Trump: The Most Misunderstood Man in ‘Merca

Donald Sterling, of ‘Los Angeles Clippers Owner’ fame, was branded a racist. He had been recorded making racist remarks; he admitted to them and apologized. His English grammar skills are mediocre, at best. After his explanation, he came out looking very bad.

Some people, whose family smoked in the house while they were children, became addicted to nicotine before they ever started smoking. It was just ‘in the air.’ Do you see where I’m going with this?

Donald Sterling was raised in a racist environment (as was everybody else back then) and even if it was a passively racist environment, his father would have been raised in a much stricter one. He knew it was wrong, and he hid it publicly, he tried to suppress his urge to smoke. He never explained himself in this way. If he had, he might still own the Clippers.

I’m not defending Donald Sterling, but he was an old man, and his talk would have been normal at the country club. ‘I don’t mind them, per se, just don’t bring them home.’

However, when refering to how tough HRC’s father was, phrases like, “…but it was a different time back then…” and, “…he was old-fashioned…” sprung up apologetically.

Trump finds himself in very much the same position, only, it relates to sexual harassment against women, which is now a very touchy subject. The problem is that it wasn’t considered sexual harassment at the time, it was tolerated and even encouraged to a large extent, so why should he be held to that standard? Some of the women who allowed it, in order to further their careers in a male-dominated world, benefited greatly and ‘played the game.’ That should not need to happen in a civilized society, but then again, sex sells… it always has.

And a paid escort suing him for kissing her?!?

It’s hard to blame a billionaire for indulging; you just know that their tastes for exotic things and experiences often lead them to debauch. Even a sixteen year old with a Ferrari will be tired of ‘just’ banging super-models by his mid-twenties. When one can afford anything, what won’t they be tempted to try? How far will they go?

He is a braggart and pompous and spoiled. He should own it more. So should Sterling have. He tends to talk in hyperbole. He gets picked on a lot for this, but as for Donald Trump’s language skills, I think the man truly has a great deal of trouble translating what’s in his head into words. He didn’t study much English at Wharton. I suspect many politicians and public figures have this same problem. I’m not saying that all his foibles are attributable to his poor communication skills, there are some old vestiges in there, of times long past when you could dry hump a girl on roller-skates while doing a line on the table. Nobody cared what you did. Everybody has done something embarrassing. Billionaires just have more opportunities to, and the spotlight on them when it does. But compared to all the allegations against the Clintons from Whitewater to Pay-to-Play and the implications thereof, he’s just a street-smart buffoon, she’s a diabolical lawyer, and she is very good at what she does. So was Madoff, until he got caught.

[A no-fly zone in Syria (which HRC supports and Trump does not) will undoubtedly lead to WW3 with the Russians.]

Still, when pundits misinterpret an already flawed message, the results can be very far from those intended.

Trump’s a businessman who takes advantage of the laws in place, and has had to compete with others all his life. But now he’s put himself on the other side of that. He knows what needs fixing. I’m not an apologist for any of the stupid things he’s said, I just think that he needed help in framing his very general ideas. It took forty-three minutes to get a minute of locker-talk out of him. He was bragging and I think he probably did grab a lot of women; I’m not condoning that, but it was a far lesser offence forty years ago. And he has always skirted the law, as a rule, always seeking the greatest advantage. Isn’t that sort of thing supposed to be revered, or are people so depressed economically that anyone who gets more than their share is vilified. Is this a struggle over capitalism itself, or rather just our version of capitalism today? Implied socialism ??

I don’t think he’s as radical as they make him out to be, and yes, the media and the establishment show great bias, but it really shines a light on the people on either side. The Hutu knew who the Tutsi were… and vice-versa.

The issue of the American election, and of Brexit before, and the colour revolutions throughout the ME, and even the situation in Ukraine have all led to the inevitable binary showdown: Globalism vs. Populism.

Is this the start of WCW (World Class War?) Or are we avoiding a war with Russia/China/Iran/Kazakhstan? Which way will the Saudis align themselves? Is Syria the tipping point? What the hell is Trump gonna’ do about that? He has to withdraw pressure on Syria immediately, put Erdogan in his place (impossible – the Turks have had their land much longer than ‘Merca’s been a country – it controls all the pipelines and most of the water in the ME,) make nice with the Russians by withdrawing NATO and removing missiles, leave the South China Sea, and withdraw into a protectionist shell, like Iceland, saving the world from globalism.

I don’t pretend to know what’s about to happen to the world, but a lot of people feel like it’s not going to be good; it’s as if all the animals know that the earthquake is coming and start to scatter. But where is there left to go?

Gold is one place left to go. Silver is another.

Knowlege vs. Intel’gence

Knowledge from Your Dictionary:

“Knowledge is defined as what is learned, understood or aware of.”

A collection of definitions of ‘knowledge.’

.

think
.

Intelligence from Wordsmyth:

“-the capacity to learn, reason, and understand
-the demonstration of such capacity”
.
A Collection of Definitions of Intelligence.

Knowledge is the awareness of information retained.
Intelligence is the ability to manipulate and use said information.
If knowledge is learning the alphabet and knowing words, intelligence is crafting sentences and communicating efficiently.

“In an organizational context, knowledge is the sum of what is known and resides in the intelligence and the competence of people.”

Intelligence, indeed, has many components, but it can also be seen as a process.

  • attention
  • memory
  • pattern recognition
  • discretion
  • synthesis
  • manipulation
  • usage
  • speed
  • recall
  • interpretation
  • implementation
  • evaluation

Not only is intelligence complex, it is as broad as it is tall.

“E=mc^2” has become something of a badge of intelligence although it displays nothing but information. It was arrived at, however, using nothing but pure intelligence (and lotsa’ chalk.)

“Achieving complex goals in complex environments” B. Goertzel

In AI terms, intelligence means accomplishment of a mission. This implies that success is an integral part of intelligence. Truly, if it didn’t work, it wasn’t an intelligent conclusion to have reached, or supposition to begin with.

The only thing necessary for something which is wrong to be accepted is agreement (faith, consensus, belief.)

“What a misfortune it is that we should thus be compelled to let our boys’ schooling interfere with their education!” Grant Allen

Genius describes one who knows more about a particular subject (or subjects) than almost everybody else in the world, or is seen to. The knowledge behind the intelligence to put it all together is very vertical in nature. It needs to be. Like a focused beam of light, it can reach farther. In this case, a narrower base builds a taller tower. A genius can often experience serious failings in other areas, though. Genius is relative.

.

serveimage4
.

Wisdom is something else altogether. Wisdom has more to do with judgement.

“Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment.” -Evan Hardin

So, one could say that wisdom comes from a lack of wisdom.
But that would be stupid.
Stupid does not mean ignorant, in the same way that intelligent does not mean knowledgeable.

Ignorant simply means not knowing. Everyone has a similar capacity to learn, it is simply that we are not all interested by the same things, and so if I am ignorant in your particular field of expertise, you view me as a moron; but you are equally ignorant in my field, and so who is stupid? Both of us? Neither? Remember that we all think we are good drivers yet we think most others are not.

And then there’s just looking smart.

.

dilbert

.

Dumb – not being able to say and having nothing good to say are seen as equivalent… but that is another subject, altogether.

Does Terrorism Even Exist?

Terrorism itself has had many uses and gone through many transformations throughout the ages. Terrorism has been used in order to subvert, manipulate, silence, coerce, influence, persuade, and otherwise intervene in both the operations of nation-states and the interruption of such operations. Terrorism has been used by both sides, small and large, weak and strong, defender and aggressor, antagonist and protagonist, over many issues, and in many theatres. Terrorism is a relative term.

Consider, for a moment, its definition, roughly: the act of instilling fear in order to serve a specific purpose. Thus terrorism has been used in advertising (buy this before we run out,) in child-rearing (do you want to be punished?,)  in religion (avoid this or you will go to hell,) in politics (they will hurt the economy,) and in environmentalism (the consequences would be disastrous.) Truly, terrorism has been used in all aspects of all of our lives. The degree to which it has is simply a matter of scale.

However, when we speak of or hear the term in our daily lives, we understand it to mean something more sinister, more dire, and more violent.

Terrorism is always used to describe the tactics of an opponent no matter which side of a conflict they find themselves on. One would never describe one’s allies as terrorists. Al-Qaeda would not describe members of ISIS as terrorists, just as NATO would not describe the Turkish government as such (even though some Kurds might.)

Terrorism is also a tool. Just as a hammer can be used to build a house or to tear one down, terror can be used for the purpose of (perceived) good or (perceived) evil. It all depends on whether the terrorists themselves use terror tactics or they are used by proxy. Terrorists refer to themselves as rebels or freedom fighters whereas their opponents who use those same acts by proxy refer to them as mercenaries. When acts of terror are used against one’s self, they are called false flag attacks.

Although terror has been used against populations for millenia, the nineteen-seventies saw terror take on new and different forms. For one thing, the television played a big part in bringing attention to many unknown causes, opinions, and state actors. Terrorism would fizzle out very quickly were it not for the mass media making its case. For another thing, the terrorists in the seventies knew who to target (they often went after pertinent individuals,) but the governments did not. Now the tables have been turned. The government (supposedly) knows about plots before they happen (when it is to their benefit,) governments target individuals, and the terrorists attack helpless civilians instead of those in positions of power.

One must ask the question, why do the terrorists never attack the wealthy, the elite? Why are F1 races and polo matches and horse races and film festivals not attacked? Why has Monaco never been attacked (the worse that can be said of Monaco is that there is an underlying threat from terrorism? ) Why are certain buildings never targeted, buildings in which decisions concerning global policy are struck? They must be much easier to hit than buildings like the Pentagon, the Murrah, and the big three in New York. With ISIS destroying ancient art, why are museums and art galleries never hit? Buildings like bank headquarters and world trade associations are not targeted… nobody ever hits an NGO, just civilians.

It is said that terrorists hate our freedom, but it can’t be just that (if it is at all) because there are many groups, each with their own issues. They can’t all be against freedom and only against freedom. Don’t they have other demands like sovereignty, food, peace, freedom from resource-driven oppression, water, education… ? They seek freedom too, after all, freedom from western intervention.

Terrorists used to want to get the general public on their side. They wanted sympathy towards their cause. Attacking a population is what you do when you want minorities to leave your town, or when you want to start a race war. When you have a political message to send, you target those involved, like they knew to do way back in the seventies – the ‘golden age’ of terror.

If government wanted us NOT to be afraid, state-run news agencies would ignore the attacks, not produce free advertising for the terrorists (like when they withhold a name so as not to fan the popularity fire.)

So what do we make of terror perpetrated ON the masses while being shown ad infinitum TO the masses and never injuring ANY of the elite? Conditioning? Advertising? But what are they selling? Dominance, perhaps.

We must therefore assume that terrorism, these days, is not the work of terrorists, but of ‘other’ groups that want us scared, obedient, and docile. <sarc>Who could that possibly be? And why? Why? </sarc> Of course we all know the answers to the questions posed in New York, Madrid, London, Boston, Newtown, Paris, San Bernadino, et al.; it is high time we started admitting that to ourselves. There may never have been a legitimate act of terror perpetrated in the west outside of the IRA, ever (actually, the IRA WAS involved in talks with the British government… hmmm?!)

Besides, don’t ISIS have websites? Couldn’t their ISPs shut them down or, at least, identify them? It’s not like ISIS has its own satellites.


*Update*

Another truly excellent article by ZH’s George Washington:

False Flags Are Just a Conspiracy Theory … Admitted Fact

“Most terrorists are false flag terrorists or are created by our own security services.”


*Update*

Arjun Walia,
Waking Times Media

“The latest whistleblower is David Steele, a 20-year Marine Corps intelligence officer, and the second-highest-ranking civilian in the U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence. He is a former CIA clandestine services case officer, and this is what he had to say:”

Most terrorists are false flag terrorists, or are created by our own security services. In the United States, every single terrorist incident we have had has been a false flag, or has been an informant pushed on by the FBI. In fact, we now have citizens taking out restraining orders against FBI informants that are trying to incite terrorism. We’ve become a lunatic asylum.

Knowledge Is Power

ipsa scientia potestas est”

Meditationes Sacrae (1597) – Sir Francis Bacon

Physics tells us that power equals work over time (P=W/t.) If knowledge is power and time is money, we can substitute: knowledge equals work over money. Therefore, the ratio between knowledge and money is inversely proportional. Ergo, the more money you make, the less you probably know; or conversely, the more you know, the less you are likely to make. (There is a lower limit to this.)

Possibly also, the more money one has, the less one needs to know.

High-paying jobs are usually very pointed, very specific as far as knowledge goes. In this case, a broader base does not a taller tower make. More like a laser beam, a narrow base creates a more focused and distant reach.

This is why schooling equals ‘success’ and education equals freedom.

Furthermore, work is defined as force times distance (W=F*d.) Work, therefore, requires exertion and movement.

Work is also the product of power and time (or knowledge and money,) but since they are inversely proportional, it is a zero-sum. In other words, all work is equal in value, unless it requires no exertion, in which case it isn’t work at all.

A telling point is that the combination of knowledge and money portends force at a distance.

So the next time someone with soft hands tells you they’ve worked hard to get where they are, or that they’ve earned everything they’ve gotten through being smart, either they don’t understand the facts, or they’re lying. Maybe both.

This isn’t just an opinion; it’s math, it’s physics, it’s science!

It Ain’t DAT…

It’s DEY.

Nobody knows when to use WHOM. I get that. It’s at a higher level of linguistic complexity than is ordinarily encountered… fine.

The problem is, nobody knows how to use WHO any more, either.

WHO is used to indicate a human being; THAT is used to indicate a thing such as an object, an institution, a concept, a body etc.

“The home THAT I lived in.”

“The dog THAT ate my homework.”

“The company THAT hired me to work on THAT machine.”

“The person WHO helped me.”

“The woman WHO gave birth.”

“The man WHO corrected my syntax, and in so doing, improved my grammar.”

More and more …and I’ve been hearing this since I can remember… people: reporters; pundits; news anchors; professors; translators; lawyers; poets; priests; and politicians, WHO all have words to thank for their positions (-Sting,) have been making THAT very mistake during public announcements, pronouncements, disclosures, and discourse.

“The woman THAT… ”

“The guy THAT… ”

I’ve even heard, “The dog WHO… ” but that was unique.

Much more prevalent, and worse yet, “The company WHO hired a thousand people THAT all applied for a job” or something similar is rather common nowadays.

WHO is only ever used to distinguish a corporation, and never to describe an individual… anymore. A man, a woman, a child, a grandmother is reduced to a thing, a commodity perhaps. Corp-or-ations (em-body-ments) are promoted to the noble rank; as though a company had a soul. It is a pleasant construct, but one based primarily on techniques of motivation found throughout the subject of organizational behaviour. Even if a company could be said to have a soul, it should surely not supercede the soul of a man, woman, or a child; should it?

Let’s get back to the habit, as it has always existed, of showing ourselves and each other… a little respect (-AF.) Let’s call each other WHO, and leave THAT for the heartless legal fictions THAT make up this power structure, this architecture, this, this, netherworld we survive in. Commerce is akin to magic, to dark matter. Commerce is the anything machine of the world. Therefore, as a machine, it should be put in its place beneath us, it should show deference, and it should be represented by THAT.

“WHO are you?”

“Are you THAT man?”

“…THAT man WHO did THAT thing?”

“THAT was me.”

“I’m THAT man, THAT man WHO did THAT thing.”

On Pussy

‘Pussy’ comes from the word ‘pusillanimous.’

Pusillanimous means, in short, to give little credence to important issues while, at the same time, making mountains out of mole hills. Some would define it as a lack of courage, but this definition is too simplistic and lacks a historical context. Pusillanimity can be seen as a lack of prioritization. One way or another, it has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘lady parts,’ nor does it denigrate anyone by comparing them to such. It denigrates them by other means.

So powerful is the influence of fashion, it can even cause murder to be regarded as a venial peccadillo.” – Charles Mackay

If you’re so hell-bent on comparing someone to ‘lady parts,’ call them a cunt, instead.

Ceci n’est pas un Lego

One does not play with their Legos. One plays with their Lego. An individual piece of Lego is known as a brick, not a Lego. If Lego is not the singular form, Legos cannot be the plural.

One does not go golfing, one plays golf or one goes to play golf. Just as one does not soccer; nor does one go soccering, or hockeying, or billiarding, or baseballing, etc. (Bowling and rowing are the exceptions here.)

Phrases such as “…but it’s concerning to me.” remind me of Dubya’s term (the good ole days of top-notch politico-linguistic comedy. – Remember “nucular”? ) Many words are being ‘verbified’ in this way, and it is a source of great concern to me. (Ahhhhh.) Or even better, “…and it is, to me, a source of great concern.” (Oooohhhh baby! Way to finish strong.)

Many other mis-uses of words can be found, and they take many forms. Some words have come to mean something completely different.

Safety has come to mean security, guns has come to mean violence, education has come to mean schooling, global warming has come to mean CO2, pro-Russian has come to mean Russian, anti-Zionism has come to mean anti-Semitism, and if you’re an economist, bad has come to mean good, and vice-versa. George Orwell had something to say about this.

Continue reading “Ceci n’est pas un Lego”