Category Archives: Politics

Murder on the road to Mandalay

The Toll Keeper

“The Killer awoke before dawn…
He put his boots on…
He took a face from the Ancient Gallery…
and He walked on down the Hall…”
Jim Morrison

Someone must be punished
On October 3rd, 2017…Stephen Paddock rented two rooms at the Mandalay Bay Casino overlooking a concert venue. After hoarding an arsenal of weapons, two days later he opened fire on the concert goers below. The Mandalay Bay shootings were the most horrific in the history of gun violence. Some 59 people lost their lives and some 500 hundred others were injured by a lone gun man.

The only person close to him was an Australian woman, of Philippine decent by the name of Marylou Danley. A few days later Danley entered the United States and promised to tell all, vowing that she had no prior knowledge of such a plan, which was meticulous, and that she deeply mourns the loss of all those lives. She claims that she is innocent, and by all accounts seems to be a carefree person having no malice towards anyone.

Yet, While watching CNN yesterday a commentator swore that he was ninety nine percent certain that this woman is in some way guilty of something or other. And that he is nearly certain that her “guilt” will prove to be the key insight into this man’s motivation for shooting all those people. Someone must have helped Paddock…it was just too complex for one person to amass so many guns over thirty years..and to do this by himself? Someone else must have cooperated…someone else must be guilty.

But in reality it seems unlikely that any other person helped him. The woman seems to me, at least from this vantage point to be innocent. Perhaps she was the only one innocent enough to love a man this troubled.

As for the gun collection, and the planning and she being responsible for it in some way it would seem to me that the ordinary person cannot be expected to pry into other people’s affairs. Guns are legal, gun collection is legal, and unless this guy told the woman that he definitely intended to commit a high crime, there is no cause for hanging this woman.

Moreover it is quite possible for anyone to plan and execute an attack of this nature. Its easy actually. We are so used to conspiracy theories today that we cant possibly accept that some people are real good at killing. Real good at executing mass murder on a grand scale. But Someone must be guilty besides the shooter?

There was a certain vehemence with which CNN pursued this woman right after what seemed to be an innocuous statement by her lawyer, that in effect said she had nothing to do with all this and intended to cooperate in any way she could. CNN’s staff seemed to go ballistic, as if there was no chance that she could be telling the truth no matter what. There was no way she could be an innocent. As if someone had to pay, someone must be guilty, even if they were innocent. Someone’s blood must flow besides the killer’s own.

But this is not what a civilized people should want. They should not want blood for blood, innocent or not. If she is guilty of anything then she should be held accountable, but if not, then she should not in any way suffer for it. If she is innocent, she will suffer a lifetime as it is.

Guilt by Association
The reason I mention this at the beginning is because the manner of assigning guilt to dark events as this has some serious implications on our freedoms, and our moral obligations to the society we live in.

We should not be held automatically responsible for what people we know might do. No matter how heinous the crime. If you know a person, even intimately, and it turns out that you had no direct knowledge, or direct responsibility in the action then you are innocent. And must be presumed innocent. Doing otherwise will in effect make us all guilty by association.

Moreover, and more importantly, we should not be liable for not spying on our friends or countrymen. It seemed to me that CNN insisted that she had some kind of obligation to tell the authorities what Paddock was doing. But the truth is there are many people who collect guns in large numbers- wives, girl friends, daughters, brothers or sisters, or just friends and neighbors should not be in the business of ratting on their relations, even on suspicion. If I know someone who collects guns, it should not be up to me to “inform” the police. This is what would be expected in NAZI Germany, not in the United States. This is not serving the interests of freedom or democracy. We are not obligated to “Spy” on our fellow Americans, and we should all resist being goaded into doing so.

If in effect we are all to become liable for whatever crime someone we know commits, our freedom will be impinged upon, and sooner or later we will be living in a police state dictatorship where any failure to rat on our fellow American may become grounds for our own incarceration. If the woman Marylou Danley did not know directly what Paddock was doing then she would not be expected to inform the authorities of his actions. She cannot be expected to be a rat…even if not being a rat should have terrible consequences as in this case. She cannot be held guilty simply because she didn’t inform the authorities in the way the authorities, or the media demand retroactively. It would be an extremely dangerous precedent that sets our nation on the very slippery slope of constant surveillance and all privacy, and freedom would soon disappear.

The Archetypal Killer
Stephen Paddock was from what we can see now at least-only a few days after the event- an archetypal “Killer”. For whatever reason he was angry. Perhaps he had the gambling blues, perhaps he felt he was losing everything he ever owned and perhaps he blamed the Casinos, or society in general. In this lottery economy we are all either winners or losers, and if the latter, all of us will in some way be angry with the world.

Of course we are not supposed to murder innocent people, and lets make it clear- this is not the mindless point I am in any way adhering to. What I am saying is that our lottery economy is conducive to creating great, fantastic expectations that are more likely to be met with ultimate disappointment, than success(in large part due to general mismanagement of this society.) And I think this archetypal reason is the true reason that Stephen Paddock murdered all those people. He was simply angry at his luck.

The archetypal murder suicide “killer” as a literary theme in Europe goes back three thousand years at least. In Greek mythology, the stalwart hero Aias(Latinized Ajax) who defended the Achaean army in their most dire time of need, was so enraged in being denied the arms of the fallen Achilles that he awoke in a rage, went to the pen where the sheep were sleeping, and began to slaughter them indiscriminately. When at last the rest of the Greeks heard the commotion and found him, he realized that he was not killing his fellow Greeks, as he intended, but only sheep,and so he rammed his sword into his own heart ending his heroic life in shame and tragedy. The cause for the “hero’s” tragic anger was that he had great expectations followed instead by great disillusionment; and perhaps an underlying conviction of a perennial injustice in our society where cunning, and carelessness are prized over true devotion and loyalty. The arms of Achilles were ultimately awarded to the glib and cunning Polymechan Odysseus master of machination, the ultimate schemer who concocted the Trojan horse rouse by which the Greeks defeated the Trojans through utter treachery and deception.

The causes of such violence are often quite simple.
Murder, on the street is often spontaneous. A flash of violent anger. Although the Mandalay Bay shooter planned his violence meticulously, the ultimate psychological cause was relatively “simple”. Which is why no one can find a rational motive, as if its possible to find anything rational in this kind of violence.

Stephen Paddock likely wanted to “get even” with the casinos, and all those who support them. He may have resented the fan fare that surrounds the glitzy outgoing concert goers…feeling perhaps that he could never again be part of that carefree world, plagued as he was by isolation, disease and rage. This was probably the “real” cause of his actions- “simple” and perhaps needing little more in the way of psychological insight. This “simple” rage and isolation seem to be a common thread for all such high casualty murder suicides.

Nightmarish violence, the result of anger, isolation, and resentment long fomenting into a toxic disease of never ending rage which only “the end of all” can cure. Simple.

The Second Amendment
Fifty eight people died in this assault, and some five hundred others injured. There is again debate over the availability of guns.

Yet, we should know this…had the founding fathers been told that some two hundred people a year will die in this kind of violence, -or even a few thousand if we take into account urban violence- in order to guarantee the autonomy of the American people, it is unlikely they would be much moved. Freedom has a terrible price, and only in our day do we dare presume to be rightfully free of that cost, or feign pretend we are immortal and beyond account.

Today many think in curves that slither around corners and disappear behind large buildings. The founding fathers thought in straight lines.

The second amendment is meant to guarantee the sovereignty and freedom of the American people. Having an armed public makes it harder for any government to usurp the power of the people, and this is exactly why the second amendment follows the first: the right to free speech, followed by the right to fight for that freedom if the need arises. It is a kind of insurance. That in the event the government becomes too corrupt to allow for the choice of leaders the American people will have the arms necessary to overthrow that government. We should no longer tolerate the illusions as to why the second amendment came into existence, or why it has survived for so long. Why, even today, there are so many supporters for it. The second amendment guarantees that the American people will remain free under any circumstances, even if violence against the government becomes, in the last resort, necessary.

This is a key difference between the American people and their European cousins. The revolutions in Europe never quite did away with the sovereignty and absolute authority of government. The American people chose instead to guarantee the absolute sovereignty of the people. And this carries with it an awful price…for nothing comes without cost.

Militias may serve to anchor gun owners                                              Before advocating for a general ban on gun ownership we should consider that cars kill tens of thousands of people a year, yet no one would think to ban the use and ownership of automobiles.

Yet it is true that too many people die in these horrific acts of violence. Too many innocent people die in gun violence, too many suffer the life long aftermath.

The key may lie in the wording of the second amendment, “a well regulated militia”. Perhaps we should accept the legality of ordinary people having a weapon or two to protect their property, and the lives of their loved ones at home, but should require that having access to an arsenal of high powered weapons requires a more general authority. Perhaps only those who are members of a private, legally sanctioned militia should have such access. If Mr. Paddock had been a member of a militia it is likely that someone would have noticed what he was doing, someone would have intervened, someone would have questioned him because someone would have had some co-responsibility. Access to an arsenal, even gun collection should require the co-responsibility of a well regulated militia and membership within such a militia.

Moreover the rise and sanctioning of such militias can have great benefits for the nation. It would provide a means for the American people to organize, and to pursue their political objectives and rights. It would involve more people in a common cause. We should note that the majority of “shooters” are loners, even when they are a couple as the pair in San Bernardino. These two, although claiming they were shooting for the cause of ISIS seemed rather to be two very isolated people acting out in anger. Perhaps this archetypal “aloneness” can be alleviated by requiring affiliation in a private militia.

In this way the second amendment would be served, and the risks of indiscriminate violence minimized. Such militias could also help to police the state in some auxiliary fashion. Had for example a private militia had been present at Mandalay Bay, it would have been far more difficult for a lone shooter to kill so many people without receiving return fire from the patrolling militia. Such militias can in some way ease the burden on the local police forces, and make them far more efficient.

Of course we may one day have a “Militia” problem, but it would still be better than to have illegal gangs in their place, as is now happening.

Belonging to a group in many ways addresses the problems of isolation and lawlessness. Militias could act more like organizations once evolved, concerned not with just guns and arms, but also with the well being of the nation. They would in effect take a private responsibility for the health and protection of the national order while minimizing the potential destructive effects of lone gunmen or gun collectors..

Be it said here that if the founding fathers intended by the statement “well regulated militias” they would mean an army, or navy, then they would have clearly said that. They knew what an army was, and knew what a navy was. What they wanted was a people’s army, a state army  that would be hard for any external power to usurp. This is one reason it took so long for the American nation to develop an official army and navy. The founders knew that these will almost always lead to some corruption on some level. They intended a people’s militia as a balance to the government’s authority, and as a fail-safe in case corruption rendered any government oppressive and inflexible.

The price paid
Today we attribute such violent murder suicide events to some shallow cause or other. But in reality most of these killers, whether they kill for no apparent reason in a mall, or in a school, or even as “inspired” terrorists have causes that are most likely primordial in nature. People deeply disappointed with the outcome of their lives, and with society, and perhaps too proud to accept the fate they have been given.

These killers are archetypal incarnations of grievance. Of incurable anger and dissatisfaction.

They are in some ways, the “Tax man” and the “Toll Keeper” of our society. They are a price we pay for our freedom, folly, and our lives.

You can gloss over these phenomena as being only random aberrations of psychology  but these killers are what goes “wrong” with our society on a regular basis, and perhaps one of the “tolls” collected by our social order. Its been this way since the beginning of civilization and is unlikely to end by any elementary changes.

There is a price for freedom, and occasional violence of this nature may be part of it.  A natural occurrence that is in some ways never to be completely  avoided no matter what we do.

Post Script:
P.S. I am not here making heroes of these people, do not misunderstand. But if ever we are to mitigate their effects, we must have some real sense of what they are. White washing these events as being merely aberrations attributable to some shallow political or religious cause or psychological circumstance does not in the end do justice to the phenomenon. To say these killers are “mentally ill” may be true for example,  but it gives no usable information as to why they are “mentally ill”. Why are they so “Mad”? Knowing this cause is important. Perhaps seeking solutions on an “individual basis” is simply not enough. In effect they may actually be a naturally occurring phenomenon inherent in the overall primal nature of human social order.  They may not be an “individual” occurrence that can be addressed on a case by case basis  but a general malady that must be addressed on the societal level which will be far more complex and difficult to contain.

Donald Trump Expectations


President Donald Trump

Ok…so he’s here…he’s our president. Now what?

What can we expect? What can we really expect from Donald John Trump( a.k.a the “Donald”)
who is now the forty sixth president of the United States!

Well we have to give him a whirl and see what he can do. So much is true. We’ll see what he’s
about soon enough. His early moves do not really define him as yet. So far these moves are only
cosmetic. They are not deep rooted policy changes, which only congress can effectuate in reality.
So we are still at the point where we have to consider what is likely to come out of a Trump presidency.

But what do we really expect of him now that
he’s become “really big”, bigger than life almost?

To answer that we have to look at much of what he’s been saying, and why he’s been saying it.
Throughout his campaign Donald Trump made it clear that he was not at all happy about the way
things have turned out in the United States. It was also quite clear that a very large number of
Americans agreed with his assesment. He and his strongest supporters are obviously not very happy
campers. Something went wrong in the past thirty, forty, fifty years in the land of Milk and Honey.

Now Donald Trump is a billionaire, and it does not seem to most of us that much went wrong in his life.
But there is an edge to this man that betrays a deep dissatisfaction with the way things really are.
As if-though he achieved much in his life- something was still amiss. As if something he expected simply
didnt happen. He seems to have lost faith. Indeed, if anything can tie Donald Trump to the vast majority of
Americans, it is just that. They too have lost faith. Despite much success overall, the nation, or very large
parts of it, have in fact lost faith.

There will be some who will insist that only the disaffected voted for Trump. But this is clearly not the case.
Most small bussiness people, who are the most succesful, voted for Trump. The common thread is a loss of faith.
As if all too many people were not happy with what they were seeing America become.


The America Donald Trump expected, the America many Americans expected, just didnt happen the way they envisioned
it would happen. And frankly that will hurt, no matter what station in American life you may find yourself at. To tell the
most meaningful truth, it always hurts when you lose faith in that which you love the most. And the vast number of Americans loved their nation. They wanted desperately to believe in it. Desperately to think it orderly, just,
pre-destined for greatness, and endowed with an order, and true beauty.

So waxing poetic, I think we can pretty much see that Trump seems to be feeling what his supporters are feeling.
What even his detractors are feeling. Expectations have been dashed for quite a while. The sense of national beauty
which quite often gives us all a sense of having some role to play with destiny was slowly eroded. As powerful, rich
and influential as the United States has become, a sense of disorder and lack of integrity has seeded enormous doubt.
It is this doubt that vaulted Trump to the presidency…against all odds.

So its clear that president Donald Trump’s main objective, and mission is to get expecations back to where the American people can once again believe in their manifest destiny again. Where the destiny of a people is once again visible
to the people.

We are still poetic, I know, but this seems very much the real task that Donald Trump is going to have to manage
or fail catastropically, tragically.

There are questions about how succesful was the campaign of Donald Trump.

Donald Trump won the electorate but not the popular vote, this is true. Yet in reality Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party failed to haul in their own larger Democratic majority, otherwise they would probably have won easily. A very large number of Democratic voters were not very faithful either. They too could not believe that everything would be fine with four more years of the same as we have had-despite Obama’s seeming popularity. That’s as close to a single reason for Trump’s win as I can come up with. There was not enough faith in the way things were going for the naton on either side. Too few believed in staying the course. And they didnt! They wanted Change…that same sort of change they were promised with Barack Obama, but in the end, obviously felt they didnt really get.

In the end, it all comes down to faith. Perhaps even down to just simple esthetic attraction. Do you believe in the present state of affairs, do you believe your nation, your people, your community, your family are going in the right direction? Are they beautiful to look at, or is there an ugly side that you just cant stand to see anymore?

And even if things are not right and good now, will they be better later, and soon? Can faith be found? Can beauty emerge eventually? If the answer is no then the clamour for change will start to ring until ultimately it becomes a cacophonous roar for open revolution!

Of course, faith and beauty come mostly to those who have some money you will argue. Yet, again when we look carefully we cannot say that the poor elected Trump. By and large they actually voted for Clinton, if they voted at all. Those who didnt vote for Clinton did not as some are now suggesting, vote for Trump because they expected more. This man is a billionaire, it is unlikely he’s going to convince a large number of poor that he is generous enough to improve their
general state. No. Most Democrats who did not vote for Trump did not vote for him because they lost faith in the Democratic party. Most Republicans who did not vote for Republican presidential candidates opposing Trump did not vote
because they lost faith. They did not vote for Trump because they believed he would create jobs, but because they believed he would restore the United States to its lofty place as the primary innovator and consumer of the world. They voted more for the game plan, than the promise of a particular outcome. This was not about particular issues so much, as about where the nation as a whole was heading.

Those who did vote for particular issues..lost big on Trump. Clinton promised everyone everything. But no one bought it.

This then is how Donald Trump got to be president. And this too is why those who are still intent on undermining his presidency should think very carefuly. The game has really changed with Trump. There is a fundamental clamor for something that people can have faith in. Something they can once again believe in, and love again. And judging by Trump’s initial actions as president, he is dedicated to forcing that change in the nation’s state of mind. He wants the nation to go back to a common, national understanding about what is right, and what is not. He wants to begin to restore a rational order to the nation, no matter the personal issues that might oppose that order.

We can see clearly that there were warning signs all over the place before the election. The British exit from Europe was an evil omen for those who thought things would go on the same forever. It was clear that the British people were not happy campers either.

They did not want to see their England overrun with globalism. They were obviously angry, if even a little sneaky. Few polls predicted the Brexit victory over the establishment either. It was clear the movement was a relatively quiet movement, but as your grandma might say, its the quiet rivers you have to watch for. The quiet rivers flooded the voting booth, and Brexit happened.

By the end of the Brexit vote it was quite clear that the European Union was facing an existential threat. It was in danger of dissolving. And to this point little has changed. More than this the Globalist empire was itself under threat and to this point nothing is changed.

With the full realization pending, Donald Trump snuck into the white house though poll after poll had predicted an easy win for Hillary Clinton. In the end the electoral count was not even close. He is said to have lost the popular vote, but most of this vote was generated in a few states on the two coasts. The vast majority of states chose Trump, and it is likely that if he had campaigned for the popular vote, he would have won that too. When we consider that the Trump campaign had few big money contributions, and very little media support over all, Trump’s win was nothing less than gigantically decisive. The American people had had enough of the establishment, enough of the pernicious disorder and degeration of cultural integrity produced by an overly “liberal” establishment.

There was now a genuine wave of discontent in both the United States and Europe. There is little faith in liberal globalism left in the West.

So what can we expect Donald Trump to do?

We should understand that the first 100 days of a presidency are usually the honeymoon period. The president is usually given some leeway and a grace period to get his act together. Unfortunately for Trump, this is not going to happen this time.

Its clear that we are all ready to do battle and that there will be no honeymoon in the first hundred days. Indeed the Media has taken to actually counting Trump’s days in office, as if to emphasize the pain that people are supposed to be feeling, but which I suspect is a gimmick used to measure the Media’s own pain at the outcome of the election.

In general there is apparently a mandate for Trump which he will not be able to refuse, which he does not want to refuse. It is clearly his task to restore faith in both the American Union, and in its spiritual essence, the Constitution. Though some would argue against the latter, the truth is that anyone seeing Trump for what he is really doing will understand that Trump’s main goal is to reestablish the will of the people at the expense of the elite. This is quite clear, and there should be little doubt about it. Indeed the only ones who seem to doubt this are the elite themselves. They have all but absolutely convinced themselves that Trump was only “playing”, only pretending. Yet this does not seem likely at all.

It is clear that Donald Trump’s presidency will be judged, both by the nation, and in his own mind on how well he manages to restore the doctrine of self determination, not only in the United States, but globally. Let it be said clearly, from his early actions Trump’s intention is to restore self determination as both a national, and international principle.

Each nation must learn to run its own business, each nation must excercize the will of its own people, and each nation is to be held responsible for its acts. This is clearly Trump’s philosophy, even from his first several weeks in office we can see that he means business.

And herein lies the challenge.

We have recently heard of his tussle with China, and specifically the insistance of China that Taiwan belongs to the mainland chinese and that one day they will reclaim Taiwan the way they reclaimed Hong Kong. But even before Donald Trump assumed the presidency he made it clear that this was not American policy, nor was it part of the American credo. He accepted comment from Taiwan to China’s consternation. But this is natural and right. This is something Ronald Reagan would have wanted to see and for good reason. To Americans there is no reason why Taiwan cannot be a free nation. No Taiwan cannot dictate policy for China, it cannot claim to be China, it is not, but there is no justification for Communist China to insist that the island of Taiwan is their belonging. The Taiwanese are a free people and cannot be expected to bow to the communist party of China simply because of events that took place some ninety years ago. We will see how serious Trump is overall simply by what he does with China.

It is an important, early gesture with global implications. The American ideal of Self Determination is back on the table, and it will require some new understanding by many of our former friends, including the Chinese. It is no doubt a gesture that is quite Reaganesque and we are likely to see much more of this from Trump. There is little doubt that Reagan must have influenced Trump to a significant extent.

Reagan, like Trump believed ultimately in the constitution. He believed that all people have a right to self determination, a right to select their leaders and call their home, their own. If you look carefully you will see that Reagan started no major wars, even when at times he might have had a good excuse to do so. Reagan was more inclined to let nations settle their differences, much like Eisenhower before him, and was a lot less inclined to interfere except in as far as to prevent a cascade of chaos.

The action of Trump with Taiwan is a good introduction I think of what Trump’s policy and philosophy is likely going to be going forward. Though it would be clearly in the best interest of both China and the United States to remain on good terms both politically and economically, there will have to be some “philosophical”, and “emotional” adjustments, perhaps by both sides.

Although Trump has recently acquiesced to the “One China” policy, it is very unlikely that his stance on Taiwan is going to effectively change. Indeed when you look carefully no such change is even possible.

The United States has really no other choice than to pursue a policy of self determination around the world. It has become too expensive and too complex to police the world. In the end, the task that Trump will have before him is to convince the world that a new outlook is possible, both internationally and domestically.

We chose this example of Taiwan firstly because I think what happens with China and Taiwan is going to in large part determine what happens elsewhere. What principles are enacted in the Asian theatre are likely going to be indicative of what happens interanationally and domestically. We’re going to see what the general philosophy of Trump is in Asia being that it is immediately important to establish a policy there considering the nature of the extensive-yet relatively cordial- China US relations.

We will probably see how the more difficult issues of the Mid East, Europe, and Russia relations will develop with what attitudes and strategies are adopted early on in Asia.

Trump has repeatedly made it clear that he believes nations are responsible for themselves. The “Empire” is no longer in the business of providing sanctuary to those who do not provide for themselves. This has been made clear with NATO repeatedly. Trump has not seen any general promise or profit in paying for NATO, or for the UN since these seem not to serve the interest of Self Determination. They do not seem to serve the idea of either self determination or self support, which it is clear that Donald Trump feels are all important in a world of moral equals.

Some may think that this is all some prequel to some fantastic deal that is to be suddenly unvieled against the Russians, but the truth is that anyone looking at the reality of our world will soon see that there is no other option. Nations must support themselves-they cannot expect their neighbors to do that for them. With twenty trillion dollars of nominal debt the United States is really not in the position to support its neighbors. Only some particularly deceptive ideologist could ever hope to justify the present state of affairs.

The fundamental lesson that seems early on to guide Trump is that in trying to support the global empire we have in some way lost our own soveriegnty. This would explain the irritation that Trump seems to be feeling for some of our allies around the world. This including Europe.


That there are difficulties in Europe, it is clear. Europe has long ago run out of natural resources. Yet they continue to live the high life as best they can. Unfortunately this is going to require an increasingly efficient productivity and trade in order to be able to support themselves. Gone are the protectorates that for a long time provided luxurious living for Europeans. Success is going to require strict self reliance and self restraint. The United States is in no position to provide that for the Europeans. We have now clearly our own very serious limitations to consider.

For many years a fear of Russia, and Russia’s possible influence on Europe has for the most part been the primary motive for US policy.

Yes, it is clear that Russia is a powerful nation, with great resources, and there is only so much trust that can be handed to the Russians. But in the end it would seem natural to assume that the Europeans can take care of themselves. Indeed for the most part they have been taking care of themselves for the past seventy years after the end of World War II. There is no reason to think that Europe, the United States, and Russia cannot come to an equitable understanding when it comes to trade and much needed resources. Unless of course one side tries to destablize the other. Or take unjustifiable advantage.

Under Trump I think we can all expect a new philosophy to begin making its presence felt, and this new philosophy will stress self-reliance. There is little reason to think that Russia is in an offensive posture, or for that matter that Europe is in a defensive posture. But it is clear that Europe is in need of resources, and in the case of Natural gas Russia is able to provide for this need. But there is little concern beyond this. Nowhere is there any evidence of coercion, nor for that matter does there seem to be any need for it. There is little indication of Russia expansionism, nor any obvious need for it.

It is very clear that Donald Trump understands this, at least he has strongly implied that he does understand even if the establishment he defeated does not quite want to accept these realities.

Russian detente is not going to be an option for the United States. Why exactly the Obama administration and its managers chose this present confrontational stance with Russia is not clear to me. When we look at the hard realities on the ground in both Europe, and the Middle East, and in Asia, it is very easy to see that Russia is a necessary relationship for all involved. Neither the Russians, nor the Europeans, nor the United States can afford to not have a working relationship with each other. Its simply not possible. Again why it is that so much rancor has been made manifest is not clear(except if it is because Putin was not keen on playing to the Globalists.) But it is clear that Trump seems to want no part of it.

Russia’s aid is needed in all directions. Whether we desire a stable middle east, or stable Europe, or stable Asia, Russia’s cooperation is absolutely necessary. Even if our aim is to run a pipeline through Syria to provide alternative gas supply to Europe, still we would need the Russians to stabilize Syria and parts of the Mid East. There will be a price no doubt, but without paying some price the task is not likely to be accomplished at all. So much seems simple. I do not believe that Donald Trump will see it any other way. I dont think he can afford to see it any other way actually. Even if Hillary Clinton had won, there is little doubt that the direction would be pretty much the same in this regard. I am of the mind that even Obama and Kerry were merely setting things up for a deal to be reached.

The alternative is likely to be war. I simply dont see any profit from this to think it would be seriously pursued. Nor do I think that the Russians are likely to chicken out, though I sometimes feel that this is the general sentiment of those who choose to pursue an aggressive stance on Russia. In all cases it is likely more beneficial to have a mature, non-globalist affected relation with the Russians.

So for this reason we have to believe that Trump is going to seek a deal with the Russians. There seems little choice in the matter.

However, there are specifics.

The nature of the Ukrainian fiasco is difficult. Crimea is probably an intractable issue. I do not believe the Russians will deal in any way with Crimea. The reasons are both historic and economic. As for those who stupidly believe the Russians have an interest in expansion into Eastern Europe, I cannot in any way agree. The Russias chucked the Soviet Union because it was too expensive for them to maintain. There are few resources that the Russians need from Eastern Europe that they could not simply trade for. If anything, it is Eastern Europe that desperately needs the Russian resources. But of course we once again come back to self determination. This is something the Eastern Europeans would have to manage on their own. We can help them with this I suppose, in trying to get as good a deal as possible, but there is really only so much that can be viewed as our burden, or our own justified risk. This too is rather simple to understand I think, and is likely well understood by the new administration as well.

It is likely that the Russians would not be averse to some kind of solution to the Ukraine, excepting Crimea, but this would require cooperation from the Ukrainians. This native co-operation may not be all that easy to come by. The Ukrainians sadly have some very deep divisions. Still I do not see this as insurmountable. In the end it would seem to me that both the Russians and the US, as well as western Europe would all rather see the gas flowing than not. I think self interest would ultimately rule the day here..again assuming the Ukrainians can themselves come to an acceptable understanding.

But now we come to Syria, and the Mid East. A more difficult issue.

It is clear that a pipeline could run through Syria, but not under the proposals of the Obama administration. What the Obama administration was asking simply couldnt be done I think. The Russians have a potentially disastrous condition on their southern flank. Having Syria, and then Iran fall would probably inflame all the muslim states to the South of Russia all the way to China. This was never a possibility and it is likely that Russia would have fought to prevent this. Having Syria and Iran fall is more probably an existential threat to the Russians so there is little hope in pursuing that objective.

However a better behaved Syria and Iran are a possibility. And this is likely what the objective is going to be. With some Russian, and perhaps Chinese assurances there should be little in the way of danger for our allies in the Middle East. So much can be negotiated I think. Indeed, I dont think there are any other rational expectations. So I really dont see much else for Trump to do here.

Remember, his concern is to restore faith in the United States. This is going to be his primary task. He will not have much leeway elsewhere. Starting a hot war with Russia is not likely to do that. Besides the risks would quickly lead to a highly unstable domestic situation which Trump could not afford to see happen. Any major wars in the Mid East with a formidable power will almost certainly have severely destabilizing domestic effects.

If assurances are sufficient, a pipeline can be run into Syria, into Turkey and provide an alternative gas feed into Europe. This would probably be seen as a good deal to shoot for ultimately, and perhaps there is no one better than Secretary of State Tillerson to pursue this kind of objective, considering his background.

The Sunnis

The Sunni problem is yet another highly complex problem. The formation of ISIS is due in large part to the destabilization of Sunni nations that were percieved by Sunnis as being authentic, or self governed quasi representative of Sunni muslim self determination. Those with strong dictatorships were at least under the control of the Sunni leaders themselves, whereas Saudi Arabia and the gulf states are not seen as such. The rallying cry around religion is probably only superficial in the end. Most of this rancor is more probably due inherently to ethnic animosity going all the way back to the Palestinian issue. This will continue until some better more generally sustainable solution is found.

Trump, along with Russia will probably center on controlling or eradicating ISIS but this will do little to quell the ethnic Sunni animosity towards foreign interference(even if that animosity is garbed in religious extremism.) It is not likely that either Saudi Arabia, certainly not Egypt, and certainly not Turkey, or Pakistan are likely to serve the Sunni faithful as authentic representatives of their nationalistic, or religious aspirations at this point. Therefore whatever Trump does, he is very unlikely to quell the unrest. For this reason he will more than likely be forced to deal with those elements that can be ameliorated for the present. These are likely to be Iran, Turkey, Egypt and even Syria. With Russia making deep inroads to these, it will probably require Trump to play the game, much to the chagrin of his allies, both in the Mid East, and in Europe.

Still, the ultimate objective that Trump will have in the Mid East is to keep the oil flowing and for as long as he can do that with minimum expenditures, it is likely he’ll be happy with the results. ISIS will be a problem, but if he manages Syria and Iran ISIS should be a minimal problem though one that is not likely to go away any time soon. It is however a problem that can only flare up to exteme condidtions if some foreign power is involved. For this reason Trump will have to seek some kind of understanding with both allies, and adversaries.


However, all this is ideal and very much dependent on a few other actors. China being major.
The Chinese problem is going to be a serious one for Trump and will have an effect in both the Mid East and in Europe. It may also affect South America and Africa. There are many reasons for saying this.

But perhaps the most significant reason is that the Chinese Communist party has essentially promised the Chinese people that it can single handedly bring China into the twenty first century of endless consumption. Unfortunately this might not have been such a wise idea. We are even now facing the limits of consumption. Resources are getting more and more expensive and harder and harder to find. Though it would appear through manipulation of exploration and production that this is not the case, we can see clearly that sooner or later there will be a rise in prices for commodities. It will become more expensive to consume. And this expense will at some point in time become a significant determinant in all theaters.

China having nearly four times the population of the United States is going to be a difficult climb into general economic prosperity. There is no question of this. She will of necessity be more inclined to support globalism than nations now more developed. Europe and the United States themselves are now facing huge trade deficits, already needing massive imports on energy and materials in order to maintain their lofty standards of living. But the requirements of these two populations would pale in comparison to what China would need if it were fully modernized-Western style. The last thing China wants to see is a tightening of markets, or rigid borders. Yet this is exactly what she is going to face for both political reasons, but perhaps more importantly for natural reasons. It is highly unlikely that the Globalist philosophy had much life left to it.

She will not be, at this point, a great fan of self determination and local insulation of the world’s economies. The promises made by the party will not make it easy for her to absorb dissapointment. Though it would not be easy for any nation to absorb some form of contraction, it is more likely that nations in Europe and the United States will find it easier to reach a higher state of efficiency than would China for the simple reason that the expectation in China is that of endless growth, and steep at that. Expectations in Europe have become more moderate after the end of World War II.

If it should become clear that present Chinese expectations are not very likely, even if economic stability is not lost(which is rather more likely) domestic political stability will come under duress. For this reason she is likely to resist any withdrawal from present globalist expectations, or operative principles.

For this reason any change in philosophy by Trump is going to have to be implemented with some grace and care. This is quite possibly the most important reason for engaging the Russians. The question for Trump is going to be how to establish a new agenda while keeping things stable and sustainable. There will be great resistance, not only from our allies, but also from emerging markets. Trump will have to find a way to establish a stable global environment even as the old unsustainable system is dissipated.
China will not be likely to cooperate on local issues either. She is not likely to see Tawain or any of her neighbors as potentially independent of her own economy or its needs. This reality will be very difficult to overcome.

In general it is safe to assume that China is going to seek its own Hegemony in Asia and this is going to be a real problem. Although we can allow nations to be themselves, it will not be possible to allow China to become a new “Empire”.
Any steps taken in that direction can become the basis for confrontation.

For as long as the emphasis was on securing the resources of nations which produced them, China could simply play the game as well as anyone else, but once that game turns to self determination, China will have the biggest problem of all. She, like Japan, and Europe are not really very well suited to self containment under the present idealogical self image. This will make things quite difficult.

Trump will have to manage this, with a little help from his newly found friends. But this is exactly why it is crucial that a good relationship exist in the West. Any instability or rancor in the West, and things will begin getting globally unstable and could spiral into chaos in a real hurry.

It should be noted that Hillary Clinton wanted to global trade the brics out of their resources.with the reasoning that this is how to contain nations like China..but that just didnt work and probably would not have down the road. The present multi national ideology was inclined to encourage the consumption of the emerging nations at the expense of the resource producers. Unfortunately the gigantic amounts of credit required make it quite clear that this system is not sustainable. It was fine for a few people to make offensive amounts of money, but we could not justify burdening billions of people with that debt when in fact these people are supposed to be a free people allowed to choose their own the course to their own destiny.

The simplest rendering of the Clinton Obama view of the world is this: An established intelligentia, established Academia, media and established economic order, globally empowered, and privately held must be supported at all costs. Even if those costs should risk all out world war. Or even if this economic order risked the freedom of the masses in democratic nations. Saddling the American people with 30 trillion dollars of nominal debt(this number including national, state and local debt) could not point to anything but economic enslavement for the vast majority of people in the western world. It is clear that the voting public understood this in both the United States and in most nations in Europe.

For this reason the old system has to go, kicking and screaming if it must.

But this will have tremendous consequences. Changes of this nature are not likely to be without great costs both domestic and global. There will be Titanic forces at work here.
We then come to the ultimate problem facing Trump: The economy, and the domestic political climate.

Its obvious from the first few weeks that President Trump is not going to be any less exciting as president than he was as candidate.

The mass protests, media temper tantrums, and division are evident everywhere. There are people mad at Trump for no particular reason it seems, as if its simply become fashionable to be mad at him. There are people overseas who likely have no clue of what Donald Trump’s real agenda might be actually taking the time to protest against him, vehemently at that. Even those who have no particular political leaning seem at times to be angry that Trump is taking so much action so quickly. As if Trump is disturbing a sleeping baby that suddenly awakens with a scream.

We are probably going to see four years of this.

All presidents since Jimmy Carter have pretty much moved with the aid of the established power base, and have enabled and enriched that power base. Under Barack Obama that power base reached its pinnacle. It has never before been as powerful as it is now. Donald Trump has ostensibly challenged that power base. Whatever he wants to do he will have to do it without the aid of that power base. He will have to stand against the establishment, where he will, and expect massive counter attacks. This is going to be hard and have cosmic repercussions. It will all depend on how much power his own base of supporters can attain. And how Donald Trump will use that power. Ultimately he will have to direct that power towards congress, and demand legislation that changes the fundamental order of the nation. This will be the ultimate test for Trump’s administration.

The establishment is not going to relent any time soon. The GOP seems inclined to want to believe that Donald Trump is after all their own creation, even if he did beat them relentlessly during the primaries. They seem to want to believe that Trump is just another billionare who will ultimately come to his sensess and see things their way. But he has repeatedly made it clear that he is not going to see things their way any time soon.

His actions on the border, and his actions with immigration are quite clear. He knows that he will not be tolerated by his own supporters if he fails to in some way shut down the borders and do something about jobs leaving the nation. Though his actions thus far are frankly superficial, they strongly point to a very different philosophy than the one that’s prevailed thus far.

As far as the Mexican border wall goes. Be certain neither the Democratic party, nor the mainstream GOP want to see such a thing built. For one it will change the voter dynamics that both have been counting on. For another it may lead to significant taxation at the border, and neither party’s sponsors will be happy about that. So its quite clear that both party hierarchies have orders to dissuade Trump from enacting anything like the Mexican border wall as it is being proposed.

However, Trump knows that this will score some big points with his own voters and he is almost certain to go through with it. For its part the wall may actually do some real good. The problem with the Mexican border is that it has facillitated a great deal of crime for centuries. This criminal activity has led to destabilization for both Mexico and the United States. While Heroin and illegal drugs and sex slaves flow north, guns and racketeering flow south. The border may actually do some real good for both nations in the end.

A tax to pay for it would also do good. The United States has lost too many jobs and too much industry south of the border. But little of this has actually benefited the majority of Mexicans. Most of this arrangement has benefited the elite few who own these businesses and who profit immensely from these arrangements(indeed most of these are actually Americans.) Little of this wealth has really found its way to either the Mexican public or the American general public. A tax on that border to pay for this wall would here tend to stop what has thus far been a destructive trend for both nations.

Still, this is going to require much more from Trump. And here we will see how honest he intends to be(or how honest he can be-as he himself has said, some promises are not deliverable due to inordinate opposition.) Still a Guest Worker Program will at some point in time be needed here. There is nothing wrong with having guest workers, as long as they remain just that, guests and do not evolve to become economic and social liabilities. All of this will heavily depend on the principles of enforcement, especially executive enforcement, and this is Trump’s responsibility for which he will want to set a standard.

Too many people think those against a lax immigration policy are simply racists. They do not understand it seems to me that most people are not necessarily going to condemn people of a different culture but are more likely to react if they feel that the general societal order is being undermined. The anger felt by most who are against illegal immigration is that it is disordering their society, making it unpredictable, and at times unmanageable(as when a person gets on the freeway and seems to have entered a giant parking lot.) The general dissent is not against particular immigrant ethnic groups(though it often targets these out of frustration) but against the disorder that illegal immigration generates. The truth of this is pretty much self evident.

A guest worker program, ripe with strict laws can be managed by Trump, indeed will have to be managed likely. But how much success he will have with this is questionable. At this point the voters have reacted and have little faith in the government being able to enforce any laws at all. Yet if some general doctrine on immigration is not enacted or at least initiated, Trump will in reality have failed to solve this problem, and it will continue to fester. He may promise more actions during his second term, this is going to be a matter of political strategy.

Besides this, the United States must make some effort to balance its trade deficit at some point in time. Starting with the Mexican border is a good idea. But this must be applied to others as well. We must do something to trade more effectively, and a border tax is a tool that has long been effective. There will be vociferous opposition to be sure. Trump will be accused of racism, isolationism, and protectionism, but in general those who supported him will more than likely accept a border tax as being in the interest of the American people if a direct benefit can be seen.

In the end Trump will have to convince people that the nation is stable, and can remain stable. Our present condition is clearly not sustainable. This will be seen quickly I think. We are expending vast amounts of energy trying to keep the dam from leaking, but it is. Fixing the dam is going to be difficult for Trump. I honestly dont know if he will, or can have success with this under the present circumstances. The tasks are daunting.


As for Trump’s Supreme court justice picks, he is going to go conservative with the first of these choices in order to replace Judge Antonin Scalia, but I would not be surprised to see him ease up somewhat on any succeeding appointment. Roe vs Wade cannot be overturned. I think Trump knows this and will not look to be making anymore enemies than he already has. I think rather that his main objective with the court is to make it less liberal than it would otherwise be and attempt to insulate it somewhat against future liberal appointees. I do not think however that Trump will be inclined to appointing extremist justices. If justice Gorsuch is approved by congress the court will go back to its original state, and that was a fairly balanced, somewhat conservative court(with extreme judges on either end.)


Trump’s greatest challenge is going to be the economy.

The economy is heavily dependent on debt right now. Jobs have been created, albeit not great jobs, but mostly on gigantic amounts of credit. It will be difficult for Trump to maintain these jobs without resorting to credit himself. For this reason I dont see Trump allowing the dollar to gain anymore strength. If indeed he wants to balance trade, and is serious about a border tax then he must have a weaker dollar. Moreover if he intends to borrow more money in order to create a fiscal stimulus then he will almost certainly have to avoid an interest rate rise. To effectuate change on the level that Trump proposes will require some economic degrees of freedom that can only come from a weaker dollar and lower interest rates.

With lower interest rates commodities are likely to rise. This would help the domestic oil, gas, and mining operations that Trump wants to support. It would also help the food industry and housing industry. So there is good reason to believe that Trump’s administration is going to be looking for a much weaker dollar and lower interest rates.

The problem with all that is inflation. I dont know why the “market” and the Fed are so fond of inflation. Inflation is almost always a killer of economic activity. Commodities have so far been kept in check, but this will not last. It has never been the case that commodity prices can be kept in check during inflationary periods. Sooner or later, there will be a tremendous explosion in commodity prices, and the primal fears will almost certainly become realities. This much control cannot be sustained by anyone.

All in all Trump is going to have to thread the needle. Should inflation rise too quickly, the economy will likely crash, too slowly and the resistance to change will become too great. The economy will be Trump’s economic achilles heal and how he manages it will determine how well he does. Even success in adding jobs could backfire if this results in too much inflation. The level of debt, private, corporate, and government will severely limit a spiral continuity. More than likely the economy will fail at the first sign of real inflation. There will be limited options.


It must be understood that each president comes in with an economic agenda and stratagem. Mostly this stratagem revolves around increasing his own power base. That is to say Bush tried to increase the fortunes of his own voter power base, centered around the production and distribution of oil, and fundamentalist Christians. Obama around his, the Black American miniority and liberal America. Clinton around his, the proffesional and tech industry, and multi-ethnic base. But in the end these three presidents managed to dramatically increase the power and wealth of the “Elite” to a far greater degree than what they promised to their voter base. As a result the nation became weaker in the process.

In the end it comes to distributing and redistributing America’s wealth to particular groups which support a particular president or politician, and his “Ideals”. There is really no way around this. If Trump wants to remain a viable candidate for 2020 he will have to manage to redistribute wealth to those who supported him, or at least give the appearence of having done so; and these having this wealth it is assumed will attract others and so Trump’s base will grow in power and numbers.

However, in the event that the fortunes of the American economy begin to decline under Trump, even for reasons which he cannot control-through no fault of his own so to speak-he will still have to distribute wealth to those who would support him, at the expense of those who dont! And this then is the real game, the money game. This is why the “establishment” so opposes him. It will likely mean that they will have to take a pay cut, as well as a consequential power cut.

And this will mean war.

The Media is going to continue attacking Trump under the direction of the present power structure-which by the way is largely private and not a “deep state” public sector to whom some attribute the strong resistance to Trump(for in the end it is a private money game that is the ultimate determinant , on the battlefield, and both Trump and his “adversaries” are well aware of this.) For this reason Trump must continue to attack the Media. This is not going to get better for Trump-unless of course Trump surrenders. There is going to be a tug of war for the mind, and wallet of Americans. Trump will have to convince the American people that something new must happen if we are to sustain our nation, even if there is some pain involved. The establishment will try to convince the American people that Trump is an inteloper, an intruder who means no good, and can do no good. An “insurgent” bent on destroying all the liberal “progress” made by Obama and Clinton. All in all its going to be a war of ideologies, but the weapons used will be monetary.

It should be understood that if Trump is really intent on shifting the power base and integral order of the nation there will be severe consequences. You cannot go from one power base to another without consequences. For this reason any changes will have to have to be precise, and efficient. The more efficient the changes, the less the pain will be.

Yet, if Trump has even minor success in the economic front, he is likely to come out the winner. This will be especially true if the Trump administration manages to divert enough wealth out to rural America, where most of Trump’s supporters are to be found. Even if the cities suffer, he is still likely to have the votes for another four years.

As far as the “People” are concerned however, it will all come down to whether or not this president can restore the integrity of the nation, or at least prove that we’re on the way to a more noble, more sustainable , more beautiful national identity. For as far as the “People” can ever be concerned it will always have to do with faith, and the sustainability of a noble ideal; for this is now, and has always been the essence of nations. Individual citizens may revel in making a quick buck, but soon the nation will wither and die if it lacks integrity, and a belief in itself and a knowledge of its own manifest destiny. In the end it still all comes down to faith in the national identity. This will never change. Trump’s ultimate success, or failure will rest solely on how much stronger is the “People’s” faith in the ideals of the United States of America.

Who Should You Vote For? Election 2016

vote for2

Vote for the individual American

Who should you vote for? Republican, Democrat, Independent or Conservative, or perhaps some other party or ideology? The truth is that there is really one reason for voting in this election or any other election if you are an average American. You should vote for Freedom. Individual Freedom which is really what this nation is founded on ideally.

The problem with many if not most of the candidates up for election is that they are affiliated to the power consortium that runs, and has run this nation for decades. This consortium of interests has managed to bring this nation to a foul condition, so bad that not even the Mass Media, which by design was supposed to report the truth to the American people can do so. Not only has this Consortium of Special Interests fouled this nation’s ideals and objectives, as well as its economy, but it has also seized nearly full control of the Mass Media; this under George W. Bush who proudly sponsored the laws allowing this almost complete seizure of power by the few for the first time in the history of the nation. We cannot even know the full extent of this fiasco and how much of our nation is now in jeopardy, because our mass media is not allowed to report the full truth, but by the implications given phenomenologically, we can see that the problems we face are quite dire as a nation.

An Overseas Disaster is Brewing Thanks to Big Money Campaigns

Overseas: We have enraged a Billion Muslims, and for what? What was the objective? What was the gain? We are fighting endless wars for what? Where is the gain? What was the need to so? Only those who created this situation can answer for it in full.

Now, as if that were not enough we have enraged the Russians, a nation quite able and not likely to surrender to the will of a few special interests who control our own nation. Russia is a nation pathologically sick of special interests as they have devoured it throughout all of history. If there is any nation and people averse to the form of policy we now have it is these Russian people who have for ages been victimized by the greed and malice of the few.

But Russia is not Iraq. Russia is a powerhouse. She is rightly to be considered one of the most powerful nations on Earth. She has the wolf’s share of the world’s resources, that alone makes her a powerhouse. She is fully nuclear, fully space borne, fully able in all ways. And fully trained in awful war.  She is not the one who will likely back down, and especially when she knows she’s right and her adversaries wrong. There are now strong indications that special interests destabilized Ukraine and tried to put Ultra Right wing government there, something least likely to appeal to the Russians.

Their leader, Putin,  has now embarked on a mission to isolate our own nation in turn. He points out that we have been the  war mongers over the past decade, it is we who have destabilized and usurped nations at the behest of our special interests who control our government, media and finance. He, Putin, is now drawing converts who fully see us as the main enemy of world order and world peace! And he is succeeding for our interests really have been petty, really have been for the few and not the many. Out interests have not been democratic, our interests not for world order or for world peace. Our interest have been specious and for mal intent for the favor of the few at the expense of the many.

Putin, with China, and possibly India form an extremely powerful triumvirate that will stand in opposition to us in all probability. We have come close to opening Pandora’s box.

Nor are others anymore favorable. Yes the British government favors us, but do the British people? They have long opposed our practices in the mid east only to be silenced like us through their own corrupted media, owned and controlled by those devoted to the rights of the few over the rights of the many.

In Germany, Italy, France, Spain, and many others, though their governments may seem sympathetic, and in financial need, their people are anything but committed to our present course in foreign strategy. We are alienating billions of people because a few special interests want their objectives to be ours.

But their objectives are not ours.

Our Own Nation is a Real Mess thanks again to Big Money Politics

Worst of all, and the chief reason to pick your candidate carefully is because of what’s happened here in our own nation. Where we see money handed from the very highest printing press of the Federal Reserve gratis to the very few at the top. Trillions of dollars spew out of the Federal Reserve system, printed and fresh with little real backing, since our real economy has been degenerating over these same years of endless free credit to the few. We have a grotesquely overgrown economy whose only real natural inclination is to collapse and this was done only for the benefit of the few special interests who managed to usurp our political system. What’s worse and never mentioned in the main stream media is that it is we, the ordinary people of this nation who will owe all that money for decades. If you have a job, you know how much of your check is going towards the debt. But this is only the beginning. When the credit spigots clog, and they will eventually, the demand for repayment will begin in earnest, and the taxation, one way or another will become a permanent burden for each and every American for decades to come. And for what? What have we accomplished?

Gets worse even still: We may have forty million people in this nation who do not have any real legal status under the constitution. Whose only real legal foundation is the particular whim of the local governor or president. I am speaking of the illegal immigrants who are now here, now part of this nation but who have no legal status here. There is no more dangerous a precedent than this, and whether you are either for, or against all this, you understand that this is not the way things should be. This dilutes everyone’s legal status by implication. Whether you are a naturalized American, or an illegal alien, your rights here are compromised, your ultimate unknown! We don’t know what the solution here will be, or what the consequences of that solution! Yet this is what these special interests who control this nation have desired to create. A fundamental instability that undermines the foundations of individual rights and individual freedom under the constitution. When forty million people are not recognized by the constitution something is critically wrong, whether you are for illegal amnesty, or against, something is critically wrong!

More than this even is the constant tendency to make the individual American as little as possible. The interest of the one is relegated to the chance decisions of the few who control this nation in its ways. The individual here is little more than an animal it seems, as if he counts almost for nothing if he is not somehow connected to some syndicate or other. Yet this nation is founded on true and real individual freedom and this has always been the true reason for its success. Free people can think, free people have the time and space to wonder if something could be better, but they cannot do that if they are forced into endless subservience to the bottom lines of the few at the top. Our nation has now almost completely abandoned the ideal of the individual. Either you belong to some organization, some particular section of the special interest matrix, or you stand alone, with not even the law on your side. But this is not the way things were supposed to be.

The NSA scandals, the IRS scandals, the leaks of Wikileaks, all these are tied to this constant loss of individual freedom, and it is a conscious effort by the few to eliminate as much of our individual freedom as they can. And so here is where your vote comes in.

A Simple Formula Saves the Nation: No Big Sponsor Candidates

Choose that candidate who is least affiliated with the power matrix of this nation as it is now. Choose the candidate that wants to bring back real individual freedom and rights. Choose that candidate who is least sponsored by the powerful, whose campaign is least endowed with billions of dollars of advertising money. This is the candidate most likely to care the most for individual rights, and is probably the reason he has little advertising money in his war chest. Its easy to choose, easy to spot the big, corrupted war chests, there are hundreds if not thousands of sites on the internet that will let you see who took what from whom and how much. What you never see however is the why.

You should not need an advertising war chest to be a successful  political candidate. The only thing you should have is a message and in this age of the internet we have the power to bring that real revolution to fruition at last. Where a candidate can stand on real principles and not on lobby sponsored war chests meant to make personal lawyers of those same people who purport to represent us. Vote for real freedom, vote for real individuality, vote for that candidate that will give you those rights upon which our national constitution is founded. Leave the major war chests, and the “phony baloney” campaigns to wage a meaningless war between themselves while America grows strong again.

Americas strength is not to be found in the criminal syndicates, or all powerful organizations, but in the spirit of a civil individuality. Vote for that candidate who is most likely to stand up for the individual and who will not continue to support the rights of the few special interests that have coordinated a disaster on our nation and our world over the past few decades. Find and vote for that candidate who will restore this nation back to its intended constitutional order, and who perhaps has a few bright ideas going forward that might make this nation even better than it ever was! Find that candidate, and your vote is worth its weight in gold, vote for mighty campaign war chests, and you might as well stay home, you would do better. These do not likely represent you….the individual American!

A Simple Formula : Pick your candidate like you would your house, or car…shop around! And vote for those who would make this nation stronger, for all of us and not just for their sponsors!

Is Putin a Monster? Or are we trying to make him one?

Vladimir Putin, Bellicose War-Monger?  Or just doing his duty?
Vladimir Putin, Bellicose War-monger? Or just doing his duty?

Are the Russians the Real Aggressors?

Who is Vladimir Putin?

Putin was born in October of 1952. He is 62 years old.  He was born to a Russian family that apparently knew the pain of World War II well. He had two brothers who were older than he, both dying before the second world war. One of the two, Victor, succumbed to Diphtheria during the siege of Leningrad, the other, Albert died a few months after birth .  Both parents suffered mightily at the hands of the German dictator. Putin’s father, Vladimir Spiridonovich,  was drafted as a submariner, which is about as tough on the nerves as military assignments can get(especially during those times when this technology was new.) He later served as a member of the internal police, demolitions squad and was severely wounded during the second world war at the front.  His mother Maria Ivanova was a factory worker.

His grandparents have no notable history other than what is common for Russians who lived during the very difficult times of Stalin’s rule. However, his maternal grandfather, Spiridon Ivanovanich  was a chef who cooked for Vladimir Lenin’s wife, and on a few occasions for Joseph Stalin. His maternal grandmother died at the hands of German occupiers during the war; his uncles disappeared at the Russian front, events which would not likely have left the boy Vladimir untouched emotionally by the personal tragedy of that terrible war.

Although he was brought up under the communist doctrine on religion, yet, by all accounts Vladimir Putin is a devout Christian, often professing a deep faith in the Russian Orthodox tradition, a religion which particularly emphasizes compassion as the cornerstone of faith. Though his father may have been a “dedicated” atheist who lived under the stern communist apprehension of mass religion, it seems his son Vladimir was perhaps influenced by his mother’s faith which, apparently,  survived the Communists .

As a boy Putin was rowdy, and apparently often tried to emulate a popular screen characterization  of an intelligence officer. Putin quickly learned Judo and other martial arts becoming strong and athletic in the process. This aggressive side of his persona is also quite often made visible by his public demeanor, and it seems the Russian voters are impressed since his popularity is quite high; he seems personally dedicated to law and order, and the Russian people seem to have the same desire-perhaps there they feel they can find individual justice -something elusive in their turbulent internal history. Putin strongly opposes the use of capital punishment though the majority of Russians still want it. (you can find much more about him at wikipedia)


Putin’s political history is extensive- about the only thing he has done in his life is to serve the public. Of importance is that he was a KGB agent fully aware of the international scope of Russia’s history. Whether he was a great KBG agent is disputed. There were times in his career where he seemed to be a menial stamp jockey for the service. Yet he was fully consumed by Russia’s dealings with the West, and especially on the commercial front.

It is notable that he himself seemed to have no confidence in the old Soviet Union, something which is quite evident in many of his speeches- Putin is no communist, and most probably the exact opposite. Yet he was a loyal public servant all of his life, and walked a very fine line at times between loyalist and traitor.  We should note carefully that he resigned from the KGB when he had realized that they intended to overthrow Michael Gorbachev on the very next day. From this we must conclude that Putin was indeed prone to a democratic Russian state from a very early point in his career, and though deeply loyal to the KGB, he was still able to maintain a personal conscience and an obligation to what he thought was the greater good of the Russian state.

Even after the fall of the Soviet state, Putin maintained his intelligence activities but this time for the purpose of promoting free enterprise.

For a long time he was hired as a front man for the Mayor of St Petersburg seeking to entice western businesses with an appetite for expansion into the new Russian state.  He had gone from an intelligence officer to an international marketing specialist of sorts. Having served in East Germany before its fall he had apparently acquired some skills in the language and customs of Western Europeans and used that experience to help promote closer business ties to the newly capitalist Russian Federation.

Boris Yeltsin’people  saw in Putin a man with the right views at the time, and so assigned him to take a position in the lower level of the government. Placed in the Property Management division, he was charged with the task of transferring foreign property from the former Soviet Union to the new Russian Federation. Thus his knowledge of international affairs and systems was once again put to use; his connections to, and knowledge of western entities also probably increased. Later on he would become chief of the FSB under Yeltsin, which was the new incarnation of the old KGB.

It is quite possible that he never actually left the intelligence field altogether. Perhaps he was charged with more than just transferring property while working at the property office, since his assumption of head of the FSB was abrupt and had little precedence in his career path. He went from property manager to leader of the intelligence service, a long jump so it is possible he was doing a little more than stated for Boris Yeltsin, perhaps listening where ears were needed.

From 1997 on, he rose very quickly through the ranks. He assumed full power after the resignation of President Yeltsin while serving in the less powerful position of Russian prime minister in 1999. At the time Yeltsin was accused of corruption and once again Putin would have to decide between the lesser justice and the greater good.  He quickly cleared Yeltsin from any possible prosecution.

Being that he was present, and probably working in a quasi-intelligence position of sorts at the time, he was able to see first-hand what was needed to bring the Russian system to a better purpose while serving under Yeltsin during the highly volatile period of Russia’s early formation, when corruption was rampant, and almost necessary since laws were not yet clearly established, or prosecuted in the courts.

In a state like Russia at that time, corruption is sometimes the only way to anything even remotely pragmatic, yet Putin seemed from the start inclined to those principles promoted by Gorbachev, Perestroika and Glasnost, openness and free markets, and kept a long eye on the prize of a free and well regulated democracy.

Much like Libertarian Ron Paul is in the United States, an idealist with good intentions, Putin too must have realized that ideals take time and effort to be put into practice, and as Ron Paul has to deal with a sometimes rowdy self serving congress not usually too idealistic, so too Putin had to deal with the Russian body politic which was hardly in a position to be idealistic,  and oftentimes it was easier and less costly in the long run to make do with what was available than requiring immediate change, if even that was  the ultimate objective. While Ron Paul’s ideas are targeted towards an advanced democracy, Putin’s ideas and practice was targeted to a nascent, still forming democracy. In some ways we can think of Putin as the Russian counterpart of an American Libertarian from what we can see. He seems to respect personal freedom for as long as it does not impinge upon the sanctity of the Laws which protect everyone’s freedom. Putin however, is dealing with a very young state, albeit a very old people, and so the problems of personal freedom versus the integrity of the state may be quite different than what a consummate Libertarian might face in the United States.

In a nascent state, that is in the early stages of consolidation, personal power, and reach, as well as immediate force is often the determining factor between success and failure of an implementation. Putin’s connections to the secret service with all its apparent powers must have lent effectiveness to his power of persuasion, especially if he really had been listening and noting all that was said  while at the property management office. Inside knowledge always gets respect in every government, and there is little doubt that he had inside knowledge to leverage his opinions, and implement his strategies.

What is notable in Putin however, and should not be disputed by this time,  is that he really seems to believe in the Free Market system, at least his history, actions and dialogue support this conclusion. But like many Libertarians he feels that this Free Market system-which seeks to be fair to everyone in the market, while giving no one a political advantage- is easily corrupted and that maintaining the Free Market system can only be accomplished by thorough diligence over a very long period of time.

We are not saying that Putin is a Libertarian, but that given time, in an advanced democracy like ours, his fundamental impulse could well evolve in that direction. It is easy to understand his defense of religion, for example, when you consider that under communism it was banned altogether. Putin does seem inclined, despite the bad press in the West, to allow expression, as long as it is not disruptive. He is a staunch conservative by all appearances, at least from our vantage point in the Western hemisphere.

The habit of personal discipline is a trait that takes time to build in any society and only by long insistence can these traits be expected to exist in the Free Market system-you have to train the performers well before they can appear in the circus where their true talents can become visible to all the world-for even freedom must  have form, just as all good games, must have rules.

Battles against the Russian Oligarchy

Putin’s  first major battles were to be with the powerful capitalists,  the so called Russian “Oligarchy” which had laid claim to most of Russia’s wealth, and he was to somehow bring them into law and order however he could. Once again, his experience at the property management office could not have hurt his cause.

A long story short, he cleaned up the Russian Business Oligarchy(in most ways), bringing them under the control of the nation, but at the cost of leaving them with substantial power, money, and influence. The so called “grand bargain” between Putin and the “Oligarchy” left the capitalist elite still very powerful and rich, but managed to channel that power and wealth into the legal system of the nation. Perhaps we should say here that in all democracies there will be those few wealthy elite who direct large sums of money and resources to wherever they have to go,  but making certain that ultimately the nation is enriched by these elite capitalist elements, and not undermined, is an absolute requirement for the stability and vitality of a nation. In the end everyone must serve the nation to some extent, even the elite, and if they fail to do so, they too are ultimately expendable-or they must be rehabilitated, which is what Putin managed to do.

The Russian Federation

Russia has suffered centuries of corruption on all levels, and it was no small task to bring the system into a centralized legal system. Putin’s main objectives here seem again to be the establishment of a working, honest market on the way to an ideal democratic state. However, being pragmatic, or so he seems, there are times when he will himself put into law whatever he feels is needed. For example he did not prosecute Yeltsin on corruption charges probably not so much as an act of loyalty to his former boss, but because it would have consumed too many resources at the time, and the Russian nation was already in deep despair.

At around that same time Putin minimized the power of the various states, making certain that the central government was the absolute political entity in the state, as was the wish of Abraham Lincoln for the United States. On assuming power, Putin very quickly canceled any prior agreements with the federated entities within the Russian state. Putin believed in the absolute authority of the Federal Government and intended to make certain that this power was not in any way usurped or minimized by any particular coalition of Russian states.  In most ways he had little choice but to pull all states to a center authority,  if he was to maintain the Russian state at all, remembering that this state was still in its formative period.

The Russian Federation consists of some eighty smaller states with differing populations and ethnic groups. Keeping a nation like this, with so large an area together,  was not going to be easy under any system other than a strong centralized Union. Any attempts at a true federation would have probably resulted in disaster for Russia,  fragmenting the nation into small unsustainable elements that would have quickly found themselves at war with one another-it would have sent Russia back to the stone age.

His actions in the West

In his dealings with the West Putin has been forthright but tough and pragmatic. If we remove the propaganda that we are daily bombarded with by private interests we see that Putin for the most part was as honest as he could have been.

When it came to Georgia, his partner Dimitri Medvedev chose to invade and occupy two rebellious Georgian states that had declared their independence from Georgia. But the real reason behind this military move, something not usually mentioned in the press,  was that the Georgian president of the time, Mikheil Saakashvili,  began to entertain the notion of making Georgia a part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization(NATO).  The Russians have in the two world wars lost nearly fifty million lives. There is absolutely no question as to why they would not want a hostile nation on their border, especially since that whole region is unstable and prone to turn against Russia. Allowing Georgia to turn to NATO gives Armenia and Azerbaijan the same right and tendency, something that would get NATO all the way into the Caspian sea from NATO member Turkey.  The Russians were not likely to let that happen as this might entail NATO ships touring the Caspian sea.

This was the strategic reality at the time,  and all one would have to do is look to the history of Russia to see why it is that Joseph Stalin himself decided to occupy many of the Eastern European nations. It is well understood that after the German invasion the Russians wanted a buffer between them and their violent neighbors, the Europeans who have thrice invaded Russia with catastrophic consequences for the Russian people. These historic realities may be softly impressed on Western minds, but its not that way with the Russians, who had to endure those slaughters.

The same pretty much goes for the Ukraine. It is not that Russia wants the Ukraine so badly as it does not want the Ukraine to become a threat to Russia. The idea of Right wing extremists of the same mind as Adolph Hitler creating a nation hostile to its neighbor, and armed and supported by the power and might of the United States and Europe did not appeal to Putin. There is no mystery here. What’s more is that in both cases there was little strategic choice for Putin-either act to stop this before it gets out of hand, or explain to one hundred fifty million angry Russians why a troubled partner and sister nation, as the Ukraine is most often viewed by Russians, was allowed to turn into a hostile threat on the Western border. There was nothing presentable in having right wing extremists establish a threatening nation on the Russian border.

Too often free nations who have internal economic problems produce self serving political elements that get the idea that they can auction off their own nation to the highest military bidder,  using their strategic geographical location as currency.  It was a lucrative idea for Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia and the right wing extremists of the Ukraine to offer to move their respective nations to NATO with all military benefits, but this was seen as a direct threat by the Russians. It might have even been seen as a direct insult-in the latter case- considering the slaughter endured the last time an extreme right wing government invaded Russia.

The Russians could care less if either the Ukraine or Georgia were to develop economic ties with the West, in all probability they would actually welcome this, but this was not the problem. It was unlikely that the Russians would sit back and allow NATO military ties to develop as the underlying price for the western economic support, and this is exactly why Russia is involved in either of these nation’s internal divisions. It is true that in Ukraine there are ethnic Russians to be considered as well, and some Russian loyalists were also to be found in Georgia(not forgetting that Joseph Stalin himself was from Georgia.) But the true reason for the military actions on these nations is that the Russians considered them a military threat, and a nation that has lost so many lives in recent history would not be expected to tolerate any threats of this kind if they can negate them using careful military interventions. In both cases we can see that the Russians have tried to make minimal incursions with minimal collateral damage.

The truth here seems to be that the present leaders of the West do not know the history of Russia, or don’t respect it, but either way that does not seem to us to be a flaw of Putin’s. The West is plagued through and through with special interests. This is the price that all of us who live in the West pay for freedom. These special interests will often develop ideas and objectives that have little in stride with the common good and very often will  easily sacrifice large portions of a free nation’s wealth and resources to achieve a special objective of interest.

Putin, to his credit, has stood against the unbridled licence given to special interests. He has spoken against it, and has opposed it openly at times. Though the leaders of many nations in the West profess their loyalty and love of the people they are supposed to be serving through representation you would not know this by their actions. Five wars later and the Obama administration is still fighting in the Middle East as if the United States and its people have endless resources to spare so that a few special interests can have their way.

Yet the United States is deeply in debt, its economy is buckling even as the Federal Reserve is spewing trillions of dollars into the economy, though credit is endless and nearly unregulated, and the cost of this, still not visible, is huge and will come to be called up to account in the coming years-you cant just turn the Federal Reserve loose and not have consequences or a price to pay for those actions. Yet we have no end to any of this in sight, rather, there are endless calls for escalation!

These acts of special interests are mostly not in the interest of the American nation as a whole, no more than they would be for the Russian nation if they were taking place there. Yet while Putin, descended from a people having long and terrible experience with the deleterious effects of allowing special interests unbounded free reign with a nation’s policies and economy has taken action both local and global to stop this, while  our representatives are still being chosen by the very same lobbies that are time and again usurping the nation’s objectives, both national and international.

Our own nations in the West, seem to have some serious structural infirmities which all too often lead to uncontrollable urges to act, no matter how inappropriate these acts may be; and its these uncontrollable urges which may be most responsible for Putin’s demeanor towards the West rather than any impulse coming from him or his people.

In the end we cannot fully know what kind of character Putin is, we can only guess, but only advise that our leaders be attentive and cautious, as well as courteous to a man who has so much vested interest in the survival of humanity on Earth. This is common sense. The sad part is that our leaders have often acted as if they were dealing with some school boy in their district. Calls to arm the Ukrainian military are the most immature statements that any elected official can make considering what would happen if the Russian’s were to do the same for our “enemies”.

Putin from all accounts we can see is a technocrat, pro-business, pro-democracy, and pro-world community. However he has an aversion for discordant special interests . So much is nearly certain.

If we treat him with reason, he will probably respond with reason, assuming we are honest about it and self contained. Yes he was once a “snitch” and that is something to worry about. Giving him details about your past personal foibles might not be wise if you meet him.