There is likely more to the sudden appearance of the CIA report regarding the liberal senate’s disapproval of waterboarding occurrences during the Bush Administration. At the same time the $40 million dollar report was produced, Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber was testifying about his role of deceit in fooling Americans into accepting the takeover of the health care industry by hidden tax methods in front of congress—which somehow mysteriously took a back seat to the waterboarding information—even on Fox News. The Gruber story was the second story on Fox as the waterboard story was the primary. But even deeper was the revelation that the Department of Justice who is supposed to investigating the IRS targeting of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status was forced against their will to reveal a few pages of internal DOJ documents that prove Lois Lerner was talking to officials about prosecuting tax-exempt entities criminally. Only under a lawsuit by Judicial Watch v. the Department of Justice, N. 14-cv-01239 did the DOJ hand over two of their withheld pages showing many redacted emails. There was only one news source that covered the story that I know of as the information hit—and that was my friend Doc Thompson, at The Blaze Radio Network. Below are the contents of that powerful radio show which should be listened to from beginning to end.
Documents from a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the IRS show that Ms. Lerner asked the DOJ whether tax-exempt entities could be criminally prosecuted. This May 8, 2013 email by Ms. Lerner went to Nikole C. Flax, Chief of Staff to Acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller, who would later be fired by President Obama:
“I got a call today from Richard Pilger Director Elections Crimes Branch at DOJ … He wanted to know who at IRS the DOJ folk s [sic] could talk to about Sen. Whitehouse idea at the hearing that DOJ could piece together false statement cases about applicants who “lied” on their 1024s–saying they weren’t planning on doing political activity, and then turning around and making large visible political expenditures. DOJ is feeling like it needs to respond, but want to talk to the right folks at IRS to see whether there are impediments from our side and what, if any damage this might do to IRS programs. I told him that sounded like we might need several folks from IRS…”
DOJ’s Mr. Pilger admitted that DOJ officials met Ms. Lerner in October 2010. Moreover, according to congressional investigators, a Lerner email from October 5, 2010 shows the IRS sent the FBI and DOJ a “1.1 million page database of information from 501(c)(4) tax exempt organizations” that contained confidential taxpayer information. (read more)
So there you have it, the DOJ who is supposed to be investigating this criminal activity was involved—intimately. Lois Lerner stepped way out of her position at the IRS to act as an activist to prosecute those in political opposition to the big government views of the Obama administration. Using the IRS and DOJ as a personal weapon against political opponents and a labor union president who worked directly with Barack Obama, the IRS launched an attack against the American people using coercion in any means they could get by with under the law—or the DOJ’s interpretation of the law—to destroy their political rivals.
Doc Thompson broke down the entire story with his partner Skip LaCombe. The story is out, the proof is there, and prosecutions should happen immediately. Yet, the media caught in their complacency, and just about every level of the federal government has been caught red-handed and nobody wants to deal with the embarrassment of the public ridicule which should follow if there was any justice in the world. Instead the cover-up continues leaving only a few radio outlets and typical conservative journalists to report the matter to a public consumed over waterboarding ten years ago and what Christmas presents they have yet to purchase a week away from the end of the 2014 year.
This story is far larger than Watergate and involves many, many more people. Likely, if the same standards of Watergate were held today, a large part of Washington D.C. would have to throw themselves on the sword and resign. It is the biggest story of the year, but not even Fox covered it—which should tell everything.
It is not an issue for dispute any longer. The proof is there, the time-line is complete. Doc Thompson laid out the entire case, and there are documents to prove the accusations. The DOJ is the only real investigative body capable of prosecution on this issue, and they are directly involved—so who goes to jail, who resigns from office, and who carries out justice in this case? Nobody. It gets swept under the rug and forgotten about until finally ten years from now, just as Democrats have thrown the Bush administration under the bus yet again trying to deflect attention away from their vile actions with public sympathy toward waterboarding that they will finally run out of hiding places over this IRS debacle. Because it’s not going to go away. People like Doc, and I will never let it die. So they can run—but they can’t hide. Eventually, they will peek around the corner of their hiding places and see that justice is before them—and they will have no other option but to accept it. Eric Holder, Barack Obama, Lois Lerner and all those like her involved in this scandal will have to deal with that justice for the rest of their lives. Because even with all the proof that there currently is, it is just the tip of the iceberg, and the American people will be uncovering that evidence for decades. And with each new introduction the anger will only increase and the only institution truly at blame will be the DOJ for its actions in participating in the scandal—and its active role in the cover-up.
We always hear from radical left-winged protestors that “this is what democracy looks like” as they chant in mass over a particular issue—whether it is police shootings in Ferguson, union pensions, or that Breaking Bad is moving to a new night. But seldom do we get to see what proper government management looks like. So it was quite enjoyable to watch congressman Trey Gowdy of South Carolina apply proper management methods to the Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber. Gruber had been caught talking about how Obamacare was passed by a Democrat controlled congress and senate through deceitful means, so Gowdy had an obligation to apply some force to the matter in articulating the crime and mismanagement of taxpayer resources.
Every city council meeting should look like the way Trey Gowdy conducted his interrogation of Gruber. Every school board meeting, every trustee meeting, every gathering of government managing of tax payer resources should look like Growdy in congress. It is not the job of politicians to be liked, it is not their job to pander and get along with a consensus—it is their job to manage—and that’s it.
Of course unpopular politicians tend not to get re-elected, so that is part of the problem for the typical attention seekers who desire public office. But they should at a bare minimum attempt to behave as Gowdy did in the hearings over Obamacare. Of course the current congress has no stomach for actual management—just tough talk—but it’s a start. The congress has an obligation to not fund Obamacare especially after the Gruber testimony. But such a position in modern Washington is considered radical and Republicans won’t walk into the touchy-feely trap that Democrats have set to snare them in the court of public opinion—so they won’t do anything “tough” with Obamacare except talk.
Without management of resources you get run away budgets—just like what is found at virtually every public school dominated by radical labor unions were overwhelmed school board members lay down to be run over by left-leaning radicals who advocated collective bargaining agreements without any management opposition to keep them in check. But on each one of those school boards should be people like Trey Gowdy to provide an equal opposition to the radical nut cases who declare large sums of money with no oversight but only tax increases every five years.
The goal of every government body should be to create surpluses with the same voracity that corporations seek profits. Money saved is money made so no government should look at a budget surplus and think of new ways to pass out money to potential voters. And any government that hires consultants, like public schools often do to find ways to deceive voters into higher taxes deserve to be grilled the way Jonathan Gruber was by Trey Gowdy. Gruber was paid millions of tax payer dollars for discovering a means to deceive them with Obamacare—and the people who made those decisions mismanaged the money under Gruber’s charge. The only way to prevent such abuse is with management of resources in the manner the Gowdy provided.
The sad condition of our modern times is that Gowdy is looked at as an exceptional case—and not the norm. By those who wish to perpetrate a con against the taxpayer, of course Gowdy is hated. He is paid as a congressman to be hated—not loved. If a manager of any kind is loved by everyone, they are not doing their jobs. So it is a compliment for a manager to be called names and to have quibbles said about them behind their backs or by organized masses seeking collective efforts. If such a thing occurs, the politician is doing their jobs.
Many felt pride at Trey Gowdy’s grilling of Gruber because they instinctively understand the value of the exchange. Gruber a once arrogant government despot was reduced to admitting that he had been an ostentatious fool seeking to take advantage of the system for his own ideological and financial gain. Gruber’s strategy was to throw himself on the sword, take his millions of looted tax payer dollars and go into hiding with his loot. He was willing to sacrifice the self-respect he had gained within progressive academic circles for the stolen wealth he had acquired during the Obamacare fraud. So he declared foolishness and took the beating.
But imagine that there wasn’t a beating for Gruber—where would there have been any justice? Gruber without Gowdy would have disappeared into the sunset a progressive hero wealthy and wise. At least now, because of Gowdy, Gruber is only wealthy off stolen money—at least he had to endure some punishment—even if it’s just verbal.
Not everyone is capable of management—but for those who are—management provides a hedge against the despots of looting inclination. Without management there is no protection from the forces seeking to attack value—that is why communism and socialism seeks to make management the villain in their philosophy. That is also why labor unions make management into villains—because they want open access to the wealth of a corporation so that they can exploit it for all the worth—just as Gruber did. So we cheer on Trey Gowdy for his management chastisement of Gruber because we wish it was more commonplace. Not to mention that the mass conspiracy conducted right out in the open as Democrats released the controversial CIA report against the Bush administration on the same day that Gruber was dissected by Gowdy—hoping to take the edge off the government deceit that is Obamacare—there is much more management that needs to be done on behalf of tax payer resources.
Government is filled with many more people like Jonathan Gruber. In fact, most of the Washington D.C. wealthy suburbs are filled with government looters just like him. Without people like Trey Gowdy there is no resistance to their bottomless needs of tax payer funded lifestyles. There is no management of revenue taken in by the federal government under force and the distribution of that vast wealth—but to surrender it to the diabolical menaces who make careers out of politics for the purpose of creating personal wealth in ways they could never do under any other means. Without management, there is nothing that stands in the way of crime and justice. At least when it comes to the words spoken by Gowdy—at least we know Gruber will lose something due to his corruption and arrogance. Not enough—but at least it’s something.
A few years ago I wrote about the art of regenerative medicine, CLICK HERE TO REVIEW. At that time much of the technology was fairly new and the information leaned more toward the education speculation side of debate as opposed to confirmed fact. Now—it is a reality and the only thing preventing people from the benefits of regenerative medicine is politics and the drug companies. We have officially reached the point where politicians will have to step out of bed with traditional drug companies and the business models of the pharmaceuticals will have to change—or they will go out of business. There is no reason why a human body has to wear out and die. It is cells that make up a body and like a car that is kept alive with new parts—it is now possible to make new parts for a human body so that it can continue operating for many years. Below are a few videos talking about this phenomenal new breakthrough along with an article from Ted Talks which dives deeper into the evolving science. It is an exciting time, but one which requires new ways of thinking and politics being so far behind the curve of thought that it typically is—is not capable of taking a leading hand on this issue—especially since pharmaceuticals enrich them with great wealth. The cure to many diseases is right in front of us—so please use this article as your gateway into an understanding that will take you to the other side where everyone’s life will become greatly enhanced.
Will the next generation think about diseases like Alzheimer’s and diabetes the way we think about polio and the whooping cough? Susan Solomon, the co-founder of the New York Stem Cell Foundation (NYSCF), certainly hopes so. In this fascinating talk from TEDGlobal 2012, Solomon delves into the foundation’s work on research with stem cells, which she calls the “black boxes for diseases.”
“[Stem cells] are our bodies’ own repair kits. They are pluripotent, which means they can morph into all of the cells in our bodies,” says Solomon. “Right now there are some really extraordinary things that we are doing with stem cells that are completely changing the way we model disease, our ability to understand why we get sick and even develop drugs. But … this field has been under siege, politically and financially.”
While much of the fray is about embryonic stem cells — still the gold standard when it comes to cells — Solomon explains that another type of pluripotent stem cell (called iPS cells) can now be created by, essentially, reprogramming skin cells. These cells hold great promise for allowing researchers to see how diseases develop in humans, rather than in rodents.
Currently, developing a drug takes an average of 13 years, costs $4 billion, and has a 99% failure rate. And because it’s impossible to test a new drug on a large and representative sample of the human population, even a drug that tests well with many people will have side-effects for others, based on their genetic makeup. This is a problem that’s sometimes not apparent until the drug is on the market and being prescribed to patients — like in the tragic case of Vioxx.
But Solomon stressed that it will be extremely difficult to change the current systems of drug development.
“All the established companies have been using mouse-and-rodent testing forever,” she said. “A lot of people’s careers are staked to a method that is outdated. It’s like the tech sector; this is really the high-tech sector for biomedical research.”
To hear more about the NYSCF, watch Solomon’s talk. Below, watch 9 more talks about the incredible promise of stem cells.
In addition to politics and the lobby power of the pharmaceuticals, religion is another part of our society that will require revision just to deal with the implication of regenerative science. It will be very difficult for average people of average means to grapple with the prospect that their lives are not defined by bench marks of age any longer centered on a growth period from their youth to a slow decline back into old age. It is no longer necessary to think of getting old—it will become a reality very soon to just make a new body part and replace whatever is broken—or diminishing with a healthy replacement.
So what does this do to a society dedicated to living death so that they might live again in the afterlife? That is the paramount restriction to regenerative science. Most people use religion as a crutch to explain away the misery of living without proper answers and philosophy and look to the yonder shores of immortality and God’s infinite wisdom for an answer they never take responsibility for obtaining on their own. Regenerative science takes that tendency and places it within the power of science on earth and God moves from some external force out in the heavens and places it within the context of the human being.
Jesus said that the kingdom of God is all around us, yet men do not see it. He was right—it is, and only a few human beings understand such a concept. Scientists are some of them—especially in the regenerative science fields. But for the politician and the CEO’s of drug companies knowing that millions of jobs are at stake if death and sickness are taken out of the field of health care—doom is on the horizon for those people and they have no philosophy or religion to help them deal with the change. It is because of them that we do not yet have full access and funding into regenerative health—they purposely want to maintain the cycle of death so to keep alive their empires built on suffering.
Much suffering upon the earth is due to ignorance, and regenerative science requires intelligence—which is lacking currently. Politicians are stuck on a fifty year quest to bring health care to the poor when they should be focused on ending Medicare, Obamacare, and the health care system all together with regenerative science. Because of their lack of vision, politicians are committed to a bankrupting system of maintaining the Social Security system when it is possible that the average 75-year-old could maintain their bodies into the health of a 40 to 50-year-old and could continue working and being productive for another 50 to 100 years—perhaps longer.
It’s not the science that is the problem; it’s the people who have to refocus their intellectual energy on a change in thought that will rattle them to their cores. Good scientists like the fine people shown above have already delivered mankind to the precipice of life-changing benefits. The pharmaceutical companies are now as archaic as elixir medicines soaked in whisky were during westward expansion in the United States. They are no longer relevant. And this knowledge won’t be going away—too many of us know about it now. All that we have to do is wait for everyone to realize that heaven is on earth and is all about them—and that we are the masters of our own fate destined to reside out in the outer reaches of our galaxy for a human race just hatching from the dark embryo of ignorance fermenting over the last few million years. We have finally hatched.
Guy Laliberté is the kind of man who most everyone likes no matter what side of the political aisle they may reside. When someone becomes a billionaire whether or not they want to—they have a major impact on the culture around them—by default. Through his Cirque du Soleil Guy Laliberté has touched many lives, including mine. If not for that Cirque du Soleil in Central Florida particularly at Downtown Disney it is likely that there would have never been the invention of a firewhip—which is something I have become known for with my small jaunts into entertainment. So Guy Laliberté with just a little help from the Canadian government invented a new concept for an animal free circus that has raked the world with creative ambition as one of the most astute entrepreneurs there is. Guy in a relatively short period of time went from a carefree street performer breathing fire into a one of the world’s richest men becoming one of the world’s first space tourists. Guy was able to purchase a ticket in excess of $35 million dollars through a company called Space Adventures who booked him on a Russian rocket destined for the International Space Station.
In many ways all the companies such as the Virgin Galactic endeavor I have been so keen on will be much more affordable opportunities for civilians to move into space. Guy—who is hardly a bastion of conservatism, represents the excessive hunger that the human mind has for a fate destined in space. Too many people, particularly liberals who want to make a religion out of earth worship have attempted to designate the hunger for space as a “dream for the extreme rich.” But what is behind their fearful utterances is the reality that people like Guy Laliberté have opened space to the minds of as many people as Cirque du Soleil has for changing the definition of a circus experience. A ticket aboard Virgin Galactic will only cost $250,000 dollars as opposed to Guy’s experience-which was fairly rigorous. Virgin Galactic’s attempt will be comparatively much more luxurious and inexpensive.
Guy didn’t find just being wealthy fulfilling. He had the world at his feet, yet it wasn’t enough. He had the means to purchase a ticket to space without it draining his bank account, so he did so for the opportunity to scratch at the boundaries of earth. His story carrying him to the deck of his private ship contemplating space travel is a fascinating one that is a tale of hope that should be inspirational to anyone. It wasn’t about being wealthy that made him into such a rich man, it was in pushing himself to new challenges that created it by default—they way it is supposed to work. His wealth is not to be hated—or envied—it is simply the byproduct of a mind at work that happened to change the way everyone sees a circus performance.
Seeking a career in the performing arts, Guy Laliberté toured Europe as a folk musician and busker after quitting college. By the time he returned home to Canada in 1979, he had learned the art of fire-breathing. Although he became “employed” at a hydroelectric power plant in James Bay, his job ended after only three days due to a labour strike. He decided not to look for another job, instead supporting himself on his unemployment insurance. He helped organize a summer fair in Baie-Saint-Paul with the help of a pair of friends named Daniel Gauthier and Gilles Ste-Croix.[6][9]
Gauthier and Ste-Croix were managing a youth hostel for performing artists named Le Balcon Vert at that time. By the summer of 1979, Ste-Croix had been developing the idea of turning the Balcon Vert, and the talented performers who lived there, into an organized performing troupe. As part of a publicity stunt to convince the Quebec government to help fund his production, Ste-Croix walked the 56 miles (90 km) from Baie-Saint-Paul to Quebec City on stilts. The ploy worked, giving the three men the money to create Les Échassiers de Baie-Saint-Paul. Employing many of the people who would later make up Cirque du Soleil, Les Échassiers toured Quebec during the summer of 1980.[17][18]
Although well received by audiences and critics alike, Les Échassiers was a financial failure. Laliberté spent that winter in Hawaii plying his trade while Ste-Croix stayed in Quebec to set up a nonprofit holding company named “The High-Heeled Club” to mitigate the losses of the previous summer. In 1981, they met with better results. By that fall, Les Échassiers de Baie-Saint-Paul had broken even. The success inspired Laliberté and Ste-Croix to organize a summer fair in their hometown of Baie-Saint-Paul.[17]
This touring festival, called “La Fête Foraine“, first took place in July 1982. La Fête Foraine featured workshops to teach the circus arts to the public, after which those who participated could take part in a performance. Ironically, the festival was barred from its own hosting town after complaints from local citizens.[19] Laliberté managed and produced the fair over the next couple years, nurturing it into a moderate financial success. But it was in 1983 that the government of Quebec gave him a $1.5 million grant to host a production the following year as part of Quebec’s 450th anniversary celebration of the French explorer Jacques Cartier’s discovery of Canada. Laliberté named his creation “Le Grand Tour du Cirque du Soleil“.[6][20]
The rest was history making Laliberté one of the wealthiest people on the planet. But feeling drained and unchallenged he began to look toward space after learning of a civilian going there in 2001 that had opened his mind to the possibility. So he bought his ticket through Space Adventures and trained with the Russian astronauts for a trip aboard their rocket for a grand adventure into space in 2009. The details of his trip were covered in great detail in the below Forbes magazine where even the smell of space was described.
Once more people in Laliberté’s position, such as Lady Gaga, Steven Spielberg and Labron James go to space and report back their experiences there will be an explosion of interest in the activity which this world has never seen. Space is the next Gold Rush; there are manufacturing opportunities on asteroids and in the zero-G environments that will simply carry mankind to an entirely new evolutionary stage. Politics, philosophy and religion will have to be completely redefined—education totally overhauled just to deal with the psychosis of a species scrambling to space. It will be as unlike anything anybody has ever seen just as Cirque du Soleil is nothing like the old Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus acts—they both take place under a tent or arena, but one is an extreme evolution over the other to the point that they are barely recognizable as being born for the same intent. The jump into space which is going to explode over the next decade with the kind of wave that ushered in the Internet will change completely the way everyone does business.
Those who ride that wave will do well; those who resist it will plunge into a poor state. Virgin Galactic will likely be the first company to bring satellites to the furthest corners of the world giving Internet access to the poorest village of Africa providing those people access to entrepreneurial activity which will give them access to wealth. The wealthy who pay tickets to go into space the way that Guy Laliberté did will fund the fleet of Virgin Galactic ships that will eventually fly people from New York to Tokyo in just a few hours as opposed to an entire day. And soon following will be vacations in space that will make current day Las Vegas look like a roadside tent show. This is all happening over the next couple of decades based on the marginal interest that is generated by each new civilian tourist. Guy Laliberté was one of the first, but soon it will become common.
There is a progressive faction of society that is trying to suppress the ambitions of the movie Interstellar—but to no avail. Interstellar managed to be one of the last films of the year to play in communist China and those people are absolutely devouring the epic Christopher Nolan journey into space. The Chinese and South Koreans have shown massive per screen revenue breaking records playing on 7,742 screens in the world’s second biggest movie market. This will push the Interstellar box office up over $200 million after just a week of full release which is an astounding amount of money. And with each screening comes a deeper hunger to leave earth for space by virtually every individual on earth that will soon be faced with similar decisions as Guy Laliberté had to face—to go, or not to go—that is the question, because reality will present space as a very viable option very, very soon.
Those who ride that wave will do well; those who resist it will plunge into a poor state. Virgin Galactic will likely be the first company to bring satellites to the furthest corners of the world giving Internet access to the poorest village of Africa providing those people access to entrepreneurial activity which will give them access to wealth. The wealthy who pay tickets to go into space the way that Guy Laliberté did will fund the fleet of Virgin Galactic ships that will eventually fly people from New York to Tokyo in just a few hours as opposed to an entire day. And soon following will be vacations in space that will make current day Las Vegas look like a roadside tent show. This is all happening over the next couple of decades based on the marginal interest that is generated by each new civilian tourist. Guy Laliberté was one of the first, but soon it will become common.
There is a progressive faction of society that is trying to suppress the ambitions of the movie Interstellar—but to no avail. Interstellar managed to be one of the last films of the year to play in communist China and those people are absolutely devouring the epic Christopher Nolan journey into space. The Chinese and South Koreans have shown massive per screen revenue breaking records playing on 7,742 screens in the world’s second biggest movie market. This will push the Interstellar box office up over $200 million after just a week of full release which is an astounding amount of money. And with each screening comes a deeper hunger to leave earth for space by virtually every individual on earth that will soon be faced with similar decisions as Guy Laliberté had to face—to go, or not to go—that is the question, because reality will present space as a very viable option very, very soon.
For me, there were several moments in the new film Atlas Shrugged Part III: Who is John Galt which was particularly powerful. But the most powerful attribute of the film based on the 1957 novel by the same name was the actual electric motor invented by John Galt which runs nearly self-sustaining and provides all the power needed in Galt’s Gulch. In the film when the police come to arrest Galt and take him to see Mr. Thompson they attempt to break into the room where the magic motor is kept only to discover that there is nothing there. This was a neat concept as the motor seemed to be hidden from the world through a dimensional fold in space-time continuity which further substantiates the quality of the John Galt figure as an expert in physics. In the film it was science fiction, but little do many know that such science is actually quite factual.
I have been a student of management methods for most of my life and I know all too well the cause of most misery in the world—its self-inflicted neurosis by the power-hungry to control the many through laws, technology, and other forms of manipulation. There are many who work for organizations like the Red Cross—who get invited to Washington parties due to their altruistic endeavors overseas who would despise seeing a Thorium reactor powering a village in Africa. Deep down inside they want African people dependent on charity organizations to bring food and medical supplies to the poor so that they have something beneficial to do with their lives. They want the death and misery because they believe it will get them into heaven through some distorted grasp of Biblical teaching. They cannot accept that by giving the people of Africa power that they might care for themselves—therefore not needing the West to care for them at all. So they deem Thorium technology dangerous and a threat to the earth—so to take the debate off the table.
Another set of characters who do not want Thorium power, or anything like it, are those who work in the dirty energy business—oil and coal. Although there are great uses for these energy providers today, at some point in the future—we can do better. Thorium is but one potential source. However, the energy industry does not want to alter their market plans—their labor unions don’t want the competition, so they lobby politicians to maintain the status quo. Many publications against fuel sources like Thorium are created through this method—to scare the public into submission of dirty fuel forever—leaving greenie weenie activists plenty of ammunition to utilize against such industries as environmentally hazardous. So in a stalemate between the environmentalists who believe the printed articles against Thorium and the dirty energy companies making great livings off the old technology—nothing happens. After all, the goal of the typical progressives is not to advance forward as mankind but to make the developed world more like the undeveloped—to demonize technology until everyone lives in a kind of hut—like the poor Africans. Watch the following video documentary about Thorium to learn much more.
Since I wrote that article about Thorium nothing much has happened to advance the technology just as nothing much has happened regarding the Mollar flying car. The technology is there to cure cancer, to fix bodies through regeneration, to have self-sustaining electrical power, to completely revolutionize the transportation industry—but what is in the way are too many people like Mr. Thompson in Atlas Shrugged Part III. For those who criticize Atlas Shrugged, if people like John Galt were free to think and act without restriction, world hunger would be eliminated, poverty would be nearly eradicated, disease destroyed, cancer solved and society would advance greatly. But the trouble is we allow people like Mr. Thompson to stand between us and fate. We give them power because we fear the responsibility of it. Mr. Thompson in the film Atlas III was a complete idiot, he does not fear that responsibility, but is addicted to the power it gives him making him an opposite menace. There are many like him running governments and companies the world over and they are there because we fear what might happen when altruism is stripped from our reasoning. Society fears not having problems that require charity—because their ideals of religion and good living have been defined by misery—and stupidity.
So it was wonderful to see the science fiction of a world where at least someone has broken through the shroud of foolishness and actually built a perpetual motor that runs off static electricity naturally existing in the world around us—which never ceases to run and does not need government, infrastructure, labor unions, or the Red Cross to operate. As usual it is groups of people who stand in the way of what human beings can invent for themselves to advance their culture—but through advancement those who currently have power would lose it if they could not adapt to the changing circumstances. It is those who run those groups who fear losing their power to the self-empowering technology that comes with invention. It almost always comes down to poor management ability of personal and external resources and the secret desire to control those resources so that options are limited. Some examples might be the fearful husband who tries to keep his wife lacking a car because he fears she may seek to cheat on him. It doesn’t occur to him that if he were a better husband, that such temptations might be avoided. So rather than deal with the effect of the cause, he denies the mechanism for performing the task out of fear of losing control of the wife. The same might occur when a boss sees in a subordinate ability that might challenge their authority in the future, so they find ways to clip the wings of the subordinate through management tricks so to keep them grounded and under control. This actually happens every day in virtually every place of business on the face of planet earth. Or consider the lazy parent who attempts to make their children fearful of everything because they don’t want to get up off the couch to help teach a curious child—so they numb that curiosity with fear so that they can be free in the afternoon to catch Jerry Springer at 5 PM.
Governments run by people like Mr. Thompson have strangled our future through such methods and most accept that reality as a fact because they are beaten and defeated people intellectually crippled at birth by an anemic education system and faulty parents. But a few, people who went to see Atlas Shrugged Part III and enjoyed it—even with all the flaws of the film technically were able to see the miracle of the John Galt motor and know that the possibility for such a thing is very real—and immensely intriguing. I think I’m going to see that movie a few more times before it leaves the theater just for the pleasure of seeing such a world alive even in the fantasy of a darkened theater.
In the upcoming television show Star Wars: Rebels one of the characters named Zeb is seen joyously dismantling squads of stormtroppers singlehandedly. This has provoked much online forum discussion about how easily the stormtroopers are defeated by a single person. For instance, after seeing the clip below one online commenter uttered the complaint, “If these stormtroopers are supposed to be the scourge of the galaxy and strike fear wherever they go by committing atrocities and striking down innocent people left and right, they sure ain’t getting that across here in this new Disney series. And to be honest, that might be the whole f**king problem right there—Disney.” Watch the clip in question for yourself.
One of the reasons that Star Wars as opposed to other kinds of entertainment hits such a nerve with people—and has for generations—is because it is essentially a realistic fantasy. It is true that one motivated rebel like Zeb could dismantle a whole squad of stormtroopers because it happens every day in real life. People like that complainer have been taught that there is strength in collectivism–in numbers. And while this may be true in physical force, often collective masses are cumbersome in their thinking and easy to exploit. This is certainly the case with the Empire in the Star Wars stories who have subjected themselves to the tyranny of an emperor.
A term that is used to discuss stormtroopers in Star Wars is “buckethead.” The big difference between the bucketheads from the period of the Clone Wars and these in Rebels is that as the Empire was built upon a premise of collectivism becoming larger and more robust, the individualism of the bucketheads became less developed. The key is that through individuality the traits of decision-making and strength are developed. If individuality is lacking then thought becomes less of a priority and a squad of bucketheads can find themselves defeated by a lone rebel.
Star Wars is a very anti-institutional storyline. Within that mythology, societies who are too collective fail and societies that prosper are often driven by very individualistic personalities. This period of the Rebels is just such an example. Strong individuals beat collectivists in the rock, paper, scissors game of life if pure mass can be avoided. A prime example of this is in the X-wing Miniatures game where the current reigning champion of strategy is to run 7 ship squads of TIE Fighters against 2 to 3 ship formations. For instance, I have been practicing a 6 ship squad against the Millennium Falcon and only one other ship—and if such a formation is taken on directly, the TIE Fighters will shoot six times to my two per each combat round, which is a great way to get killed. But, if I can get in behind that formation while they are forced to turn their entire formation around and get their guns pointed in the right direction again, I can disseminate them quite easily. Their TIE Fighter ships are unshielded and pretty weak one on one.
The same type of strategy can be applied to a board room with several executives sitting around a table. If taken as a group, they may appear daunting. But once you get in behind their defenses it will be discovered that they lack individual strength and can easily be picked off and out maneuvered by a single assailant. This ironically is exactly how the Obama administration has been behaving for years. As a collective ideological mass, they look overpowering—but if the efforts of Jen Psaki are measured individually, they look and act like girls trying to get a date to the prom in a high school cafeteria. No terrorist organization in the world is going to fear them once it is determined that individually they cannot take responsibility for anything—not even simple decisions like where to go for lunch. Meanwhile the ISIS army in Northern Iraq is driving around unorganized in beat-up cars posing as military vehicles striking terror to the high offices of the United Nations who scramble about like buffoons as to what to do next. The reason is that the collectivists are functioning from institutionalized behavior while the aggressors are driven by individual action—random—unpredictable conduct.
In Star Wars as the Empire rose to power, individual initiative was driven from the bucketheads. Even their pride to serve the Old Republic was driven by individual value—their fear of disgrace in not doing a job well. The bucketheads of the Rebels show is the result—beat down individuals who simply take orders and have lost the ability to think. So bucketheads are only dangerous if taken collectively. If they can be broken down and handled out of a collective formation—they can be easily defeated and this is the important lesson of the show and the overall Star Wars mythology. Collective institutionalization destroys value and without value bucketheads are easy to beat. Nations are easy to destroy if they are functioning from collectivism as opposed to individualism. The primary reason that the Second Amendment works in America is because it makes it difficult for an enemy to attack a nation of individuals as opposed to a collective mass such as the National Guard. If only a military had to be overcome, North Korea, China, or even Russia would have attacked a long time ago. But, it is impossible to overtake a society that is driven by individuality. While mass can defeat all in head to head combat, once a collective body is outflanked—they are vulnerable simply because they can’t out think their opponent.
So the concept of Zeb beating a whole squad of bucketheads by himself is quite realistic. The real threats in the upcoming series are not the stormtroppers but the people who give them their orders, individuals like the Inquisitor and ultimately Darth Vader. Most of the time the real fight to most battles occurs between two individuals, not collective masses—and the keys to victory are in identifying who are the motivating minds behind a collective mass. In a boardroom, once it is discovered who the mind is behind their institutional values—they can be beaten through direct exploitation of their poorly developed individuality. This is why Star Wars has more value for people than say, Star Trek or some other science fiction show—because it deals with a mysterious concept that is elusive to most people—why individualism beats collectivism when society has been taught the opposite. Star Wars is more than a fun show and entertainment venue—it is a philosophy that has value in individuals over collectivists—which is a primal concern as old as time itself.
For all those reasons, that is why Zeb rocks! And this new Star Wars: Rebels isn’t just for kids. It’s for everything that breaths and thinks. It is game changing in so many ways. Mark my words.
Bill O’Reilly and Megan Kelly from Fox News had an interesting debate about the perceived disparity of the black population and the so-called white privilege that is so much talked about regarding minorities. Kelly rattled off a series of statistics which showed that blacks are clearly falling behind in virtually every category of social measurement and she leaned in favor of the argument supporting “white privilege.” O’Reilly proposed a number of opposition arguments which provided clarity refuting the designation favoring whites. That discussion can be seen below and is worth noting.
I have had more personal friends who were black than white over the years and understand the issue very well. Megan is only talking about the result of statistics, but not the cause—whereas Bill O’Reilly began to touch on the real issues. There is no white privilege in America. The suppression of the whites against the blacks is a thing of the past and is only still considered by the very ignorant. The cause of the disparity between the statistical facts rattled off by Megan Kelly is that blacks tend to support by default the position of collectivism versus the personal responsibility of individualism. Collectivists associate all the things that happen to them as a group allowing many in that group to hide their bad behavior behind the mask of consensus. In poor populations where fathers are infrequent, government sustains personal incomes, and the general philosophy is a collectivist oriented belief system statistics like the ones Megan Kelly discussed will take place regardless of the color of anybody’s skin.
If personal responsibility is not present in a culture, it will fail and resemble the kind of conditions seen in Ferguson. The cries for equality by blacks and accusations of white privilege only come from those who decry personal responsibility and seek more collective mandates to hide their crimes. The crimes of the typical perpetrator of the Ferguson riots would be loose moral attributes, poor family structure, terrible work ethics and deplorable personal conduct—all traits that center on collectivism. Those who are successful in society tend to be those who conduct themselves with a code of some valor, personal responsibility, and awareness of their impact on the world around them not as a collective mass—but exclusively as an individual.
Being an avid motorcyclist I can name countless times that I have watched a person in another car throw a smoked cigarette out of a window. A lot of the time the same cars displaying environmental concerns are the worst perpetrators. Think how hypocritical it is for a lover a nature to liter the streets of earth with cigarettes freshly consumed and still smoking. But whenever a car is seen with bumper stickers displaying rainbows of support for mother earth, and cigarette smoke dances from a cracked window, 9 times out of 10 that same person will throw their empty cigarettes into the road while sitting at a stop light. Many times they throw them out the window while driving not even caring that I’m on a motorcycle behind them.
I have studied this behavior for many years and this is the conclusion resulting from those observations. People who throw their cigarettes out of windows tend to be collectivist oriented people who do not hold personal responsibility in high regard. They assume that they are hidden behind a mask of anonymity provided by collectivist identification. Because personal responsibility is not what they are functioning from they can’t imagine why or how their small cigarette thrown from a window could harm the earth. What they fail to see is that if 30 to 40% of all people in a 300 million person population did the same, the roadways would be littered with pollution caused by the cigarettes. But if the same person believes that a corporation—which is a collective group is harming the earth with pollution, then they will march with signs of activism and proclaim with fervor—“down with the rich CEO” the individuals at the top of large companies. Their lack of personal responsibility has a double edge to it, first they hate individuals who control groups of people—so they attack CEOs, second they only understand things in terms of collective reference. Anything outside of those parameters are invisible to them—like the thought that a simple cigarette might cause pollution in the world.
The same can be said of the welfare recipient, or the louse who blows off a free public education because their fatherless households failed to instruct them of the value, or the drug addict who shrugs away the value of their life in favor of getting high—the removal of personal responsibility during times intoxication. The collectivist cannot associate responsibility with personal behavior because their lives are constructed around avoiding that diagnosis. Thus you have race baiters like Al Sharpton declaring to a mass of angry blacks that “police have the money for guns, but not for education,” as if spending money on public education would solve the problem in poor black neighborhoods. Billions of dollars in additional funding could be thrown into public education in a black neighborhood and nothing would improve—just as nothing has improved in public education in spite of additional spending for decades now—because personal responsibility for education is not being taught as an entry-level criteria. Until that happens nothing will improve.
No matter what the topic when collectivism is involved, the result is always the same. Decaying circumstances follow no matter what the skin color or sex involved entails. If personal responsibility is vacant, corruption follows in every case. There are no exceptions.
It is a lack of personal responsibility that is killing black America. It is a lack of individual assessment and family structure that causes most of the trouble in communities like Ferguson. During the last election, I supported Herman Cain and in the future I hope that Ben Carson runs for president, just as I have supported Alan Keys in the past. They are all black politicians who I adore, so nobody can call me a racist. I have more affiliations with more minorities than most people have in their entire lives, so I can speak fluently when I say that personal responsibly is the key to success in life. The lack of personal responsibly is the cause of failure almost every time—even considering the misfortune of hard luck.
White privilege only comes to those who are taught to conduct their lives responsibly. White people who adhere to collectivism as their guiding philosophy are just as wrecked as blacks who do the same. Color has nothing to do with it—personal responsibility is everything. I have known many blacks who are quite successful. I know whites who are very successful. And I have known many other types men and women who are very successful—and what they all have in common is a belief in themselves as individuals. All the failures in life that I have ever known all share in common a belief in collectivism—in the hope that they can live forever concealed from responsibility. They of course cannot, but the fault of their circumstances are their own. They can read these words and become angry, but they can offer no argument in favor of collectivism that cannot be refuted easily. Notice the lack of comments on this article—which is free to the world—yet the lack of a defense of collectivism. That is because they can’t defend it. Collectivism is the reason that black communities, white communities and groups of all kinds fail. It is no mystery, only a carefully concealed secret driven by a desire for waking intoxication of personal irresponsibility.
“All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible.”
T.E. Lawrence
The Lawrence of Arabia is one of my favorite historical characters. I understand him. If you have not seen the 1962 film by David Lean, you should do yourself the favor of seeing it now, because it is directly applicable to the current crises in the Middle East. The classic film is not 100% biographical, but it is like Lawrence’s classic piece of literature titled The Seven Pillars of Wisdom which is studied heavily by today’s American troops in the Iraq region and others who take part in the violence so prevalent in the Holy Land to this current day. But to understand the Lawrence of Arabia it takes a different kind of mind, one who dreams by the day—and most people just aren’t like that. Lawrence was a bit of living folklore and he used that to his strategic advantage. It was he who gave the Arabs and the British troops the testicular fortitude to push back the Turks and start the defeat of the Ottoman Empire during World War I. If not for T.E. Lawrence the Ottoman Empire may have never been defeated, and their support may have assisted Germany into winning World War I. If there was a figure who most impacted the first Great War it was the Lawrence of Arabia. Yet, after the Treaty of Versailles and the English betrayal of Lawrence and Price Feisal, Lawrence changed his name, took a low-level job with the air force and dropped out of the radar even though he was one of the most popular men in the world at the time. The answer as to why he did what he did can only be understood by dreamers of the day. Most in his position would have milked out the riches and popularity for all he could, but not Lawrence. He withdrew to the countryside in disgust of the politics and refused to participate for the rest of his days.
On 17 May 1919 the Handley Page Type O carrying Lawrence on a flight to Egypt crashed at the airport of Roma-Centocelle. The pilot and co-pilot were killed; Lawrence survived with a broken shoulder blade and two broken ribs.[34] During his brief hospitalization, he was visited by King Victor Emmanuel III.[35]
In August 1919 Lowell Thomas launched a colorful photo show in London entitled With Allenby in Palestine which included a lecture, dancing, and music.[36] Initially, Lawrence played only a supporting role in the show, but when Thomas realized that it was the photos of Lawrence dressed as a Bedouin that had captured the public’s imagination, he photographed him again, in London, in Arab dress.[36] With the new photos, Thomas re-launched his show as With Allenby in Palestine and Lawrence in Arabia in early 1920; it was extremely popular.[36] Thomas’ shows made the previously-obscure Lawrence into a household name.[36]
In August 1922, Lawrence enlisted in the Royal Air Force as an aircraftman under the name John Hume Ross. At the RAF recruiting centre in Covent Garden, London, he was interviewed by a recruiting officer – Flying Officer W. E. Johns, later to be well-known as the author of the Biggles series of novels.[37] Johns rejected Lawrence’s application as he correctly believed “Ross” was a false name. Lawence admitted this was so and the documents he provided were false and left. But he returned some time later with an RAF Messenger, carrying a written order for Johns to accept Lawrence.[38]
However, Lawrence was forced out of the RAF in February 1923 after being exposed. He changed his name to T. E. Shaw and joined the Royal Tank Corps in 1923. He was unhappy there and repeatedly petitioned to rejoin the RAF, which finally readmitted him in August 1925.[39] A fresh burst of publicity after the publication of Revolt in the Desert(see below) resulted in his assignment to a remote base in British India in late 1926, where he remained until the end of 1928. At that time he was forced to return to Britain after rumours began to circulate that he was involved in espionage activities.
He purchased several small plots of land in Chingford, built a hut and swimming pool there, and visited frequently. This was removed in 1930 when the Chingford Urban District Council acquired the land and passed it to the City of London Corporation, but re-erected the hut in the grounds of The Warren, Loughton, where it remains, neglected, today. Lawrence’s tenure of the Chingford land has now been commemorated by a plaque fixed on the sighting obelisk on Pole Hill.
He continued serving in the RAF based at Bridlington, East Riding of Yorkshire, specializing in high-speed boats and professing happiness, and it was with considerable regret that he left the service at the end of his enlistment in March 1935.
Lawrence was a keen motorcyclist, and, at different times, had owned eight Brough Superior motorcycles.[40][41] His eighth motorcycle is on display at the Imperial War Museum. Among the books Lawrence is known to have carried with him on his military campaigns is Thomas Malory‘s Morte D’Arthur. Accounts of the 1934 discovery of the Winchester Manuscript of theMorte include a report that Lawrence followed Eugene Vinaver—a Malory scholar—by motorcycle from Manchester to Winchester upon reading of the discovery in The Times.[42]
Lawrence could have had the world but he insisted on an authentic life away from the dreamers of the night, those encumbered souls lost to the globe of politics. For all his ability to unite the entire Arab civilization against the Turks and retake the Holy Land for England, nobody at the time or since has possessed the ability to duplicate his abilities. Of all the things T. E. Lawrence did which no military mind reading his Seven Pillars of Wisdom can ever understand is that Lawrence achieved his first military conquest by breaching completely the orders of his superiors.
In 1917, Lawrence arranged a joint action with the Arab irregulars and forces including Auda Abu Tayi (until then in the employ of the Ottomans) against the strategically located but lightly defended[24][25][26] town of Aqaba. On 6 July, after a surprise overland attack, Aqaba fell to Lawrence and the Arab forces. After Aqaba, Lawrence was promoted to major, and the new commander-in-chief of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force, General Sir Edmund Allenby, agreed to his strategy for the revolt, stating after the war:
“I gave him a free hand. His cooperation was marked by the utmost loyalty, and I never had anything but praise for his work, which, indeed, was invaluable throughout the campaign. He was the mainspring of the Arab movement and knew their language, their manners and their mentality.”[27]
Lawrence now held a powerful position, as an adviser to Faisal and a person who had Allenby’s confidence. But the Lawrence of Arabia conducted the whole operation without any input from his British superiors stationed in Cairo. He performed the entire task on his own as a day time dreamer who wanted to bring freedom to the Arab people from not only the Turks, but also the powers of Europe. So he organized the invasion and only after it was successful was General Allenby so permissive.
But the dream died once politics entered the picture and Lawrence was forced to deal with those corrupt dreamers of the night. He was able to achieve the greatest of military victories in one of the most hostile regions of the world—nearly on his own with sheer charisma. But he could not deal with politicians as their minds were encumbered by needless restriction—so he changed his name and left the world of chaos to them so that he would be free to read, write, and play with his motorcycles.
He was one of the greatest military minds every to be born and he was great because he did not follow orders, and acted as a day time dreamer that was dangerous to the men who were night-time dreamers. Because those night-time dreamers did not regard the area of Arabia to be so pivotal in world affairs at the time, they put up with Lawrence’s insurgency and lack of ability to follow orders by a superior. But as fate would have had it that was exactly the attitude required to unite the Arabs for the first and only time in world history. And it is the missing ingredient in that region to this day. Military minds can read Lawrence’s Seven Pillars of Wisdom, but unless they learn to be day time dreamers—they will never understand how Lawrence did what he did. The best and brightest in our world from the past and future will always be day time dreamers. But their antagonists are always those restricted night-time dreamers—those slugs of mental acuity. They fail at everything they do because their dreams and actions are not aligned. Whereas Lawrence was always living a dream as quick as he thought them. The difference between him and everyone else was that he acted on those dreams with great—unprecedented success.
Many find the situation in the Middle East confusing, and have little ideal why there is any trouble there. The political left wishes to deny there is anything wrong at all, and sides with the Palestinian/Muslim factions, the political right with Israel along the typical Christian conservatives. Each side points to the other and says there is no evidence to support their theories of aggression and this is largely due to the fact that tyrants, thieves and cut throats in our modern age have destroyed evidence so that proper arguments against them can never be rooted. Common sense explanations about the Middle East seldom occur like they have in the video below—because few people are left in the world who can make value judgments based on observation—due to the evidence that is so cryptic as to who is the villains really are.
The video featured nationally syndicated radio talk show host Dennis Prager, who is known for his strong conservative views, the pro-Israel YouTube video aims to explain the Middle East conflict in under six minutes.
“The Middle East conflict is framed as one of the most complex problems in the world,” the video claims. “But, in reality, it’s very simple.”
“It may be the hardest to solve, but it is the easiest to explain,” Prager says. “In a nutshell, it’s this: one side wants the other side dead.”
According to Prager, the “simple” problem is difficult to solve because most Palestinians and Arabs “do not recognize the right of the Jewish state of Israel to exist.”
To support his thesis, Prager briefly overviews several decades of history, contending Israel has always sought peace with its neighbors. The conservative talk show host concludes the video leaving viewers with one final thought.
“If tomorrow, Israel laid down its arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more,’ what would happen? And if the Arab countries around Israel laid down their arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more,’ what would happen?” Prager asks. “In the first case, there would be an immediate destruction of the state of Israel and mass murder of its Jewish population. In the second case, there would be peace the next day.”
The video, officially titled “The Middle East Problem,” has amassed more than 3 million views since it was uploaded in late April. According to YouTube statistics, most of the views have poured in over the past couple weeks.
While that may seem simplistic, it is in fact the case, there is nothing that Palestinians will ever do to accept the 1947 creation of a Jewish state—erected out of the violence of World War II to attempt to bring peace to the Biblically driven people. Likely some of that decision by the members of the United Nations at the time believed that it was their earthly obligation to restore the nation of Israel to God’s chosen people.
Revelation 12:12-17 speaks of how the devil will make war against Israel, trying to destroy her (Satan knows his time is short– Revelation 20:1-3, 10). It also reveals that God will protect Israel in the wilderness. Revelation 12:14 says Israel will be protected from the devil for “a time, times, and half a time (“a time” = 1 year; “times” = 2 years; “half a time” = one-half year; in other words, 3 1/2 years). So if the root cause of the establishment of the Jewish state were analyzed, it is likely that religious superstition was at the heart of it more than compassion for a tortured people.
On 2 April 1947, the United Kingdom delegation addressed a letter to the Acting Secretary-General of the United Nations requesting that the question of Palestine be placed on the agenda of the next regular session of the General Assembly.[88] On 15 May the General Assembly resolved (Resolution 106) that a committee, United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), be created “to prepare for consideration at the next regular session of the Assembly a report on the question of Palestine”.[89] In July 1947 the UNSCOP visited Palestine and met with Jewish and Zionist delegations. The Arab Higher Committee boycotted the meetings. At this time, there was further controversy when the British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin ordered an illegal immigrant ship, the Exodus 1947, to be sent back to Europe. The migrants on the ship were forcibly removed by British troops at Hamburg after a long period in prison ships.
The principal non-Zionist Orthodox Jewish (or Haredi) party, Agudat Israel, recommended to UNSCOP that a Jewish state be set up after reaching a religious status quo agreement with Ben-Gurion regarding the future Jewish state. The agreement would grant exemption to a quota of yeshiva (religious seminary) students and to all orthodox women from military service, would make the Sabbath the national weekend, promised Kosher food in government institutions and would allow them to maintain a separate education system.[90]
In the Report of the Committee dated September 3, 1947 to the UN General Assembly,[91] the majority of the Committee in Chapter VI proposed a plan to replace the British Mandate with “an independent Arab State, an independent Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem” …, the last to be under “an International Trusteeship System”.[92] On November 29, 1947, in Resolution 181 (II), the General Assembly recommended to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations, the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out in the resolution.[93] The Plan was to replace the British Mandate with “Independent Arab and Jewish States” and a “Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem administered by the United Nations”. The Plan of Partition in Part 1 A. Clause 2 provided that Britain “should use its best endeavors to ensure than an area situated in the territory of the Jewish State, including a seaport and hinterland adequate to provide facilities for a substantial immigration, shall be evacuated at the earliest possible date and in any event not later than 1 February 1948”. Clause 3. provided that “Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem … shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948.”
Neither Britain nor the UN Security Council took any action to implement the resolution and Britain continued detaining Jews attempting to enter Palestine. Concerned that partition would severely damage Anglo-Arab relations, Britain denied UN representatives access to Palestine during the period between the adoption of Resolution 181 (II) and the termination of the British Mandate.[94] The British withdrawal was finally completed in May 1948. However, Britain continued to hold Jews of “fighting age” and their families on Cyprus until March 1949.[95]
In the immediate aftermath of the General Assembly’s vote on the Partition plan, the explosions of joy among the Jewish community were counterbalanced by the expression of discontent among the Arab community. Soon after, violence broke out and became more and more prevalent. Murders, reprisals, and counter-reprisals came fast on each other’s heels, resulting in dozens of victims killed on both sides in the process. The impasse persisted as no force intervened to put a stop to the escalating cycles of violence.[96][97][98][99] By the end of March, there was a total of 2,000 dead and 4,000 wounded.[100] These figures correspond to an average of more than 100 deaths and 200 casualties per week in a population of 2,000,000.
Shielded Jewish convoy during the blockade of Tel Aviv–Jerusalem road
From January onwards, operations became increasingly militarized, with the intervention of a number of Arab Liberation Army regiments inside Palestine, each active in a variety of distinct sectors around the different coastal towns. They consolidated their presence in Galilee and Samaria.[101]Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni came from Egypt with several hundred men of the Army of the Holy War. Having recruited a few thousand volunteers, he organized the blockade of the 100,000 Jewish residents of Jerusalem.[102] To counter this, the Yishuv authorities tried to supply the city with convoys of up to 100 armored vehicles, but the operation became more and more impractical as the number of casualties in the relief convoys surged. By March, Al-Hussayni’s tactic had paid off. Almost all of Haganah‘s armored vehicles had been destroyed, the blockade was in full operation, and hundreds of Haganah members who had tried to bring supplies into the city were killed.[103]
While the Jewish population had received strict orders requiring them to hold their ground everywhere at all costs,[104] the Arab population was more affected by the general conditions of insecurity to which the country was exposed. Up to 100,000 Arabs, from the urban upper and middle classes in Haifa, Jaffa and Jerusalem, or Jewish-dominated areas, evacuated abroad or to Arab centers eastwards.[105] This situation caused the US to withdraw their support for the Partition plan, thus encouraging the Arab League to believe that the Palestinian Arabs, reinforced by the Arab Liberation Army, could put an end to the plan for partition. The British, on the other hand, decided on February 7, 1948, to support the annexation of the Arab part of Palestine by Transjordan.[106]
Supply convoy on its way to besiegedJerusalem, April 1948 Although a certain level of doubt took hold among Yishuv supporters, their apparent defeats were due more to their wait-and-see policy than to weakness. David Ben-Gurion reorganized Haganah and made conscription obligatory. Every Jewish man and woman in the country had to receive military training. Thanks to funds raised by Golda Meir from sympathizers in the United States, and Stalin’s decision to support the Zionist cause, the Jewish representatives of Palestine were able to sign very important armament contracts in the East. Other Haganah agents recuperated stockpiles from the Second World War, which helped improve the army’s equipment and logistics. Operation Balak allowed arms and other equipment to be transported for the first time by the end of March.
Ben-Gurion invested Yigael Yadin with the responsibility to come up with a plan in preparation for the announced intervention of the Arab states. The result of his analysis was Plan Dalet, which was put in place from the start of April onwards. The adoption of Plan Dalet marked the second stage of the war, in which Haganah passed from the defensive to the offensive. Within the framework of the establishment of Jewish territorial continuity foreseen by Plan Dalet, the forces of Haganah, Palmach and Irgun intended to conquer mixed zones. Palestinian Arab society was shaken. Tiberias, Haifa, Safed, Beisan, Jaffa and Acre fell, resulting in the flight of more than 250,000 Palestinian Arabs.[107]
The British had, at that time, essentially withdrawn their troops. The situation pushed the leaders of the neighboring Arab states to intervene, but their preparation was not finalized, and they could not assemble sufficient forces to turn the tide of the war. Most Palestinian Arab hopes lay with the Arab Legion of Transjordan’s monarch, King Abdullah I, but he had no intention of creating a Palestinian Arab-run state since he hoped to annex as much of the territory of the British Mandate for Palestine as he could. He was playing a double game and was just as much in contact with the Jewish authorities as with the Arab League.
The Arab League members Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq refused to accept the UN partition plan and proclaimed the right of self-determination for the Arabs across the whole of Palestine. The Arab states marched their forces into what had, until the previous day, been the British Mandate for Palestine. The new state of Israel had an organized and efficient army, the Haganah, under the command of Israel Galili. The Arab forces were of varying quality, but Arab states had heavy military equipment at their disposal. The invading Arab armies were initially on the offensive but the Israelis soon recovered from the initial shock of being invaded on all sides. On May 29, 1948, the British initiated United Nations Security Council Resolution 50 and declared an arms embargo on the region. Czechoslovakiaviolated the resolution supplying the Jewish state with critical military hardware to match the (mainly British) heavy equipment and planes already owned by the invading Arab states. On June 11, a month-long UN truce was put into effect.
Following the announcement of independence, the Haganah became the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). The Palmach, Etzel and Lehi were required to cease independent operations and join the IDF. During the ceasefire, Etzel attempted to bring in a private arms shipment aboard a ship called “Altalena“. When they refused to hand the arms to the government, Ben-Gurion ordered that the ship be sunk. Several Etzel members were killed in the fighting. Large numbers of Jewish immigrants, many of them World War II veterans and Holocaust survivors, now began arriving in the new state of Israel, and many joined the IDF.[110]
After an initial loss of territory by the Jewish state and occupation of Arab Palestine by the Arab armies, from July the tide gradually turned in the Israelis favor and they pushed the Arab armies out and conquered some of the territory which had been included in the proposed Arab state. At the end of November, tenuous local cease fires were arranged between the Israelis, Syrians and Lebanese. On December 1, King Abdullah announced the union of Transjordan with Arab Palestine west of the Jordan, the new state name being the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. He adopted the title “King of Arab Palestine”; only Britain recognized the annexation.
Many, including Christians have an untrustworthy eye toward Jews for a lot of reasons, the first of which was the assassination of their savor Jesus Christ by the Pharisees. The Pharisees didn’t want Jesus cutting in on their religious action in Jerusalem so they conspired to kill him. This has left a strange discombobulating effect between the Biblical New Testament and the Old—the two books are essentially different books of religion with the land of the Jews serving as the essential bridge. In the Old Testament, God is all about revenge, fire and brimstone, and conquest over oppressors, as the New Testament is about churchless religion which Jesus preached from hill tops—a religion of peace, pacifism, and love of life—except when Jesus got into that argument with the fig tree because it didn’t have any fruit.
What the Jews and Muslims have in common is that they both revere the same essential Biblical text—the Old Testament as their sacred document of religion. The problem is that the Islamic states call their text the Koran, but the characters are essentially the same—only the viewpoint are changed. So there is no rectifying peace even between Christians and Jews where real trust takes place—let along two religions fighting over a version of the same characters from the same book, one called the Old Testament, the other called the Koran. Of course when faced with all this “evidence” and opinion—ideologues who wish to protect their point of view from reality—and facts—will declare that what has been presented here is too simplistic and that nobody understands their problems. But in essence, the Jews just want to live life and visit the temple of their King David. Muslims want to kill Jews. It really is that simple—and has been that way for many thousands of years—because both religions share the same Biblical stories, but one is a peaceful religion and the other is one of violence and conquest. So long as Jews live, Muslims will seek to destroy them and that is the essence of the trouble in the Middle East.
As a lesson to the United Nations, they never accomplished the micromanagement of the State of Israel correctly, so they should expect the same trouble everywhere they wish to tamper, whether it is the United States in pitting progressives from the coasts against the conservatives of the Heartland, or communists against capitalists, or dogs against cats. The United Nations has no ability to bring people together without antagonizing tensions. The only way for life to flourish and people to solve any problems is to change their foundation thoughts—and that cannot be done with silly laws or lines on a map. People have to change the way they think—and in that absence violence will dominate always.
The aspect of the second-hander is the only one that makes sense when many of the world’s problems are analyzed. My hatred of the intoxication culture stems from this division between second-handers and producers—which was elaborated upon as a kind of identifiable introduction in a previous article. One of the primary reasons that I have enjoyed the movie Gladiator so intensely is because it deals squarely with this problem of producers and second-handers—as the Emperor’s son was a second hander, and Maximus was a producer. When that same son—Commodus inherited the throne through treachery—and attempted to completely destroy Maximus by killing his family, robbing him of all his social connections, and leaving him for dead in a forest the producer lead Maximus rose up through the ranks of the gladiators to challenge the entire Empire not through any other effort but sheer tenacity. Commodus could not understand how his old rival had managed to regain such respect and stature because as a second hander, he had to be given his value through others. The new Emperor believed that because he stole away the life of Maximus that he destroyed the man. But Maximus was a producer and therefore a great leader—it didn’t matter if it was among the best fighters in the world at the time of Roman legionnaires or the dregs of society as gladiators fighting for their life in the arena. Maximus thrived because he didn’t know how to do anything else but generate success—as a producer which eventually destroyed the emperor. Gladiator was a great movie primarily for this reason.
Producer types make their own way, and enjoy thinking. They typically don’t pray to the gods for success, they don’t seek to live off the inheritance of their ancestors, and they don’t gamble or purchase lottery tickets hoping to be filled by chance of a draw so that they can wake up one morning filled by the efforts of others. Everything they do is geared toward productive enterprise even when they are performing in leisurely endeavors. That said producers would typically not be comfortable in social settings like bars where intoxication is the objective. Producers do not wish to lose their mental faculties. Second handers however do wish to lose their ability to think—as mentioned in the previous article about people who prefer electric shock over thinking. The practitioners of drunkenness are second handers because they are surrendering thought to chance as relief from the responsibility of action.
Intoxication is one of the vilest activities that could be perpetrated against an active mind. Yet second handers routinely abuse their thinking because they cannot allow the impulse of their own inner producer developed as children to reemerge to the life of choice competing with their adult decisions to remain a passive second hander waiting for others to fill them with thoughts and action. When it is said that someone is “drunk with power” this is something to which they speak—taking the example of Commodus once again, the new Emperor killed the old one believing that his actions would settle the issue of who would lead next the Roman Empire after the conquest of the Germanic people of the north. But Maximus interfered with this equation with a new set of rules—that of a producer who did not care for politics—because he did not need politicians or social connections to give him authority—he simply generated it. Maximus didn’t need a god to give him authority or validation to be great—because he already knew that he was. And Maximus didn’t need favors granted by those in a bloodline of leadership because he knew he was a natural leader functioning well as a producer. So Commodus tried to have Maximus killed to preserve his illusion of power and right by blood to lead an entire region of people as if he had a right to the throne by grace of the gods.
The drunk does the same thing in essence; they drink to lose their minds from the observations of contrary reality which conflicts with their path of parasitic social behavior—that of the second hander who needs the approval of others. A room full of drunks as a bar is a palace of second handers evading their destiny as thinking producers. Instead they have surrendered their fates to being filled by others for their sustenance. Getting drunk helps them not feel the conflict of thought which is always seeking to emerge.
A constant companion of dialogue in these modern times is the term “depression” which is thrown about so flamboyantly by second handers to explain their affliction—much of which is prescribed drugs to alleviate the pain. The cause of depression is the desire for something which does not come to second handers by luck—such as love, money, respect, or general value. When those things fail to come to a second hander by the grace of invisible rulers—people find themselves depressed and seek alcohol or other drugs to relieve them of that pain. As alcohol is a depressant it often makes depression worse—but what is really sought is the numbness of thinking—not the affliction of depression which usually becomes more pronounced. A producer generally does not feel depression because their thoughts are not out of alignment from their actions. Producers are not let down because their IRS refund check did not come in the mail, or some perfect job fell upon them by social connections. They make these things for themselves and are generally a happy lot of people because they are living authentically to their nature—as producers.
If you walk into any environment where large amounts of alcohol are being consumed you are seeing a temple of second handers seeking to suppress thought and responsibility for productivity. As second handers they try to crush their inner Maximus so that their Commodus can speak to them. And what Commodus says to them often exacerbates the tendency toward depression they feel, but without thought to measure against—they are free of the pain so long as they drink. This is why second handers tend to drink to get intoxicated and producers do not. Producers value their thoughts as second handers are running away. This means that if anything is ever to be fixed in the world about us, it has to start with this tendency toward second hander behavior. The world cannot be run and built by second handers—because they are incapable and are not equal in value to the producers of the world. The issue is not one of race, sex, or even fate—it is one of decisions and mental faculties by way of focus.
The Overmanwarrior 