with most strongmen Kim's family has killed all potential rivals so the moment he is dead, like Tito, North Korea will descend into a political vaccuum, infighting, and maybe civil war.

Even if they believe that America wants a war they are in precarious times. Fresh in the mind of the struggle victor would be how he got his job. And the old boss just pissed off China by not cooperating, maybe China won't answer the call to arms.  As far as I can tell Premier Xi Jin Ping is a smart leader, that plays in favour of a decisive move after all real diplomatic means are exhausted and leaves him to return the insult at the end to North Korea. How likely could North Korea beat South Korea? Even they know they wouldn't last long with all the nuclear missiles incoming.

The way to solve this Gordian knot is with the sword, after the pen.

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Consistent with a medieval conscience: A response to Conrad Black



It's hard to encompass the entirety of #ConradBlack's (I can call him that since his criminal record was enough for the British ["he is ineligible to take part in the work of the House of Lords"]  and Canadians ["removed from the Order of Canada and stripped of Privy Council position"] to revoke his titular status as superior to the rest of us ) stridency in his editorial:



Firstly, when you indicate the "West", to whom are you referring? Does your West include Japan? If so, then does it exclude Shinto Buddhists or include them? It seems to me they would be humble, peaceful, tax-paying members of the Western world. They don't share your Judeo-Christian labelling.  I could go on at length criticising your grandiose gesturing but I think I've made my point.

Secondly, while it is a convenient debating trick to claim your opponent needs to provide your argument, which side needs the existence of a god? It is by logic alone impossible to demonstrate the existence of a non-existent entity. Even if one adopts the opposite supposition, e.g. no one can't disprove the existence of a god, that still leaves the evidence deficit against your position.  Atheism doesn't need gods of any variety to claim what we can.  You haven't a shred of proof (or non-proof) an omnipotent creator nor divine natural "force" exists.

Thirdly, how does one disassociate Islam from the other Abrahamic religions? The tiresome point for atheists that take up the challenge to criticise religious assertions is that coming from a reasoned tradition we must speak from not-ignorance, so before we speak we must research and understand the opposite position. This seems to be an impediment to action the religious side won't take in return.  It is my understanding that Jesus is a minor prophet under Islam, so I don't see how you or anyone can extricate Islam in your "us-them" set representation. In fact, all three Abrahamic religions have been used to justify terrorism and barbarism at many points throughout history, in recent memory the KKK. Or the IRA, and so on.  This convenient Islam sidestep demonstrates how confusing your position is.


Meanwhile, science has done more to advance the human condition than Christianity can claim in 2000 years. This claim can be made against all three Abrahamic religions, they all provide a sales pitch and an empty promise, no matter what Pascal's wager supposes, and while it may seem noble to encourage humanity it beggars what man can accomplish by shackling it to religion. 


Most atheists believe or work in science.  And even if not fully true, if Christianity is lagging the innovation bestowed by science & technology ( safety, health, security, jobs...) then how can anyone reasonably claim those science-appreciating atheists are ruining the West (whatever that is)?

The moral high-ground whereupon you claim to speak from was conceived within the medieval commonsense. Your acceptance of all the fruits of Enlightenment so long as reason and skepticism doesn't interfere with your delusions is the Western problem. This isn't a rare occurrence, I've been in churches where the priest mocks scientists while wearing glasses and speaking into a microphone. The irony escaped him as well.  It is your response here, Conrad, your unwillingness to present a real case while assuming you get to sit in judgement over others that is the real problem in Western culture. Your viewpoint is consistent with a medieval conscience, to mock without justification yet be unwilling to defend your own ideas.

This is precisely why you will hear more atheists, tired of your feckless haranging, that aren't afraid of societal consequences any more than
deus ex machina.

Tuesday, April 4, 2017

#DeliciousIrony: Now you watch Bill O'Reilly to get angry at him.



From 2 years ago, why would one trust Bill O'Reilly?

#DeliciousIrony: The angry old people that used to watch #BillOReilly to yell at the stories and viewpoints that #CNN won't cover, now can also yell at the TV over Bill O'Reilly's own conduct and issues. 

Way to take one for the #TrumpTrain and distract venom from conservative political issues!

Thursday, March 23, 2017

#Mathematics is #Philosophy


Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy  is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy  is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy  is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy  is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy  is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy  is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy  is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy  is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy  unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy  is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy  is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy  is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy  is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy  is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy  is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy  is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy  is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy  is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy  is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy  is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy  is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy  is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy  is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy  is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy  is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy  unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy  is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy  is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy  is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy  is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy  is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy  is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy  is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy  is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy is unbounded Mathematics is bounded Philosophy

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Bitchface negotiation through mind-controlled children.



This is a prime example from an hour ago of how narcissistic, selfish parents manipulate children to do their bidding:

My daughter texts me (in blue) :
Hi dad.... since you have me for family week then should I stay here for another week then go to your house for two week
 Weeks
 Then the schedule
 Will be the same
I reply (in red) :
 Hi


 Sorry I can't change schedule without agreement from your mom and wont break the schedule.

She hasn't contacted me so please come over tomorrow. 

Then my ex-wife takes Darcy's phone (in green):

This is Michelle
Darcy wants to stay here next week to keep the number of weeks even when you guys go to red deer shopping for family week. I agree with it. You?


This is the same person that took 3 divorce-mandated courses to  warn parents about parental alienation and what is not acceptable.

NO THAT'S OK WE WILL KEEP THE SCHEDULE AS IT IS. SORRY DARCY. 

Then I got a phone call in which my ex-wife asks me to "keep things even" that Darcy wants to stay at her house and for next week. Then she asks why I am forcing Darcy to come to my house? When I reply with the same message then she says she will "TELL DARCY I'M NOT ALLOWING HER TO STAY OVER". 

So when my kids have to go to her house it's what they want, when they come to my house I am forcing them. This is the mindset drilled into the kid's heads.

Pure unadulterated child manipulation.  No mention of asking, no negotiation with me, no explaining the circumstances. Whenever I have been reasonable in the past, no respect for that into the future.

So I replied back:

Last year your mom said no to this same arrangement and you spent 3 weeks there. You are also going to be there for Easter.changung the schedule becomes complicated.
See you Monday 



 If your mother wants to communicate with me tell her to email me

We are not forcing you here; we are upholding an agreement and we are not playing the same games. This kind of stuff is unacceptable.  

I was just saying that it would be a good idea I don't want to start a fight I was just saying


I'm sorry who is speaking? I'm sorry Darcy your mom pressured you into this conflict. You stayed at your mom's house 3 weeks last time it was fine we never put you in the middle.  


It was my idea dad

When she says things like we are forcing you it's really persuasion to make it sound like she's being fair but really it's manipulation. She suggested the idea to you. You just don't realize it. That's how she tricks people.  

I need to point out to my kids what is going on to them, because there is no limit to the manipulation, the courts are powerless to do anything, and there is no self-control from a person that should be adult enough to put the kids' needs first. My goal is either to prevent the bitchface from acting boldly against the kids or at the very least to make the kids aware of what is happening to them. In between the times when they are put in this situation, I hope they realize how and why they are made to feel so badly, and whether or not they agree with any parent treating them like this.

Friday, February 3, 2017

#humblebrag hubris

I'm so afraid of war I volunteered to serve in war zones- twice.

I'm the result when the +Terminator and +Mr.Spock have a love-child.

I was House before +Hugh Laurie  had an American accent.

I know more maths than +Sheldon Cooper  .

And if you think any of these are impressive, I'm all of them.

<mic drop>



I'm easy to work with...

I'm easy to work with... so long as I'm in charge.

Sunday, January 22, 2017

American Political Choice, in a nutshell

So I have to vote this year, let's see...

well I like the Libertarian policy of free markets, lowest taxes, staying out of my choices & my body, and no wasteful wars....

but the +Libertarians aren't powerful enough to win so...

I guess I have to choose between +Democrats and +Republicans...

so what do I wanted to be associated with? The crazy Jesus freak radical Christians and their high-minded morality inside the Republican party...

or the neo-Communist anarchists hysterical eco-tree hugging, looting & rioting radicals inside the Democrat party...

I guess I will stay home and not waste my time too.