Is it pretty clear why the reverse square law for gravity isn’t a law but a range limited emergent property? I think I’ve dealt with it elsewhere amongst a big meandering thread. But I may have to do a single thread going over that material because it may be a bit confusing to some people. In order to create a cult of personality over Einstein that had to have a parallel cult to do with Newton. And Maxwell for that matter. So they can kind of jump foot to foot.
We can skim over the basics. Gravity is a force. Its obviously a pull-force. And its instantaneous, this implies constant contact. We know that matter is all joined by an aether since light has wave-length. Wave requires a medium. That medium is called the aether. So we already knew that matter maintained constant contact, since matter is visible.
Mother nature is parsimonious with its mechanisms so that this same aether is responsible for gravity. This aether theory is very similar to Bill Gaedes rope theory. The thing is though, that the smallest unit of aether, has to be very tiny in comparison to an individual proton, electron, and neutron. Since no one strand of aether has any real effect on any of these. That is to say when it comes to the very small stuff the pull force of the connections is vanishingly tiny.
If this is new to you, take a breath and absorb all this, because we have to dive into the implications of how gravity would work nucleon to nucleon and what the implications are when we scale up.
Just in passing lets mention the electric universe guys. Their main insight is that electrical effects, deeply mysterious that they are, scale really well. They see the same things happening on the scale of light years, that they see on the scale of just a few centimetres in the lab. I think they have made their case really well. But gravity, that slight pull-force that the aether creates, almost by accident, DOESN’T scale real well.
I think aether scales real well. In that I think a Birkeland current is acting like a giant strand of aether, even though its travelling through all these tiny strands of aether. And when light travels through aether its as though the aether is “scaled up” to allow it to do so.
Electrical effects aren’t size dependents (or so the case is very well made) but gravitational effects are. Because a small insect barely feels the force of gravity as he climbs up a wall. But the fat man feels the force only too much as he walks up the stairs.
Now imagine that the nucleon to nucleon gravitational force drops off to the third power and not to the second. Like an inverse cube law. You are on a spherical earth but the surface is perfectly flat. Every molecule on the planet and in the air above you is exerting a pull force on you, but some of them at different angle.
As you ascend to the clouds like Jesus does in the story, think of how the force vectors from many of the molecules of earth are changing? The higher you go, the closer to straight down a lot of these force vectors are becoming. Now do you see what I’m saying about the end result being an emergent property? The force vectors are changing so the resultant force is becoming more effective. Thus compensating in such a way as to make the drop-off in force less pronounced.
Anywhere above the point where hydrogen weather balloons tap out, the only things subject to gravity are orbiting. That is to say moving roughly perpendicular to the earth. I’m saying that this movement reduces the gravitational pull “a little bit.” Some items will have an elliptical orbit. All circular motion involves acceleration. But elliptical orbits accelerate and decelerate a lot more than circular orbits. I’m saying acceleration, unless the movement (not the acceleration itself) is towards the earth (rather than perpendicular to it) breaks a lot of aether connections and therefore reduces the force of gravity “quite a bit.” So I’m saying that the inverse square law isn’t really true, only appears to be true, and only appears to be true in a fairly limited range, and that its an emergent property for the reasons mentioned.
Just wanted to clear that one up. Because the big thread on growing earth, gravity and mountain-building can be a bit hard to follow.
So if you were to plug this sort of thing into a computer model you are going to find out why orbits are so forgiving. Why gravity is not clumpy and crash-happy. Why mathematicians can barely solve a three-body problem but the galaxy solves a multi-billion body orbiting problem effortlessly. Why NASA finds that rockets pick up anomalous energy when they slingshot them around planets. Why spiral arm galaxies don’t act the way the mainstream wants them to, so they had to make up dark matter. All that stuff is explained by the above view of gravity. So I’ve really cracked it. These problems can be solved if you listen to dissident voices, stop putting down people as “crackpots’ and you dwell on these things long enough.
It is on the basis of this Galaxy Rotation Curve, that stupid-town has postulated dark matter. What an embarrassment! So what is the answer to this alleged anomaly? The way we see galaxies moving in the real universe is inherent in everything I’ve already said about physics. Galaxies ought to act in the way they do indeed act, according to what I’ve said already. But its easier to understand why, than it is to explain why. So I’ll do my best to give you a feel for this.
We need to recap the basics of how matter and gravity works. When you have one large object and one small object the two objects want to amalgamate. So if one object is bigger than the moon and the other is smaller than Phobos, typically they want to come together. But if both objects are larger than the moon they want to orbit. And their orbit will be energy-positive. New pristine energy will be created during this orbit.
When contemplating matter in the process of evolving, it ought to occur to you that if the above rules weren’t in place, no meaningful reality could have gotten going. Gravity would make matter clumpy and crash-happy. If Gravity worked in accordance with the modern stupidity gravity would be clumpy and crash-happy. So this idea of larger objects wanting to orbit and smaller objects wanting to amalgamate with larger objects, was necessary for our particular FORM of matter to gain the edge during the evolution of matter.
The above speculation as to ancient matter evolution might not be readily apparent as a necessary consequence of sound reasoning, until you realise that for the universe to exist in the form we find it, somewhere along the line a form of matter had to evolve which was conducive to the creation of more matter. Matter must help in the creation of new matter, or each new act of matter creation, would amount to a separate miracle. Our matter is fairly durable and doesn’t break down quickly. Nonetheless it does break down, and so we have a basis for the evolution of competing forms of matter. So you see there is a number of characteristics for the matter we see everywhere to achieve, before it could have gotten everywhere in the quantities we see it.
Matter helps create new matter and so that moons grow to planets grow to gas giants grow to stars grow to bigger stars, and if they grow big enough they become a big dark object like Sagittarius A*. There is electrically only room for one of these beasts per galaxy. When another object gets to that size, it will be pushed out of the galaxy as a Quasar. The Quasar will take a bunch of stars with it, and form a new galaxy.
Now of course this idea that the universe is only 13.8 billions of years old is complete stupidity and the creation myth need not detain us here. Our sun will be a lot older than that. And Jupiter will be much older than 13.8 billion years as well. The milky way galaxy is hundreds of billions of years old for sure.
So the orbits of the spiral arms have come about under the above rules over many hundreds of billions of years. In the analysis of the mainstream the time factor is left out of the equation.
So we see that even objects as small as the earth and the moon don’t want to collide. The orbit introduces pristine energy. And yet the orbit is very forgiving. They don’t wish to crash. But they aren’t wanting to separate completely from each-other. That being the case how is it that the orbits separate out into spiral arms?
The orbits of planets and moons wants to get bigger for starters but its a slight and slow thing that goes in line with the growing size of the objects. This tendency of orbits of non-stars (but large objects) to grow, is therefore not sufficient cause for spiral arm segregation. Or for new stars to get their own solar system.
But supposing you come back and these objects have progressed onto both being big stars? Thats not a likely story that they would still be together. Because every so often you get an eruption from the centre of the galaxy that blows up moons, planets and stars, and then a whole lot of orbits are rearranged, over hundreds or perhaps a few thousand years.
But supposing they have been together all this time? There is an additional factor making these stars want to be forced apart. You see stars have a proton wind. So two stars have an extra factor repelling them. Actually Saturn and Jupiter both have proton winds as well. But I would not think that this proton wind would amount to much, given the problem to hand.
So anyhow you can kind of imagine that with the above rules in place, the serendipity of exploding objects, and the repulsion of proton winds, that these stars will separate out, firstly into separate solar systems (our sun may have once been a planet orbiting one of those big chunky stars of Orion) but also into spiral arms. Most solar systems are dual star by the way. So the solar system separation is yet to occur in these cases.
Now we come to this alleged anomaly, that has led these cosmologists to make complete fools of themselves.
So this gives you a bit of an idea what is going on here. After a short distance out, the speed of the stars rotation around the milky way stabilises. Why would this be an anomaly? Certainly its not something to be inventing non-existent dark matter about! You see what is going on here? The stars closer to the centre rotate around the galaxy, at about the same speed, as the stars further out from the centre. Why would this be odd? Is the mainstream just playing silly buggers with us? Why pretend this is a strange situation when its exactly how you would expect these stars to behave?
Well about 120 years a bunch of oligarchs and Jews came up with a strategy to take over physics and cosmology. One standard technique for exercising control over others was to force people to believe something that could not be true under any circumstances. But one of these bright sparks had an inspiration …… “Why not this time..” said the little rat fink “…. we instead force people to DISBELIEVE something we know for a fact is true …… its really the same technique after all…..”
So since we knew that there was an aether, being as we could measure the wave-length of light, these horrible little Bolsheviks started applying political pressure, to outlaw the aether.
Now the aether connects every nucleon with every other, but were these permanent connections there would be no movement at all. All matter would be fixed in relation to all other matter. So therefore we know that all aether connections are always in the process of breaking and reforming. Anti-gravity efforts consist of not allowing aether connections time to reform, as well as they might.
So supposing you are a star orbiting the galaxy and a star further out from the centre is ahead of you. But you are gaining on that star since you have less of a distance, given that your circular orbit is inside the orbit of the star in question. Well that start pulls you along a little bit, and when you overtake you pull that star along a bit, and its as easy to see as can be possible that the speeds would become very similar.
So we already know that aether connections are constantly breaking and reforming. But if they were rigid and supposing the galaxy was rotating, the further out the stars were the faster they would be going. But we know that gravity doesn’t work like that, and particularly from the orbits of planets in our own solar system. The closer in the faster you move, when it comes to planets and moons within our solar system.
But in the case of stars in the galaxy, the outer and inner stars end up homogenising their rotation speed to a very great extent. Which confirms pretty much everything I’ve said about the way gravity works and refutes everything these clowns in the mainstream say. But they won’t take “no” for an answer so they are back with this “dark matter” idea. Its morons we are dealing with here. Morons and people of bad character.
Another thing to remember. While Newtons formulae appear to work pretty well in the inner solar system, the inverse square “law”, as explained elsewhere, ought to be considered an “emergent property” and not the actual reality. On a nucleon to nucleon basis its more likely that the drop-off in the gravitational force of attraction is closer to the 3rd power. On that level it might be closer to an inverse cube law. But you have to consider the speed-and-acceleration, at which the object are moving in relation to each-other, as well as the angled force vectors operating on the two objects. It is likely that the inverse square law is merely an emergent property, that only works after a fashion, at middling distances.
A consequence of this misunderstanding will have the cosmologists under-estimating the mass of the outer “gas giant” planets, which aren’t gas giants at all. Just big rocky planets with gigantic oceans and outsized atmospheres.
A consequence is that stars will be more influenced by other stars near to them, than by the central mass of the galaxy, than what the mainstream will have in their calculations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bill Gaede talks about the galaxy as moving like a Catherine Wheel. Well I’m not so sure about that. He may be oversimplifying here. But he gave me the idea to just look at the Catherine Wheel in contemplation of the galaxy. Who the hell knows what electrical forces are being unleashed here? Bill is no fan of the electric universe crowd. I think he’s being too hard on them. But I’ve just described all this proton-wind repulsion going on in the galaxy. Electrical effects are tricky things and you’d have to wonder what the net result of all this positive charge repulsion would be, when most of the balancing negative charges are kind of hidden from the picture I’m painting.
So you guys who understand electricity better than I do, maybe just watch this here Catherine Wheel spinning a bit, in contemplation of the Milky Way galaxy turning. It might help you think more clearly and come up with something really cosmic.
Candidate Ron Paul was an old, near-minarchist right-wing Christian white male Republican. Candidate Tulsi Gabbard is a young, left-wing, mixed race, female, Hindu Democrat. They are the same.
Don’t ask me straight out to prove they are the same. I’m supposed to be the worlds most holistic prophet. Prophets aren’t going to spell it out for you. Ron Paul and Tulsi Gabbard are the same in ways that go far deeper than the biffing and baffing of contemporary politics.
I was putting about the idea of the Ron Paul “I am Ron Paul” meme well before the campaign took it up. I started saying “I am Ron Paul” well before that, and specifically on the Louisianna university blog. The LSU tigers blog.
But I got the idea of it from the Spike Lee movie about Malcolm X. So it may have been me who passed it on to the Ron Paul team. Or they may have made that same mental link on their own. But I was inspired by Spike. And Brother Malcolm. A real brother to us all.
I won’t say that Ron Paul, and Tulsi Gabbard, and Malcolm X are the same. Because the oligarchy murdered Malcolm before, or just as he had put together the full flowering of his intellectual righteousness. They murdered Malcolm and yet stole his sperm. Thats how evil these people are.
Malcolm had a way of saying everything that John Galt said with oh so fewer words.
I am Malcolm X and by any means necessary. But the oligarchy murdered Malcolm too soon so I won’t make a troika out of this.
I cannot as a prophet spell these things out to you. But I’ll give you a clue. Or rather I’ll let “My Chemical Romance” give you the clue as to why Ron Paul and Tulsi Gabbard are the same.
Only the first two minutes of the song is relevant, or any good, but the first two minutes of the song is worth listening too many times.
The tide goes in and out and the words used in the language of politics take different shades as to their meaning. But Ron Paul and Tulsi Gabbard are the same. In a way that escapes any kind of obsession with contemporary politics.
Ron Paul and Tulsi Gabbard are the same. In a way that goes deeper than left or right. Up or down.
Each subshell is constrained to hold 4ℓ+ 2 electrons at most, namely:
Each s subshell holds at most 2 electrons
Each p subshell holds at most 6 electrons
Each d subshell holds at most 10 electrons
Each f subshell holds at most 14 electrons
Each g subshell holds at most 18 electrons
Therefore, the K shell, which contains only an s subshell, can hold up to 2 electrons; the L shell, which contains an s and a p, can hold up to 2 + 6 = 8 electrons, and so forth; in general, the nth shell can hold up to 2n2 electrons.[1]”
When each shell is filled up we have the family of inert gasses. You can see them in the periodic table.
In a reducing environment, an electron-rich environment, some of the gasses that are not inert gasses will start acting more like them. Its as if their electron shells will be filled out. These elements will then tend to want to separate out from their chemical bonds. One doesn’t want to be too absolutist about this. But the tendency will be there.
Elsewhere you will see me claiming that “up'” and “down” reverse as we head to the centre of the earth. They may reverse once or three times. If we follow matters upward from the earths surface we see that if the depth of the ocean were equalised all over we would have solids, liquids, then gasses, then gasses separated out by molecular weight, then an area of charged particles, essentially protons and electrons. Which I think is what the Van Allen belts are all about but its hard to get confirmation of that. Then there is space. So it goes solids, liquids, gasses, protons, electrons, then space.
In my model something like this is going on as we go to the centre of the earth. The difference is that thermal energy is trapped within. So matters are happening at a very high temperature. The order is solids, liquids, gasses. But these gasses include pretty much all the elements. Being as the temperature will be so hot. Remember up and down are reversed. So up is towards the centre of the earth well before you get to the gas stage.
The last layers are Helium, hydrogen, protons, electrons, space. The space becomes a small gamma ray sun. This is because the last two layers lead to charge separation, which leads to charge buildup. Which leads to all pervasive negative charge. And since this charge is so focused we have a kind of spontaneous plasma focus “machine” as it were. Since its gamma rays in free space we have pair production. Since we have such a powerful negative charge buildup we have easy fusion building of heavy elements. I have made this claim before. That fusion is easy and natural, but no energy spinner. That it happens very easily in a situation of high charge buildup.
But while there is no air pressure right at the centre, further back in the opposite direction the gas pressure buildup is very strong. So the hot gasses pierce DOWNWARDS (paradoxically towards the earths SURFACE) even though these gasses are lighter than the liquids then solids they are burrowing into.
Now these gasses will burrow down, until “up” and “down” are reversed and then they will get a bit of a boost in their attempt to make it towards the earths surface. On the other hand as they cool they will liquify, solidify, and mix together. But they won’t mix as well as they otherwise might. Because of the pervasive negative charge environment. They’ll mix alright but not even close to as much as we would otherwise expect.
And so we get our earths negative electrical field and we also get ore grade magmas. If heavy metals were only created in supernovae, as the ludicrous mainstream theory alleges, none of this would be possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Okay what is the alternative environment to the beginning of life that I’ve been banging on about as a corrective to the modern feebleness of evolutionary theory? The chemists find their theories of the origins of life to be pretty untenable. But think of what is going on in the middle of Pluto? I suggest that pluto has started its new matter creation process. But its mostly hydrogen. Smaller amounts of oxygen, carbon and other elements. But mostly just hydrogen. So you get the buildup of gasses at the centre, and this leads to these active volcanoes that NASA found on Pluto. The liquid water comes out of these volcanoes, freezes as it is released and lands as ice on the ground. Probably a lot of this ice will sublimate not having the atmosphere to keep it there but here I am speculating.
The point is you’ll have the reducing hydrogen heavy gasses, with a strong electron-rich environment, such that the normal laws of chemistry don’t apply. You’ll have the hydrogen biased gasses that are needed to spontaneously produce amino acids. But on earth things have heated up too much in the middle of the earth. So you cannot now have the interior of the earth as the place for the evolution of life. But the water coming out of Pluto’s volcanoes may only be luke-warm, and largely driven out by gas pressure and not by heat as such.
So what we might have, throughout much if not most of the interior of Pluto, is the venue I’ve been banging on about, that could be conducive to the evolution of life.
So here what I’m saying is that primitive life evolves in proto-planets in the boonies. Far away from a star. It has to be in the boonies to keep the heat low enough for the process to continue for billions of years. Abiogenesis has to go on OUTSIDE of the inner solar system of stars. Then to get life on a surface of a planet, that planet has to come in from the cold somehow.
Those of our brothers who wish to diversify away from hydro-carbon energy have to realise that energy economics is not all common sense. Substitution away from primary energy sources is a very slow process. Even very competent economists who have not specialised in the quirks of energy economics may not realise that one of the iron laws of energy economics is that substitution rates are painfully slow.
As a result the best results will be found in ENERGY EFFICIENCY of hydro-carbon use, rather than alternatives to hydrocarbon use. I mean here on a time period of a few years to a few decades. In terms of many decades and centuries its likely to be thorium fission that really delivers. If we wanted to one day lean most of the burden of energy on heliostats in the deserts, we could probably do that. But it would likely take centuries. This is a field of study where time matters. Try to bias the energy source of your particular choosing, in a great good hurry, you are likely to fail. The idea ought to be a many-pronged approach in one way, but a two-pronged approach in another.
Lets make it the two-pronged approach. That is to 1. get energy efficiency WITHOUT energy substitution and 2. Sponsor many different alternatives with a very thin cash-flow ….. until it becomes obvious that one of your alternatives has hit a sweet spot. As Diana Ross said “You can’t hurry love, no you’ve just got to wait…” My favourite energy source for the deserts is heliostats. My favourite energy source over all right now is thorium energy. But we must not hurry and use one energy source as an excuse to be exclusionary of another. You all may have your favourite energy sources but the idea is to set up a series of incentives without picking winners.
We could leave it to the free market of course? But we don’t have a free market so the phrase “leave it to the free market” is incoherent under modern realities. We are functioning in a situation of conspirational and evil finance cartel. And we can see that all the way back to the 30’s the oligarchy hated few things more than energy freedom for the masses.
“Can it be imagined how many solar panels or even wind turbines that could be made from the metal of just one of these massive modern cruise ships?”
When putting my energy efficiency hat on I take the contrary view that “At least they are not flying in a jet.”
Okay so its in cargo and work-in-progress moving that “anti-gravity transport” (dirigibles, water, perfectly flat rail; (particularly if magnetically floating) gives us the most gains. But I don’t think we ought to be getting in the way of ship-building for luxury cruises.
In the 19th century, you had the phenomenon of the private rail car. Thats the lap of luxury and a beautiful way to travel. So long as the train-lines are close to perfectly flat, its an energy efficient way to travel. Plus today you could take your internet office with you, and catch up on all the library books you’ve been wanting to read.
With their hold on the media, and using a terrorist false flag event, the oligarchy brought the age of the dirigible to an end. Before these murderers committed the Hindenburg terrorist attack we had this fantastically luxurious form of transport that gave you an excellent look at the countryside and was getting to be within the grasp of the middle class. You could take a shower, they had a piano player, you could eat well and there was dancing. Thats a magnificent way to travel.
The luxury “anti-gravity” forms of travel, done right, can amortise the cost of these anti-gravity transport systems for cargo and work-in-progress and thats where the real wealth-creation comes. We ought not begrudge these luxuries. We ought to instead be angry at the fractional reserve usury cartel that puts wealth in fewer and fewer hands.
We ought to get these three other luxury travel systems going at the expense of flying with a jet, and we have to substitute away from all these interstate trucks. Jet flying is a pretty ugly experience by and large. Where substitutes are available, it would be good if we could be taking them up. Particularly overnight rail sleepers. And overnight dirigibles travel. Both should be a better alternative to interstate jet flights.
At some stage I came to the idea that the old testament, though bullshit from start to finish, was a very positive influence for many gentiles. But that in the hands of people who think they are “chosen ones” it becomes kind of toxic. And many protestants can begin to believe they are “chosen ones”.
I’ve got a hunch that Leo Strauss may be similar. I have read fuck all books since 2003. Maybe in about 1995, thanks to being a casual worker who hated being bored even for a second, I ended up one of the best-read people of my generation. All I did was read, exercise, and do casual work. Thats probably why I made such an impact on Ozblogistan in 2005. But I’m not any kind of well-read person now. Thats all degraded.
So I cannot pretend to have read Leo Strauss in the original. But a second hand interpretation of Leo Strauss gives me the hunch that how I’ll feel about him is how I would feel about a gentile, versus a chosen-one, with regards to the old testament.
My interim thinking is that us gentiles, when we get the time, would do well to read Leo Strauss in the original. And I say that on the basis of Angelo Codevilla, who I read in the original any chance I can get.
The legitimate Plantangenet heirs live in Australia. If we make the elder daughter Queen and she makes me Governor of the Southern Highlands, supposing we want the best for her subjects? Do we want war? No because with economic science I know exactly what to do to bring great wealth and the good life to the people. So war is this horrific distraction from pursuing the good life. So war is an explosive action you do to kill the right people so you can quickly get home and continue doing a Lee Kwan Yew performance in making all the little people fantastically wealthy and happy.
Now I heard about this philosopher Strauss. I now know that his alleged followers, though they seemed like a ship-of-fools, convinced me (in error) of the rightness of the second Gulf war. What a bunch of utter clowns these people are. These neocons. But lets take a bit of secondhand Leo Strauss commentary:
This impressive condensation of Strauss and Codevilla thought is in this essay from the Claremont review of books. Here is a sample. Can you see in any of this a justification for the second Gulf War?
“We must face up to this disturbing Socratic endorsement of expansionism or imperialism in case of necessity. For although the size of the conquest may not “amount to much,” it might mean something quite drastic to the neighboring city that happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It will definitely require the seizure of property and killing of men who oppose this expansion.
Socrates in effect shows that he knows how problematic his open defense of aggressive warfare is, when he says that the government must lie to the citizens about the true origin of the city’s territory. The citizens will be told, in a noble lie, that the native land on which they are born was their mother, not that it was taken by force from a foreign nation.
We may sum up the Socratic approach by saying that although foreign policy is in principle amoral, because it is dictated by the selfish needs of the political community, it is also moderate, because the needs of the city are limited, given the primacy of its concern for civic virtue and therefore domestic policy.”
Moderate because the needs of our people are limited. With the science of permaculture our needs are even more modest. There is precious little excuse for war.
“If a city is defeated in war, says Socrates, only those who are responsible for the war will be punished. It is probable that this Socratic suggestion arises from the humanity of his philosophic orientation, which transcends loyalty to a particular political regime. We can perhaps see in this proposal the roots of the much milder rules of conquest established by Locke and other early modern thinkers.”
Here I think it is implied that in a high-tech war, violence should be projected against regime leadership. No ill will ought to be held against the population once the war is over. I extrapolate from this that a lot of effort must be put in advance, just who is culpable regime leadership when it comes to the dispute to hand.
“It is important to understand why, for Strauss and the classical political philosophers, the purpose of foreign policy should be limited to self-preservation or necessity. Obviously, it is not because life has no higher purpose than mere survival. Rather, it is because all policy, foreign and domestic, should be in the service of one thing: the well being or happiness of society. This means that government’s most important task is to help the citizens live the good life by promoting the right ideal of human excellence. That is emphatically a matter of domestic policy, not foreign. For that reason, in principle, foreign policy is easy, and domestic policy is very difficult. No one disputes that preservation is better than death; but all claims about the content of the life of human excellence are inherently controversial.”
Foreign policy is easy. Because you are focused, Lee Kwan Yew style, bringing the good life for all your people tip to stern. So foreign policy consists of dissuading foreigners from distracting you from this concentrated task. Which means classifying regime leadership for death, or humiliating fear, should they distract you too much. I suggest doing this via Venn diagram. Narrowing it down to hundreds of people. Or just a few thousand.
“For Strauss, the truly important question to consider is whether Iraq (or any other nation) has been actively planning or supporting the killing of American citizens or citizens of America’s most important allies. As it happens, there is quite a bit of evidence that Iraq was doing just that. Angelo Codevilla’s excellent series of articles in the Claremont Review of Books has convincingly shown the connection between Iraq and terrorists who seek to harm, and who have harmed and do harm, American citizens and their allies.”
It turns out that Codevilla had been unwittingly picking up low-hanging fruit from Mossad. Me too. I made the same mistake. Mossad had been planning this since about 1978 and they had left all this bogus evidence around. But lets suppose Codevilla had not been fooled by the Jews. Lets suppose that the Arabs really had committed 9/11 and not the Jews? Lets suppose Iraq had subtly caused these plans to gain momentum? In that case the Straussian thinking would apply.
Anyway Codevilla is not Strauss, West is not Codevilla, Strauss is not Socrates. But reading these Strauss interpreters makes me think there is a lot of worthwhile stuff going on there.
But put these ideas in the hands of the Jews and they are going to make a pigs breakfast out of it.
Its an extraordinary performance. John Stossel may not be a doctrinaire libertarian. But he’s pretty far in the libertarian direction even if not doctrinaire. The interview ought not work at all. They should be chalk and cheese. Under normal assumptions a lefty would not go near Stossel. It ought to be a complete train-wreck for the politician.
But Tulsi Gabbard hits it clean out of the park. I think Stossel is delighted. She is like a female version of Simon-The-Likeable. Simon-The-Likeable from Maxwell Smart. People fall in love with Simon as soon as they look into his eyes. Stossels trying to fight to keep his objectivity. Its hopeless. Given the chance Stossel will be voting for a female lefty for the first time in his life. I think he’s lost now. Lost.
Tulsi has been in the legislature since she was 21. Effortless performance like Bing Crosby’s singing voice; she makes it look so easy. Given time Tulsi Gabbard could progress to becoming a real champion like Dr Mahatir. The girl is a natural.
A Tulsi-Sanders ticket would be devastating for the oligarchy. Oh they love commies and big spenders don’t get me wrong. But they cannot handle small government egalitarians. But Tulsi and Sanders are lefties I hear you protest?
Note that the Republicans have the Congress and the Senate. So they won’t be very generous with the purse-strings. That would foist small government egalitarianism on the Tulsi-Sanders administration. Its not like we need to worry about more financial continence than we have right now.
This team could beat Trump. The rest of the field Trump will eat alive. And he SHOULD eat them alive, and if there is any other combination I would want him to do so. He’s probably just having a few appetisers right about now. These two together are the only team the Donald cannot stomp without mercy. I hope the Americans will make it a fair fight and somehow it comes together with Tulsi as the Presidential candidate and Bernie running for Vice President.
The oligarchy rigged the election in favour of Clinton last time and she still lost. This was a bit of an exception because they typically rig elections for the Republicans. But the oligarchy would rather have Trump then Tulsi-Sanders, as much as they hate Trump. So we need to watch out for their fakery. Trump was the victim of their rigging last time, but if it came down to the team I propose, the oligarchy would swing around and favour Trump with bogus votes.
Before you click on the video just look at the face of the poor little puppy John Stossel. He can never be the same again. Just a short time ago he was a hard-headed libertarian, with decades of excellent journalism under his belt. Now he is human putty.
