The Trollery of Trump

.    ( I’ll probably get in trouble for posting this, particularly in the minds of some of my Facebook friends / acquaintances /  audience.  But that’s okay.  As I was coming up with the title of this post — which took me about ten seconds after watching a video — I thought about changing the wording to something more ordinary.  But when I saw that the word ‘Trollery’ was viewed by my spell-checker with a jaundiced eye, I went with it.  It’ll help to bring out the grammar-nazis, which will be fine. )


.     I’ve been pretty quiet about the Trump vs. NeverTrump war-hysteria, although I made my own views known shortly before The Election.  But today, when I saw this (admittedly old) you-tube video,  I had to laugh.  Again.  Which broke my silence; and I decided to post it.  So here goes — be further outraged!  Or enjoy.

.     Why did I like it — just because?

.     No.  Because:  The Left has always, everywhere lacked at least three things:  a real knowledge of human nature, a real knowledge of history, and any sense of humor.

.     Above all, they lack any sense of humor.  They are the Serious Ones.  They alone Deeply Understand What Must Be Done.  They know what must be done for (or rather, to) the Masses, or the People, or the Deplorables.   It has always been the same call:  Arise, O Ye  Agents of Change! Fight, My Comrades! Shriek, Dear Sisters!  And they’ve been doing this for years, for generations, but few have bothered to notice.

.     What I think we needed here was a court jester — or perhaps better yet, a stand-up comic — to wake people up, to contradict the Standard Left-Establishment Narrative, and to ridicule the sleepy, ignorant, silly crowd that swallows it and follows it.  They are believing nonsense and acting stupid.  One way to expose them is to troll them.  And I think the necessary Troll has arrived.  He seems to be working out well so far.

.    Oh, I know: It’s Serious.  It Always Is.  But if you can manage to do three things, I think you’ll see things better:  relax, say your prayers, and laugh again.  And if you can do that, you’ll know that you have left the Left behind, because they do none of those three things.  Seriously.

.     And it is seriously funny,  when you think about it.  Donald Trump knew what he was doing all along.  He knew, among other things, that the Troll who dares to personally Drain The Swamp is going to be up to his ass in alligators.

.     And so it is.



Cannabis, Cancer, and the Medical-Consumer-Pharmaceutical Complex


.     Many biologists, doctors, and other scientists have researched diseases and treatments by themselves — that is, they worked and studied on their own, without being hired by funded (and therefore “approved”) drug companies, foundations, and government agencies.

.     And many of them have seen the results of their researches — their ideas and discoveries — ignored, ridiculed, unpublished, discredited, hidden, suppressed, stolen, and/or made illegal.  For the most unscientific reasons.

.     Why does this happen?  we may well ask.  The short answer (which is a very long answer) is:  “Follow the multi-billion-dollar money trail.”  We have all heard this before, probably most of us know that this is in fact very explanatory, but then we proceed to act as if we hardly believe it.  And there is a perfectly good reason for that — there are rabbit holes we just don’t want to go down, for fear we might run into some weasels.  And we will.

.     One of the things that we will find when we go hopping very far down the money trail is that the weasels are ready and willing to take all the money we are willing to give them:  our money, our insurance money, our tax money.  Your inheritance, your future, your house, and your health are turned into a few billion electrons stored somewhere in the Matrix.

.     However.

.     Here are a couple of rabbit holes to explore:

.     1.  — This links to a recent study showing a positive link to cannabis as a viable cancer treatment.

.     2. — This site focuses on cancer, not cannabis, and deals with several alternative therapies.

A perusal of these links might change (or strengthen) how you feel about the issue of “medical marijuana,” if not the entire “war on drugs.”


.     Coming back out of the rabbit holes and taking a fresh look at the weather, how do you see the winds blowing . . .

in the main stream media that you watch,

or in social media that you follow,

or in the two-party political establishment that you have a vested emotional and financial interest in, one way or another,

. . . are those winds clearly in favor of your right to inform yourself, and to access any and all modes of health care that you might choose, for the sake of your self and your family, at reasonable cost to you?

.     Or not?

.     And I ask myself:  who is not telling the whole truth, and why?


Comments welcome, pro or con.

Israel Shamir Discusses “Gru”

.     Here comes a link to a recent article by Israel Shamir, entitled “A Russian Trump?”

.     By way of introduction, Israel Shamir is about seventy years old; he was born a Jew in the Soviet Union; apparently had a fairly well-developed “revolutionary” consciousness; emigrated to Israel many years ago;  was disillusioned by what he saw and experienced;  became antagonistic to Zionism, at least in the form that he saw it in Israel;  developed a compassion for the Palestinian people that he met in Israel; and eventually converted to Christianity in the form of Russian Orthodoxy.  He travels widely and, if I recall correctly, has many connections in Finland.

.     I have followed his journey, and his writings, for several years. I will state here that there are serious matters in which he and I might disagree; but I read his writings with much interest and considerable sympathy.

.     He brings information, and a perspective, that are largely unknown in the West — or at least to me.  If you read the link, prepare to be somewhat puzzled by this very complex man.

.     The subject of his article is Paul Grudinin, a populist-styled politician in Putin’s Russia.  At this point in time, I know nothing of “Gru” (his nickname) other than what Israel Shamir says about him.

.     As always, your comments (and your own research) are most welcome.

Russian “Meddling” — Really ?

.     “Meddling” in elections in foreign countries is something that — it is currently supposed — folks just should not do.      Well, at least, the Russians shouldn’t do it.

.     But the US government — not only the CIA, but also the State Department — has not only “meddled” (whatever that may mean) but flagrantly interfered with elections around the world, for decades, right up to the Ukraine elections in 2014.

.     And, in case you haven’t noticed, Israel routinely “meddles” in our elections, all the time.  As do the Brits, and a host of others.

.     So much for the current “outrage.”  Psychologists tell us that accusations are frequently the result of what they call “projection” on the part of the accuser — projections, that is, of the accuser’s own fears or misbehaviors or guilty conscience.  And the Lord Jesus Christ, of course, warned about getting the very big splinter out of your own eye before you begin eye-exams on others.  Certainly our Media-Establishment-Complex has plenty to “project.”  Does it not?

.     Here’s a link to a recent (copyrighted) article from the website “Bionic Mosquito” that puts some light on the subject.  It is a short, good, truthful read.

Oh No, He Didn’t Go There.

.     Comments welcome.

A Straw in the Wind – Chill

.     Mark Sircus has posted an article that asserts that we are likely entering a period of global cooling, and cites recent research studies that support this hypothesis.  The basis for this is a study of solar activity, which is at an unusually low level and is predicted to continue to decrease.

.     “Solar activity,” in this context, basically refers to the presence (or currently, relative absence) of sunspots (which are energetic storms on the surface of the sun that contribute to the solar wind that constantly impinges upon the atmosphere of our planet).  According to recent research (or perhaps just theories — I’m not sure which), the sunspots themselves are produced by circulating convection currents deep within the sun that have recently slowed down to a marked degree.  This slowdown in the convection currents means the production of fewer and less energetic sunspots.  And that means a decrease in the energy of the solar wind.

.     This decrease in sunspot activity, and thus in the strength of the solar wind that reaches our Earth, is held to be responsible for unusual snowfalls and cold weather that has recently been occurring around the globe.  This is mentioned in a second article by Dr. Sircus that has been published by Lew Rockwell, here.

.     Now I must admit that I am reluctant to place too much confidence in this second article that depends upon a few recent weather patterns to make its case.  But I am also very dubious (skeptical?) about the (government-sponsored and controlled) “science” that has produced the “global-warming crisis” crusade that has taken on such significance since the days of  Vice-President Al Gore and his famous “hockey-stick” presentation.

.      So as far as I am concerned, this study by Dr. Sircus is only one straw in the wind-chill.  But because it is blowing in a different direction from the earlier global-warming predictions, I find it interesting.

.       Draw your own conclusions.  I invite readers of this blog to do a little research of their own, and get back here with comments on what they find.


Is this wake-up call worth listening to?

It has been about a year since I have posted at this site, which I devote to items that I find interesting from a political point of view.

Here is something I found interesting recently.  It’s a video that lasts about 24 minutes, which is a lot of time, I know.

Most people don’t even realize what’s coming

Your comments are most welcome.

If you have linked from a Facebook post, I encourage you to comment here, rather than cluttering the FB with short, quick reactions that many friends will not find helpful.



Assange on the Election

Here is the link:

Here is the complete post:

8 November 2016

By Julian Assange

In recent months, WikiLeaks and I personally have come under enormous pressure to stop publishing what the Clinton campaign says about itself to itself. That pressure has come from the campaign’s allies, including the Obama administration, and from liberals who are anxious about who will be elected US President.

On the eve of the election, it is important to restate why we have published what we have.

The right to receive and impart true information is the guiding principle of WikiLeaks – an organization that has a staff and organizational mission far beyond myself. Our organization defends the public’s right to be informed.

This is why, irrespective of the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election, the real victor is the US public which is better informed as a result of our work.

The US public has thoroughly engaged with WikiLeaks’ election related publications which number more than one hundred thousand documents. Millions of Americans have pored over the leaks and passed on their citations to each other and to us. It is an open model of journalism that gatekeepers are uncomfortable with, but which is perfectly harmonious with the First Amendment.

We publish material given to us if it is of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical importance and which has not been published elsewhere. When we have material that fulfills this criteria, we publish. We had information that fit our editorial criteria which related to the Sanders and Clinton campaign (DNC Leaks) and the Clinton political campaign and Foundation (Podesta Emails). No-one disputes the public importance of these publications. It would be unconscionable for WikiLeaks to withhold such an archive from the public during an election.

At the same time, we cannot publish what we do not have. To date, we have not received information on Donald Trump’s campaign, or Jill Stein’s campaign, or Gary Johnson’s campaign or any of the other candidates that fufills our stated editorial criteria. As a result of publishing Clinton’s cables and indexing her emails we are seen as domain experts on Clinton archives. So it is natural that Clinton sources come to us.

We publish as fast as our resources will allow and as fast as the public can absorb it.

That is our commitment to ourselves, to our sources, and to the public.

This is not due to a personal desire to influence the outcome of the election. The Democratic and Republican candidates have both expressed hostility towards whistleblowers. I spoke at the launch of the campaign for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, because her platform addresses the need to protect them. This is an issue that is close to my heart because of the Obama administration’s inhuman and degrading treatment of one of our alleged sources, Chelsea Manning. But WikiLeaks publications are not an attempt to get Jill Stein elected or to take revenge over Ms Manning’s treatment either.

Publishing is what we do. To withhold the publication of such information until after the election would have been to favour one of the candidates above the public’s right to know.

This is after all what happened when the New York Times withheld evidence of illegal mass surveillance of the US population for a year until after the 2004 election, denying the public a critical understanding of the incumbent president George W Bush, which probably secured his reelection. The current editor of the New York Times has distanced himself from that decision and rightly so.

The US public defends free speech more passionately, but the First Amendment only truly lives through its repeated exercise. The First Amendment explicitly prevents the executive from attempting to restrict anyone’s ability to speak and publish freely. The First Amendment does not privilege old media, with its corporate advertisers and dependencies on incumbent power factions, over WikiLeaks’ model of scientific journalism or an individual’s decision to inform their friends on social media. The First Amendment unapologetically nurtures the democratization of knowledge. With the Internet, it has reached its full potential.

Yet, some weeks ago, in a tactic reminiscent of Senator McCarthy and the red scare, Wikileaks, Green Party candidate Stein, Glenn Greenwald and Clinton’s main opponent were painted with a broad, red brush. The Clinton campaign, when they were not spreading obvious untruths, pointed to unnamed sources or to speculative and vague statements from the intelligence community to suggest a nefarious allegiance with Russia. The campaign was unable to invoke evidence about our publications—because none exists.

In the end, those who have attempted to malign our groundbreaking work over the past four months seek to inhibit public understanding perhaps because it is embarrassing to them – a reason for censorship the First Amendment cannot tolerate. Only unsuccessfully do they try to claim that our publications are inaccurate.

WikiLeaks’ decade-long pristine record for authentication remains. Our key publications this round have even been proven through the cryptographic signatures of the companies they passed through, such as Google. It is not every day you can mathematically prove that your publications are perfect but this day is one of them.

We have endured intense criticism, primarily from Clinton supporters, for our publications. Many long-term supporters have been frustrated because we have not addressed this criticism in a systematic way or responded to a number of false narratives about Wikileaks’ motivation or sources. Ultimately, however, if WL reacted to every false claim, we would have to divert resources from our primary work.

WikiLeaks, like all publishers, is ultimately accountable to its funders. Those funders are you. Our resources are entirely made up of contributions from the public and our book sales. This allows us to be principled, independent and free in a way no other influential media organization is. But it also means that we do not have the resources of CNN, MSNBC or the Clinton campaign to constantly rebuff criticism.

Yet if the press obeys considerations above informing the public, we are no longer talking about a free press, and we are no longer talking about an informed public.

Wikileaks remains committed to publishing information that informs the public, even if many, especially those in power, would prefer not to see it. WikiLeaks must publish. It must publish and be damned.