Reality and truth - when theory must give way to reality

 

Claire Wolfe muses on "The consequences of avoiding reality".

Obviously the specific consequences of specific delusions are destructive enough. But what happens when some large and influential segment of the human race simply concludes that any random aspect of actual reality doesn’t count? That reality is whatever they decree it to be from moment to moment? And that becomes the everyday madhouse “truth” the rest of us must cope with.

Yeah, that’s already happened. The Soviet Union operated on that principle. Whoever’s running the Biden administration seems well along that road. Academia … OMG. But it’s way bigger than that. It’s global — and it’s ours and our descendants to deal with.

I drew a chart of potential long-term consequences of chronic, civilization-wide (or at least society-wide) reality-avoidance. Of course, this is not only pure speculation, but speculation upon the broadest generalities. Consider it food for discussion, not actual projection.

. . .

So what do you think?

Long term (really long) where are we heading?

And what’s the best thing you and yours personally can do while we’re on the road to that eventuality? Or to avert that eventuality?

There's more at the link, and I highly recommend that you take the time to click over to Claire's place and read it.  Her seven "alternatives" are interesting and thought-provoking.

The biggest problem I see with her alternatives is that too many people today insist that they have/know/see the truth, and nobody else does.  It's like the Thirty Years War, which was perhaps the worst (but far from the only) religious war in Europe:  "Our vision of God is the right one, and we're going to kill you unless and until you believe it too!"  Nobody could/can prove, beyond doubt, that their vision was/is correct, and so the killing never stopped until the survivors were too exhausted, and their countries too destroyed, to continue.  I won't say sanity returned (it remains conspicuous by its absence until this day), but insanity could not persist because there was no longer enough blood to feed it.

Looking at the things that divide us in America today, I'm irresistibly reminded of the old conundrum of "What happens when the irresistible force meets the immovable object?"  Both sides, left and right, are convinced that they know the truth, and they're right, and that therefore (by definition) the other side is wrong.  Both sides are determined to root out that wrongness, by hook or by crook, and impose their vision of rightness on the "other".  Neither side is willing to surrender, or compromise, or allow genuinely democratic elections to decide the issue.  It's all about a fight to the death.  Our Founding Fathers would recognize the symptoms, and I suspect they'd shake their heads sadly, and wonder why we hadn't learned anything from their own internecine struggles.

Far too many people have taken a stand on principle, and in the process have ignored pragmatism.  Realpolitik was founded on the principle that "politics is the art of the possible".  Otto von Bismarck put it like this:  "Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best."  Sadly, today his sanguine wisdom is forgotten.  Extremists insist that what they want must be attainable, that anything less would be an intolerable surrender to "evil" or "dark" or "wrong" forces.  We hear far too much nonsense about "my" or "our" truth, and not nearly enough about "the" or "real" or "objective" truth.  The former is, of course, a matter of perception, while the latter is a matter of fact - but nobody will admit that their perceptions, their opinions, don't necessarily represent fact or reality at all.

I'm reminded of a conversation I had, a long time ago, with a very holy man.  He was genuinely committed to his Christian faith, and was probably a far better person than I - but the very depth of his commitment rendered him incapable of seeing that reality sometimes didn't conform to his perceptions.  I put this example to him:

"You've captured a terrorist who's planted a landmine somewhere on a network of farm paths and dirt roads.  In six hours, tractors towing trailers filled with young children will be driving slowly down those paths and roads, taking the kids to school.  If one of them hits that landmine, there'll be dead, maimed and dismembered kids spread all over the road like strawberry jam - and there's no way of warning them not to use the roads before then;  no telephones, no radios, no nothing.  You have to find and lift the landmine before they reach it;  but the terrorist is a hard-liner who refuses to tell you anything.  The only way you might get that information out of him is to torture him, even though that might not be successful.  What are you going to do?"

He said frankly that due to his faith, he could never torture anybody.  I pointed out that by taking that stance, he was condemning children to death and/or dismemberment, and he acknowledged that;  but he said that even so, he could not torture somebody.  He fell back on the old saw that "Two wrongs don't make one right".  He was correct in that, of course.  I didn't deny that torture would be morally wrong:  but I insisted that it would be at least equally, and probably more, morally wrong to allow those kids to die without trying every - every - possible way to save them.  Effectively, the irresistible force had just met the immovable object.  You had to choose one evil in order to avoid another.  You had no choice but to choose - and to fail to choose was itself to make a choice.  He couldn't make a choice.  He stood firm on his Christian principles, and said he could not go against them, no matter what the cost.

I had to admire his consistency.  Personally, I don't think I could have stood as firm.  I've been faced with some really hard decisions in my life, and I'm sure some of my responses were morally wrong, to the point of grievous sin . . . but that's something I'll have to take up with the God in whom I believe when my time comes to be judged.  I fear his justice, but I hope in his mercy.  I suppose that's all anyone can do.

In politics in the USA today, we're faced with that same choice.  Those who've stolen power have given more than abundant evidence that they'll never surrender it.  They demonstrated, during the Trump presidency, that they'd resort to any underhanded method they could think of to block everything he tried to do;  and now that they've stolen power, I have no doubt they'll do anything and everything they can to retain it.

Those who expect "free and fair" elections in future are living in a fool's paradise.  The powers that be stole the November 2020 election in the most blatant display of fraud and dishonesty anyone could wish to see.  It was so blatant that it can't be denied, no matter how much they try, and their lackeys in the mainstream media do so.  That being the case, why do you expect them to do anything less in 2022 or 2024?  They won't back down of their own accord.  They'll have to be backed down - and that will almost certainly involve means over and above voting, because they'll never permit or recognize the result of an honest vote.  They've already employed dishonest means to go beyond democracy in their quest for power:  consider the undermining of our justice system, just for a start.  Relying upon "justice" in a manifestly unjust system is a recipe for disaster.

In so many words, the whole COVID-19 pandemic response has been yet another attempt to steamroller us into doing things their way, to force us to "knuckle under" and not resist.  It's largely succeeded in some states, but not in others - and not enough to clear the way for them to take over all power and keep it.  That's why they keep hammering away at the pandemic;  because they dare not admit that they've been lying, and that hundreds of thousands of Americans have died as a result, or will suffer health consequences for the rest of their lives.

Unless and until Americans recognize the reality of our situation, we won't find any solution to our current imbroglio.  It's as simple as that.  That's the reality we face.  It's one of Claire's options . . . but I don't see that there are, in fact, any other options if we want to save and sustain our Republic.  We must uphold and defend what is demonstrably, objectively real, rational and true, irrespective of our political opinions.  Any other way leads to our inevitable ruin, and the triumph of untruth, dishonesty and oligarchy.

Peter

Staying alive in today's urban crime and unrest

 

Like it or not, many of us live in cities and neighborhoods where crime is surging, political tensions are rising, and the risks to life and limb have never been higher.  I don't see that getting better anytime soon.

Ken Hackathorn, well-known to generations of shooters, law enforcement and military professionals, offers his thoughts on self-defense and staying alive in such an environment.  It's ten minutes of your time that's well worth spending.

Words of wisdom, particularly in a situation where the justice system may not be on your side.

Peter

Inflation: the bad and the ugly (there is no good)

 

Well, I guess we'd better take another look at inflation.  I'm not talking about what the talking heads in government and the big banks say:  most of them are lying through their teeth, and unworthy of attention.  They largely created the mess we're in, and they're feverishly doubling down on past mistakes and making it worse by the day.  The rest of us, tragically, are already caught up in the consequences of their arrant stupidity and mendacity, and it's going to get worse.

Let's consider inflation and investing, and what that means for your savings - and, perhaps most important of all, your pension.  John Mauldin had this to say last week:

Everything we see about today’s markets screams “overvalued” ... sadly, the current context is not exactly bullish. You don’t have to be an economic rocket scientist to know that both inflation and deflation aren’t good for stock investments ... The “sweet spot” is generally when inflation is between zero and 3% and valuations are much lower. We are well past the valuation and inflation metrics of the tech bubble.

That suggests one of two things needs to happen: either inflation needs to drop dramatically or the stock market needs to drop significantly, or some combination of the two—at least from a historical perspective. Depending on how you measure standard deviation, we are somewhere between 4–5 standard deviations from the mean. Again, dramatically higher than the Roaring 20s (well more than double) or the tech bubble (more than 50% higher) ... The potential for a real bear market triggered by earnings compression and Federal Reserve actions is quite real ... What if the Fed raises short-term rates to (gasp!) 1%? Or even slightly higher? You think that’s not a possibility? Tell me what inflation is going to be. How serious is Jay Powell going to be in fighting inflation? There are way too many known unknowns in our future to be complacent.

. . .

Next year is truly unknown territory. The Fed has signaled it will begin to reduce quantitative easing. Even though its balance sheet will be expanding, it is a tightening of monetary conditions. It remains to be seen how fast they will do it. There are other unknowns, too ... Because workers are scarce relative to demand for their services, they have more influence. They can demand and receive higher wages. This is inflationary.

At the same time, available investment capital greatly exceeds the demand for it. This is one reason interest rates are persistently low. If you want to earn interest income by lending your capital, you are competing with many others who want to do the same. Borrowers naturally choose the best terms, so you get a race to the bottom.

In sum, we are shifting from a capital-constrained economy to a labor-constrained economy. I don’t think this is temporary ... This will be a different investing environment than most of us have ever known ... The giant funds will have far greater problems. Plans that are already underfunded are having to invest in overvalued markets that will swing to undervalued at some point, possibly just as the plans need cash to pay benefits. They will become even more underfunded and then have to face an investing environment where their size makes above-zero returns very difficult to achieve.

If you are counting on one of those funds to pay your living expenses for a long retirement, you may be in for a shock. Now would be a good time to start making alternate plans.

There's more at the link.

Do please note Mr. Mauldin's closing remarks about your pension.  In a high-inflation investing environment like ours, constrained by other factors such as catastrophic political ineptitude and a labor shortage, the investments that fund our pensions, IRA's, 401(k)'s and other financial vehicles are faced with a dire situation.  It's not safe to rely on them to protect our finances in retirement.  I think many of us will be faced with the necessity of working into our old age, as long as we're able to do so, in order to put food on the table.

This, in turn, opens up a new can of worms:  what will government do about it?  Older people are a solid voting block that can wield significant political interest.  There's bound to be pressure to "compensate" older people for their suddenly reduced pension and retirement benefits - but Social Security is almost broke.  Where will that money come from?  The answer is almost inevitable.  I think we'll see ever-greater pressure to "nationalize" private retirement investments, in exchange for a government-guaranteed pension.  This idea isn't new, of course, but money - or the lack thereof - talks, and right now too many government functions are too short of money.  They'll take whatever they can get from anybody.

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, pension funds in the USA in 2020 controlled assets worth $18.75 trillion.  That's an awful lot of money to tempt spendthrift politicians.  They could use it to reduce the US deficit (currently $28.9 trillion), thereby allowing them to borrow even more in future because "the deficit is so low!".  In exchange, they could promise us a state-funded "pension", to be paid out of future taxes and borrowings.  Just think of the temptation to the powers that be to do something like that!  What's the betting they could cream off several trillions of that in graft, fraud, shoddy accounting and just plain theft?

Those who think their personal pension savings, investments and funding are safe right now, and won't be affected either by high inflation or by political shenanigans, are living in cloud cuckoo land . . .

As for inflation, the official year-on-year rate (which is so mangled, folded, spindled and mutilated by bureaucrats that it's effectively worthless as a true gauge of the current state of affairs) is currently 6.2%.  Applying my earlier rule of thumb, if we multiply that by 3½, we get 21.7%, which (according to my wallet and my daily expenditures) is a much more realistic estimate of the US inflation rate at this time.  I've seen others place it as high as 30-40%, based on their experience in other parts of the country.  (Please compare current food prices in your area to those you paid in January this year, and let us know the difference in Comments.  I'd like to get a feel for how other parts of the country are experiencing food inflation - one of the most basic, yet most important, measures of our economy.)

So, tell me . . . has your income gone up in proportion to the actual rate of inflation this year?  If it has, you're in a tiny - a minuscule - minority, for which you should give thanks.  The rest of us haven't been so fortunate, and it's going to get worse next year.

Inflation is, of course, a monetary phenomenon, as we've discussed in these pages on several occasions.  If our money becomes devalued, prices rise to compensate for that - which is precisely what we're seeing all around us today, because over the past few years the Federal Reserve has been printing money like there's no tomorrow, devaluing every single dollar in circulation.  Egon von Greyerz points out:

Money used to be a stable medium of exchange and a store of value but that was in the days when there were sound monetary principles, mostly backed by gold or silver.

Since 1913 and especially 1971 there is no discipline and no morals when it comes to the issuing of money as unlimited amounts of fake fiat money is printed at will.

. . .

Since 1930, the US government has had budget deficits every year, except a couple of years in the 1950s and 1960s. The Clinton surpluses were fake due to false accounting.

So for 90 years, the most powerful economic power in the world has been living on borrowed money and borrowed time.

The consequences are blatant and for most people to see, if they care to look. But their government won’t tell them and the media is too ignorant to understand it.

Probably not even 1% of Americans understand that their leaders and bankers are destroying their money on a daily basis.

How many Americans would understand that since 1971 their US dollar has lost 98% of its purchasing power? Virtually nobody realises that the dollar only buys 2% of what it bought in 1971.

Again, more at the link.

The inevitable result is that keeping a lot of money in cash, or in a savings account, has become a mug's game.  We have to keep some cash around in our "rainy day fund", or emergency reserves:  but that money is losing value each and every day, because it can't earn enough interest to preserve its value.  As the Daily Mail pointed out in a recent headline:

COVID has driven Americans to bank $1.6 TRILLION in ‘excess savings’ they stashed over fear of economic chaos: Experts warn value of rainy day money is being slashed by surging inflation

They're not joking.

I used to agree that building up and maintaining a six-month reserve of cash, sufficient to pay all your regular bills and fund all your routine needs for that period, was a good idea.  However, in a high-inflation environment, it isn't necessarily the wisest move.  What I'm doing is converting some of our reserve cash (which was far less than six months' worth to begin with) into actual reserves of physical needs.  Those things will still help us keep our heads above water if we face financial hardship - and once bought, they won't lose value.  The way things are going, that's not a bad idea.  (I can't help noting that no more than a month after I bought some of those things, their price has already risen by between 10% and 25% over what I paid for them.  That's partly due to seasonal price changes in items like heaters, fuel, etc., but even so . . . ouch!)

Peter

Memes that made me laugh 87

 

Gathered from around the Internet over the past week.  Click any image for a larger view.

Sunday morning music

 

We haven't had much country music here, because it's a genre I don't follow.  However, there are a few artists I enjoy, and some that make me laugh out loud from time to time.  One of them is Canadian singer Corb Lund.  He doesn't follow the "pop" culture, or make country music sound like just another form of whatever the tunes du jour might be;  he sticks to his roots and makes music that's funny, interesting and thought-provoking.

Here, in no particular order, are several of his tunes that I've enjoyed.

You'll find lots more of his music on YouTube.

Peter

Saturday Snippet: the Malayan Emergency, and what it can teach us about today's American Emergency

 

The signs of impending disruption, civil unrest, even a renewed attempt at secession in some states, are all around us.  We're seeing our formerly United States torn by identity politics, setting groups against each other instead of working together to achieve a united future.  Our Founding Fathers would be aghast, and rightly so.  They had united the nation to achieve independence.  Our current powers that be are doing their best to divide our nation - and, in the process, all of us stand to lose our independence, our value as individual human beings.  They want to make us all cogs in the oligarchical machine.

This has been a tactic of Communism and its extremist offshoots for more than a century.  By provoking dissent and division, they can take advantage of the subsequent upheaval to seize power - and once they seize it, they never let go of it willingly or democratically.  The Biblical warning that "a house divided against itself cannot stand" remains as true today (and as applicable to groups as small as families to as large as nations) as it ever was.  It's a tactic we're seeing in our midst today.  Few people realize the truth (openly admitted by its leaders) that Black Lives Matter was founded on Marxist and Communist principles, and operates according to them to this day.  It's not the only such group working to divide us.

One of the very best analyses of how Communists tried to "divide and rule" a nation is the late Noel Barber's classic book "The War of the Running Dogs".

It's a political, social and military history of the Malayan Emergency from 1948-1960, when Chinese Communist-inspired terrorists and community organizers (seen that term anywhere else recently?) tried to destroy, and thereafter take over, what had been a patchwork quilt of many communities, all living in relative harmony.  It's an enthralling read, not just in terms of history, but from the perspective of how the groups concerned had to come together to resist attempts to "divide and rule" them.  In the end, the Communist insurgency created a stronger, more united Malaya.

This morning I'd like to bring you part of the opening chapter of the book, not only to set the scene for what I hope you'll go on to read for yourself, but to illustrate Noel Barber's exceptional descriptive abilities.  His many books have given me pleasure from my teens until today, and remain standouts in their fields.

Above all else, and from the earliest moments of history, one primordial force has dominated the life of every man, woman and child in Malaya – the gentle Malays themselves, the industrious Chinese, the listless Indians, the perspiring British alike. It is the jungle; the jungle which none can escape, the jungle which reaches to the back of every compound, to the back of every mind; the jungle which blots out the sun over four-fifths of Malaya’s 50,850 square miles. Harsh and elemental, implacable to all who dare to trifle with its suffocating heat or hissing rains, the jungle alone has remained untamed and unchanged.

Here the tall trees with their barks of a dozen hues, ranging from marble white to scaly greens and reds, thrust their way up to a hundred feet or even double that height, straight as symmetrical cathedral pillars, until they find the sun and burst into a green carpet far, far above; trees covered with tortuous vines and creepers, some hanging like the crazy rigging of a wrecked schooner, some born in the fork of a tree, branching out in great tufts of fat green leaves or flowers; others twisting and curling round the massive trunks, throwing out arms like clothes-lines from tree to tree. In places the jungle stretches for miles at sea level – and then it often degenerates into marsh, into thick mangrove swamp that can suck a man out of sight in a matter of minutes. In the heart of the country the giant trees cover the great north-south mountain range that rises to 7,000 feet, virtually bisecting Malaya from north to south.

In an evergreen world of its own that will never know the stripped black branches of winter, elephants, tigers, bears and deer roam the thick undergrowth; flying foxes, monkeys and parrots chatter and screech in its high places; crocodiles lie motionless in the swamp; a hundred and thirty varieties of snake slither across the dead leaves on wet ground; the air is alive with the hum of mosquitoes ferocious enough to bite through most clothing; and on the saplings and ferns struggling to burst out of the undergrowth thousands of fat, black, bloodsucking leeches wait patiently for human beings to brush against them. Only on the jungle fringe is there colour and light and a beauty unmarred by fear. Here, when the sun comes out after a tropical shower, thousands of butterflies hang across the heat-hazed paths in iridescent curtains. Brightly coloured tropical birds dart like jewels between clumps of bamboo, giant ferns, ground orchids, flame of the forest trees, bougainvillaea, wild hibiscus, in a countryside heavy with the scent of waxen-like frangipani blossoms, where the occasional monkey watches suspiciously from the heights of a tulip tree with its clusters of poppy-red flowers.

This is the jungle and this was, for twelve years, to be the battlefield for a strange and terrible war, as relentless and as cruel as the jungle itself; one in which Communism for the first time in history launched an all-out guerrilla war with the avowed aim of conquering Malaya for the disciples of Mao Tse-tung.

Malaya is one of the most beautiful countries on earth. Pear-shaped, hanging like a five-hundred-mile-long pendant below the narrow Kra isthmus which links it to Thailand – its only land frontier – it is a little larger than England without Wales, a little smaller than the State of Florida. To the south lies Singapore and, below the equator, the scattered spice islands of Indonesia; to the west the still, hot waters of the Indian Ocean stretch to Africa; to the east the China Sea swirls westwards to the Philippines and the Pacific, northwards until its breakers dash against the shores of countries whose very names are evocative of blood spilled in racial wars – Cambodia, Vietnam, Hong Kong, China, Japan, Korea.

In 1948 Malaya was not only beautiful; it had achieved a rare distinction: it was a contented paradise in which men of many skins and creeds lived in harmony, enjoying the highest standard of living in all Asia as the country moved quietly but firmly – and without any strife – to the day when it would be granted independence from the British who had ruled it for nearly a century.

Perhaps it was the prosperity brought about by the booming rubber and tin markets that made it easier for people of many races to live cheek by jowl; perhaps it was the catalytic qualities of the British, who (whatever their faults) loved the country passionately and on the whole ruled it wisely. Perhaps the reasons went deeper – to the fundamental differences in outlook and aspirations of each race, so markedly different that no one was likely to tread on anyone else’s toes; to religions and cultures so widely divergent that Malays, Chinese and Indians – whether politicians, businessmen or rubber tappers – could work together by day and then return each evening to their separate communities, to their own ways of life.

The Mohammedan Malays, whose country this was, numbered just over half the population of 5,300,000 and were distinguished by qualities of dignity rare in this world, by impeccable manners, by love of an easy-going life and consequently a lack of interest in making money. To the ordinary Malay, life revolved round his kampong, preferably near the sea or the brown rivers that laced the countryside, where all a man needed was a plot of land. Palms produced oil, roofing, coconuts – and even strong drink, for when the juice of the coconut bark was squeezed out, the fermenting toddy became as lethal as whisky. A paddy field provided enough rice; breadfruit, golden breast-shaped papayas clustering beneath parasol-shaped treetops, the evil-smelling but nutritious durian, grew in every kampong. On the roadside wild ginger, cinnamon, figs waited to be picked. A dazzling array of tropical fruits – mango, rambutan, dikku, pomelo, starfruit – flourished in every compound, while the waving green wands of sago formed a fence – if such a thing were needed – to mark off one man’s property from his neighbours. Fish was so abundant in the sea or rivers that the simplest traps enabled a household to eat well without the chore of actually fishing. And if a man wanted a little pocket money, then a few rubber trees provided him with enough strips of latex, for which there was always a ready demand.

For the most part the Malays accepted British authority with polite indifference and reserved their reverence – and that is not too strong a word – for their Sultans. These were the rulers of the nine Malay States which formed the basis of the Federation of Malaya and though they were ‘assisted’ by British Advisers, each Sultan, despite his limited powers, still maintained a royal court magnificent in its oriental splendour. For all formal occasions, the Sultan sat under a giant state umbrella (a royal monopoly), immobile since immobility was a sign of divinity, his person so sacred that it was forbidden to touch him. Around him lay his insignia of office handed down over the centuries – the jewel-studded kris, or dagger, the seal of state, the sceptre, the betel box; while in front of him at formal levees, vast throngs gathered to see the chiefs of his state arrive to make their formal submission of loyalty, each chief approaching the dais, sitting cross-legged, laying his hands on the earth in front of him, and drawing his body forward painfully until he reached the throne.

Of course the Sultans with their panoply had no more political significance than the Queen making her ceremonial speech at the Opening of Parliament, but the Sultans took good care that their subjects should not forget this was their country. In private, however, they were very different. Educated, sophisticated, they were also fun-loving. Indeed, the Sultan of Johore, the most southerly state in Malaya, was so wealthy that he dined off gold plate, gave £500,000 to the British in World War Two – and was so fond of the ladies that the Governor once had to ask him to limit his ‘raids’ on the taxi-girls of the local Great World dance hall.

Only one indigenous race in Malaya refused to bow to the power of the Sultans: the Aborigines. They had never been counted but by 1948 they were estimated at between fifty and a hundred thousand. Anthropologists believe that some tribes were descended from Indo-Chinese who migrated southwards a thousand years ago. Shy and gentle, they dwelt in unexplored areas, a pale brown race of long-haired people left alone to live; the men naked but for a loincloth, the women dressed in sarongs of bark. Expert with their bamboo blowpipes, they hunted small game, often lived in communal houses built on piles driven into the edge of a river near their plots of land. Once they had worked out the soil – on which they grew rice, vegetables, sugar-cane – they moved on.

Mostly animists who believed that every object from a stone to a stick had its own living spirit, they were more advanced than the Aborigines in Australia and New Guinea and could on occasion be quite hard-headed. Despite the fact that they never ate any of the pigs, chickens or dogs reared in their village (because they believed it would be like eating a member of their own family), they happily traded their dogs, pigs or chickens for those raised in a neighbouring village, so that each settlement could have a feast without a twinge of conscience. But all attempts to ‘civilize’ them had failed.

No contrast could have been more extravagant than the regal splendour or the simple lives of the Malays with the lives of the two million industrious Chinese, many born in Malaya but still aliens, their deepest loyalties being rooted in China, which they had never seen but from which they had brought their women, religion and customs. Certainly it was the Chinese (who had come to Malaya in the sixth century) who provided the industry and wealth to make Malaya prosper.

Every city, almost every village in Malaya, had its Chinatown, and as one turned a corner from the prim British government buildings or a padang with Malays playing their favourite sport of badminton, it was like turning into another country, another world. The easygoing walk of the Malays gave way to the bustle of Chinese hawkers loping along, their food containers dangling from bamboo poles arched across bony shoulders. Whole families – the men in vests and shorts – pecked at their meals with chopsticks on the street kerbs under canopies of coloured laundry hanging from poles jutting out of the windows above. Black-haired, black-eyed children, like exquisite dolls, played ball on the roadside, dodging the taxis, trishaws, bicycles and the large American air-conditioned cars of their richer compatriots. In the shops, lacquered ducks as flat as boards, birds’ nests, sharks’ fins, hung from every window, while the cheaper restaurants blared with neon signs and music. Even the smells changed. In ‘Malayan’ Malaya, they had seemed to be of the earth, of fruits, in Chinatown they were compounded of spices and the continual frying of assorted lumps of scraggy meat which had hung, covered by flies, for days in the oppressive heat. This was the hectic frenzy of every Chinatown in every settlement in Malaya. They were foreign enclaves living entirely separate lives from the Malays, rarely inter-marrying, but each race tolerating the foibles and whims of the other – for while the Mohammedans were horrified at the thought of eating pork, never worked on Fridays, and fasted at Ramadan, the Chinese reared and ate pigs, worked seven days a week if necessary, and celebrated every festival by guzzling all they could eat – those who could afford it, for 600,000 of the Chinese in Malaya belonged to a rather different category.

These were the squatters, families who lived in ramshackle home-made huts on the jungle fringe, on land to which they had no title, diligently toiling on plots where they raised pigs, ducks, chickens, and grew vegetables. The number of squatters had increased alarmingly during the Japanese Occupation as starving Chinese fled the cities to try and eke out a living as far removed from the Japanese as possible.

They had nothing in common with the West’s idea of squatters. They were not migrants, nor were they motivated by antipathy to the government. They had just lived here for so many years – and now numbered one out of every ten in Malaya – that no government had even dared to consider ordering them to move.

In the suburbs of some cities the scene abruptly changed. The poles of washing vanished, the bustle, the noise, the frenetic pace of Chinatown gave way to the languid world of the Indian, for half a million Indians lived in Malaya, providing a floating labour force, mostly on the rubber estates. They came mainly from the Madras area, spoke Tamil (and were therefore usually called Tamils), and earned twice as much as they could have done in their own impoverished country. They worked, they saved until they had enough to return home and buy a plot of land, and meanwhile they were absorbed into the polyglot fusion of races that made up the country, living quietly in areas where the streets were filled with men in flapping shirt tails, often squatting on their hams as they talked, the women sauntering by in vivid saris, the pavements daubed with the scarlet stains of betel nut, the air choked with the scent of chillies and hot curries cooking.

And then there were the British, whose influence had started when Raffles of the East India Company took over a trading post in Penang in 1805, and who ‘acquired’ the vital island of Singapore in 1824. After that, British influence spread rapidly across the country of Malaya, and though the Sultans always retained certain rights and privileges, the country was in effect British by 1874.

Now, the British numbered 12,000 – members of the Malayan Civil Service, policemen, rubber planters, tin miners, doctors, businessmen – all with a prestige slowly declining in the postwar resurgence of Asia; but each one of them in love with a wondrous country as diverse as its people, and, to the best of their ability, putting Malaya on its feet after the Japanese Occupation. By 1948 tin was booming and so was rubber – natural rubber which had been grown originally from seedlings smuggled out of Brazil, germinated at Kew Gardens, and which now supplied more than half the world’s needs – of which ironically Communist Russia was in 1948 Malaya’s largest customer.

This was Malaya in 1948, a country in the distant marches of the Commonwealth, so beautiful that no man could wish to live in a better one; and this was the country to which violence, terrorism and war came at twenty-five minutes past eight on the morning of June 16.

I hope you'll go on to read the rest of the book for yourself.  It's very affordable in e-book format, and not too expensive in a paper edition.  I regard it as one of the classic studies of terrorism and Communist tactics, one that applies to many other countries where similar struggles were endured.  Certainly, in my involvement with anti-Communist efforts in a number of African countries, it provided significant and ongoing insight into what the enemy was likely to do, and helped me and others figure out how to counter them.  Over and above that, it's so well-written that it's a pleasure to read, as I hope the opening chapter above illustrates.

Who knows?  It might help those of us seeking to stem the tide of totalitarianism, identity politics and oligarchy in this country, too.

Peter

So that's how modern dating works!

 

I'm a complete stranger to the idea of swiping left or right on a dating app on my phone.  The idea seems somehow repellent to me.  I'm very glad I met my wife through the introduction of a mutual friend!

Nevertheless, I had to laugh at Scott Adams' take on one approach to modern dating.  Click the image to be taken to a larger version at the Dilbert comic's Web site.

Seems like a relatively painless way to inflict rejection on someone...

Peter

Looking for input from readers about garden office sheds

 

Miss D. and I live in a relatively small house.  It's perfectly adequate for our needs, particularly since both of us have suffered serious injuries in the past, and aren't as mobile and limber as we once were.  We find that, working together, we can keep our home neat and tidy;  but a larger house would probably be too taxing.  We're happy here.

Nevertheless, it would be useful to have a little extra space.  At present our garden shed is a ramshackle 8'x8' structure that a previous owner appears to have built himself.  It's not very strong, and one of these days it's going to fall over.  We're thinking about building a better garden shed.  One half of it would be to store garden equipment and supplies that should not be in the house (for example, propane gas bottles, jerrycans of fuel and so on).  The other half would be a small office for me, a place to write where I'm not plagued by cats wanting attention or other distractions.

There are lots of very attractive office sheds out there.  For example, see here, or here.  Trouble is, many of those sheds are rather expensive.  We're on a tight budget, so we simply can't afford them.  We have to look for something simpler and (much!) cheaper.  That's where you come in, dear readers.

Have any of you built or bought garden sheds for use as a home office or creative studio?  If so, what did you buy, what did it cost you, how have you found working there rather than in the house, and what are your overall impressions?  Also, please go into details like what size shed works for you, and the materials used to build it.  Here in north Texas, we'll undoubtedly have to insulate it and provide an air-conditioner for summer use (and a heater for the winter).  Have you done the same?

(Also, if any of you work for a shed manufacturer or distributor or retailer, and can offer us a good deal, please leave a note in Comments.  I'm not talking about spam like "Buy our sheds!" - I'll delete any such comments - but individuals who are offering to help.  Thanks!)

I've considered a repurposed shipping container.  These are available at reasonable cost for what they are, and they're certainly much stronger and more weatherproof than the average shed.  However, they're also unsightly in a domestic setting;  and my wife gets a vote in this!  Reluctantly, I've decided that they're probably not suitable right now.  Nevertheless, if you've used one for such a purpose, I'd really like to hear from you.  That may be the most cost-effective solution available to us - and who knows?  I could always put siding on the thing!

I'll be grateful for your input.  Thanks in advance.

Peter

Medical "science" lies again. Why am I not surprised?

 

We've covered the widespread and very, very serious negative reactions to the COVID-19 "vaccines" (which aren't really vaccines at all, except for the J&J variant) in these pages before.  Here's the latest summary for the USA (clickit to biggit) from the VAERS database:

The total number of adverse reactions reported in the USA is 1,084,457 as of that date.  Over one million adverse reactions... yet the media, and the medical establishment, trumpet how "safe" the vaccines are!  If that's "safe", then I'm Mata Hari!  (The reports for Europe are just as bad, if not worse in certain countries.)  Of particular importance is the incidence of heart problems (particularly pericarditis and myocarditis) encountered among the vaccinated.  Another looming issue is the rise in stillbirths among vaccinated pregnant women:  “We are currently on pace to see a yearly total of 2,838 recorded fetal deaths following COVID-19 shots, while the yearly average of recorded fetal deaths following the vaccination of pregnant women for the past 30 years has been an average of 74 fetal deaths per year.”

Medical "science" is racing to explain away those reactions (which, as the bottom graphic above shows, are worse than all previous vaccines of any kind since records began to be kept).  Guess what excuse they've just invented?

Up to 300,000 people in the UK are facing heart-related illnesses due to post-pandemic stress disorder (PPSD), two London physicians have warned.

This could result in a 4.5 per cent rise in cardiovascular cases nationally because of the effects of PPSD, with those aged between 30 to 45 most at-risk, they claim.

Mark Rayner, a former senior NHS psychological therapist and founder of EASE Wellbeing CIC, said that as many as three million people in Britain are already suffering from PPSD, thanks to stress and anxiety caused by the effects of Covid-19.

He fears this could result in a dramatic rise in physical health issues, such as coronary heart failure, if cases are not detected or treated early.

Mr Rayner said: “PPSD is a very real problem on a massive scale. As well as the condition itself with all its immediate problems, one of the biggest collateral issues is the affect it can have on heart health.

“It is widely recognised that reducing stress and mental health problems is crucial to the prevention and recovery of cardiovascular events such as heart attacks and strokes.

“We are talking about as many as 300,000 new patients with heart issues.”

Mr Rayner warned that without at least doubling the current funding, the NHS will not be able to tackle the “trauma timebomb”, which could have potentially fatal consequences for those suffering with long-term PPSD.

Meanwhile, Tahir Hussain, a senior vascular surgeon at Northwick Park Hospital in Harrow, said he has seen a significant rise in cases where he works.

He said: “I’ve seen a big increase in thrombotic-related vascular conditions in my practice. Far younger patients are being admitted and requiring surgical and medical intervention than prior to the pandemic.

“I believe many of these cases are a direct result of the increased stress and anxiety levels caused from the effects of PPSD.”

There's more at the link.

Guess what?  It's not the vaccines' fault at all - it's stress!  That's why so many vaccine recipients are dropping dead with heart problems!

(If you believe that, there's this bridge in Brooklyn, New York City that I'd like to sell you.  It's a bargain!  Cash only, please, and in small bills.)

Note, too, that this excuse will also be used to motivate more money for the medical establishment:  "without at least doubling the current funding, the NHS will not be able to tackle the 'trauma timebomb', which could have potentially fatal consequences for those suffering with long-term PPSD".  Yeah, riiiiiiiiight.  It's not the vaccines' fault, so go on foisting their poison on as many people as possible - and give us more money while you're at it, so we can treat a wholly invented, non-existent stress disorder!

D'you ever get the feeling that the medical establishment as a whole is trying to play us all for suckers?  If you haven't, I suggest you don't understand the reality of the situation.  Do they really think we're that stupid?  In all the previous pandemics in human history, nobody ever even thought about, or postulated, or theorized, or investigated this syndrome... yet suddenly, out of nowhere, it's a major factor in fatalities among the vaccinated?

"Post pandemic stress disorder", my ass!

Peter

Dream on...

 

Shamelessly stolen from Eaton Rapids Joe:

Joe comments:  "Presumably, this means they will only loot Black and other minority owned businesses."

It's a nice thought, but... one suspects not.

Peter

Are the US military's actions against unvaccinated personnel illegal?

 

They may well be, if the ruling of a judge in a Florida federal court is allowed to stand.  He makes the important point that EUA-authorized (Emergency Use Authorization) vaccines are legally NOT the same as licensed, approved, vaccines.  I'm going to quote at length from the report, because if the judge is correct, the way that the US armed forces are treating unvaccinated service personnel at present appears to violate Federal law.  Bold, underlined text is my emphasis.

When the FDA approved Pfizer’s Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine in August, approval was accompanied by a series of confusing documents and equally confusing public statements.

One such confounding statement reads as follows:

“The licensed vaccine has the same formulation as the EUA-authorized vaccine and the products can be used interchangeably to provide the vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness.”

The FDA provided no explanation as to how the licensed Comirnaty vaccine and the Pfizer-BioNTech EUA vaccine could “be used interchangeably” despite having “certain differences” that make them “legally distinct.”

There are key differences between fully licensed vaccines and those authorized under EUA. EUA products are considered experimental under U.S. law. This means they cannot be mandated, and everyone has the right to refuse such vaccines without consequences.

Τhe Nuremberg Code, as well as federal law, provide that no human being can be forced to participate in a medical experiment. Under 21 U.S. Code Sec.360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), “authorization for medical products for use in emergencies,” it is unlawful to deny someone a job or an education because they refuse to be an experimental subject.

This is also made clear in the FDA fact sheet provided to patients receiving any Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. It states:

“Under the EUA, it is your choice to receive or not receive the vaccine. Should you decide not to receive it, it will not change your standard medical care.”

. . .

The FDA fact sheet states:

“This EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and COMIRNATY will end when the Secretary of HHS determines that the circumstances justifying the EUA no longer exist or when there is a change in the approval status of the product such that an EUA is no longer needed.”

This appears to contradict black-letter law — defined as well-established legal rules that are certain, no longer disputable, free from doubt and generally well-known — in addition to well-established case law.

In this case, an EUA is considered illegal and invalid if there is a fully licensed alternative available. This appears to be the case with Pfizer’s licensed Comirnaty while its EUA Pfizer-BioNTech is still on the market.

As stated by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) in its lawsuit against the FDA and Dr. Janet Woodcock, acting commissioner:

“The black letter law is clear. There can be no biologic license approved to a medical product for diagnosing, preventing or treating COVID-19 if there is also still an Emergency Use Authorization for the same medical product serving the same purpose.”

In another CHD lawsuit, pertaining to mask mandates for school children issued under an EUA, CHD President Mary Holland, co-counsel on the case, stated that “[i]t is black-letter law that EUA devices … cannot be mandated at all.”

Still, many media outlets refer to COVID vaccine mandates as an inevitability, based on a narrative which attempts to (mis)lead the public into believing the COVID vaccines have been fully licensed.

The same media narratives, such as a recent USA Today “fact check,” also claim the Comirnaty and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines are the same.

CHD though, in its lawsuit against the FDA, argues that Comirnaty’s licensure was a classic “bait and switch,” and that there is no legal basis to retain the EUA status for other COVID vaccines once the FDA has fully licensed a COVID vaccine.

A recent lawsuit filed by Arizona’s attorney general against the Biden administration over its vaccine mandates made a similar argument:

“…the whole point of the mandates is to deny any such ‘option’ to those governed by them. Notably, only the Pfizer vaccine has received [U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)] approval, and none of the stock of it in the U.S. is actually the FDA-approved version (and instead is entirely under the EUA label subject to the EUA-mandated conference of choice).”

All of these issues came to the fore in Judge Winsor’s Nov. 12 decision.

As recognized by the judge, “[u]nder the EUA statute, recipients of EUA drugs must be ‘informed … of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.”

The judge further noted that with regard to the administration of an EUA product to members of the armed forces, such a right of refusal may be waived only by the president.

As noted, “[t]he DOD acknowledges that the president has not executed a [waiver], so as things now stand, the DOD cannot mandate vaccines that only have an EUA.”

Judge Winsor also pointed out that “DOD’s guidance documents explicitly say only FDA-licensed COVID-19 vaccines are mandated.”

While this would be applicable to the Comirnaty vaccine, the judge noted “the plaintiffs have shown that the DOD is requiring injections from vials not labeled ‘Comirnaty.’ Indeed, defense counsel could not even say whether vaccines labeled ‘Comirnaty’ exist at all.”

The judge also noted that the DOD “later clarified that it was mandating vaccines from EUA-labeled vials,” adding that “[i]n the DOD’s view, this is fine because the contents of EUA-labeled vials are chemically identical to the contents of vials labeled ‘Comirnaty’ (if there are any such vials).”

The judge found this argument “unconvincing,” stating that “FDA licensure does not retroactively apply to vials shipped before BLA approval.”

He further noted that EUA provisions suggest “drugs mandated for military personnel be actually BLA-approved, not merely chemically similar to a BLA-approved drug,” not just in terms of labeling, but also in terms of being produced at BLA-compliant facilities.

As the judge stated, “there is no indication that all EUA-labeled vials are from BLA-approved facilities,” adding that “the DOD cannot rely on the FDA to find that the two drugs are legally identical.”

There's more at the link.

If I'm reading that court order correctly, it means that service personnel who've been discriminated against because of their refusal to accept COVID-19 vaccination;  who've been denied promotions, told their careers were over, forced to give up their status in certain specialities, and so on . . . all of that may be illegal, because none of the vaccines being administered by the Department of Defense are, in fact, FDA-approved.  They're all Emergency Use Authorization vaccines.  That means those involved have the legal right to refuse them, and any action taken against them because of that refusal may be actionable under Federal law.

I can only hope that the lawyers for those service personnel get to hear about this ruling, and bring it up in defense of their clients.  It may be a game-changer for all of them.  If you know any such service personnel, please let them know about this case, and advise them (and their lawyers) to follow up on it.  It might make a big difference to their futures.

Peter

Complete and utter bullshit, courtesy of Washington State University

 

I'm gritting my teeth to hold back a few (well, more than a few) choice expressions of my opinion at this report.

The Agriculture Program Coordinator for WSU’s San Juan County Extension Ag Program promoted a webinar event titled, “Examining Whiteness in Food Systems.” During the hour-long presentation, attendees learned that “white supremacy culture” creates food insecurity by “center[ing] whiteness across the food system.”

. . .

Jennifer Zuckerman of the Duke World Food Policy Center led the discussion. She framed the webinar around her identity as a white woman who has “benefited from whiteness for my entire life at the expense of other people.” With that in mind, she explored the “really specific ways in which whiteness shows up in the food system and particularly in the work of food insecurity.”

Promoting the belief that “whiteness permeates the food system” and that “it specifically articulates these white ideals of health and nutrition,” Zuckerman chided the “whitened dreams of farming and gardening.”

She took particular aim at farmer’s markets as being too white. She uses a quote from Rachel Slocum (“a preeminent researcher on whiteness and food”) as a jumping-off point.

“What that does is it erases the past and present of race and agriculture. What whiteness also does is ‘mobilizes funding to predominantly white organizations who then direct programming at nonwhite beneficiaries’,” she said. “And we’ll talk about that a little bit more when we talk about communities that can’t take care of themselves. Also, what this does is it creates inviting spaces for white people. Then program directors or farmer’s market directors are scrambling because they’re trying to add diversity to a white space. So what whiteness does is center whiteness.”

. . .

Zuckerman is particularly offended by white groups bringing mobile food banks to communities of color.

Efforts to offer food free of charge presumes “that low income and or BIPOC communities and individuals (and that’s not necessarily one in the same) cannot provide or make decisions for themselves.” She says it comes out of the “white supremacy culture” of individualism and neo-liberalism.

“What this does is it pathologizes people and makes the assumption that they need to be helped,” Zuckerman notes. “And these assumptions are based on negative racial and class stereotypes. They dictate who’s given power and decision-making in food policy and programming. And then what happens, as a result, is that organizations prescribe solutions to the community without consulting them, assuming that they know better. And there’s so much in our systems that reinforce this narrative that communities can’t take care of themselves.”

There's more at the link, if you want to inflict such drivel upon yourselves.

I won't even bother to debate specific points she raises.  The thing is, right from the start, the entire program she espouses is based upon lies and false principles.  There is no way any rational, reasonable person, understanding farmers' markets and agriculture to even a limited extent, is going to see "whiteness" around every corner and lurking beneath every table.  It's bullshit, pure and simple.  It's an attempt to inject a factor that does not exist.  Once you accept that - once you accept her right to lie in order to introduce a non-existent factor - the fight's lost, right there.  Everything else she says is predicated upon that lie.

Trouble is, too many people today are willing to give idjits like this a hearing.  They actually listen to them, and give them time to make their point.  Instead, they should be challenging them up front, as soon as they make a false insinuation, to demonstrate it in reality and prove their point.  When they can't, they should turn around and walk away, right there and then.  Why allow a liar to continue to lie?  The proponents of such nonsense are more than capable of building an edifice of falsehood on top of that initial lie - and if they've persuaded you to accept the foundation, then the edifice may even appear convincing.  However, every level is built upon the lies of the previous levels.  Remove the key, foundational lie, and everything else must fail.

"Whiteness" is a lie, just as is "blackness" or "brown-ness" or "yellowness" or "green with purple spots-ness".  Any effort to judge individuals by the group(s) to which they belong is doomed to failure, because people are individuals.  Every group has good and bad people in it, more or less intelligent, more or less honest, more or less strong, and so on and so forth.  "Whiteness" is merely the latest way to express identity politics, where individuals are reduced to the group to which they belong.  Ideological opponents are pigeonholed according to the groups in which the speaker defines them.  If they object, the speaker will simply adduce more and more "evidence" (read:  lies and half-truths) to justify the (wrong) classification.

If someone gets to define the group, they get to label those in it.  The solution?  Deny them the right to define the group, and refuse to be labeled by them.  Who the hell do they think they are, anyway, to define or label you or anyone else?

Identity politics is poison, pure and simple.  Avoid it at all costs - and if anyone insists that you vote according to identity politics, vote against everything they're for.  That's an excellent rule of thumb, IMHO.

Peter

Not your average service dog!

 

I'm still chuckling over this video from Double H Canine Training Academy.  They titled it "Epic Service Dog Training Failure".  (A tip o' the hat to IOTWReport for finding it first.)

Fail or not, he's certainly enjoying himself!

Peter

A brutal truth remains politically incorrect - but nevertheless true

 

Let me say, right at the outset, that I have sympathy for drug addicts.  I've been addicted myself (to cigarettes) and it was a very long, difficult path to wean myself off them.  (I owe that to my wife, who gave me an ultimatum - cigarettes, or her.  I made the right choice!)  Even now, more than a decade after I stopped smoking, I can still feel craving for a cigarette from time to time.

Nevertheless, addiction is in the end an option we choose for ourselves.  It's all very well to say that our environment, or peer pressure, or poverty, or "the system", or whatever, makes us more vulnerable to it:  but when push comes to shove, we as individuals make a decision to use addictive substances.  There's no getting around that and no evading that responsibility, no matter how much politically correct educators, advisers, politicians and community activists might like to think there is.

That's why so many anti-drug efforts fail.  They ignore personal responsibility and try to give us any number of excuses.  "It's not your fault that you fell - it was this, or that, or the other, that made you fall.  You never had a chance!"  There are elements of truth in that, yes . . . but it's always, in the end, our own choice, no matter how conditioned that choice might be.

That's why, when I read articles like this, I get angry.  I look in vain for any acknowledgement that the risks described boil down to individuals who choose to expose themselves to those risks.

Forensic analysts have identified a new and highly potent family of synthetic opioids in [Washington D.C.'s] illicit drug supply, a worrisome discovery in a city already struggling with a wave of fatal overdoses that shows no signs of abating.

The opioids, found on used syringes examined by scientists at the D.C. Department of Forensic Sciences in September and October, are called protonitazene and isotonitazene, respectively. Experts estimate that each is at least several times more powerful than fentanyl, the synthetic opioid that has displaced heroin in many parts of the United States and is now responsible for the majority of the country’s drug overdoses, including those in the nation’s capital.

. . .

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data released this month show that the District saw an estimated 498 fatal overdoses over 12 months during the coronavirus pandemic — an extraordinary figure that eclipses the city’s notably high homicide toll and is larger than the number of drug deaths in 13 states.

. . .

Alex Krotulski, associate director at the Center for Forensic Science Research and Education in Willow Grove, Pa., said ... there are no signs that the drugs are on the verge of displacing fentanyl, which is a primary commodity in the international drug trade. But he said the nitazenes’ emergence is a reminder that even if the flow of fentanyl into the country is stanched, other opioids could take its place.

Fatal overdoses have soared across the country, driven by the omnipresence of fentanyl and exacerbated by the stressors of the pandemic, including shutdowns that affected many people’s jobs and isolated drug users from support systems.

There's more at the link.

I'm sorry, but let's face facts.  The only reason those new and more dangerous drugs are showing up is because there's a market for them.  If there were no market, no demand, no customers, they wouldn't be there.  Criminals and drug smugglers would turn to something more in demand, where they could be more sure of making a return on their investment.  Eliminate the demand, and you'll go a long way towards eliminating the supply.  It really is that simple.

Sadly, that's the one truth you almost never hear from the "support structures" and community activists and others involved in this crisis.  They spend millions upon millions of dollars on palliatives - needle exchange programs, decriminalizing drug use, buying and distributing doses of naloxone to bring overdosed individuals back from the brink of death, and so on - but none of these palliatives do anything to reduce the scale of the problem.  Rather, they serve as camouflage for the scale and intensity of the crisis.  "Look, we're doing something!  We're saving lives!" cry the activists - but more and more lives go on being ruined by their addiction every year, because they do nothing to stop new users from becoming addicted.

As a pastor and prison chaplain, I saw the horrendous scale of this problem.  It's existed for decades, but has grown much worse in recent years.  I don't know why that is, except to attribute it to the breakdown of the nuclear family and the disintegration of traditional social values and cultural norms.  One can't help but note that in communities where such values and norms are observed, there are demonstrably fewer cases of addiction.

Certainly, the so-called "War on Drugs" has been a dismal failure.  After 50 years, and spending over a trillion dollars on it, isn't it time we admitted that everything we've tried so far hasn't worked?  In that case, why are we still paying for it?  I know of cases where hard-core addicts have overdosed twice or three times in one day, only to be "bailed out" every time by a cop or ambulance worker administering a dose of naloxone and bringing them back from the brink of death.  They actually rely on being "rescued" like that.  They've told me as much.  I knew one addict who'd been "brought back" more than fifty times.  Eventually, inevitably, he overdosed in a location where he wasn't found until after it was too late.  I'm very sorry he died, and very sorry for his addiction, but it was his choice and his fault.  Sorrow won't change that - and it shouldn't.  He had the right to choose his way, and he did;  and all the programs and policies and assistance in the world didn't stop him.

We've got to stop throwing good money after bad, and abandon the programs that have done nothing to slow down or reduce the drug addiction problem.  If people choose to use illicit narcotics, they must be left to experience the inevitable consequences of their choice, and those in the communities around them must be allowed to witness those consequences.  I see no other way of stopping potential addicts except by "scaring them straight", letting them see what will happen to them if they go down that road.

Heartless?  Uncaring?  Unfeeling?  Some will say so, but I honestly can't see any other way of making progress.  Remember the old saying, often attributed to Albert Einstein:  "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results".  That's what we're doing right now to our drug addiction problem - and the result is as insane as can be expected.  Isn't it time we got off that treadmill, and let nature take its course?  Is there any other cure?  We don't need more "safe havens for addicts" - we need the kind of tough love that says, "If you choose to go down that road, we aren't going to smooth and pave and widen and subsidize it for you".

What about those who've made a living (often a very handsome one) out of government subsidies for their roles in the "War on Drugs"?  They seem to spend their entire working lives at our expense in jobs that seem to produce more failures every year, but are nevertheless generously subsidized by the taxpayer.  Maybe it's time we told them to earn a living in some other, non-subsidized job.  What say you, readers?

Peter

Looters are probably coming to a store near you

 

We've all seen footage of mobs of feral inner-city dwellers charging into stores, grabbing an armful of goods apiece, and running for the exits.  Most get away scot-free.  Cities with liberal, left-wing administrations are the happy hunting grounds for these organized looters, but they're spreading to other places as they grow bolder.  Their loot is not for their own use, either:  there are organized rings of thieves having their minions steal to order, then selling the stolen goods on e-commerce Web sites to consumers who have no idea where their latest treasure has come from - they just like the lower price.

Trouble is, these looters - almost all of them black, if you look at surveillance footage of their crimes - have so far targeted stores and cities where they're relatively immune from arrest and punishment.  It's politically incorrect to try to stop them in a political, prosecutorial and law enforcement environment where being black equates to being a victim.

Dagen McDowell ... [pointed] out that store security guards are not stopping thieves "very often because the stores are afraid of being called ‘racist’ if they lay their hands on anybody [to]…try to detain them."

She recalled seeing thieves "stealing in broad daylight from a store" in New York City and screaming "Rape!" or "You're a racist, get your hands off of me!" when confronted by the security guard.

Looting "creates these poverty zones," she continued, such as in San Francisco where 17 Walgreens locations have closed, and five more are expected to shutter. They were ravaged by the city's high rate of theft, which is five times the national average.

There's more at the link.

Inevitably, when you don't discourage this sort of crime, the criminals become bolder;  and other criminals in other areas begin to think, "Well, if they can get away with it there, I can get away with it here."  The net result:  shopping malls and stores in many cities are now vulnerable to criminals - and so are the shoppers using them.

This is going to make our urban centers far more dangerous for the average American.  Looters like this won't hesitate to go through or over you if they have to, to make their getaway.  They hold the law in contempt, and they regard those who are law-abiding as sheep to be sheared.

Over the years I've written several articles about the dangers to be expected in urban centers, shopping malls, etc., particularly from "flash mobs" of looters.  A selection of my previous articles includes (but is not limited to):

• The changing urban self-defense environment
• Criminal gangs spread to smaller cities
• Flash mobs strike again
• Criminal 'flash mobs' - a growing peril to your safety
• Why you should avoid urban shopping malls

If you live in a city run by a liberal, left-wing administration, or one where police are threatened with "defunding", or one where progressive prosecutors refuse to charge criminals appropriately for their crimes, you need to take note of this new and growing criminal trend.  It's going to pose a threat to your personal safety, and that of your family, every time you go shopping at a store or mall that might be an attractive target for those looters.  What's more, if you defend yourself against them, you're more likely to be charged than they are.  After all, in such places, it's politically incorrect to defend yourself!

Another part of the problem is that in some cities, such incidents won't be officially reported.  It's considered expedient to sweep them under the carpet, rather than alarm the citizens.  I'm informed that there've been a number of such incidents in Big Urban Center a couple of hours away from my home, which have never made the headlines for that reason.  Therefore, you may not know that the risk of encountering organized looters in your area is increasing.

Food for thought, no?

Peter