Home

There is a principle one should apply to all kinds of claims and narratives.
This principle applies especially to the claim that President Trump incited an insurrection.

The principle: The best way to determine if any given scenario is plausible, is to think it through.

By thinking a scenario through one discovers often quickly whether it is possible, plausible or highly unlikely.
Unfortunately, many people just repeat what they hear without the slightest examination.
That’s a pity because if they would do a minimal examination they could distinguish lies from truth very quickly.

So, let’s consider the following scenario:
“On January 6, 2021 President Trump incited an insurrection in order to prevent the legitimate transfer of power from happening by giving an instigating speech.”

Thinking this scenario through does not require us to determine whether Joe Biden stole the election from Donald Trump or not.
In order to keep our scenario simple we will not deal with this question.
Assuming that Donald Trump‘s objective was preventing the transfer of power, the first thing we will do is to look at alternative ways to achieve that objective.
The reason for this is a very simple one. If Donald Trump could achieve the same objective through other means more easily or if other scenarios were promising more success then our scenario would be less plausible and less likely.

The alternative scenarios:

  1. The „classic banana republic scenario“.
    Donald Trump uses the military to maintain power.
    This scenario was virtually impossible.
    Given that some very senior active and former members of the military opposed even the legitimate use of the military against riots of BLM/antifa and looters, there was almost zero chance that they would follow orders.
  2. Donald Trump uses the Insurrection act to maintain power.
    This scenario had practically zero chance of success for the same reasons scenario #1 did.
  3. The use of paramilitary units or extremist militias to maintain power.
    This scenario would have pitted such units against the regular military and law enforcement.
    Love him or hate him but we know how Donald Trump reveres the US armed forces and law enforcement.
    There was no way in hell he could ever do this.
  4. Use of terorism to maintain power.
    Never mind that the chances of success were practically zero, this scenario was no option for Donal Trump for the same reasons scenario #3 wasn‘t.
  5. Use political pressure to cause Repuplicans in Congress and Vice President Pence to do everything constitutionally possible in order to correct the outcome of fraudulent election results from key states.

On January 6, 2021 only scenario #5 was even remotely likely to succeed even though the chances of success were extremely slim.
How does this scenario compare to the Trump-incited-an-insurrection scenario?
What could Donald Trump possibly hope to achieve?
That the insurrectionists would force the congress to decide in his favor?
How would they do that? Threaten the congressmen with violence?
Hold hostages? Cause mayhem and chaos?
Only a nutjob would believe that a decision in Trump‘s favor taken under the threat of a violent mob would stand longer than one hour.
As soon as the mob would leave the Capitol such a decision would be declared instantly null and void.
Eventually the mob would be taken care of by law enforcement or the national guard or the military.
Such an insurrection had exactly zero chance of success.
All those who accuse Trump of inciting an insurrection have failed to state clearly what the plausible endgame of such an insurrection would be.
They have failed to show convincingly how Donald Trump or the Republican party would benefit from an insurrection.
Any kind of insurrection would be bad for the country, for Trump, for the Republicans and all conservatives, putting them in a very bad light. The current attempt to paint all Trump voters as potential terrorists is only one example of the bad consequences that would follow a real insurrection.
Any kind of insurrection would be doomed to failure and would only shift the focus away from illegitimate election results to the insurrection, thus putting Trump and the Republican party on the defensive.
Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence that the Capitol riot was planned several days in advance. Therefore, the riot could not have been incited by Trump‘s speech. Never mind that President Trump told his supporters to march peacefully and patriotically.
Knowing that the DC riot was planned in advance, it is theoretically possible that the rioters were just waiting for a signal to start it.
Even though theoretically possible, such kind of planning and coordiination would require communications between the Trump administration and the violent, professional rioters who started the riot.
There is zero evidence for that. Not even a hint.
Furthermore, there were diverse groups from opposing ends of the political spectrum who planned and led the riots. Coordinating such diverse groups would be pretty tough. One would expect that an insurrection that was planned days if not weeks in advance would have a clearly defined focus and a clearly defined plan with a clearly defined goal. Instead we saw rioters acting aimlessly, committing random acts of violence, taking selfies and acting like a bunch of yahoos. The whole thing looked very chaotic.
All this makes the whole „signal“ scenario laughable.

Having considered the alternative scenarios, #5 remains the only plausible one. No matter how slim its chances, this was the best that Donald Trump could hope for. Tens or hundreds of thousands of protesters nonviolently making a big stink and a lot of noise outside of the Capitol, thus encouraging the Republicans to act in his favor.

The question then remains: What exactly was this riot? Was it an attempt of an insurrection but it failed because of incompetence or impotence? A case of insurrectile dysfunction, if you will.
Or was it a case of revoltus interruptus? The case of a false insurrection where the participants go all the way but at the last moment they deliberately withdraw from the final execution of the revolt.
I believe that this was a case of revoltus interruptus by some of the professional rioters..
This was combined with a bunch of other professional rioters who didn’t have a real viable plan and who were as clueless as the ones who followed them.

Is Hector Dead?

January 14, 2021

Since I have listened to all episodes of Jeff Wright’s excellent, excellent Trojan War Podcast during the holidays I couldn’t help seeing parallels with the Iliad and the current impeachment of President Trump.
In Homer’s Iliad, the foundational text of western literature, the classic of all classics, Achilles, the hero of the story, kills Hector, the Prince of Troy in a climactic duel, in man to man combat.
In a rage bordering on madness Achilles is not content with the death of Hector. He mutilates Hector’s body and denies him a proper burial. We see the mutilation of enemies’ bodies throughout the ages. Japanese soldiers mutilated dead American soldiers during WWII. Achilles though goes much further. Not only does he leave the body to be eaten by dogs and birds. He keeps the body in his camp, thus preventing Hector’s family from burying Hector. Being denied a proper burial was the worst that could happen to an ancient Greek. The ancient Greeks believed that when the soul/spirit leaves the body it could not enter Hades, the realm of the dead, until the body unterwent a proper burial. Without a proper purial the soul/spirit was condemned to wander eternally in a place that was even worse than hades, never finding peace and rest. Such was the rage of Achilles.
The maniacal rage and hatred of the Left and of some Republicans, no doubt, mirror the rage of Achilles. Why else would they want to impeach Donald Trump when he has to leave the Presidency in just a few days anyway?
Here though end the parallels. Some say that Trump’s enemies want to prevent him from running again for President but even if they succeeded, I would say that Hector is not dead. I believe that Donald Trump could be much more dangerous for his enemies outside the White House. Unshackled from a backstabbing, disloyal goverment apparatus filled with people who try to sabotage his agenda every step of the way, he could be much more effective in promoting his popular agenda outside the system. With the added help of a base of enthusiastic supporters he could advance his agenda as effectively as inside the system.
Don’t believe me? Think again! How is it that people like George Soros or Mark Zuckerberg have such a disproportional influence in politics?
I believe that Donald Trump could do the same thing that these people do as good or even better than they do.

Michael Knowles explains that covid and the associated lockdowns ARE the Biden campaign.

About 6 weeks ago “Black Lives Matter” posted this interesting text on instagram:

“The push to re-open this country against medical advice, when Black folks are dying most, is fueled by a calculated choice to sacrifice Black lives. OUR LIVES MATTER. #BlackLivesMatter #COVID19”

So, according to BLM, allowing the corona virus to spread by re-opening the economy was a calculated move to kill Blacks.
By the same logic, big masses of people protesting and rioting in complete disregard for social distancing, cannot be viewed as anything else than a calculated move to kill Blacks.
Last time I checked, BLM did not call for an end to the protests/riots that are currently taking place under the motto “Black Lives Matter”.
Unless BLM was lying six weeks ago and unless it was spreading vile, disgusting paranoia in order to foment hatred, it wants to kill black people.

Recently I came across a blog post of a Christian Pastor who endorses the “Black Live Matter” movement.
He seems to be a nice and sincere person.
There were only two things that I didn’t like:
1. His opening statement, which seems to imply, that he, because of his white skin color and his privilege is not entitled to speak but only to listen.
2. His completely uncritical view of the “Black Live Matter” movement which left the impression, that he believes BLM to be a benign movement without knowing much about BLM’s background and BLM’s radical aims which have nothing to do with improving and protecting black lives.
So, I posted a comment on his blog which he chose not to publish.
I didn’t want to be rude, offensive or disrespectful. I only wanted to ask him some legitimate questions.
Other than still expressing my voice the reason why I repost my comment here, is to demonstrate two things:
1. How easy it is for good people to fall for BLM’s deception.
2. That BLM is a radical leftist organisation with aims that have nothing to do with their slogan “Black Lives Matter” and that BLM is radical and intolerant as is demonstrated in the methods it uses.
The blogpost:
“I don’t want to write this. I feel as though I am the last person who should be writing anything about the Black Lives Matter movement. I am about as white and privileged as a person can be. I feel like I should be reading right now, not writing; listening, not speaking; learning, not trying to share my own ponderings. But not writing anything says something, doesn’t it? And I’m not sure that I like what it says…”
You can read the rest here.
My Comment:
Hi, Pastor James.
I have some simple questions for you.
What exactly is your privelege?
Here are some excerpts from the website blacklivesmatter.com
Under each excerpt there is a question that I have.
“The call for Black lives to matter is a rallying cry for ALL Black lives striving for liberation.”
Question: What freedoms do Blacks not have?
“We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.”
Question: Do you as a Christian support this?
“For more than 500 years Black people have been fighting for our freedom. We have fought back against slavery, Black codes, Jim Crow laws, policing, incarceration, some of the highest unemployment rates, consistent homelessness, dying while giving birth, being murdered for being trans or non-binary.”
Question: I have never heared that people are being murdered for being trans or non-binary. Is this true?
“Six years later and Black activists and organizers are moving forward towards justice, towards visions, towards a world where our families and communities are no longer the sacrifice for a better America, for a better world. We are doing that through our continued fight against elected officials, be it Democrat or Republican, who don’t share a vision that is radical and intersectional.”
Question: Do you agree, that one should fight elected officials that don’t share one’s own radical world view?
Shouldn’t one in a democracy rather try to get people elected that represent one’s world view?
“I know I can speak for most of us. We have fought like hell for our freedom and we will continue to fight like hell. Because we deserve more than what we have been given. Because we deserve the healing and the transformation and most importantly we deserve to be free.”
Question: Of course, EVERY human being deserves freedom but what does healing and transformation mean?
Are you aware, that the BLM movement and its founding members were affiliated to radical marxist organisations and that BLM is a radical leftist movement?
This is also reflected in their language and in their usage of words that are typically used by the radical Left. These are words like “direct action”.
Direct action, btw., can include violent action.
You don’t have to take my word for it.
The Socialist Alternative states on their website:
“The BLM movement opens a new powerful chapter. The previous radical black freedom movement always had powerful anti-capitalist, socialist, and internationalist currents. Today black and Latino youth are increasingly open to the ideas of socialism and Marxism. Let’s engage this movement with confidence, armed with our ideas and the lessons of history. The struggle of the multiracial working class for socialist change is the beginning of overcoming racial division. Overthrowing capitalism cannot end all aspects of racism overnight, but it can do away with the exploitation that lays the basis for class society’s divide-and-rule approach.”
Finally, as you can see on BLM’s website, BLM demands the defunding of the police.
It is a fact that the number of Blacks killed by the police pales in comparison to the number of Blacks who are killed by gangsters and violent criminals.
In 2018 209 Blacks were shot dead by police while in the same year 7,407 Blacks were victims of murder.
Defunding/abolishing the police would kill many more blacks than the police ever could.
If not the police, who can protect Blacks from criminals?
This leads to only one conclusion. To the BLM movement black lives do not really matter. The BLM movement is a movement that uses the slogan “Black Lives Matter” as a facade to further their radical aims which have nothing to do with the  protection of Black lives.
When I saw the video of George Floyd I was horrified like everyone else.
However, that does not change the fact that BLM is not the benign organisation many believe it to be.
One last question: Do you support the defunding/abolishment of the police?

Progressives For Guns

July 11, 2019

There are a lot of good reasons why every citizen should have the right to bear arms.
Usually it is conservatives who are making the argument for the 2nd amendment.
In this post though I will make the case for the right to bear arms from the Left’s point of view.
As you will see, this case is even stronger than the case made by the Right.
So, if you are a conservative, forget for a moment that you are a conservative and view the world through the Left’s lens.

Leftist mode ON

In a time of widespread systemic racism and the killings of unarmed black people and other minorities by a brutal, racist police, shouldn’t we advocate for the right to carry arms, especially for blacks? If black lives matter, shouldn’t our black brothers have the means to defend themselves against those racist, fascist police pigs?

The rise of  a racist, fascist scumbag like Donald Trump to power should give us pause to reconsider our position on gun control.
Trump, who is like Hitler and who like Hitler attacks the press and the institutions of democracy and who is having concentration camps at the southern border, has shown where he wants to lead Amerikkka. Trump is militarizing the state and he is having tanks brought to the streets, using the opportunity of a military parade to do so.
Shouldn’t we learn from history? Trump is creating a climate of antisemitism which already has lead to the violent deaths of Jewish people in this country.
As it was the case in nazi Germany, this is only the beginning. As it was in nazi Germany, the Jews were murdered first by street thugs with the tacit approval of the state. It was only later that Hitler used the full force of the state to implement the mass murder and extermination of the Jewish people.
Shouldn’t we prevent another Holocaust? Don’t you think a Jew in nazi Germany would have loved to have a weapon to defend himself against that monstrous regime?
It was not only the Jews that were imprisoned and murdered by Hitler’s henchmen. It was also communists, socialists and everyone deemed an enemy of the state and anyone deemed undesirable. It was only logical that Hitler took the guns away from the general population.
If Trump is like Hitler then it is suicidal to disarm ourselves.

Even if we get rid of Trump, who can assure us that another one like him or even a worse one – yes that’s possible – will not grab the power of the state in this deeply racist country?
After all, no one thought that it was possible that Trump could win. After all, no one thought that such a hateful excuse of a person could ever become president.
Shouldn’t we learn from this? We should always be prepared. We should always be armed in order to be able to fight tyrants like Trump if and when they come after us.
Once the full force of the goverment ist turned against an unarmed population it’s too late.
Trump is still in power and even if he goes we cannot exclude the possibility that another possibly worse dictator grabs power.
Therefore, gun control and the banning of guns should be the last thing we want. EVER!

Leftist mode OFF

Artaxes mode ON

If the Left believes its own rhetoric, then the LEFT should be the fiercest, most zealous, most passionate defender and advocate for the right to bear arms and the LEFT should be the one to hold the 2nd amendment to be sacrosanct.

June 29, 2019

  1. ywyyywwwwwww

For many years Europeans were used to the US carrying most of the burden of defending Europe against the military threat of the Soviet Union and later against the threat of its successor the Russian Federation.
With the advent of “America first”, a policy that sometimes resembles good old isolationism, that era seems to come to an end.
Given Europe’s widespread anti-Americanism one would think that Europe would welcome such an opportunity to become independent from the “hegemon” America with open arms. One would think that Europe would cheer at the prospect of having all US troops leaving Europe.
Instead Europe reacts with fear, insecurity and crazy conspiracy theories.

US-President Donald Trump is right when he calls for Europe to pay its fair share of NATO.
There was a time when it was necessary for the US to carry the lion’s share of Europe’s military defense.
After the second world war Europe was economically bankrupt, flattened and laying in ruins.
Millions had died in wars, in famines and in concentration camps.
There was nothing that could prevent Stalin’s Red Army from steamrolling over Europe except a massive American military presence in Europe.
Europe’s economies and Europe’s militaries had to be built up with huge economic support from the US (the Marshall plan) in order for them to make any meaningful contribution to Europe’s defense.
Today it’s a very different story. Europe’s combined GDP is greater than that of the US and Russia is viewed by the US as a greater threat to Europe than to the US.

Why is Europe refusing to pay its fair share of NATO?
The answer is that, obviously, Europeans do not view Russia as a threat.
This, of course, is not true for the countries that were involontary members of the former Soviet bloc but for the rest of Europe it is.

Why then have Europeans uneasy feelings at the thought of the US leaving them alone and forcing them to defend themselves?
The answer has to do with Europe’s history.

The EU is selling the myth that it is the institution of the EU that is guaranteeing peace in Europe by having the European countries trading and working with each other instead of shooting at each other. This myth has become the EU’s reason of existence and everytime the unelected EU bureaucrats see their power threatened by attempts to take power away from them and giving it to the nation states and their peoples the horror scenario of a return to nationalism and war is invoked.
The truth, however, is that it was never the EU that kept the peace in Europe.

It was the massive presence of US military on European soil and the threat of Soviet aggression as well as the integration in the NATO alliance that forced self-restraint and discipline upon the Europeans.
It is no coincidence that after an unprecedented period of peace the wars in Yugoslavia erupted just when the Soviet Union had collapsed.
It became abundandly clear that Europe was not able to handle the situation and in the end the US had to come to the rescue.

For all its glorious culture and splendid civilization, Europe is a continent that through its history of thousands of years was almost constantly plagued by wars, massacres and pogroms. The current era of peace is unprecedented in Europe’s history.

This brings me to Europe’s dirty little secret.
Many Europeans view Americans as unsophisticated, uncultivated cowboys but deep down Europeans know that under the thin crust of European civilization war, barbarism and brutality is never far away. We Europeans know what we are capable of doing. The carnage of two world wars is ample proof of it.
The thing that Europeans fear most are other Europeans.

There is perhaps a better, brighter future but the EU is not the solution.
Other than its name “European Union” implies the EU causes increasingly division and antagonism among the European countries. Brexit and the dispute between the EU and the Vizegrad states with regards to the “refugee crisis” are only the most recent examples.

Getting In The Mood …

December 15, 2017

Come, oh come, Messiah. This crazy world needs you badly.

Come, oh come, Prince of Peace.

The George Harrison Tactic

December 14, 2017

When engaging with leftists and racists, we should use the George Harrison tactic more often.
Since most leftists are not independent thinkers, this tactic should work great.
What is the George Harrison tactic? Well, the tactic is best explained by Harrison himself.

From the article Rock and the Counterculture of the 1960s:

In Harrison’s ‘My Sweet Lord,’ he praises the Hindu god Krishna, and almost imperceptibly switches from the word ‘hallelujah’ to the phrase ‘Hare Krishna.’

Harrison said ‘I wanted to show that Hallelujah and Hare Krishna are quite the same thing. I did the voices singing ‘Hallelujah’ and then the change to ‘Hare Krishna’ so that people would be chanting the maha-mantra before they knew what was going on!…My idea in ‘My Sweet Lord,’ because it sounded like a ‘pop song,’ was to sneak up on them a bit. The point was to have the people not offended by ‘Hallelujah,’ and by the time it gets to ‘Hare Krishna,’ they’re already hooded, and their foot’s tapping, and they’re already singing along ‘Hallelujah,’ to kind of lull them into a sense of false security. And then suddenly it turns into ‘Hare Krishna,’ and they will all be singing that before they know what’s happened, and they will think, ‘Hey, I thought I wasn’t supposed to like Hare Krishna!…It was just a little trick really.’ (Harrison, Krishna web site, http://introduction.Krishna.org/Articles/2000/08/00066.html)

In the following example I show how we can apply the George Harrison tactic in the political discussion. I have tried to use George Harrison’s tactic more effectively then George Harrison himself.

Can you spot the Hare Krishna?
Have fun!

The Racist’s Secret Superweapon

My friends. today I want to talk about a weapon that is not much talked about. It is a weapon that is used to great effect by the same system that uses structural racism in order to keep minorities down. It is a weapon used by the people who are oppressing their fellow human beings based on gender, race and religion in order to maximize their own, mostly white, power.
Before white Europeans set foot in America, Africa, Asia, Australia and India they had already invented a system of oppression. This system was designed and used by rich, white, exclusively male, feudalistic rulers in order to enrich themselves and to live a life of luxury and splendor with insatiable greed for power while the masses were languishing in unspeakable squalor, pain, illness, hunger and darkness.
The perverse, evil genius of the system was that not only did it enable the white oppressors’ resource draining lifestyle but it kept the masses permanently down.
You will understand the evil genius of the system when you see how it has developed over time.
It all began with superstition. It began with “sacred” Christian scripture. The Christian bible calls the believer (in this cosmic nonsense) to give a tenth of his income (the Tithe) volontarily to the church.
A big part of the tithe was supposed to go to the poor but as you can guess, that never worked really well. Thanks to seven centuries of religious brainwashing the masses offered less resisitance than they would have without the brainwashing when the tithe became mandatory in the 8th century. At that point in time only 25% of the tithe was supposed to go to the poor.
By the 12th century the tithe had become a tax that was collected by the feudal rulers. The part that was going to the poor was whatever the feudal ruler and the church wanted to give (which was practically nothing).
Resistance was futile now. The tithe was now a tax that was collected by brutal men at the point of the sword.
The feudal ruler and the church were the state. Under the pretense that the state collected the money for the benefit of the poor the state collected a tax from the poor.
You may think that a 10% tax is not much but these were very different times. First, the nominal tax rate of 10% could (depending on definitions and calculations) reach up to a 30% actual tax rate.
Second, agriculture was very primitive and therefore production was low. This meant that the farmers were always on the very edge of survival and always just one step away from starvation.
It’s obvious that the white feudal rulers used taxation not only as a means to enrich themselves but they used it as a weapon to keep the poor permanently poor.
We know that money is power. Being barely able to keep themselves alive, those poor farmers were not able to become financially indenpendent or to organize any form of resistence.
They could not hire mercenaries like the farmers in the movie “The Magnificent Seven”.
Those who could not sustain themselves and their families any longer could give themselves into eternal bondage by becoming serfs. They were given a patch of land which they were allowed to work and to keep what was left after taxes payable to their master.
Serfs owned nothing. They were the property of their lord. When the land on which they lived was sold they became the property of the new owner. They were inherited together with the land. Serfs could not leave the land without their master’s permission and their children would die as serfs just like their parents.
Before white Europeans had colonized the world they have had perfected a system of serfdom and slavery on their fellow white Europeans.
In medieval Europe most white Europeans lived themselves in serfdom and slavery.
The weapon the white feudalists used was taxation. By using that deadly superweapon they kept  themselves rich and they kept the poor in a permanant state of helplessness. No competition for the feudalist!
All this was only possible because the feudalists were the state. Only the state can use the weapon of taxation to keep itself in power. Only the state has the power to keep the poor permanently poor.
Since we know that white racists are running the state we should give this state as little power as possible. This means that this state should get as little taxes as possible. Rember? Money is power.
The less taxes the state collects, the less power it has. The less power this racist state has, the more power WE have. Cut taxes now! Starve the racist monster!

%d bloggers like this: