Signal Corps Back Up

Sparks31 has set up a new site.

The Break Between the Elite and the Citizenry

In his article entitled "The Progression Of Elite-Citizenry Relations," the author of Chateau Heartiste summarizes what he believes to be the cycle of the relationship between the elites and citizens in a nations (or, more particularly, the United States). The basic steps he sets out are:

1. Egalitarianism of the colonial era.
2. The rise of an informal aristocracy. I assume by this, the author has in mind the rise of the very wealthy oil, steel, and railroad "barons" on a national level, and other industrialists on a state or local level.
3. A sense of noblesse oblige on the part of the elite. By this, I presume that the author is thinking of the rise of "Progressivism" giving rise to the great philanthropy of Carnegie, or the attempts to spread the benefits of Western civilization (while making a profit) from the likes of Rhodes.
4. A elite pull away from the masses in wealth and cultural practices, while noblesse oblige erodes due to complacency and ingratitude. This seems to broadly coincide with the period of the 1930's through the 1970's. What we view as the growing decadence in art was merely the desire of the elites to remain aloof from the tastes of the masses--if the masses learned to appreciate the art of the great masters, then the elite would turn to Monet; when the masses learned to like Monet, then the elites turned to Picasso; and so on. 
5. The elite are repulsed by the citizenry (and vice versa) and turn to cosmopolitanism. I don't really consider this to be a separate stage or step from (3) or (4). The desire to "improve" the common man was based on a repulsion of the common man; and when the common man became sufficiently "civilized and cultured," the race to degenerate arts and culture was to distance the elites from the new middle-class (using the American meaning of the term).
6. The elite fall out of touch with their subjects and come to hate their subjects. The author writes: "That is when they start thinking only of themselves and do evil things like advocate for open borders so they can turn their billions into tens of billion. The citizenry learns to return the hate." This is the period when noblesse oblige completely disappears, to be replaced by a view that citizenry are merely economic units to be manipulated and exploited; and by the result of the creation of a true "upper class." The author believes that this is where Western Civilization now finds itself.
7. War.
8. The Happening.
9. The Great Reset (or "rinse and repeat").

Read the whole thing.

Musing on the Russian Adventure into Syria

These are just some thoughts on the events happening in the Middle-East. .

First, Iranian physical isolation of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States is almost complete. Iran's growing military capabilities (soon to be augmented by its possession of nuclear weapons), will put it in the position to close passage through the Straits of Hormuz, cutting off the ability to export petroleum via standard shipping lanes. The attempt to overthrow Assad and replace him with a government willing to allow a pipeline through Syria is probably off the table--Russian involvement means that Assad (or some other puppet of Iran and/or Russia) blocks that move. And a proposed pipeline through Yemen is foreclosed--at least for now--by the Iranian backed civil war there.  

(Source)

Second, the fact that Russia has been moving in various radars and electronic warfare equipment designed for blocking our airborne radar, and the movement of aircraft, indicates that Russia will probably establish a "no-fly" zone over Syria. (And I read today that some in the U.S. are urging that the U.S. create its own "no-fly" zone, which would seriously irritate the Russians). This will be a prelude to a more permanent presence of Russian and/or Iranian troops in Syria to act as peace keepers. Russia is going to wring some serious concessions out of Assad. Consequently, I fully expect Russia to expand its port facility and airbase, allowing it to keep aircraft, armor, and ships "pre-deployed" to the region. Iran will probably also keep troops in Syria. And word today is that China may also be sending troops to join in the fray.

Third, Israel will, whether it likes it or not, play a role. Will Saudi Arabia or other Gulf States engage in some sort of rapprochement with Israel? After all, a pipeline through Syria could easily be shifted to run through Israel; and Saudi Arabia would benefit from any strikes Israel makes against Iranian nuclear facilities. And, once ISIS is destroyed, what will Iran do with all those troops sitting on the border with Israel? Especially if it could somehow convince (drag) Russia into joining an attack on Israel?

Interesting times indeed.

"Camp Cookery--Meats"

At a library sale a couple weeks ago, I came across a copy of Camping and Woodcraft by Horace Kephart. Apparently first published in 1917, it offers a very different view of camping and the outdoors from that typical of today. I thought I might offer some excerpts, now and again, for the reader's enjoyment. So, today, I offer a bit of Kephart's advice on cooking meats:

The juices of meats and fish are their most palatable and nutritious ingredients. We extract them purposely in making soups, stews, and gravies, but in so doing we ruin the meat itself. Any fish, flesh, or fowl that is fit to be eaten for the good meat's sake should be cooked succulent, by first coagulating the outside (searing in a bright flame or in a very hot pan, or plunging into smoking hot grease or furiously boiling water) and then removed farther from the fire to cook gradually till done. The first process, which is quickly performed, is "the surprise." It sets the juices, and, in the case of frying, seals the fish or meat in a grease-proof envelope so that it will not become sodden but will dry crisp when drained. The horrors of the frying-pan that has been unskillfully wielded are too well known. Let us campers, to whom the frying-pan is an almost indispensable utensil, set a good example to our grease-afflicted country by using it according to the code of health and epicurean taste.

Obama's Implicit Call for Gun Confiscation

Following the recent spree killing in Oregon, Obama made some public comments that bear closer examination. Obama is a Social Justice Warrior (SJW), so it is helpful to keep in mind three rules when dealing with SJWs: 1. SJWs always lie; 2. SJWs always double down; and 3. SJWs always project. Rule number 1 especially applies to Obama's speech.

Lie number one:

There is a gun for roughly every man, woman, and child in America. So how can you, with a straight face, make the argument that more guns will make us safer? We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths. So the notion that gun laws don't work, or just will make it harder for law-abiding citizens and criminals will still get their guns is not borne out by the evidence.

Obama knows that most lies require some kernel of truth in order to be palatable. (See, e.g., Genesis 3:4-5, where Satan states a lie, followed by a statement that is mostly true). The truth here is that there is a gun roughly for every man, woman, and child in America. The rest of his comments are lies.

"States with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths." This is demonstrably false by even a quick look at headlines. For instance, The Chicago Tribune reported just a few days ago that September 2015 was the deadliest for Chicago in 13 years after seeing 60 homicides last month. Of course, Obama is being disingenuous because he relies on "gun deaths," which includes suicides, rather than only homicides (which is how most people would interpret the term).* So, while states with high gun ownership have more deaths (on a per capita basis), they, conversely, have the lowest gun homicide rates. For instance, the article I've linked to notes that Wyoming has one of the highest gun deaths (including suicides), but a gun homicide rate of effectively 0. This difference is important because gun control is premised on reducing homicide rates, which, as Britain's, Ireland's and Australia's example shows, were unaffected by strict gun laws. (In looking at violent crime rates, there is an even greater disconnect between gun control and violence, with Scotland taking top prize as the most violent developed nation in the world). However, while there seems to be lack of consensus, newer studies from Australia have shown that the Australian "gun buy back" does not appear to have had any impact on homicides or suicides because murders and suicides were already declining. (PDF of the referenced study). On a larger scale, looking at other countries, there appears to be no relationship between suicide rates and access to firearms. There also seems to be little correlation between strict gun control laws and lower homicide rates.  I would suggest that if there was a clean correlation as Obama suggests, and given the number of firearms in the United States, the result should be that the United States have, by a large margin, the highest homicide and suicide rates in the world, when, in fact, it does not. And although the United States has more of these types of shootings than other "advanced" countries, it is a factor of the size of our population: when looking at per capita rates, the United States trails Norway, Finland, and Sweden. As for his last comment, concerning criminals obtaining firearms by other means, one merely needs to look at Australia again, which only a few days ago witnessed a terrorist attack by a gun armed 15-year old.

What should be more concerning is the following comment from Obama's lecture:

We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours -- Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.

However, the Administration won't expressly say what it would like to do. This is because it is unwilling to publicly admit that they are seeking gun confiscation. An article at The Federalist, entitled "The Australia Gun Control Fallacy" explains the reticence. First, although Australia termed its confiscation program as a "gun buyback," it was mandatory, not voluntary.

Second, Obama and his ilk realize (or should) that such a program would not work in the United States. As the author explains:

Gun confiscation is not happening in the United States any time soon. But let’s suppose it did. How would it work? Australia’s program netted, at the low end, 650,000 guns, and at the high end, a million. That was approximately a fifth to a third of Australian firearms. There are about as many guns in America as there are people: 310 million of both in 2009. A fifth to a third would be between 60 and 105 million guns. To achieve in America what was done in Australia, in other words, the government would have to confiscate as many as 105 million firearms.

The 310 million guns in America are not owned by 310 million Americans. Just how many Americans own guns, though, is controversial. The General Social Survey shows gun ownership on a four-decade downward trajectory, to 32 percent of households in 2015. A 2011 Gallup poll, on the other hand, found gun ownership at a two-decade high, with 47 percent of Americans stating they possessed a firearm. ... Moreover, and this is the key point, those rates, however the surveys are conducted, have been static for at least 15 years, while background checks have soared.

A third to a half of the U.S. population translates to 105 to 160 million people. A fifth to a third of guns is 60 to 105 million. Now that we see what is required for an American buyback scheme to work on an Australian scale, we can at last we confront the question gun-control advocates never ask, let alone answer: how do you take 60 to 105 million firearms from 105 to 160 million Americans? The answer to that question is the answer to the question of whether the Australian example really is valid for America after all. If the experience of “blue” states which introduced gun regulations that have nearly universal approval on the Left is any indication, liberals are likely to experience keen disappointment.

The author goes on to document the massive civil disobedience that has followed firearm and magazine bans in New York and Connecticut, two the "bluest" states in the nation.

... If New York and Connecticut won’t go along, what do they expect would happen in “red” states?Progressives will not answer that question because they never ask it, not even to themselves, lest somehow they say it out loud. On guns, the Left is incoherent, even insincere. It won’t say what it wants because what it wants is “a nonstarter politically, unfeasible in reality, and, by the way, completely unconstitutional”—that is, confiscation on the Australian model.Liberals refuse to confront the implications of their Australian dream because doing so would force them to give that dream up. Those implications are easy to spell out, though. A national gun buyback law would turn a significant portion of the American people into criminals. Residents of New York and Connecticut snubbed their new laws. The other 48 states are not New York and Connecticut. Civil disobedience on a national scale would ensue.

The only way to enforce such a law would be through door-to-door enforcement: sending armed men to take guns from other armed men.

... A federal law, therefore, would require sweeping, national police action involving thousands of lawmen and affecting tens of millions of people. If proponents of gun control are serious about getting guns out of Americans’ hands, someone will have to take those guns out of Americans’ hands.

... Let there be no doubt. Gun confiscation would have to be administered by force of arms. I do not expect that those who dismissed their fellow citizens for clinging bitterly to their guns are so naive that they imagine these people will suddenly cease their bitter clinging when some nice young man knocks on their door and says, “Hello, I’m from the government and I’m here to take your guns.” As though somehow those who daily espouse their belief that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow citizens to resist government oppression and tyranny will not use the Second Amendment to resist what they see as government oppression and tyranny. Or maybe they are so naive.

... When someone says the United States ought to adopt Australia’s gun laws as its own, he is really saying the cause of gun control is so important that he is willing to impose these laws even at the cost of violent insurrection. Make no mistake, armed rebellion would be the consequence. Armed men would be dispatched to confiscate guns, they would be met by armed men, and blood would be shed. Australia is a valid example for America only if you are willing for that blood to be spilled in torrents and rivers. To choose Australia is to choose civil war.

....  Civil war and a tattered Constitution: such are the consequences of invoking “Australia.” It is not a model; it is a mirage.

 *Update (Oct. 5, 2015): Liberty Unyielding notes that this study is flawed.

Tutorial

Sometimes I come across articles or books in PDF or other electronic formats that I would like to share, but Blogger does not allow me to post them. However, I thought that perhaps some JPEGs of short articles might be doable. So, here is my experimental post attempting that. You should be able to click on each photo to get a larger picture. Let me know what you think in the comments:

"How to Stop Mass Shootings"

People like Piers Morgan love the pictures of blood and dead bodies so they can beat their drum of gun control or malign gun owners. Piers Morgan, for instance, likes to blame the NRA for mass shootings without ever bothering to explain the cause and effect. We might as well ascribe the recent Oregon shooting to the British government (the shooter was British), or atheist groups (the shooter was supposedly anti-religious).

What no one offers is an explanation of these mass shootings (other than the person was "mentally disturbed") or a solution on stopping or reducing their incidence. Except for Milo Yiannopoulos. Writing at Breitbart, Yiannopoulos suggests in his article "How to Stop Mass Shootings" that the mass shootings--at least those we are seeing in the United States--is a direct result of the breakdown of the traditional family and traditional marriage, and its inevitable alienation of lower status males. Yiannopoulos observes:

In a sense, what happened yesterday was also a suicide. A spectacularly melodramatic suicide from a man in pain who wanted to hurt the world that had hurt him. Society has got to start treating boys better if it wants to avoid more of this in the future.

He further explains:

The breakdown of the nuclear family is a euphemistic phrase used to describe a more troubling picture: there are more absent fathers now and vanishingly few positive male role models for young men to admire and emulate. This is often fuelled, or at least endorsed, by wrongheaded progressives who want to tear down supposedly patriarchal institutions.

But it is those patriarchal institutions, if you like, that for centuries provided the sort of structure, order and role models that young men need.

Masculinity isn’t fragile, as a spiteful, sociopathic feminist Twitter hashtag recently claimed. But — and here’s where some man-hating feminists almost get it right — it is powerful, and exciting, and it does have a flip-side if not properly respected. At its best, male competitiveness is the driving force behind most of society’s progress. We would be nowhere without the patriarchy, from the internet and space travel to the road under your feet and the roof on your house. The same thing that drives mass shooters inspires courage, too.

That doesn’t mean masculinity is “toxic.” What’s toxic is society’s attitudes towards men. Masculinity only becomes “toxic” when it is beaten down and suppressed and when men are told that what and who they are is defective. It becomes toxic when young boys are drugged in school because they don’t conform to feminine standards of behaviour.

What’s worse is that the media ridicules, criticises, punishes and demonises masculinity, then uses the product of its own hatred to justify more man-hating, in a Kafkaesque cycle of progressive insanity that has only one, inevitable consequence: more innocent dead people.

Progressives don’t see the irony in going after “straight white men.” But they are hypocritical bigots, hounding people for gender, skin colour and sexuality and saying that essential male characteristics are wrong. Men must be allowed to compete. To fight. To shoot things. Today’s man-punishing, feminised culture is creating killers by suppressing these urges. We have to stop it.

The confusion and alienation that so many young men feel today drives some to drop out of society completely and to retreat into pornography and video games. But others — the less stable, less supported, less able to cope with their natures — become progressively more angry until they explode in rage and pain.

Unfortunately, it is not just the Left that is bashing men and masculinity.  Other writers--most especially Dalrock--have documented and discussed how mainstream Christian denominations have similarly swallowed the feminist pill, albeit sugar coated with a Christian sounding explanation. Even many in my own denomination suffer under similar delusions. But, as we are warned, in the last days even the very elect will be deceived by false doctrine and false prophets. (See Matt. 24:24).

In 1995, the LDS Church released "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," setting out succinctly the importance of the traditional family structure and gender roles. In it, "we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets." And so, 20 years later, we see it happening right before our eyes.

Quote of the Day: Ray Kurzweil on Becoming Like Gods

Michelangelo: The Creation of Adam

The different religions of the world have a surprising agreement on what God is. God is an unlimited amount of what: memory, intelligence, creativity and love — basically the highest things a neocortex does. What happens in evolution, entities like mammals and humans become more intelligent, more creative, more loving, and moving exponentially to become more God-like; never quite reaching God, but moving in that direction. So evolution is a spiritual process to bring us closer to God, and technological evolution is now running a million times faster than biological evolution and ultimately we will vastly ultimately trillions-fold expand our creativity and our sense of humor and our ability to love and will become more God-like.

--Ray Kurzweil

And yet carry our flaws forward as well? There would have to be some way to filter out the "good"--those that could responsibly handle the power--from the "bad." But the only filter I see from Kurzweil and other writers is that of "wealth," which seems to be a very poor filter.

"What Naked and Afraid Taught Me About Weight Loss"--Honor and Daring

I recently published a guest post from The Realist about some lessons learned from watching the Naked and Afraid television series. So it seemed a bit of serendipity that I came across this post by Michael Sebastian at the Honor and Daring blog entitled "What Naked and Afraid Taught Me About Weight Loss." Sebastian relates that the question for him had always been whether dieting or exercise was better for weight loss--a topic with no clear answer from the various articles on losing weight--but which was answered for him from one particular episode of Naked and Afraid. He noted that the contestants on the show lost significant amounts of weight ... with one exception: Cassie De Pecol. Sebastian writes that at the beginning of the challenge, both Cassie and her partner, Forrest Galante were slightly overweight, but he figured that they would lose that extra weight. He describes what happened, though:

Typically, both partners contribute about equally to the success or failure of the team. But Cassie was different. Rather than help her partner, she spent her days either sunning herself on the beach or sitting in the shelter that her partner had constructed. ...

This left Forrest to do all the heavy lifting. He did everything. ... [T]hey both ate very little. By the end of the competition, Forrest had lost a boatload of weight going from a slightly doughy couch potato to fighting fit.

Cassie, on the other hand, lost only a few pounds. Her butt was still a bit large. How on earth can you starve for 21 days and still not lose weight?

Inactivity, that’s how. Because she was just sitting around, Cassie burned next to no calories. It is a testament to how efficient our bodies are.

An interesting observation. Read the whole thing.

Gun Contest: Win A Henry Big Boy

You can enter the contest by going to The Firearm Blog, and looking for the story about the contest.