If Clinton is the next POTUS, or Sanders for that matter, the U.S.A will have been dealt another massive blow. Honestly, Rubio and Cruz don’t inspire me either.

Change is so strongly desired. But what kind of change? Obama’s “Hope” campaign got him elected, twice, unbelievably, but the charming Obama illusion has substantially diminished. I’m almost certain Sanders would be a financial hazard. He would likely rearrange the deckchairs on the Titanic. In my opinion, the great deleveraging of the 21st century is ultimately unstoppable. The house of cards will collapse, but under which administration? To be perfectly frank, why the hell would one want a fucking socialist as the next POTUS, and in such financially unstable times? To me, Trump is looking like the only viable outsider not beholden to an entrenched oligarchy.

The financials of the U.S are horrible. Both the Republicans and Democrats have been co-opted, and both have kicked the can down the road. An administration will inherit an epic financial meltdown eventually. I’d choose Trump to preside over a financial catastrophe over Sanders everyday of the year. Sanders is a tax and spend guy. He might talk a good game to the impressionable youth, but he will not improve the United States balance sheet. He will expand debt levels. He is a wealth distributor, not a wealth creator. Imagine student loans under a Sanders administration! Below is a snapshot of student loan expansion under the Obama administration.

INTERESTING FACT: Student loans are considered an asset.


Obama administration expanding government assets. Wait! Assets?

That’s right. It is considered an asset. Here is a link to the Government Accountability Office and an evaluation of the US GOV asset position.


Snapshots of the Democratic and Republican nomination delegate count as of 29/2/16

It appears Hillary has the establishment Democratic super-delegate support by a landslide.


Trump off to an impressive start.

A small class of parasitical, rent-seeking oligarchs, wield immense influence upon these activities. Is there a branch of government that hasn’t been co-opted? Good luck, America! Will the despondent, apathetic, indifferent, docile masses finally stand up to the bloated, venal, incoherent bureaucrats that have extracted them so insidiously over the decades, or will a fucking Hillary Clinton type be the next face for the next phase of American destruction?

Finally, here is a link to an inspiring rant by Dylan Radigan on MSNBC

Dylan Radigan – “There is not a single politician who has stood up to deal with this!” Until now. His name is Donald Trump. Vote for him.


Share, link, comment…..

Politics and Science: Truly the Strangest of Bedfellows

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H. L. Mencken

‘Climate change’ is not new to the biosphere, however, sociopolitical vilification of ‘climate change’ is. ‘Climate change’ is an oxymoron, something akin to ‘cold ice’. Tersely put, Earth’s climate seeks equilibrium through various feedback mechanisms, and transitions between glacial periods (ice ages) and interglacial periods (between ice ages). The past decamillenium occurred in the Holocene era, which was preceded by the Pleistocene era (the last major ice age). Compared to the Pleistocene, the Holocene has been a summer holiday, with temperature changes being comparatively minor and stable. Humans have thrived in this era of comparative warmth. Current trends are perfectly within the Holocene range, with the last major shift occurring when the previous great ice age subsided and ushered in a new trend of relatively stable and interglacial climate change.

There are many factors influencing the climate, predominantly natural, and to some extent, anthropogenic. Recently, catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) alarmism has caused the largely irrational and uneducated public to become afraid of the term. Personally, I wasn’t aware that ‘climate change’ was intrinsically ‘evil’. What is the magical temperature we wish the climate to remain at for eternity? Is it currently too hot or too cold? And if so, by how many degrees? Of course this question is truly absurd. To make matters worse, politicians have partially succeeded in perverting science to their ideology. The IPCC and other bureaucratic organizations are interested in the side of the argument that fits the narrative of CAGW, and dare not take an impartial and objective position (bite the hand that feeds you at your own peril!). Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity. On the other hand, manipulating data and forcing results to fit a preconceived conclusion is fraudulent and unscientific. Something more befitting of politicians.

In conclusion, climate science is kowtowing to politics (government research is particularly vulnerable to this, although skepticism needs to be applied to private organizations just as tenaciously). Additionally, scientists are not immune to group think, corruption, cognitive bias, peer pressure, social ostracism, character assassination, threat of funding cuts or termination of employment, and any other social complications that may impair the scientific method. We must respond in kind with a more tenacious, skeptical, and objective mindset. Heavy scrutiny needs to be placed on climate research, particularly governmental climate science propagated by dubious organizations like the IPCC. With great fortitude and honesty, the international community of independent scientists can disprove the assumptions that the IPCC has espoused, and take politics out of science. Religion by and large has been successfully mitigated from corrupting science, it now appears politics has become the new anathema.

Why Some People Can’t Wake From Cognitive Slumber

“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.”

Winston Churchill

neural internet
In the age of information, there is an ever increasing, almost incomprehensible amount of content created every single day. In relation to critically important events and topics, most of the heavy lifting has already been done for us by independent, intelligent alternative media sources (drudgereport.com infowars.com zerohedge.com globalresearch.ca) It is there for us to consume, chew, and ultimately decide whether to swallow or spit out. So I ask you; why do even the brightest men and women have their head in the sand?


“People with a normalcy bias have difficulty reacting to something they have not experienced before. People also tend to interpret warnings in the most optimistic way possible, seizing on any ambiguities to infer a less serious situation”. Sound familiar?


COGNITIVE DISSONANCE (Belief disconfirmation paradigm)

Dissonance is aroused when people are confronted with information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. If the dissonance is not reduced by changing one’s belief, the dissonance can result in restoring consonance through misconception, rejection or refutation of the information, seeking support from others who share the beliefs, and attempting to persuade others”. Again, sound familiar? This explains perfectly why I experience such resistance and thoughtless rejection to some very important concepts I elucidate.



Whether a combination of apathy, laziness, normalcy bias, cognitive dissonance, ignorance, one thing is certain. If you choose the head in the sand model, basically representing the blue pill, then you choose ignorance. IGNORANCE IS FUTILE. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. Perhaps it all comes down to mental fortitude?