Fortify Your Faith With Facts

Faith is important. Even the scientist needs faith. In fact, science requires BIG faith.
Science makes some BIG basic assumptions which science needs in order to operate.
However, these basic assumptions are UNPROVABLE.
Here are three of these unprovable assumptions that science is based upon:

  1. The universe is intelligible.
  2. We can trust our intelletual faculties to give us a true picture of reality.
  3. The laws of nature.do not change.

Assumption #3 is the backbone of science. If the laws of nature were changing over time we could for example not calculate the orbits of the planets for the next year.
Everytime we make such calculations for the future (or for the distant past) we have faith that the third assumption is true.

As important as faith is, facts that strengthen and justify faith are equally important.
This video provides fascinating and not widely known evidence that the gospels were based on eyewitness accounts.

Rules For Conservatives

A very popular series of jokes in the Soviet Union were the Radio Yerevan jokes.
They often made fun of the propaganda that was spread by the state media. Here are two examples:

Radio Yerevan was asked: “Is it true that the poet Vladimir Mayakovsky committed suicide?”
Radio Yerevan answered: “Yes, it is true, and even the record of his very last words is preserved: ´Don’t shoot, comrades.´”

Radio Yerevan was asked: “Is it true that conditions in our labor camps are excellent?”
Radio Yerevan answered: “In principle, yes. Five years ago one of our listeners was not convinced of this, so he was sent to investigate. He seems to have liked it so much that he hasn’t returned yet.”

In this post I will propose a strategy for defeating propaganda, and the jokes I cited point already to the weakness of propaganda and how it can be defeated but first, a little introduction.

There can be no denying that we are in a political war. It’s not a war we started. It was started by the Left after WWII when it realized that it could not overthrow Western democracies through violent revolution because of the West’s phenomenal economic success which created a broad middle class that had little appetite for revolution. For the first time, a large number of workers could enjoy a decent standard of living.

Having no hope of starting a successfull revolution, the marxists came up with the new strategy of “the march through the institutions” which was in essence the infiltration and subversion of all institutions, especially education and culture. Once successfully infiltrated, education and culture disseminated marxist ideas. Over time these ideas and radical world views spilled over into all kinds of institutions, especially the media.

Of the three institutions that the Left has conquered, education and culture have a long-lasting effect of influencing and shaping minds.
However, the media have a huge short-term effect that is so powerful that it can neutralize the influence of culture and education at any given time.
Why? Because, no matter what your beliefs are, the media can shape perception of reality in such a profound way that it can manipulate you to react in the way they want you to react. The restrictions of our liberties and the authoritarian behaviour of some politicians in these times of the wuhan virus pandemic were made only possible because of the fear, panic and misinformation that the media spread. No matter what your personal beliefs or political views are, we were all manipulated to a certain extent by the media propaganda.
Therefore, it is crucial, that we conquer the media or that we neutralize them.
One strategy is: Destroying the credibility of the “mainstream media”.

Those who, like me, grew up during the Cold War, were taught that our media in the West were not censored and that the media were not spreaders of propaganda.
Well, because this was to a certain extent true, the Western media could spread propaganda much more effectively than the media in communist/socialist countries.
Propaganda is most effective when it’s not perceived as such. Those who grew up behind the Iron Curtain, had developed a much more cynical view of the media than we in the West. They knew that they were lied to. As a consequence they maintained a mistrust of the media even after they had fled or migrated to the West. More and more people in the West, and especially conservatives, find themselves in the same situation.

Because many of us consume alternative media, we can see that the “mainstream media” lie more brazenly and blatantly than ever before.
But how did the people behind the Iron Curtain know that they were lied to? They had no alternative media. They had only the state media.
The answer is a very simple one. The lies of the propaganda media flew so blatantly in the face of reality that everyone could see them correctly as lies.
You see, the media can tell me all they want that I live in a system with a great standard of living. If I and all the people around me have to forage for food and to eat shoe leather just to barely survive, then no amount of propaganda can convince me that I enjoy a great standard of living.
The more the propaganda is in conflict with reality, the less effective it is and the less credibility those who spread it have.
THIS is the key to defeating propaganda.

What then should our tactic be for achieving our strategic goal of destroying the credibility of the “mainstream media”?
We should provoke the “mainstream media” into spreading lies. The more they lie, the more credibility they lose.
However, it is important that they spread the “right kind” of lies. It must be lies about things that can be easily verified by the population.
Example: If we hammer and hammer the social media / alternative media constantly with the theme of inflation and rising prices we might provoke the “mainstream media” and the “fact checkers” into claiming that there is no significant inflation.
That would be a victory. It doesn’t matter what your religion or your political world view is. Your wallet doesn’t lie.
If we can cause the “mainstream media” to spread lies that fly blatantly in the face of reality, we can significantly decrease their credibility and hence the effectiveness of their propaganda.
This tactic is the equivalent of provoking your enemy into attacking a strong, fortified position or into running into an ambush.
There is no guarantee that this tactic will work but given that most “journalists” live in a bubble, separated from the “average Joe”, there’s a good chance that it might work.

The outlined strategy is only one of many possible strategies such as infiltration (Project veritas) or a takeover of media outlets by buying them.
Politcal war follows the same priciples as any other kind of war and we should apply those principles to the fullest extent.
I understand that there might be objections on moral grounds but condemning future generations to live in tyranny and misery is the greater moral evil.
Fortunately, prior generations did not refuse to fight the wars that needed to be fought (US independence, fight against the Nazis/Axis powers).

Finally, when I had a discussion on Citzen Tom’s blog on the same topic he wrote:

“Negative campaigning works because the legacy news media repeats all those lies. The only way around this is to go to our neighbors and to ask them to doublecheck their assumptions about the truth of what they have been taught. The only way around this to is go to our neighbors and to ask them why they believe the big corporate news media, the same people who tell them to tax the rich, the rich who never seem to get taxed even when Democrats have a solid majority.”

Getting around the “mainstream media” by talking directly to our neighbours is an option that is always available to us and it it should be used whenever possible.

On The Road To Genocide

I’ve visited the Dachau concentration camp twice. First time as a boy, next time as a teenager. I’ve read books about the 3rd Reich. I’ve watched tons of videos and films dealing with the holocaust and world war II. In school we were taught about this dark era in German history. I’ve read books on racism, antisemitism and xenophobia. I’ve been living in this country for decades knowing the culture fairly well. And yet, and yet I could not really understand how a country that was one of the most scientifically, technologically and culturally advanced countries in the world could descend into murder, barbarism and insanity.

I could not really understand why people would so willingly give up their freedom, so easily accept being ruled by a dictatorship and so blindly follow irrational, idiotic and arbitrary rules until the wuhan virus happened. Fear and panic brought out the ugliest, most primitive sides of man.
Things prior unimaginable happened with a swiftness that took most by surprise, leaving many in disbelief about the very reality happening right in front of their eyes.
Those who kept a modicum of sanity, refusing to fear a virus not much more dangerous than a bad flu, were made to fear the state which, in authoritarian, dictatorial style, enforced irrational, idiotic and arbitrary rules.

I’m not the only one for whom the years 2020 and 2021 have been a revelation.
In his column “I Now Better Understand the ‘Good German’” Dennis Prager writes:

“One of the biggest revelations concerns a question that has always plagued me: How does one explain the “good German,” the term used to describe the average, presumably decent German, who did nothing to hurt Jews but also did nothing to help them and did nothing to undermine the Nazi regime? “

and

“What has changed my thinking has been watching what is happening in America (and Canada and Australia and elsewhere, for that matter).

The ease with which tens of millions of Americans have accepted irrational, unconstitutional and unprecedented police state-type restrictions on their freedoms, including even the freedom to make a living, has been, to understate the case, sobering.”

We have seen that events like the wuhan virus outbreak combined with media induced panic and constant disinformation can result in radical and swift change that was previously unthinkable.
Although events of that magnitude and consequence cannot by themselves cause anything, such events can function as a catalyst for radical change or other extreme events such as a genocide if the preconditions for that radical change or that other extreme event already exist.
The holocaust was not planned many decades in advance. Neither happened it out of thin air.

The preconditions for the holocaust were created many years before it happened.
Hatred of the Jews has existed for thousands of years.
Religiously justified hatred of Jews, called antijudaism, was horrible enough but Jews could at least escape persecution and death by converting to Christianity or Islam.

That changed whith Darwin’s theory of evolution which laid the foundation for modern racism.
No longer were all men created in God’s image but there were higher and lesser evolved races. Some races were even considered to be more animal than human. Evolution was the pseudoscientific base of modern racist theories including the nazi idea of the arian and the untermensch.

The most deadly aspect of antisemitism which made the holocaust possible was that Jews could no longer escape death and persecution by converting to another religion. You can’t change your race. Once the Jewish “race” was deemed a mortal thread to society the destruction of all Jews was the logical endpoint.
Widespread antisemitism based on race was the precondition. The circumstances leading to the 3rd Reich as well as Adolf Hitler were the catalyst and the spark that caused the powder keg to explode.

It saddens and infuriates me that, barely eighty years after the holocaust, the Left is advancing a theory that could potentially lead to another genocide.
It’s the same old poison, repackaged under a different name (Critical Race Theory or CRT), that contaminates the innocent minds of children, causing white kids to hate themselves and all the other kids to hate white persons.

If only Whites are racists and if all Whites are racists and if racism is such an evil then what is the logical endpoint if one wants to eliminate racism?
Exactly, it’s the elimination of all Whites.

Noel Ignatiev, a communist who developed the concept of “white privilege”, stated that he wanted to abolish the white race (see here and here).
He stated also that by “white race” he means the social construct called “white race”. Like those who advance CRT, he claimed that race was a social construct.
Whether that claim was a convenient smokescreen to hide his true motives and intentions (much like many antisemites claim to be just opposed to Israel’s policies) or whether he truly believed it, is beside the point.
The fact is, that many haters of Whites do not care about such nuances. You want evidence?
Just look at the deluge of anti-white hatred that floods the media and the social media these days.
Just listen to what comes out of the mouths of policians, activists, academics and prominent people.
If you said the things they say about Whites about any other group, you would be banned from polite society and lose your job and in some countries you would even go to jail.

Noel’s epigones can claim all they want that race is a social construct but in the end they themselves tie race to immutable, genetically determined, physical characteristics.
If a man is shot dead by the police, the radicals and their aplogists do not look at some abstract social construct. They look at he man’s skin color or physical characteristics.
If the dead dude has a white skin color then nobody cares and the media does not give a crap. If, however, the dead dude has a black skin color then the reaction is very different.
If teachers who peddle the racist garbage that is CRT, want children to check their “white privilege”, they are not selecting those kids based on some abstract social construct.
They are selecting those kids based on the very real physical characteristic of their white skin color. They are not asking kids with a black skin color to check their “white privilege”.

CRT is dangerous because it not only creates one necessary condition for genocide, the villification of a group of people, but it creates something much more dangerous and deadly. It makes it impossible for the members of the target group to ever escape by changing their religion, their ideology or their behaviour.
Just like the Jews could no longer escape persecution by converting to another religion, Whites won’t be able to escape potential future persecution and a potential future genocide by changing their behaviour.
As sure as the sun rises, CRT will cause hatred, violence and treatment of Whites as second class citizens, if it is allowed to spread.
From hatred, violence and treatment as second class citizens it is only a small step to genocide. All it takes are the right conditions and a catalyst.

I am encouraged by parents and especially mothers who boldly fight against CRT.
If there ever was a “hill to die on”, this is it. We must fight the racist CRT tooth and nail for the sake of future generations.

Batsoup Crazy Or Batman Villain?

The Fauci emails have confirmed what many of us knew or suspected all along.
Even before Nicholas Wade published his comprehensive article, for wihich he deserves great credit, there was enough circumstantial evidence that justified the assertion that the wuhan virus leaked from a lab in Wuhan.
Furthermore, there was ample evidence for the involvement of the US medical bureaucracy (NIH and NIAID) in Chinese gain of function experiments and other dangerous biological research.
The involvement of NIH and NIAID was mainly through funding of and cooperation with their Chinese counterparts.
Also, the substandard or nonexistent protocols and regulations in Chinese labs were common knowledge.

In 2015 “Nature” published a study by the infamous “Bat Lady” Dr. Shi and by Dr. Baric.
The study described how they changed a bat virus into a virus that could infect human airway cells. In the publication the authors state that their research was supported by grants from NIAID (Fauci’s organisation) and NIH.

In an interview with CBS former FDA commisioner Gottlieb said that lab leaks happen all the time and that the last six known outbreaks of SARS-1 in China were borne out of labs.

At a 2011 conference sponsored by NIH the director of the Wuhan lab almost bragged that there were practically no regulations when it comes to dual use research of concern (DURC). “Dual use” means that the research could be used both for military and civilian purposes and it includes gain of function experiments.

In an opinion piece from May 13, 2020 in “The Diplomat” the author discusses “Why Would the US Have Funded the Controversial Wuhan Lab?”

This comprehensive Newsweek article from April 27, 2020 already contains most of the information that we know today.

The real scandal is, that despite the fact that the medical bureaucracy, the scientific community and the media knew all these facts they all colluded together with big tech, China and the WHO in order to shut down any discussion of a lab leak as a potential origin of the wuhan virus.
Why did they do it?
China (the CCP) did not want to draw the fury of the world, law suits, demands for reparations, the damage to its image and very negative diplomatic and economic consequences followed by a loss of power or severe internal challenges to its power.
The US medical bureaucracy and the scientific community feared a loss of trust, credibility and funding as well as being put under the microscope and being heavily regulated.
The WTO was practically in the pockets of the CCP and was used to spread misinformation like the WTO statement that the virus was not transmissible to humans.
The CCP, the US medical bureaucracy, the media and big tech had one political enemy: Trump. A natural origin of the virus would shift all the burden to Trump and how he would deal with the emerging crisis. Thanks to a phenomenal US economy President Trump’s reelection was virtually assured. A real, severe crisis was a golden opportunity to ruin President Trump’s reelection prospects.
The media went even so far as to repeat CCP propaganda like the claim that the virus could be spread by people eating bat soup.

One question that plagued me is: How extensive was US involvement in the Chinese virus research? Was the US military also involved?
Very unlikely! Why would they outsource virus research that could be used by the enemy to produce bioweapons? To do that they would have to be completely insane or completely traitorous.
Why would US scientists and US institutions cooperate in such research? Well, isn’t the answer obvious? They did it for the same reasons that large parts of the world outsource a huge proportion of their industrial production to China.
Cheap labor and the fact that the Chinese communist party doesn’t give a crap about the environment, safety standards or the protection of the labour force does attract foreign manufacturers. While Western woke politicians and ecological totalitarians enforce in Western countries insane and unrealistic standards instead of reasonable regulations, manufacturers take their production to China where there are no standards at all. This, however, does not excuse scientists who wouldn’t accept even reasonable standards and who would know no ethical limits to their research. Some regulations and bans exist for a good reason. Also, letting do things by Chinese scientists gives some kind of “plausible deniability”. Put simply, they could do in China what they couldn’t do in the US.

Enter Anthony Fauci.
The first time I saw Dr. Fauci he struck me as likeable and funny but as time progressed, that first perception changed substantially.
I noticed that his words and actions were neither dictated by science nor by care for the health and the lives of millions of people.
Here is the progression of Faucis views (I paraphrase):
“The virus is no big deal. You can take that cruise on that ship.”
“The virus is very dangerous and deadly.”
“Asymptomatic spread is not the driver of the pandemic.”
Remember! The justification for both lockdowns and mask mandates is based on the assumption that the virus spreads asymptomatically.
“Masks do not work.”
“Wear masks!”
“Lockdowns were no mistake.”
At no point did Fauci justify the sudden and abrupt changes of his views with new scientific data.
Besides, it would seem strange that everything we know about viruses would change drastically in the short span of months. Indeed, the science has not changed as fast as Dr. Fauci’s opinions.
Neither is the wuhan virus so radically different from other corona viruses that we should throw everything we know about them out the window.
Rather than being dictated by science his changes were motivated by political and personal needs.
What disturbed me above all else was his pathological need for the limelight, the camera and the adoration of the media who portray him as a combination of a Hippocrates, a saint and a Marvel superhero.
I understand that a man who works in the relative anonymity of the bureaucratic machine, enjoys his bath in the spotlight, the fame and power that he gets suddenly at the last years of his career but his craving for adoration is clearly obsessive. This craving is what motivates him above all else. Something is not right with Dr. Fauci.
A secondary motivation for Fauci’s desire to be constantly present in the media is money. All those interviews, speeches and events bring some neat extra cash.
Last month alone yours truly received two “Meet Dr. Fauci” email invitations from the company yours truly works for. You can rest assured that the company payed Mr. Fauci a neat sum for these events.
As with all the other players, Fauci knew everything that they did and yet he was involved, albeit indirectly, with the research in the Wuhan lab. He knew that there were virtually no regulations for dual use research and if there were any they were sloppily implemented. He had to know. How else could he predict in 2017 that Trump would have to deal with a pandemic in his presidency? He knew that a leak would happen sooner or later and he knew exactly what kind of research was done in the Wuhan lab.
Why? Why? Why? Why did he do it? Is he the stereotypical “mad scientist” who sacrifices everything, including his soul, for science? No! He does not seem to care that much about the science. My guess is that his motivation was of a pecuniary nature and that a potential lab leak and the resulting pandemic were merely collateral damage. He may have made an even more sinister calculation. From his point of view a pandemic may be a great outcome allowing him to reap exactly the benefits he enjoys so much now. Viewed in this light a lab leak was not a bug. It was a feature.
You think I’m too harsh with Dr. Fauci? NO!
I KNOW that Fauci does not give an excrement about the human suffering that he caused and that he continues to cause.
How do I know?
He suggested lockdowns and masks as means to stop or slow the pandemic. There is no evidence that lockdowns or masks reduce the overall number of deaths of a pandemic. There is however evidence that lockdowns cause economic and psychological devastation and that they cause additional death and depression. There is evidence that the wearing of masks causes health damage and psychological damage.
A hippocratic principle is: Do no harm. You don’t apply a procedure to the patient if you know that it harms him but you don’t know whether that procedure does help him at all.
Worse, the same Dr. Fauci discouraged the use of Hydroxychlaraquin and Ivermectin claiming insufficient evidence for their efficacy while these drugs are safe and they have been in use for decades.
Had these drugs been used widely, thousands of lifes would have been saved. Because these drugs are safe, discouraging their use is completely irrational, even if their efficacy is not as great as one hopes for.
Again, Fauci never gave a rational justification for his recommendations. He was motivated not by science but by something different.
Fauci is not batsoup crazy. He is like one of those truly evil Batman villains who would blow up an entire city just to satisfy their sick, perverted needs.
He’s a sick, evil bastard who caused death by the hundreds of thousands and who made all our lives miserable. That’s the nicest thing I can say about him. 

Lust For Life – Why Lockdowns Don‘t Work

It was around the time when the first lockdown due to the wuhan virus reached a maximum of strictness when I was riding my bike through the night on my way home.

I was riding the bike on country roads that I know like the back of my hand when I reached a hut-like wooden structure big enough to drive a car through.

I sat on one of the wooden benches while surfing the internet on my phone,  enjoying the silence around me.

It must have been an hour later when a car appeared right next to the „hut“.

I was a little bit surprised but not overly nervous. Being cool, calm and relaxed I looked at the car with a piercing look when a young fellow got out of the car, followed by a guy and a girl about the same age.

The first fellow told me politely that I need not worry and asked me If I would mind them using the hut. I told him that there was no problem and went on reading my phone. Understandably, they didn‘t expect to find a person sitting alone in the „hut“ in the middle of the night and so they asked me repeatedly if I was not afraid being alone in the dark. I assured them that I take often a stroll in the night, sometimes in the middle of a forest and that the only things I try to keep a respectful distance from are wild boars.

They told me that they just came here to have a cozy little fire and to just sit around for a while.

While the two guys were searching for wood I had a pleasant conversation with the girl who reminded me of my former Dalmatian girl friend.

The two guys found few dry material suitable for burning and after a shortlived fire I decided to leave the place and to ride the few remaining klometers to my home.

This little episode partially confirmed a suspicion that I always had before.

I always suspected that the things that were verboten because of those silly „corona lockdowns“ were not done in public anymore but they just were done in private. In my wild phantasy I imagined that people with large rooms that are acoustically isolated or far away from curious ears would have wild parties or big gatherings in those rooms.

Perhaps the mob would rent such rooms. None of the particpants would ever talk to the police. If necessary, a combination of intimidation and corruption would ensure the undisturbed continuation of such business.

Perhaps I’ve seen too many old gangster movies dealing with the time of the prohibition of alcohol.

One thing is certain: You cannot forbid life.

The people who call for the most drastic infringements on individual liberties and for the strictest „anti-corona measures“ are often the same idiots who call for the legalization of prostitution, drug use and abortion.

Their argument is that if you criminalize these activities you only drive those who are engaged in these activities underground which in turn leads to dangerous practices that often result in damaged health or loss of life.

Their argument is that those who are engaged in these activities won‘t stop being engaged in them even if said activities are outlawed.

They claim for example that if abortion is illegal then abortion will often be done by shady, untrained persons practising unsafe and dangerous procedures.

Well, if all this is true for such things as prostitution, drug use and abortion then sure as hell the same is true for the normal and necessary functions of life.

How about legalizing life?

Isn‘t it insane that the same people who are perfectly ok with abortion are the ones who are calling for strict, even totalitarian measures because of their supposed newly found respect for life?

They say that, wait for it, even if we can save one life, these measures are justified.

Ouch! What painful stupidity. Haw about stopping abortion? Millions of lifes could be saved!

All this brings me to a deeper, perhaps the deepest question: Is there anything worse than death?

Should we value life more than anything else?

Our ancestors answered these questions emphatically. They determined that liberty and the chance to pursue one‘s dreams is worth risking their lives. They determined that living in slavery, misery and tyranny is worse than dying in the process of fighting for freedom, the same freedom which we are in the process of losing.

Man is a spiritual being and as such man‘s existence points to something higher, something more than life on this earth.

There is worse than death: A life not lived and an eternal life in hell.

Insurrectile Dysfunction Or Revoltus Interruptus?

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?

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.

Here’s The Evidence. “Black Lives Matter” Wants To Kill Blacks.

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.

Exposing “Black Lives Matter”

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?