There Goes Wesley Clark Running His Mouth Again

“Look, ISIS got started through funding from our friends and allies…”

That’s a roundabout way of putting it–easier than coming right out and saying that we created ISIS. We’ve trained them. We’ve funded them. We now appear to be using them to pursue our own geopolitical interests in regions where they operate, and…ya know…somebody forgot to tell Wesley Clark not to say these things out loud.

Reminds me of the last time General Clark let something slip he shouldn’t have (and now refuses to address the fact that he made these statements): the infamous “7 countries in 5 years” admission.


Tragedy and Hope — Professor Carroll Quigley

“The powers of financial capitalism had [a] far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.”
— Quote from Caroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope, Chapter 20

Further Analysis
Quigley’s Wikipedia page

Obama Administration: In Lieu of Evidence, Just Push the Narrative

This sounds remarkably similar to the sort of bogus propaganda the administration was pushing last year blaming Assad’s gov’t for the sarin gas attacks…long on assertions, short on evidence to back them up.

The most breathtaking part of this arrogant display is how she (and the administration in general) seemingly continue to operate on this assumption that their statements carry some weight or merit, simply by virtue of being the ‘official position of the United States’ or something…as though the endless lies they’ve been caught in have done nothing to jeopardize their credibility.

  • “I will have most transparent administration in history”
  • “My budget will cut the deficit by $4 Trillion over 10 years.”
  • “I won’t sign the NDA”…signs it at midnight on New Year’s Eve
  • “‘Shovel-ready’ jobs not as ‘shovel-ready’ as expected”
  • “We’re not spying/collecting info on American citizens”
  • “Benghazi was about a youtube video” — and then…
  • “I said benghazi was a terrorist attack from the beginning”
  • “You like your current plan, you can keep it”
  • “Not a smidgen of corruption” at IRS…hard drives crashed & destroyed
  • “I never set a red line”

Jesus, just trying to keep track of all the lies and scandals is enough to make your head spin and soul weep.

Check here for a fuller list of Obama era falsehoods.

Lists of lists…of lists

Fellow list-junkies might take note of this wikipedia page, which is (to reference a somewhat exhausted meme) a veritable “list-ception”:

Articles that consist of a list of things that are themselves about lists of things, such as the lists of lists listed below. […]

Certain mind types (mine being one) seem to have an affinity for lists–not necessarily as an organizational tool (though I’m a “to-do” list addict as well), but just as a means of aggregating things together relative to some specified criterion. Growing up I had mental “lists” in my head of various things (dealing with movies/books/video games/actors/authors/etc)… that didn’t exist for any purpose that I could explain–I just felt compelled to construct them for some reason. Some eccentric quirk of the inner psyche that seems to revel in collecting like things together in an accessible way, perhaps.

U.S. Deficit Spending is Institutionalized Generational Slavery


“We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.” George Orwell

One generation is born into debt slavery, continue the same reckless spending practices of their forebears, and effectively enslaves the next generation–in this perverse, self-perpetuating chain of injustice. Let the clownish academic economists and other establishment “experts” prattle on about why the U.S. fiscal/monetary situation is economically feasible; none of their lecturing can alter the reality that no nation, no company, no household has ever made a sustainable practice of continually spending in excess of revenue.

Yet this is precisely what the U.S. government has done for close to half a century. Each year since 1969, Congress has spent more money than its income. Once new spending is introduced, it can be virtually impossible to ever curtail these expenditures. Wasteful bureaucracies are created or expanded to administer & manage each new spending initiative, which further exacerbates the whole unholy cycle. Elected leaders lack the political courage & will to cut programs when it means putting large numbers of people directly out of the job. They dare not risk the political capital it would cost them to scale back entitlement programs currently benefiting many of their constituents. Apparently it’s difficult to get elected by promising to take things away; sadly, we get the government we deserve.

A willingness to make the hard, even unpopular, decisions when it comes to contracting the size & scope of gov’t–this is the most important quality an elected official can have, moving forward. It’s the first criterion by which to gauge a potential candidate’s fitness for leadership, in this late hour. We must be the generation that reverses the trend of deficit spending, because the future livelihood of this once-great nation hangs in the balance (and most of us don’t really have any place else to go).

Referring back to a previous post, to the extent that responsible leaders find themselves having to defend their positions re: downsizing gov’t, I think they can get the moral (and rhetorical) upper-hand by advancing something like the following narrative:

“I question your moral compass if you think it’s ethical for us to take on spending with no real intention (or hope) of repaying what we’ve borrowed, knowing full well that these debts will be transferred to our own flesh-and-blood, for them to deal with after we’re gone.”

True, we found ourselves in the same position that we risk putting our descendants in, with the debt passed on to us by our forebears–that doesn’t mean we’re free from any moral obligation not to do the same. If someone’s molested, it doesn’t grant them license to later go and molest other innocent people. Extending this analogy: suppose someone who is molested then goes on to molest as a result of having been molested. But suppose he or she didn’t find new innocent victims to molest, and instead only went back and molested the same person they were previously molested by…we could call it morally just, since the former wronger is now the one being wronged. Note the cyclical way in which the two wrongs cancel each other out, in terms of the overall amount of moral injustice they introduce into the world–one adds more injustice, but then the other “completes” it, cancelling it out and restoring a neutral state in the “moral equilibrium” of the universe.

Now contrast this ‘cyclical’ manner in which moral injustices can function, with the moral injustice introduced when deficit spending results in burdening subsequent generations with one’s own financial burdens. In the latter case, we see a linear, perverse, self-perpetuating spread of moral wrongdoing. Each generation further enslaves the next, similar to the molestation victim going on to molest only other innocent victims (who do the same, ad nauseam).

So again, we must be the generation that breaks that pattern. We’re too late to right this ship painlessly, but every day we continue to sweep the problem under the rug & pretend it doesn’t exist, is another day spent inflating a bubble that must inevitably burst. At stake is only the future of the greatest civilization in known history, and the only home many of us have ever known.

On a Possible “Bush v. Clinton” Presidential Election

I’m curious to see what will happen if–and heaven forbid it–we end up with another Bush/Clinton presidential election (vis a vis, Jeb and Hillary). I’m quite confident that–if not a majority–a sizable segment of the population does not want this, and this demographic is growing & making its presence felt more and more, as knowledge spreads and people continue to wake up to what’s going on (such as, the corruption & takeover of our governmental system by int’l banksters, corporate elite, globalist forces, etc.) If we really were to find ourselves looking at another election between these 2 names, it would be easier than ever for us to get the attention of those who haven’t quite woken up yet–since at that point many will probably have some kind of vague sense that something isn’t right here. So at least we would get the chance of having more people than ever receptive to our message, and an explanation of why we find our choices limited to one of those same 2 familiar names, can easily become an explanation of the whole bankster war machine & fiat money scam…you could pretty much go as far down the rabbit hole as circumstances allow for (gotta remember that certain people can only take so many blows to their worldview in one sitting, before they begin to disregard everything you say; can’t always force-feed them the red pill!), but it’d be a helpful doorway down that path, without it having to feel like you’re springing all this shit on them out of the blue.

Attacking The Left Where They Are Vulnerable

A note on the psychology of modern liberalism vs. that of libertarianism–and a suggestion regarding “winning the argument” moving forward…

I’ve found that for many on the left, their thinking is heavily funneled through their feelings, leading to decisions & beliefs that are overly based on emotion. This often presents a stumbling block to the libertarian mindset, which (while capable of being idealistic about certain things) has a much harder time, say, simply dismissing manifest realities for the sake of other beliefs one holds dear.

For example, I have no qualms with holding up the ideal of the non-aggression principle (NAP), which declares the initiation of force (unsolicited aggression against person or property) to be morally unjust. So this makes a morally normative claim on how the world ought to be (how people ought to behave), rather than how it is. Idealistic? Perhaps, but the NAP is based specifically on the principle of self-ownership, which the libertarian interprets not as a principle/ideal about how the world ought to be, but a fact about how the world is.

My suggestion is that we apply such brute principles to emotionally-driven arguments that will be coming from the left (if not the right) during the upcoming election season. When politicians decry spending cuts & entitlement reform by appealing to the plight of their beneficiaries, we might counter by appealing to the plight of our posterity whom we’re saddling with debts they cannot repay (and shouldn’t have to).

So far as pro-liberty candidates find themselves having to defend their positions on cutting spending, contracting the size of gov’t, etc.–they should go on offense. Aggressively challenge more defecit spending on moral grounds, and paint the opponent as the proponents of a gross moral hazard (which they are). Say, “It is unjustifiable to continue doing this.” Ask, “Have you NO CONCERN AT ALL with transferring our debts to our innocent children?”

Lay the responsibility at their feet, noting what it reveals about their moral character.

“I question your moral compass, senator, if you think it’s ethical for us to take on spending with no real intention (or hope) of repaying what we’ve borrowed, knowing full well that these debts will be transferred to our own flesh-and-blood, for them to deal with after we’re gone.”

It Has Come To This

Taking a stand against tyranny. At a certain point we must be willing to stare down the barrels of their guns, and cede not an inch–when the cause is right. This particular battle may not be over; I’m just glad to see that there’s a fight. The power-brokers of this ever-expanding monstrosity known as the federal gov’t will continue to use intimidation tactics and try to strong-arm us into submission.

Today we stood firm. Call it a win for the good guys.