Support This Website! Shop Here!

Saturday, May 28, 2016

Truman: War Criminal

Two videos are making the rounds, purporting to make the case that President Truman had to drop the atom bomb. The first is Father Wilson Miscamble's video for Prager University. Father Miscamble is a history professor at Notre Dame and a Catholic priest, so he really should know better.

The second video Truman apologists like to throw out is Bill Whittle's notorious AfterBurner apology for war crimes.

Before we discuss the videos in question, we must first establish a single fact: the US military deliberately targeted civilians for death in Japan, and arguably either targeted civilians in Europe or stood idly by while the British deliberately and indiscriminately targeted civilians in Europe.

This fact is uncontested by historians.

It is uncontested that the Allies engaged in Total War, targeting civilian populations with "morale" (read "terror") bombing intended to force the civilians to get so fed up with the bombing that they would spontaneously rise up and overthrow their government. This was Douhet's theory of aerial bombing, developed during the interwar period and championed by men like Walther Wever, Billy Mitchell and Sir Hugh Trenchard. The British adopted it early, the Americans had fully adopted it by January, 1945.

Miscamble's video

Miscamble doesn't deny the fact that civilians were targeted. Indeed, he acknowledges that we had already burned out entire cities, we had the islands under naval blockade, and the atom bombs were merely the next logical step in the chain. His entire argument revolves around the idea that Truman's use of the atomic bomb reduced American and Allied casualties, prevented much higher civilian casualties and was therefore acceptable. He said Truman chose "the least awful" (i.e., the least evil) of the alternatives.

While what he says about casualties is undoubtedly true, it doesn't change the flaw in the moral analysis. Miscamble is essentially saying we have the right to choose the lesser evil. We don't.

The moral act consists of three parts: the object (what is done), the intention (why it is done) and the circumstances (the when, where, how it is done). All three must be substantially good, or at least neutral, in order for us to undertake the act.

While the intention to avoid greater casualties is good, the "what" of doing it is the problem here. We are not allowed to have soldiers deliberately target, maim and/or kill unarmed civilians. But that's precisely what strategic firebombing does. The atom bombs were really nothing but exceptionally large firebombs.

If the atom bombs had been targeted at military complexes, that would be, possibly, acceptable. But at Hiroshima at least, the bomb was not targeted at the military industrial complexes on the edge of the city, instead, they were targeted at the civilian center, at the hospitals. That is immoral.

We cannot do evil that good may come from it. I cannot murder a civilian in order to prevent other civilians from being killed. Even less can I murder a civilian, a babe-in-arms, in order to prevent soldiers from being killed. But that's exactly what we did with the firebombing of Japan. We committed war crimes. Remember, Miscamble doesn't deny we targeted civilians. He says it was ok to do it because we saved more lives that way.

Bill Whittle's video

Whittle pursues a similar course, but throws in irrelevant asides, such as "the people of Hiroshima got more warning than our sailors at Pearl Harbor... you sneak-attacked us" (3:20, 5:20). Yes, the Japanese surprise-attacked a military installation. We burned down entire Japanese cities. The two are not comparable. We acted in much more evil fashion than they did.

Now we could throw in other atrocities, like the Rape of Nanking, the Bataan Death March, etc. But the question isn't whether the Japanese were committing atrocities. We know they were. The question is, does their atrocities give us the right to commit atrocities?

No, it doesn't.

Then Bill spends a long time talking about casualties and how the atom bomb saved casualties from piling up. This is identical to Miscamble's false argument. Whittle insists that women and children were being trained as suicide bombers. The correct answer is, so what? Cardinal Ratzinger was trained as an anti-aircraft Hitler Youth soldier, but he never fired a weapon at the Allies, He deserted, along with thousands of others.

He claims Hirohito';s decision to surrender was opposed by his military commanders, to the point of attempting to kidnap the Emperor to prevent the surrender. Again, so what?

American soldiers have the right to shoot anyone who shoots at them. American soldiers have no right to deliberately target and kill civilians.

Whittle pulls out Sherman's March to the Sea (15:45) as an example of the US doing such things in the past. It's true, we did. We were wrong then too. Can you imagine General Washington ordering his soldiers to burn an entire town to the ground and have all the citizens executed?  Washington never did such a thing. Truman commanded American troops to do exactly that.

If killing civilians in order to keep soldiers safe is an acceptable moral act, then we can have no quarrel with the Germans massacre at the town of Lidice in order to prevent further assassinations like Heydrich's. If that principle is acceptable, then we had no reason to go to war against Germany in World War I, for their rape of Belgium was actually not a rape, but a moral action, intended to protect the lives of their soldiers. Sure, the Germans executed ten civilians for every soldier that was sniped at from a town building, but that wasn't an atrocity. The WW I Germans were just implementing Truman's policies. Nothing to see here. Move along.

The Essence of the Argument
Essentially there are five arguments in favor of Truman's decision:
  • We saved American lives by killing civilians. The argument is that we may do evil that good comes from it. This is the only really substantial argument put forward by either Whittle or Miscamble. It is pure dreck. It is not Christian. To the extent that we accept such nonsense, we admit that Barack Obama is correct and America is not a Christian nation. 
  • They attacked us first/They bombed civilians first: Yes, they did. But their commission of unfair tactics or atrocities does not license us to imitate them. We cannot say, "If our enemy commits an atrocity, then we are cleared to commit the same kind of atrocities. Our morality is meant to be identical to that of whoever we are fighting. That's how we win, because our own moral code is too weak to survive on its own. We have to become the evil we fight." The very invocation of this principle hearkens back to kindergarten morals. Perhaps that is where we live now. If so, Barack Obama is correct and America is no longer adult enough to be a Christian nation.
  • Firebombing was necessary because our technology was not good enough to target military installations  This argument asserts that our morality is determined by our technology. If our technology is good, we can be held to a morally high standard, if it is low, we can only be held to a morally lower standard. People who propose this principle cannot, in principle, attack Osama bin Laden for knocking down the WTC on 9/11. He didn't have better tech, so he can't be held to a high moral standard. Is that really the argument we want to make?
  • It was Total War.   Yes, it was Total War. That's why it was evil. Just War is acceptable. Total war, in which soldiers can target any damned thing or one they please, is pure evil.
  • It ended the war, didn't it? That's good enough for me.  This argument is pure utilitarianism.  Instead of judging action according to the three Christian criteria above, we judge action only and solely by whether or not it produces the effect we want. So, according to this moral code, We can take everyone's guns in order to keep the bad guys from having guns, A university can accuse all male students of being rapists, and - if those accusations result in lower rape rates or even just raises everyone's consciousness about rape - then the result affirms the method, and the accusation was moral. When liberals use this logic, we mock them. When Truman supporters use this logic, we nod at the brilliance. It is crap. Don't buy it.
And, keep in mind, immediately after the war, NO ONE was making any of these five arguments. Dwight D. Eisenhower "expressed the hope that we would never have to use such a thing against any enemy because I disliked seeing the United States take the lead in introducing into war something as horrible and destructive as this new weapon was described to be.. He claimed that he had told the Secretary of War that 'the dropping of the bomb was completely unnecessary.' In an interview with Newsweek from later that year, Eisenhower stated bluntly that 'the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.' ”
The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, for instance, concluded that “Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” Admiral William Leahy, in his memoirs, called the bomb “barbarous” and said that it provided “no material assistance in our war against Japan,” since the Japanese were “already defeated and ready to surrender.”
Even Curtis LeMay, the man who advocated and directed the firebombing of Japanese cities, said:
The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
While Admiral Halsey stated the case quite clearly:
The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it ...

Counter-Argument

Truman could have dropped the Hiroshima bomb on the heavy military industrial complex on the outskirts of Hiroshima. Same explosion, same shock and awe, and a legitimate military target. instead, he chose to bomb the civilian center of town. As a result, Hiroshima's military industry was essentially undamaged. So was her water reservoir and her electrical power. Her industry would have been back online in 30 days. The same is true in Nagasaki - he could have chosen a legitimate military target. He didn't.

Prior to WW II, the US condemned the Italians, Japanese and Germans for indiscriminately bombing civilians. We said it was a war crime.

After we entered the war, we not only overlooked British indiscriminate bombing of civilians, we actually went further and TARGETED civilians.

Morality isn't subject to change.

America, by her own standards, standards enshrined in our customs from the founding of the country until the 1930s, committed war crimes. Lincoln originally opposed burning towns and stealing from civilians, but by the end of the Civil War, he was fully behind the policy. He won the war but lost his character.

Just as Lincoln's morality changed, and changed the country, during the Civil War, our morality changed when we entered World War II. Not only did indiscriminate British bombing suddenly become acceptable, our decision to actually deliberately target civilians suddenly stopped being a war crime.  When they did it, it was evil. When we do it, it's ok.

As Aishya told Mohammed, "it is a wonderful God you serve, who gives you everything you want."

FDR and Truman, Democrats both, were war criminals. America committed war crimes during WW II. We won the war, but at the price of losing our soul. Today's conservatives should be mourning Truman's actions, not celebrating them.

Friday, May 27, 2016

We Targeted Civilians

Did the A-Bomb force Japan to surrender?
Probably not. [1, 2]

As the table below shows, 67 Japanese cities had already been firebombed by the time the A-bombs were used. Neither of the A-bombs caused as much destruction as conventional American firebombing did, a technique they learned in Germany. From a strategic perspective, the A-bombs were neither new nor different. They were irrelevant. The Emperor of Japan's personal order of surrender didn't mention the atomic bombs. At all.

But how did we learn to firebomb? In Dresden and other German cities, Americans discovered that under the right conditions of temperature, humidity and wind, along with the right mixture of incendiary and explosives, entire city centers could be burned down.

For the bomb mix, we needed only to drop incendiaries that ignited on contact, along with high-explosives that had a 20 or 30 minute timer. The timer allowed time for local fire departments and ambulances to congregate around the burning buildings, where the high explosives would then detonate and destroy all the medical and fire personnel trying to administer humanitarian aid to survivors.

That's right.
We deliberately targeted doctors, nurses and firefighters.
We targeted civilians, non-combatants, old people, women, children, in World War II.

Both the RAF and US bomber commands knew they were simply not hitting military targets. Between 50% and 93% of the time, the bombs didn't even hit within 1 to 5 miles of their military targets.
Bombing accuracy was so abominable that a 1941 British report stated that there was only a 22% chance of a bomber crew finding its way to within 5 miles of its target and for heavily defended targets in the Ruhr, the percentage dropped to 7%.[5] Even late in the war, when radar use became widespread the specially modified “pathfinder” aircraft were used to mark targets with incendiaries; bombing accuracy had increased to a 50% chance of a bomb falling within a mile of its target....   strategic bombing was a failure.... even at the height of the bomber offensive in 1944, [German] armaments production actually increased.
Curtis LeMay, head of US Strategic Bomber Command, knew he was committing war crimes:
As far as casualties were concerned I think there were more casualties in the first attack on Tokyo with incendiaries than there were with the first use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. The fact that it's done instantaneously, maybe that's more humane than incendiary attacks, if you can call any war act humane. I don't, particularly, so to me there wasn't much difference. A weapon is a weapon and it really doesn't make much difference how you kill a man. If you have to kill him, well, that's the evil to start with and how you do it becomes pretty secondary. I think your choice should be which weapon is the most efficient and most likely to get the whole mess over with as early as possible. 
Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time... I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.... Every soldier thinks something of the moral aspects of what he is doing. But all war is immoral and if you let that bother you, you're not a good soldier.

Even the US Air Force admits Hiroshima suffered only minor military damage:
"[Hiroshima suffered] slight industrial damage... Its shipping activities had virtually ceased by the time of the attack, however, because of sinkings and the mining of the Inland Sea....Though small workshops numbered several thousand, they represented only one-fourth of the total industrial production of Hiroshima, since many of them had only one or two workers. The bulk of the city's output came from large plants located on the outskirts of the city; one-half of the industrial production came from only five firms. Of these larger companies, only one suffered more than superficial damage. Of their working force, 94 percent were uninjured. Since electric power was available, and materials and working force were not destroyed, plants ordinarily responsible for nearly three-fourths of Hiroshima's industrial production could have resumed normal operation within 30 days of the attack had the war continued."
In the pre-war years, the US condemned Japanese, Italian, and German aerial bombing of civilians. Despite this, the British deliberately bombed civilians in Germany. The Americans went one step further, and deliberately targeted civilians in Japan.
On 9 March 1945, 300 B-29s dropped half a million small incendiary bombs on the Japanese capital. The ensuing firestorm consumed 13 square miles of the city and killed an estimated 100,000 people. From this raid forward, American strategic bombing effort shifted from a Trenchard-Mitchell counter industry focus to a Douhet strategy based upon inflicting maximum damage on population centers (i.e. morale bombing). 
We called it "morale bombing" because "terror bombing" sounds kind of nasty. But, no matter what you call it, the effect was the same. In fact, due to LeMay's strategy of deliberately targeting the civilian population of Japan:
Between May and June 1945, Japan’s six largest cities fell to the torch of 20th Air Force B-29’s. By the end of the war in August, 58 of 62 Japanese cities with populations over 100,000 had been burned. In all, 178 square miles of urban area were razed amounting to 40 per cent of Japan’s total urban area. Twenty two million people, 30 per cent of the population, were rendered homeless. 2,200,000 civilian casualties were reported and over 900,000 fatalities were suffered, more than Japan’s combat casualties in the Pacific of 780,000.
Much has been written about the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the devastation unleashed by atomic weapons. While revolutionary in nature, they added comparatively little damage in comparison to the amount of total damage inflicted on Japanese urban areas by the B-29 firebombing campaign. 

Name of firebombed Japanese city City % destroyed Equivalent in size to the following American City
Toyama 99 Chattanooga
Fukui 86 Evansville
Tokushima 85.2 Ft. Wayne
Fukuyama 80.9 Macon
Kofu 78.6 South Bend
Kuwana 75 Tucson
Hitachi 72 Little Rock
Nara 69.3 Boston
Tsu 69.3 Topeka
Okayama 68.9 Long Beach
Mito 68.9 Pontiac
Takamatsu 67.5 Knoxville
*Hiroshima* 67
Shizuoka 66.1 Oklahoma City
Tsuruga 65.1 Middleton
Hachioji 65 Galveston
Nagaoka 64.9 Madison
Maebashi 64.2 Wheeling
Matsuyama 64 Duluth
Imabari 63.9 Stockton
Gifu 63.6 Des Moines
Kagoshima 63.4 Richmond
Toyohashi 61.9 Tulsa
Hamamatsu 60.3 Hartford
Yokohama 58 Cleveland
Isezaki 56.7 Sioux Falls
Ichinomiya 56.3 Sprinfield
Kobe 55.7 Baltimore
Kochi 55.2 Sacramento
Kumagaya 55.1 Kenosha
Tokyo 51 New York
Akashi 50.2 Lexington
Wakayama 50 Salt Lake City
Himeji 49.4 Peoria
Hiratsuka 48.4 Battle Creek
Tokuyama 48.3 Butte
Sakai 48.2 Forth Worth
Saga 44.2 Waterloo
Chosi 44.2 Wheeling
Utsunomiya 43.7 Sioux City
Numazu 42.3 Waco
Shimizu 42 San Jose
Kure 41.9 Toledo
Sasebo 41.4 Nashville
Uhyamada 41.3 Columbus
Chiba 41 Savannah
Nagoya 40 Los Angeles
Ogaki 39.5 Corpus Christi
*Nagasaki* 39.2
Siumonoseki 37.6 San Diego
Kawasaki 36.2 Portland
Omuta 35.8 Miami
Osaka 35.1 Chicago
Yokkichi 33.6 Charlotte
Omura 33.1 Sante Fe
Okazaki 32.2 Lincoln
Kumamoto 31.2 Grand Rapids
Aomori 30 Montgomery
Oita 28.2 Saint Joseph
Miyakonoio 26.5 Greensboro
Miyazaki 26.1 Davenport
Nobeoka 25.2 Augusta
Fukuoka 24.1 Rochester
Moh 23.3 Spokane
Sendai 21.9 Omaha
Yawata 21.2 San Antonio
Hbe 20.7 Utica
Amagasaki 18.9 Jacksonville
Nishinomiya 11.9 Cambridge

Thursday, May 26, 2016

Democrats vs. Republicans

The difference between Republicans and Democrats:
Republicans say 
1) Dead people in Chicago can't vote in elections, but 
2) Dead people from 1779 should determine how we interpret the Constitution.

Democrats say the reverse.

Thus endeth the lesson.

Saturday, May 14, 2016

Transgenders for Contraception!

National Review holds a strange opinion. It asserts Barack Obama's latest insistence that public schools accept transgenders will be the death of the public schools. "Homeschooling will triumph!" shout the conservatives.

No, it won't. Homeschooling won't make a difference unless parents stop living the life of Bruce Jenner. The idea that my biology must yield to my fantasy identity began with contraception. As long as parents contracept, they are acting out Bruce Jenner's life in front of their children.

Both vasectomy and tubal ligation are individual attempts to assume a voluntary gender identity that does not match the reality: the unwanted reality is "fertile", the desired identity is "sterile". Like the woman who pours drain cleaner in her eyes because she wants to be blind, the vasectomy or tubal ligation patient victimizes himself/herself.

In that sense, the use of contraception (e.g., the pill, condoms, the IUD, etc.) is very similar to the drag queen, Bruce Jenner. Users don't actually cut off body parts to force reality to yield to voluntary gender identity, rather, they play the part for awhile to see if they like it.

But how many Americans will reject these facts, because it offends their self-image? How many contracepting Americans are willing to accept that they are essentially being Bruce Jenner? And how does a contracepting parent showcase to their children anything other than Bruce's own confusion?

Homosexuality: An Addictive Disorder

Whether a person decides to use alcohol or drugs is a personal choice, influenced by multiple biological, familial, psychological and sociocultural factors. But, once a person uses alcohol or drugs, the risk of developing alcoholism or drug dependence is greatly influenced by genetics. Research shows that genes are responsible for about half the risk for alcoholism and addiction, and while genetics are not the sole determinant, their presence or absence may increase the likelihood that a person will become alcohol or drug dependent. 
Homosexuals have a higher rate of eating disorders than the general population:
  • In one study, gay and bisexual boys reported being significantly more likely to have fasted, vomited or taken laxatives or diet pills to control their weight in the last 30 days. Gay males were 7 times more likely to report binging and 12 times more likely to report purging than heterosexual males.
  • Females identified as lesbian, bisexual or mostly heterosexual were about twice as likely to report binge-eating at least once per month in the last year.
  • Elevated rates of binge-eating and purging by vomiting or laxative abuse was found for both males and females who identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual or “mostly heterosexual” in comparison to their heterosexual peers.
  • Compared to other populations, gay men are disproportionately found to have body image disturbances and eating disorder behavior (STATS). Gay men are thought to only represent 5% of the total male population but among men who have eating disorders, 42% identify as gay.

Homosexuals smoke at much higher rates than the general population:
"Although few studies have examined the link between sexual orientation and smoking, it is clear that LGBT individuals have a higher smoking rate than the general population. Only six states have published reports on tobacco use by sexual orientation: Arizona, California, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington. All six of these states found significantly elevated smoking rates in the LGBT community. A 2009 review of 42 separate studies measuring tobacco use among lesbians, gays, and bisexuals reported consistently higher prevalence of smoking among sexual minorities.2 Other studies have reported smoking prevalence among gay and bisexual men is 27% to 71% higher and for lesbians and bisexual women, 70% to 350% higher than prevalence observed for comparable gender groups in the general population.3"
They have higher rates of alcohol abuse:
In the LGBT community, research suggests that alcohol abuse and dependence occurs at even higher rates than in the mainstream population. Independent studies collectively support the estimate that alcohol abuse occurs in the LGBT community as rates up to three times that in the mainstream population. Said another way, alcohol abuse is estimated to occur in up to 45% of those in the LGBT community. 
They have higher rates of illegal drug use and abuse:
... new figures suggest that gay people are seven times more likely to take illegal drugs than the general population, with one in five of those surveyed showing signs of dependency on drugs or alcohol.  
More than a third of gay, lesbian and bisexual people took at least one illegal drug in the last month, according to the largest study of its kind.  
Homosexuals are over-represented in gambling addiction self-help organizations:
One of the few existing studies on problem gambling in the LGBT community was conducted by two prominent researchers in the field of problem gambling studies, Jon Grant of the University of Minnesota Medical School and Marc Potenza of Yale University Medical School (Grant & Potenza, 2006). The study was conducted in 2006 with a sample of 105 treatment‐seeking men who had sought treatment for pathological gambling. The researchers found a substantial overrepresentation of gay and bisexual men among this sample of pathological gamblers (21% of the sample self‐reported as gay or bisexual) (Grant & Potenza, 2006). The researchers also reported greater impairment and a higher incidence of impulse control and substance use disorder among these gay and bisexual men.
Homosexuals beat each other up. A LOT:
In 2013, the CDC released the results of a 2010 study on victimization by sexual orientation, and admitted that “little is known about the national prevalence of intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and stalking among lesbian, gay, and bisexual women and men in the United States.” The report found that bisexual women had an overwhelming prevalence of violent partners in their lives: 75 percent had been with a violent partner, as opposed to 46 percent of lesbian women and 43 percent of straight women. For bisexual men, that number was 47 percent. For gay men, it was 40 percent, and 21 percent for straight men.
Because homosexuals act out sexually with both sexes, they are more likely to be involved in an unintended pregnancy than are heterosexuals.
Overall, about 13 percent of heterosexual females and about 14 percent of females who only had male sexual partners had been pregnant, compared to about 23 percent of lesbian or bisexual females and about 20 percent of girls who had male and female sexual partners.
About 10 percent of heterosexual males and those who only had female sexual partners experienced a pregnancy, compared to about 29 percent of gay or bisexual males and about 38 percent of males with female and male sexual partners. 
For someone who has a genetic predisposition to become addicted, homosexuality is one way for that addictive predisposition to express itself. Addiction travels in clusters. Instead of, or in addition to, being addicted to alcohol, nicotine, or cocaine, the affected person is addicted to a maladaptive sexual expression. This maladaptive activity is just as physically unhealthy as alcoholism, drug abuse or any eating disorder. The homosexual should be viewed as an addict who is committing slow suicide.

Friday, May 06, 2016

Putting Islam into the Schools

The US Department of Education wants educators to put Islam into more of the school curriculum. I think it is a GREAT idea.

Personally, I have incorporated Islam into a lot of subjects. In math, I point out that algebra was NOT invented by Islam and "Arabic" numerals were actually stolen by the Muslims from the Hindus.

In history, I point out that Islam rapes, tortures, enslaves and kills more people than any other faith system. Muslim pirates provoked the first declared war that America ever got involved in, the Marines' first action on foreign soil was against Muslims who had enslaved Americans, the first time the American flag was raised on foreign soil, it was over the Muslim capital of Tripoli. I take great pains to point out that, from the earliest years, Muslims have always fought in our wars, they have just never fought on our side.

In literature, I point out that all the Muslim countries combined have translated fewer books into Arabic over the course of 500 years than Spain translates into Spanish in the course of one year.

In science, I point out that Islamic countries produce useful work in only three areas: falconry, camel breeding and water desalinization. Furthermore, despite comprising over one-seventh of the world's population, only one Muslim has ever won any Nobel Prize in science. Ever.

In medicine, I point out that Islamic countries of Afghanistan and Pakistan are the only remaining hotbed of wild polio virus. Also, up to half the world's Muslims are inbred due to their propensity of marrying daughters off to their first cousins on the father's side, thus Islamic population suffer from much higher rates of otherwise preventable genetic disease.

There are a lot of places Islam can be put into the curriculum, and I agree with Obama on this point - it SHOULD be put into the curriculum.

Thursday, May 05, 2016

The Trumpkin Wall

The "Trumpkin Wall" may soon replace the term "Potemkin village" in reference to the gullibility of suckers. Consider:

1) If the wall is built, America will functionally LOSE territory, since the wall has to be built well back from the Rio Grande in order to abide by treaty regulations. By definition, we will functionally be ceding all territory south of the wall to Mexico.

2) If the wall is built, it will be built using American funds. Even if the US penalizes money transfers to Mexico, we will be taking money earned in the US, money that was supposed to have gone to US citizens in order to build the wall. So, Mexico will pay for whatever is built using US funds. The joke is on us.

3) Trumpkins are suckers.

Wednesday, May 04, 2016

ICBMs vs Voting the Down Ticket

Many #NeverTrump voters insist that we must at least still vote. They say that voting the down ticket is still necessary and useful. But Trump proves that won’t work. After all, Ted Cruz was the quintessential down ticket vote for the last decade, and that down-ticket vote failed. But why did it fail? To understand this, we need only consider why the MAD American policy on nuclear ICBMs works, and understand where it can fail.

MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, worked only to the extent that our missile shield didn’t. If the enemy launches 10,000 nuclear-tipped missiles, our shield had to be 100% effective. If it were any less effective, one missile would get through, and we couldn’t know which one it would be.

Now, the missile shield was useful, in the sense that it accomplished unilateral disarmament of the other side. That is, if our shield was 50% effective, then 50% of the opposition’s weapons were functionally neutralized: the shield reduced the enemy's effective throw-weight by 50%. But, ultimately, no one launched a nuclear war because we knew we couldn’t guarantee that all of the opposing force could be stopped. If only one nuke managed to hit a high-value target, we might easily see our entire strategic position unravel in front of our eyes.

When MAD fails

This year’s Republican presidential election demonstrates the problem in spades. Of the 17 candidates running, at least fourteen were down-ticket candidates. All of the down-ticket candidates lost. ALL OF THEM. LOST. One nuke got through, and the country will now go up in flames. That one missile got through because American citizens wanted it to get through.

It doesn't matter how many good down-ticket candidates are placed into office. Sure, it's easy to do it when no one is paying attention. But, when Americans do pay attention, they choose the nuke. They will nuke those down-ticket candidates. Constantly. Mercilessly. Until one of their nukes gets through. And one of their nukes will always get through. As soon as the public focuses its attention, the person in the down-ticket office dies or is neutralized (Kim Davis, Ted Cruz, et. al., this means you). When the nuke the American public delivers is the Presidency, as it was with Obama, as it will be with Trump/Hillary, we will watch our strategic position evaporate before our eyes. Trenches aren't really good defenses against nukes.

Today, it is clear that Obama and the liberals have won the culture wars. Yes, he won. Yes, they won. Many people argue that since we survived eight years of Obama, we can survive another four or eight of Hillary or Trump. But this statement assumes a falsehood. We didn’t survive eight years of Obama. We died. I will say it again: Obama and the liberals won.

Let me explain.

What we were

We think of America as a single country, a mature entity, a rock-ribbed, unchanging reality. That isn’t true. America has been many different countries in the last 200 years.

At its founding in 1789, America was 90% agrarian in population. Dueling in the streets was legal, ordinary and expected. Slavery was legal in every state, states had religious tests for holding office, the tax burden was nearly non-existent. While we had mercantile tendencies, we were still essentially an honor-based society.

Fifty years later, (1830s) we were a different country. Half the states had outlawed slavery, dueling still happened, but was dying out, industrialization had begun, urban populations had already begun a century-long increase. There were still no federal taxes that directly affected the individual. Geographically, the nation had more than doubled in size, permanently changing our self-image.

Fifty years after (1880s), we were a different country again. Only 43% of the population was agrarian, but 15% were involved in the new industrial processes, mostly as small artisan shops on farms. The federal tax burden was increasing. 3.4% of the population now lived in cities over 1 million in size. The West was nearly completely settled, but Alaska had just been purchased. The last duel was fought in the streets of Fort Worth, TX (1887), slavery was gone, religious tests were gone, abortion was affirmatively outlawed, there was still almost no mandatory schools for children. Immigration from central Europe had caused a population spike.

Fifty years later, (1930s) we had changed again. Now we were a fully industrialized country, only 20% agrarian, while fully 20% was involved in manufacturing. All states required mandatory schooling for children, about 30% of the population graduated high school, and high schools had gun clubs, some with WWI-era machine guns to use on the high school rifle range. Abortion was a heinous crime against humanity. Dueling was outlawed everywhere, Massive immigration from the Mediterranean regions had caused an urban population explosion.

Today, we are 80% urban, perhaps 8.8% of the population are engaged in manufacturing, only 2.6% agrarian, producing more food and products than ever before in the history of the country. Abortion is now not only not a crime, but affirmatively a right and sometimes a social duty. The sale of the corpses of aborted children and their organs is tacitly accepted. Automation steadily eats away jobs in virtually every economic sector. Immigration from Central and South America is causing a population spike. Nibbling a pop-tart into the shape of a gun is grounds for expulsion. The national attention is focused on people who don't even know what sex they are or what bathroom they should use.

What we have become

This is the new America. May 3, 2016 marked a demarcation line, a sea-change. By choosing Hillary and the Donald as our nominees, we have broken the last bonds with an honor-based society, we have broken with being men and women of integrity. Trump and Hillary make no pretense of having honor, allow us to carry no illusion that they have integrity, or even that they have a policy that can be articulated. The country that elected Obama twice has now demonstrated that his election was no aberration. We will be ruled by increasingly narcissistic despots from here on out.

We have deliberately nominated two people who are proven and demonstrable liars, even supporters of rape (when it pays them). Yes, today you can laugh at a child who has been raped, you can call a convicted rapist a “real man”, and still gain the nomination to be President. We have nominated two people who boldly and nakedly pursue nothing but money, power and their own self-interest, celebrities who hold up, as examples, other celebrities who have successfully performed the ultimate acts of self-interest (rape and abortion).

Now, many of us have not surrendered our principles. Many of us refuse to support either of these nominees. But we are now clearly in the minority, and an extreme minority at that. In the past, Americans chose to be ruled by Christian principles, even if we did not always live by them. By nominating these two, the vast majority of Americans demonstrate they no longer wish their principles to be even nominally Christian. This current crop of Americans has successfully redefined the culture to the point where most are comfortable with naked narcissism. The country we once belonged to no longer exists.

America has once again changed, become a new country, and the Constitution is no longer fit to be our founding document. It is too good for us. We need a document fitted for the servile crudity that we have become. If you need further proof, contemplate this: Trump supporters say that he is the superior candidate because “nobody knows what Trump will do.” That is, Trump supporters argue that America-at-large has become the Democrat Congress it elected in 2008. That is, we have become a people who no longer debate issues, rather, we pass a bill, elect a President, in order to find out what is in it.

But even that is a lie. We know what Trump will do. We just comfort ourselves by telling ourselves this lie, pretending to ourselves that we are ignorant of what comes next. We know. We know what comes next.

What does it mean to be an American? With this last clearly defined change, this last clearly defined choice, we can look back at the last eight years and look forward to the coming eight years, perhaps even the span of a full generation, and we now clearly see what it means to be an American, as the Frenchmen of the Vendee looked towards 1789 Paris and saw what was coming. What it means is the Deluge. What it means is Obama, Bernie, Hillary and Trump. It means the narcissism of rape and child murder, celebrated every day. It means "the greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters."

As a citizen of the Vendee might have said about France, so I am today sad to say, I am no longer an American. I am a man without a country. America was a great country while it lasted. I forlornly hope it doesn't kill too many others while it goes through its death throes.

As a country, America is finished.