Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Doug1943

  1. Over the last two or three years, I have read several serious people raising the question of a future split in the United States, into a 'Red America' and a 'Blue America'. FH Buckley has a book coming out on this theme in a few days. Obviously, as a practical matter, such a division would make for huge problems. However, it's do-able. I myself think it's desirable, and that we should start thinking about it now. Both Left and Right would benefit in many ways. Serious Lefties and Righties ought to begin discussion now about how this peaceful separation could be effected, with minimum disruption. If you're on the Right, and you think that this is a realistic scenario, there are several things you ought to do right now. Similarly if you are on the Left. I'll briefly post the bare bones of my argument about its desirability: (1) Our nation is now deeply divided. We despise each other. This will not change. It will in fct get worse, as the Left becomes more and more 'Left'. (There may be symmetrical developments in the Right -- say, the growth of the 'alt-right'.) (2) The Left is advancing inexorably: demographics, both tribal and generational, makes its eventual national domination inevitable. Once it has the levers of national power in its hands -- the Congress, Presidency, and Supreme Court -- it will procede to implement its full agenda. (3) But the Right will remain a formidiable minority, able to obstruct at every turn. The Left's march to the socialist utopia will be impeded all the way. Therefore --- the two sides should separate. An amicable divorce. A no-fault divorce. And we can be friends -- still trading with each other, visiting, perhaps maintaining a joint, or closely-allied defense force. Comments???
  2. Some of you here seem to know what you're talking about when it comes to firearms, so let me ask a question: Suppose you wanted to outfit a neighborhood self-defense group. I'm not thinking about defense against a home invasion, but defense of your neighborhood -- say, if you're in California and there is 9.0 Richter scale earthquake, and some folks decide they're going to take advantage of the chaos to get their reparations early. You want to go to a gun dealer and offer to make a bulk buy -- say fifty of the same weapon, plus spare magazines and ammo, and a set of optics. I assume you could get a decent discount. You want the same weapon for everyone, for interchangeability of mazazines and ammo; you want to take everyone out and show them how to shoot. You want to make just one talk on how to change magazines, deal with a stoppage, etc. So .... we standardize on one weapon. Oh yes: a lot of these folks are not sophisticated gun users like you, but maybe women who have never fired a weapon before. Think the Thursday Morning Ladies Bridge Club. That means, ideally, not too loud, and low recoil, and probably a straight-line stock, and not too heavy. Having fifty folks with one weapon does not preclude having a few guys like you with rifles for reaching out and touching someone at a thousand meters, of course. But I'm thinking of a situation where you mainly want a bunch of people putting a lot of lead downrange and letting the law of averages do its thing. What weapon would you recommend? PS: I'm 'new' here in one sense but I was posting on the original Liberal Forum about 15 years ago. I think I came back for a look a few years ago. I've got a few other questions for anyone who's been on those ranges where the targets shoot back, but they can wait.
  3. Australia has compulsory voting. Don't vote, you get fined. Australia has a conservative government, and conservatives have ruled Australia more often (in terms of days in office) than the socialists have. (Although the Australian Labor Party has been neo-liberal for decades. Genuine socialism is as dead as the dodo.)
  4. I went to a firing shooting range in Los Angeles (near Pasadena) a few years ago -- I was surprised to find that about half, perhaps more, of the people there were Asians. Were they just following a hobby, or were they planning for an American future in which they would need to defend their property from redistributionists? I didn't ask.
  5. Oh yes, one more really important point, for the person who started this post: it's extremely irresponsible to use the equation "abortion = murder". It's this type of thinking that sends religious loons out to kill abortion clinic medical personnel. After all, if I knew of some place where children were being taken and murdered, then I would feel a strong compulsion to destroy that place, and if necessary, kill the murderers of children working there. But we all know that fetuses are not children. But if you actually believe that "abortion = murder" with no qualifications whatsoever ... then why aren't you killing the murderers? It's exactly the same argument that applies to the idiots who blabber that "Republicans are Nazis" ... well, if we are, then they should join anti-Fa and attack and even kill us. But of course they don't ... they just don't care what they say, since they don't value clear thinking, not being able to sustain it themselves. But conservatives should not follow them in this.
  6. That's right. It's a "category mistake" to talk in an unproblematic way about "humans" here, because there is a smooth, seamless transition from sperm-attached-to-egg, all the way to, say, you and me. At one point along this transition, we start using the word "person". As a kind of courtesy, we extend it to newborns, but in reality they are far from being full-fledged "persons". This is why we are generally quite lenient with young mothers with post-partum depression who kill their infants. If they killed their ten-year-olds, we wouldn't be so lenient. The ten year old is really a "person", a "human", and the speechless helpless infant ... not so much. Choosing when we think it's okay to kill the creature that is growing along this continuum is to some extent arbitrary. We'll soon [decades not years] have the technology to allow the blastosphere to live and grow into a fully-fledged human being, completely outside the womb. So the criterion "ability to survive outside the womb" will have to be scrapped, to allow us to kill experimental embryos, as we do now. The real criterion is this: how much do we identify with the thing we're thinking about killing? The more it looks like us, the more squeamish we are about killing it. So we certainly don't want to deliberately kill a one week old baby (except as a necessity of war, of course), but we're lenient with the depressed mom who does so. But once it begins to walk and talk .... that is, once it begins to really be something we can identify with ... then it finally gets the extension of our protection. This same reasoning also applies to our different attitudes towards killing chimpanzees, our genetic cousins, vs killing, say, rabbits. By the way, I think that because I'm a conservative, you think I am anti-abortion. An easy mistake to make, but , I'm not. In fact, I'd like to see a government policy that paid low-IQ and other genetically-deficient women serious money to have abortions (and of course pay them not to have offspring in the first place), just as I think we should pay high-IQ women to have as many children as possible.
  7. The Rifleman information is interesting. Thank you for posting it. But one thought: if you're giving people information on the use of weapons in case of civil disorder, you need to include stuff on actual combat shooting, which is likely to include many more scenarios than hitting a stationary target at a known distance. Stuff like walking your rounds up into a target (for those who are not really good 'one shot-one hit' people), not staying in one fixed firing position for too long, pre-figuring good firing positions with both concealment and cover, having all avenues of enemy approach covered (with each squad member assigned an overlapping arc to cover), etc. Another point: guys who like guns will spend many hours and thousands of dollars perfecting their skills. But in an 'armed citizenry' scenario, you want people who aren't going to do this, still to be able to handle weapons competently. So you'd want your wife or girlfriend, or work mate who's not really into guns, to be able to become reasonably proficient in loading a magazine, inserting it, cocking the weapon, and getting rounds off in generally the right direction. It only requires a few hours practice doing this, but there is a big difference between someone who has never done it, and someone who has. And -- in my opinion -- you start them off with a little .22 with no recoil and not much sound ... and cheap ammo so they can shoot all afternoon at a range without busting their budget ... then work up to something more serious. And I wouldn't bother with handguns -- not much use in real combat -- until they were comfortable with long arms. And above all ... safety, safety, safety. It's the unloaded gun that kills. However, the real difficult thing ... and the thing that is most uncertain ... is, what kind of scenarios are you preparing for? If it's just the periodic Watts riot by drugged-up lumpens, over in three days, then the Koreans on the roof of their grocery store thing doesn't require much preparation. Civil society is still functioning in the white and Asian areas, you probably have enough food to last thru the riot, the toilet works, and so on. Probably the most-overlooked thing here is the legal side: being prepared for lawsuits from the relatives of the would be looters and rapists who happen to catch a bullet. Knowing what counts as self-defense, what evidence is admissible in court, etc. will be important. (Drag the bodies indoors, give them a weapon or something that looks like one -- a toy rifle -- if they don't have one, etc... and don't be filmed doing it if you can help it.) But for something approaching the Mad Max Apocalypse, then the important thing is to going to be your social organization, supplies and stores, backup, medical, comms, and above all multiple plans.... an order of magnitude, or two, more difficult to organize because there is no parallel 'civilian' arrangement which can just be converted to a semi-military situation. Which is, I suppose, why it's mainly religious cults which are best prepared for this. And on the other hand, I think "preppers" have a fantasy vision in which they are alone (with a beautiful woman , of course) in their well-stocked isolated cabin up in the Sierras when five or so M13 bad boys walk up the road and get knocked over by the lone prepper. In reality, it will be the well-organized, the people who can mobilize, in an organized fashion, dozens, or hundreds, of fighters who would survive. BUT ... NONE OF THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN!!! THIS IS JUST AN EXCUSE FOR EVIL REPUBLICAN/CONSERVATIVE/NAZI/RACIST-FASCISTS TO OWN GUNS. GOOD LIBERALS WILL DEFINITELY NOT OWN EVEN A SINGLE GUN. NOR WILL THEY LET THEIR CHILDREN PLAY WITH GUNS. FOR A WHITE PERSON TO OWN A GUN IS IPSO FACTO PROOF OF RACISM!!!! IT'S A DOG WHISTLE!
  8. Well, let me re-phrase it: at what point should it be illegal to kill a potential human in the womb? At the point the sperm attaches itself to the egg? Or later? This is really addressed to anti-abortionists.
  9. At what point should it be all right to kill a potential human in the womb? At the very instant that the sperm attaches itself to the egg? Or later?
  10. I don't think "troll" really applies to 5X5. He's not trying to shock people. I get the impression that forums like this serve as a kind of substitute for a social life for some of us. Now, if you're not highly political, and yet you find the people who post here, or some of them, interesting ... you keep your oar in the conversations by helpfully posting entertaining music videos, rather than engaging in intense political discussion. (And, to be fair, most of the political discussion is not at a very high level.)And no doubt chemical alteration of consciousness plays a role here. Well, that's the best theory I can come up with. (I realize this isn't a political thread -- in fact, it's a rather technical one ... "gas ports" and "brittle receivers" ... whoa... they'll be talking about filing the sear down to make it an automatic next.)
  11. Although I normally carried the BAR, we used M1s when I was in high school ROTC in the 50s. I wonder what became of the millions that must have been manufactured? Sold to private owners? Except for the small magazine size (8, as I recall), a fine weapon. Presumably you can still get ammo for it?
  12. When I read their vomit, I think of (1) my (only successfully supervised) PhD student, from St Lucia -- after getting his PhD in Computer Science he went and got a Law Degree. Teaches at University here now .. also a Grade Eight in Music, best you can get; a lovely guy. (No affirmative action here, by the way. His PhD Examination Committee had at least one racist on it to my certain knowledge.) (2) One of my tutees from about five years ago, Scottish father, Kenyan mother, taught himself C++ at 15, got a degree in Computer Science at Nottingham University, invented a box ('NetDuma', you can look it up on the web) which plugs into your router and speeds up international game-playing -- he came by here a year ago to show me his latest acquisition -- a brand-new Ferarri. [Bit my tongue on that and refrained from giving him financial advice]. Or the young Black men who were Reds with me in Los Angeles in the early 70s ...very high personal integrity, committed to a non-racial world. But never mind. Things will get better.
  13. Damned tolerant liberals. Wouldn't happen at Free Republic.
  14. As a genuine certified conservative who was posting on this Forum twelve years ago, I want to say that if three certain so-called 'conservatives' were banned -- I mean the ones who use the n-word -- I would be over-joyed. Please consider it.
  15. I started reading this a couple of years ago but didn't have time to finish, even though the part I read was fascinating. I thought it was quite interesting to get into the mind, not just of Hitler, but probably of many German nationalists of that period. Because what the Nazis did was so comprehensively evil that only diseased minds can today say anything good about it, we tend to avoid trying to see how the world looked to proto-fascists during that period. We just dismiss it as 'evil', the way we dismiss ISIS today. But this is wrong. If you want to understand the world, you've got to try to understand the subjective viewpoints of the players in it. The typical Nazi supporter did not think, "Ha ha ha , how can I wreak death and destruction upon the planet and cause the maximum of human suffering?" He had genuine grievances. Not everything he said about his enemies -- Jews, intellectuals, socialists, Communists, liberals -- was entirely false. If you don't understand how these people thought, you'll not understand why Hitler called his party the National Socialist German Workers Party, or why the Nazi political programme stole many of the Socialists' clothes. (Leading today to the ridiculous claim by some that the Nazis were "left wing".) Hitler was not stupid, as is evident from reading his book. Although some people act like 'intelligence' = 'virtue', that's not true.
  16. You know what I'd love to see ... a Sole Result vs Dr Joe B face-off. Of course, we might just be witnessing one of these talking to one of these.
  17. Interesting! Sounds like Kary Mullis's coming up with the idea of the Polymerase Chain Reaction while driving down Highway 101 (on the other coast) with his girlfriend. I've done a lot of driving, but, sadly, never had any brilliant ideas while doing so (or at any other time). Live long and prosper!
  18. You make some good points in your posts about US foreign policy. It's especially good that you back them up with links. You're one of the people on this forum who make good substantial points about a serious issue, our foreign policy.


    As someone who basically agrees with you on this subject, may I suggest a way to strengthen your argument? 


    Namely, don't tie your proposals -- that the US stop intervening everywhere in the world -- to an explicit left-wing outlook. It's not logically necessary -- one can be a conservative on every other issue and still be against an aggressive interventionist foreign policy -- in fact I would argue that this is the 'true' conservative position, but that's irrelevant.


    It's not just not logically necessary, more important, it's politically self-defeating.


    A third to a half of Americans are not left wing. It is in their interests, as well, that the US withdraw from its "intervene everywhere" policy -- especially since it's usually their sons, not the sons of the wealthy or of middle-class liberals, who have to take the casualties.


    By dencouncing current American policy as "right-wing", you make it very difficult for such people to change their minds on the issue of foreign policy. People are tribal, and also are very reluctant to change.


    The reality is, here is a queston on which Left and Right can agree. Please have a look at this journal to see that there are serious people on the Right who are your allies:  www.theamericanconservative.com/


    The problem of causing a fundamental shift in American foreign policy is a very hard one -- there is a huge amount of intellectual intertia involved in our current policy, which has been on this path since the 1940s, not to mention substantial material interests -- including lots of jobs of ordinary people.


    It's going to take a long time to push popular opinion towards the idea that we should not be trying to sort out all the world's problems -- at least not through military force.


    But it's the most important thing we can do, since with the rise of China, at some point in the future, we will face an adversary who is actually stronger than us, and then anything can happen.  Right now,  we lose a few thousand of our own sericemen, a few trillion dollars, kill tens or hundreds of thousands of non-Americans (who don't vote here) ... bad, but not catastrophic. But the day is coming when we will be in a situation in which we can stumble into catastrophe.


    In any case, please consider my argument: we need to unite the largest number of people, regardless of their beliefs about anything else, around the simple idea that the United States does NOT need to be interventing everywhere -- we need to have the same foreign policy as every other major power: defense of our genuine national interests,  and maximization of co operation with all other nations in all those many areas where we have interests in common.



  19. Hmmm... didn't know about the errors in the four-color theorem proof. You really ought to work on the Riemann conjecture. Its solution would free up the time of a lot of other mathematicians -- or, if it turned out not to be true, would really shake up the field of Number Theory.
  20. I know about Evariste Galois, and use his tragic story to inspire/interest my students in the Maths Club I run at a local school. (Although the official story, which has him effectively assassinated because of his outspoken Republicanism [we're talking post-Napoleonic France here, not America!], is apparently a myth, and the real story is less dramatic -- cherchez la femme!) So can we expect some advances in Group Theory from you [or Galois' spirit? He left a lot unfinished and it would be wonderful if he's come back to complete his work].
  21. Why does Dr Joe B refer to himself in the third person?
  22. I haven't offered an opinion on which theory of cosmology is correct. To tell the truth, I don't pay much attention to cosmology -- at our present stage of technology it's too hard to frame disconfirming experiments. I've explained why, if I'm pushed, I defer to the consensus of people who are qualified to have an opinion, who happen to disagree with you. (And weren't you complaining that no one was responding to this thread? i was explaining why the normally loquacious and disputative crowd here absented themselves.) By posting here, you're inviting the rest of us, who are not scientifically trained to the level of having a first-order opinion, to take a stand. In effect, you're saying, "Trust me." Since we can't follow the science, you've said, the majority of cosmologists are corrupt: they know they're wrong, but just want the money. That is something I am qualified to judge because that isn't a question of physics, but of what kind of people physicists are -- I know a few and don't accept that they're corrupt. I expect that you, for example, are as ignorant of oncology as I am. But if you get cancer, I'll bet you will stick with the great majority of specialists in this field, and fight it, under the supervision of one of them, with X-Rays, Chemicals, and Surgery, as opposed to the woo-woo New Age nonsense of diet, visualization, herbs, meditation, etc. (Following the latter may have been what killed Steve Jobs.) Of course the New Age mystics say that the practitioners of orthodox medicine are corrupt -- they've been bought off by Big Pharma, etc. I think it's a good thing that you posted this, by the way. It brought something to the attention of people who care about science that we, or at least I, didn't know about. (But then, as I said, I've never taken cosmology as seriously as I take other areas of physics, precisely because it's so speculative.) It's what we all do in areas where we are not expert, but where there is good reason to trust that the experts are, if we have to choose, right, or as close to 'right' as it's possible to get at the moment. (Incidentally -- you probably know all about this -- someone who is very well known and respected among the pro-Global Warming community has just blotted her copybook by repeating the hippie nonsense about Genetically Modified Organisms (another favorite bug-bear of the science-illiterate Snowflake Left. Soon she'll probably come out against Nuclear Power).
  • Create New...