A Ted Cruz surge tonight

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

As predicted a few days ago, Ted Cruz surged against Donald Trump in tonight’s four closed primaries.

Though each won two primaries, the numbers gave Cruz the win over Trump in delegates, 69 to 44 (the numbers now adjusted after all the votes have been tallied). Moreover, as noted at the link, Trump’s voting totals remain flat or have declined, while Cruz’s have been rising steadily. It appears that among Republicans either the love affair with Trump is fading, or there never was one and that his support in the previous open primaries came from cross-over Democrats..

In addition, the numbers for both Kasich and Rubio are going nowhere, which means voting for them in future primaries will essentially give Trump an undeserved win. Thus, expect the movement from them to Cruz to increase.

More here, confirming my analysis above.


  • wayne

    “In your heart, you know he’s Right!”
    Courage Boys & Girl’s!
    > lets pull him over the finish line and on to November!

    {Thanks for allowing my economic-related post in the other thread Mr. Z! (not that you endorse me, just that it’s not filled with click-bait or nefarious links)}

    My Primary is next Tuesday, can’t wait to pull the lever for CRUZ!

    (well actually, they swipe my drivers-license & use OCR ballots)

  • I will routinely approve all posts that require approval. Usually this occurs when someone includes more than one link within their comment.

    The only things that cause me problems are dishonesty and name-calling. If you are honest and straightforward and base your comments on your knowledge of the facts, than you can say practically anything, even if I disagree with it strongly.

  • wodun

    “or there never was one and that his support in the previous open primaries came from cross-over Democrats”

    In a two party system we are tempted to think of anyone not of one party as belonging to the other but the reality is that there are people who exist outside of this two party structure. There are just as many people who do not vote as belong to either party. I could be wrong, but I think Trump is drawing from this group of people. He might bring in some Democrats too but I think he is tapping into LIVs just like Obama did.

  • Steve Earle

    Waking up this morning I see renewed talk of a Trump/Cruz ticket, a Trump/Kasich ticket, a Cruz/Rubio ticket, etc etc.

    And horrors: a Clinton/Warren ticket…..!

    We are definitely living in interesting times. :-)

  • wayne

    wodum wrote:
    “I think he is tapping into LIVs just like Obama did.”
    –Har– “Ultra LIV’s!”
    Agree, it’s a fraction of a fraction of registered voters. There’s ‘like’ 50% who are totally up for grabs, and generally people who don’t vote in Primary’s & actually decide the day of the election.

    Kasich– the poor guy needs his medication’s adjusted! That “gazillion” dollar surplus in Ohio? It doesn’t take into account his expanded Medicaid program spending, which could start to implode in 2018.

    Steve wrote:
    “And horrors: a Clinton/Warren ticket…..!”

    — “An errand girl, sent by grocery clerks, to collect the bill!”
    YOW! Ever wonder how Warren become rich? (Well, I guess she was the only “American Indian” professor at Harvard/Yale.”)

    Definitely “interesting times!”

  • Cotour

    I post this speech which is not directly related to the subject at hand, but because of the social and elitist themes that are touched on and identified by the speaker which represent what has gone on in the last 50 or 60 years as America “evolves”, but evolves in to what?


    Whom ever becomes the the candidate must be able to lead America in a positive way that reveals the lies that government and the people who tend to inhabit it have been telling the people. This short speech is an extreme, some would say vulgar, and unapologetic example of speaking about what truth is and is not.

  • Frank

    I am not surprised by Trump’s business and reality TV success. He’s an unprincipled bully who gets his way with money and by intimidation. He says and takes what he wants and it makes for sensational TV and now politics.

    As a conservative, I am more troubled however by comments from his followers who are willing to drink the Trump kool-aid without understanding the unintended consequences. In them I see the right’s equivalent to what Limbaugh refers to as liberal “low information” voters.

    One of the values of the American political system is that driven by TV images, sound bytes and money, it is quick to react in any one direction, yet it is also usually self correcting in time. In my lifetime I have watched the pendulum swing left and right. I am hopeful that time will not run out on exposing the Trump fraud.

  • wayne

    Frank wrote; in part..

    “As a conservative, I am more troubled however by comments from his followers who are willing to….”

    Yes–As a Conservative with a heavy-Libertarian bent, I as well am troubled. The Trumpians appear to be seeing something I just am not seeing. (Fully understand it goes both-ways.)
    Found myself very intrigued with Trump last summer, even though I never (never) liked him as an entertainer or wheeler-dealer. Even started getting wrapped-up in “winning” and “sticking it to the opposition, big-time,” for a brief period. (it hits me occasionally but it wears-off faster & faster HAR)

    Just interested, but who among us listens to Rush, Beck, Levin, Ramsey, etc.? (I do.)

    Levin is my Man. –His is the personality that Cruz is sorta missing. But Cruz wouldn’t be Cruz, if he was Mark. (There is only 1 Denali!)

    Said it before; don’t want the class-clown, the privileged son of the wealthy guy who owns 1/2 the town, or the Homecoming queen, who’s ugly-inside. I want the geeky-kid on the Debate Team, and in less than 48 hours I’m pulling the lever for Cruz.

    Anyone enjoy the author-interview’s on the John Batchelor show, weekend edition, as much as I do? Mr. B is extremely well-read & oh-so-pleasant.

    Sorry to hear Nancy Reagan died today. I clearly recall how she was savaged by the media, non-stop. And it’s not lost on me how the Media gives Michelle Obama a complete free ride.

    Hillary? — She reminds divorced-men, of their x-wife.

    Cotour– enjoyed the Patton clip, have the movie cued up in the DVD player, thanks!

  • Cotour

    Does Romney really think that he is a player here in 2016? Seriously? He embarrassed and shamed himself with his speech, and contradicted himself in 180 degree terms. So much for his Mormon integrity, he is now par with Trump, no better. (and he is an establishment tool to boot)


    If the leadership of either party intends to attempt to manipulate against what the masses want in such blatant and obnoxious ways there will be some very serious election consequences that will be paid.

  • wayne


    -Check into Rule “40-B” of the Republican Party Convention for 2016 (something like that, don’t have the reference handy, sorry.)
    -It concerns how Repub Primary Delegates are actually distributed, and how they are bound to candidates.
    — It expires, by-design, the day before the Republican Convention begins, and goes to the Rule Committee, which is where the consummate party-insiders exercise incredible control.
    –It’s not simply “X number and you automatically get the nomination.” That’s what the Media tells us, not how it actually works. (This is deep in the weeds Party inside-baseball stuff. The Rules Committee Lawyer-Guy, whom I can’t recall his name, is a total establishment hack, but he’s really smart in doing his job & manipulating the inside-rules. He engineered Romney & McCain, as Trump would say, & is correct– “major loser’s.)

    –I’m firmly convinced Rinse Prius* et al, has not given up his plan to force an establishment nominee upon the rank-n-file, such as a Romney, Jeb, Ryan, or some “white-knight.” (whom, of course, “will be the only one who can win against Hillary.”

    [* I hate the guy, can’t spell his name, and he loves electric-cars subsidized by the government, so it fits. Rence Priebus…]

    –This all scares me greatly because I don’t want Cruz cheated, any more than you would not want Trump bowled over. This is why (IMO) we need to close-ranks around Cruz while we can. (I appreciate you would want the same for a Trump.)
    Any time there is division in the Party– the crony’s feast, and the people end up paying for the tab.

    I was not at the 1976 Repub Convention, but these type of shenanigan’s were how Reagan was cheated then & the minute Reagan gave his speech, everyone pretty much realized, “we made a mistake, Reagan was the Right Choice.”
    Then we got Carter.

    Finishing up Patton!. (Have Wizard of Oz on cue for the grand-daughter!)

    Less than 36 hours to my vote for Cruz! Michigan does crazy-stuff & Trump might take us, but hoping all my fellow Conservatives will pull Cruz over the finish line!

  • Cotour

    I am aware of the rules, who cares about them (other than the leadership), they are designed for this exact eventuality where the party can over take the wishes of the voting public. If they serve up a Romney or some other hack tool when the people clearly want a Trump or a Cruz there will be political hell to pay.

    This IMO is going to be a different kind of election, a lot of people are plugged in to this cycle and they are not going to be ignored, in both party’s.

  • wayne

    Cotour wrote: in part
    “I am aware of the rules, who cares about them….”

    The Leadership, exactly as you noted.
    We don’t generally ‘take to the streets’ like the other side does. (1968)
    The left might go wild if they get Hillary forced upon them, but I tend to think our side “might just get fooled again.”

    “This IMO is going to be a different kind of election, a lot of people are plugged in to this cycle and they are not going to be ignored, in both party’s.”

    Respectfully differ. The 2010 & 2012 election cycles saw massive gains for Repubs in the House & Senate, (& State Legislatures) and the Tea Party type groups were well energized for ’12.
    We had Romney forced onto us.
    25 million (otherwise solid) Republican voters stayed home.
    Unless there’s some sort of honest-to-god insurrection– Rinse Prius, Mitch and the Boy’s, are still pulling the strings.
    No clue what will really happen.

    Appreciate your passion!

  • Dick Eagleson

    The Hammer piece is interesting, but he assumes Cruz can continue to overhaul Trump briskly in a stern chase and that Rubio can’t carry his home state of Florida. I’m not as sure. There are more closed primaries and caucuses coming up, but more of them are also winner-take-all. If Rubio dropped out now, Trump might well win Florida as Cruz doesn’t seem a likely winner there. The same is true of Michigan and Ohio if Kasich bails. If Rubio wins Florida and Kasich gets Michigan and Ohio, Trump doesn’t seem to have a path to a delegate majority. At a contested convention Cruz could probably get Rubio’s and Kasich’s delegates and beat Trump on a second ballot. Of course Rubio might not win Florida and Kasich might take neither Michigan nor Ohio. But in those cases, the winner would probably be Trump anyway so it’s hard to see how Cruz is better off strategically if both Rubio and Kasich drop out now. On the other hand there might be some caucuses and primaries Cruz could take if he and Trump were the only ones contesting them, but lose to Trump if Rubio and Kasich stay in. Nothing, of course, is certain except uncertainty. I haven’t done a detailed state-by-state analysis of alternatives and probably won’t have time to. I’m just hoping that there is still some doubt about the delegate chase by the time I get to vote here in California on June 7. It would be nice to have my vote actually matter for a change.

  • Cotour


    I respectfully counter differ with you.

    I have never talked to so many people who are 1. Entirely confused about making a political choice, 2. All are really paying attention, and 3. Are universally very pissed off with their government, both sides.

    I have never seen this before, and IMO its not just the circus like atmosphere it is that they feel owned and betrayed by ALL politicians and this administration. For the most part anyone who voted for Obama, especially the second time, regrets it. I do not know where this 51% approval number comes from. And the down right lying and manipulations of the Republicans is intolerable, and will be dealt with!

  • Laurie

    Considering Cruz’s inner circle, voting for Cruz is a vote for the establishment. Snowden was right, it’s now Trump vs Goldman Sachs. Pick your poison … ?

    Bob – I’d like to be wrong, believe me, but the least of all evils is not good enough.

  • wayne

    -Very well written & concise post.
    Hope you get a chance to make your vote count!

    -Good points. (always appreciate your thoughts!)

    I would counter-differ (good phrase!) with:
    “For the most part anyone who voted for Obama, especially the second time, regrets it.”
    —From my (limited) experience; They would vote a 3rd time for him if possible. As to whether they understand what he has been doing, would be open for discussion.
    –I as well don’t believe the 51% approval number, but I’ve never believed any of those numbers for the past 6 years.
    Pivot to the polling numbers amongst the States remaining:
    —I know enough about statistic’s & extrapolation to be highly leery of what I believe is being fed to us. (could be wrong)
    Sample size is very small, margin of error is large. Best “poll” is an actual election. No real accurate polls are current. (some are 3-6-9 months old & with small sample-size.)

    -Threshold, for Michigan is 15%, Ceiling is 50% (for at-large and Congressional district-delegates.) & we’re Proportional & Closed. Population is concentrated around the greater Detroit metro area and the I-94 corridor Detroit to Indiana. (I love the Upper Peninsula but it’s sorta it’s own “State” unto itself.)
    I suspect Trump will “do well,” how-well is of course uncertain.

    –Going with CRUZ on Tuesday. Majority of the folks I know, (limited sample as well but actual people who will vote) who sat out last time in the General, are energized for Cruz and all-in. Trump is considered a spoiler at best & a crony-liberal at worst, ala George Soros or Bloomberg
    “Which way should we choose?
    More bottom up or more top down?
    The fight continues….
    It’s time to wade in, more from the top or from the ground?”
    Short Clip:
    “Friedrich Hayek on why intellectuals drift toward socialism.”

  • wayne

    I understand the irony of using William F. Buckley to attack “intellectuals.” HAR

  • wayne

    Laurie wrote:
    “Considering Cruz’s inner circle, voting for Cruz is a vote for the establishment.”

    Must call you on that– you don’t think Trump is intimately connected to “Big Banks?”

    Snowden still living in Russia? Anyone Putin protects, I wouldn’t let walk-my-dog.

    Who’s your Man or Girl?

  • There is no perfect candidate. I go by what the individuals running have actually done in the real world, not by what they say. Trump has a long track record making deals with liberal Democrats for his own personal benefit. He has contributed a lot of money to causes and candidates conservatives strongly disagree with.

    Cruz might have ties with banking organizations, but his actual actions in the political world very strongly suggest that he will not make crony deals. Remember, he won in Iowa as the only candidate opposed to ethanol subsidies. In the Senate he has consistently taken positions against such deals while antagonizing his own leadership in the Republican Party because of his firm opposition to Obamacare, bad trade deals, and bad budget deals.

    If I have to choose, I will chose the guy who has the right track record, recognizing always that he is a politician who can stab me in the back at any time.

  • wayne

    Laurie wrote:
    “Considering Cruz’s inner circle…”

    It took me a while to figure out where that type of sentiment is originating, Roger Stone & The Daily Caller. Need I say more? (But can’t resist…)

    Will not resort to name-calling, but will say, He behaves as a Neo-Confederate, with a strong tin-foil-hat element.

    [have to go with Mr. Z on this, not that he endorses my own personal belief’s.]

    As a Movement Conservative with a strong Libertarian bent, I personally disavow him. Has the veneer of a Conservative/Libertarian, but “naw,”– In Name Only.

    At the risk of enabling a thread-that-won’t-die [Smile!] I could go on, if anyone is sincerely interested.

  • Cotour

    The wife of an 88 year old man sent this to me, she apparently reads Infowars. (?)


    Whether its Trump or Cruz we can all justify each in different ways, but one thing is for certain, the people across a broad spectrum of America are demanding extreme change and if it does not begin showing up I think we can all expect some interesting ways that the people are going to begin demonstrating their “displeasure”.

  • Steve Earle

    Robert Zimmerman
    March 6, 2016 at 11:03 pm

    “….There is no perfect candidate. I go by what the individuals running have actually done in the real world, not by what they say….”

    “….If I have to choose, I will chose the guy who has the right track record, recognizing always that he is a politician who can stab me in the back at any time….”


    Exactly! Bob hits it on the head. Cruz is the only one on either side who has consistently Done what he said he would do (with the possible exception of his Polar-Opposite Bernie Sanders… LOL!).

    When given the choice between a Populist and a Conservative, I chose Ted Cruz and will hopefully be able to again in the General Election.

    Like it or not, money is needed to run for President. Every candidate has to have donors. IIRC, Obama set a new record for Wall Street donations last time. Even Trump and Bernie need donor money to run.

    The question really is: After having taken money, who is most likely to remain true to his principles? My answer again is Ted Cruz. Ok, Ok, and again also Bernie…. but do I really want a principled Socialist? ;-)

    BTW, we really need an easier way to quote prior comments.

  • wayne


    Interesting points. (always makes me ponder my own views!)

    Laurie– Appreciate your input. Sincerely interested in whom your choice is (Primary & General.)

  • wayne

    Two last tiny points on Cruz–
    – He used his retirement account as collateral for a loan from Goldman Sachs, so he wouldn’t have to cash it out. Cut his return big time & he paid it back, but I can appreciate the methodology he employed. (far from as potentially nefarious as real-estate financing vis-a-vie the other guy.)
    -His wife does work for Goldman Sachs & is on-leave. She’s a lawyer and/or a CPA, I forget which. She is not in the Department that coordinate’s their quasi-nationalized status with the Statist Regulator’s.

    You all know I’m a Cruz-Guy and/but, I will refrain from endless nit-picking, just wanted to throw this on the table.

  • Cotour

    Keeping in mind that this is from Roger Stone, who is a Trump supporter:

    “Webster’s definition of a scoundrel is a dishonest or unscrupulous person, and Cruz has become quite adroit at saying one thing while his history shows him doing the other. Rather than the outsider he claims to be, Ted Cruz is the ultimate insider, former top Bush 41 policy aide and globalist, Ivy Leaguer, and establishment insider.

    Not many conservatives coming out of Princeton and Harvard. “I’m just sayin,’” Ted, as said in the debate.

    There is no better example of this than Calgary Ted’s actions surrounding the big Wall Street banks and their secret funding of his political ascension. Cruz has been gorging at the table of the ultimate insider of all insiders – Goldman Sachs and Citibank .”

    Trump has his issues and bona fides problems, and Cruz has in fact actually challenged the leadership, after all is said and done who can take out Hillary? And that in the end becomes the only issue.

    At some point Trump and Cruz need to take come together, join forces and delegates and take all power away from the leadership and come up with a different solution. There must be a monkey wrench thrown into this establishment mix.

  • Mitch S.

    I’ve been wanting to like him.
    His stance on TPP was great – especially when he wrote in the WSJ that he had to go online to find out what was in the bill he was being told to vote for (TPP is a perfect illustration of the corruption that crosses party lines).

    Still the Roger Stone piece struck a chord. Cruz’s “forgetting” to report the loans bothers me.
    Also after being talked up as a brilliant debater, I have to say I wasn’t very impressed with his performances (at least the ones I’ve seen).
    And then there is the likability issue. When I heard his fellow congressmen hated him, I thought that could be a good sign, but I’ve heard other things – including from someone who was on the college debating circuit with him, that make me wonder if he does have a personality problem.
    It leaves me concerned that he may really have trouble beating Hillary. He’ll be quickly painted as a religious/conservative nut and he won’t have the personality (as Reagan did) to overcome it.

    Well, I don’t have to vote for a while so I’ll wait and see.
    One key factor is how the establishment reacts if Cruz continues to be the only one with a shot against Trump. If they freak out on Cruz like they have on Trump, then Cruz is OK. If they decide he’s acceptable then perhaps Stone is right.

  • Steve Earle

    This is what I would say to The Donald when he calls Ted Cruz (or anyone else) names

    “…And why do you look at the splinter in your brother’s eye, but not notice the beam in your own eye?…”

    He truly has cornered the market on hypocrisy in this election. The sad thing is that it’s working :-(

  • Cotour

    Just like Hillary accepting $600K from Goldman (because thats what they offered) and the obvious obligation that it creates, Cruz’s affiliation with the Bush machine (read Globalist / New World Order / NAFTA agenda) and his close familial relationship with Goldman also indicate certain concerns for me.

    I think my suggestion of some kind of an alliance between Trump and Cruz, which would both strengthen and keep each other in check would tend to get the most out of what we have to work with and it would diminish the leaderships power and control.

    This paradigm of control must be broken! If not then the people of America are in a real sense captured and we really are the new slaves to our overlords, the leadership of both party’s who live by a different set of rules.

  • wayne

    Everyone– all interesting points. I always read them & run them through my brain.

    Stone, IMO, is a neo-confederate. (That’s about all I can say & I realize that won’t change anyone’s mind either way.)

    Cruz isn’t “perfect.” He would & has been, painted as a religious/conservative nut. That’s what the Progressive’s do.
    Trump is a target rich candidate with the added advantage of it mostly being true & distasteful to many. (IMO)

    One last comment;
    Obama and his Crew have completely succeeded beyond their wildest Statist dreams, in utterly dividing us all against ourselves to a certain degree. Just hope it hasn’t done us in completely.

    Pulling the lever for Cruz tomorrow, no regrets or apologies, & no more energy for explanation’s. (HAR!)

    Appreciate everyone’s input and comment’s!

  • Cotour

    I don’t know if your screwing with the term “Neo Con” to make a point and calling it Neo Confederate for a reason or not but a Neo Con has a specific definition:


    Both G. Bush’s can be considered and the people that surrounded them Neo Cons. Just like you can consider Obama a Marxist or Leftist as you can also consider the people that surround them Marxists or Leftists.

    PS: The general thrust of a lot of my posts here are to point out to not be in love with your candidate, step back from your bromance, vote for him but keep him at an arms length, they are all to be considered your natural enemy while they are attempting to become empowered and after they have been empowered.

  • wayne


    Oh… no, not screwing with the term neo-con, at all. (no nefarious slam at you, at all. You make me think more, if anything!

    “Neo-Confederate” has definition(s) at Wikipedia as well. >>I would differ with how precise they are, but that would open up a whole can-of-worms.
    (The Libertarian World is a huge tent and far from monolithic.)

    Yes!– absolutely appreciate none of us should be in love with our candidate.
    No bromance with Cruz on my part! (I differed with Reagan in some major area’s, as well.)
    [“One’s 80% ally, is not one’s 20% enemy.” –Do not know who said that, but I agree with it. ]
    He just happens to be the candidate I support. (Rand, Carson, Santorum, Mike Lee, all good choices . But voting for Cruz, in my Primary.]

  • wayne

    To be more precise/clear,
    “Stone behaves as a Neo-Confederate.” I do not, of course, “know” he is one. (& I differ with Wikipedia’s definition, in part.)

  • wayne

    just as an “FYI” (no offense intended toward anyone)
    –I sincerely appreciate everyone’s point-of-view & commentary. Don’t always agree 100% but I do consider & re-consider everyone’s input.

    Wikipedia does have a rather extensive list of rhetorical-fallacies. Good stuff.

    I am just-as-guilty of employing them, on occasion, as are other people. (again, not intending offense or implying anything, toward anyone.)
    (If I was still getting paid to write “stuff,” they would be infinitely more well written, complete, grammatically correct, precise/exact, footnoted, and end-noted to death, and with correct punctuation.)
    What I babble about, are entirely my own, conversationally-informal, seat-of-the-pants, commentary blurbs. It’s a “Fun-Adventure” rather than scholarly authorship.

    Again– I really enjoy everyone’s input.

  • Edward

    Robert wrote: “There is no perfect candidate. I go by what the individuals running have actually done in the real world, not by what they say.”

    Actions speak much louder than words, but I include initial positions on topics as a part of my analysis. To know how a candidate thinks, I look at the first thing he says about a topic. For instance, if he says that tariffs are the right choice, then I know that he trends in the direction of taxes. If he softens a position later, due to pressure for votes, then I do not take the second position as seriously; when he is in office, he is likely to impose taxes.

    Of course, this is not a foolproof way to analyse a candidate. We all read Bush’s lips, only to have him do the opposite later. How do you know when a politician is lying? However, Bush’s inclinations were to not raise taxes, and that counted for a lot, when he ran the first time. He just got fooled into making a deal with the Democrats.

    As for the art of the deal, what do you do when the Democrats fail to live up to their part of the bargain? That’s right, you absolutely *must* arrange the deal so that they live up to their part before you live up to yours, otherwise they will fool you, too. They most likely won’t trust you, because they project their dishonesty upon your character, just as you project your own honesty upon their character. This is how confidence men (con men) gain the confidence of honest folk; honest people have a hard time believing that such a nice man could be a bad person, just as the con man can’t believe that honest people are so very gullible.

  • Cotour

    By making this statement it entirely negates everything you wrote after it.

    ” He just got fooled into making a deal with the Democrats.”

    After reading the things that have been written here and that you see going on around you are you really using the word “fooled” in the fullest sense of the word or are YOU now being sarcastic?

    If you are serious: Think about who you are writing that about and where the country finds itself and then plug in the words “New World Order”. So you are saying that this situation we are in is just about the people that we have empowered being naive and being fooled by their opponents?

  • wayne

    I would counter-differ on the whole “New World Order” thing, and put forth a proposition:
    There is less “active-coordination” between & among our elite’s than one might presuppose, if one is going down that road.

    They don’t have to overtly/covertly coordinate their actions; they tend to believe the same things, frequent the same places, attend the same College’s, wed like-minded spouse’s, conduct similar business, socialize with one-another, vacation together, etc., etc., and generally view the world in the same way, through the same lense.

    Obama, as an example, didn’t have to overtly instruct Louis Lerner or Eric Holder to carry out his wishes, they already knew & believed in the same things & were predisposed to their action’s. That’s why he installed them in their post’s. They were reliable.
    (… and our Government is huge & bloated, but seldom efficient, even at coordinating their nefarious activities against us.)

    I’m a big fan of Occam’s-Razor (& the Sherlock Holmes) school of deduction. “Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.”
    The simpliest answer is often closer to the truth than the more complex.

    Not a 100% thing, to be sure, but in my opinion, infinitely more probable.

    On the other hand— Soylent Green; when the “burglar-guy” assassinated the Board member of the Soylent Corporation;
    “They said to say… they were sorry… but you had become unreliable.”

    Harry S. Truman is attributed to have said, about Economists, that he “wished he could meet a one-armed Economist,” for the reason, “they always tell me, ‘…on the other hand…'”

    -I am familiar with the whole New World Order, Bilderberg, CFR, Federal Reserve, etc. etc. theories, but personally place little credence into them. I do check out a random InfoWar broadcast, just to keep on the latest “news.”

  • Cotour

    Yes, you illustrate my point.

    “They don’t have to overtly/covertly coordinate their actions; they tend to believe the same things, frequent the same places, attend the same College’s, wed like-minded spouse’s, conduct similar business, socialize with one-another, vacation together, etc., etc., and generally view the world in the same way, through the same lense.”

    Whether you believe that this is a written out and executed plan or not, our country is where it is and if you were to agree with Edward you would think that it was primarily by naive people mistakenly over and over again making the same “mistakes”.

    I do not agree with that, and if Edward or anyone else operates under that belief system then it just allows these people who become empowered and apparently are naive to continue their “naive” ways.

    NAFTA, the repeal of Glass / Steigle, government encouraging illegal immigrants to invade the country, TARP, the abuse of the H1B visa, TPP, and on and on, these are not naive mistakes this is executed agenda. Let us not be naive.

  • Steve Earle

    As Pirate’s say “Two can keep a secret if one is dead…”

    Conspiracies have obviously existed in the past, but usually are only successful if the Target is very lax.

    That’s why I always laugh at the Moon Landing Hoaxers, the 9-11 Truthers, etc. The shear number of people that would have to collaborate is staggering and literally impossible to achieve in the real world.

    A good example was the OJ Trial. I had to repeatedly remind many of my non-cop friends that were buying into the BS thrown at the wall by the defense that 2 Police Officers can’t agree on what to get for lunch, let alone dozens of them all agreeing to risk their careers and pensions to set up a has-been Football Player.

    I agree w/ Wayne (and Occam’s Razor), most “Conspiracies” are not the result of S.p.e.c.t.r.e. , hordes of men in matching jumpsuits, and a Madman with a cat on his lap, but rather when like minded people all make independent decisions based on what they think their bosses would like and that fit with their own world-view.

  • Steve Earle

    Edward wrote:
    “…They most likely won’t trust you, because they project their dishonesty upon your character, just as you project your own honesty upon their character…”


    Brilliant! That is one of the most cogent explanations of the political record for the last 40 years or so that I have heard.

    Reagan’s agreement over Amnesty vs Enforcement being one of the most famous examples.

  • Cotour

    1. How do you interpret a sitting U.S. president saying the words in a speech “New World Order” ?

    2. Do you believe that we are living in a New World Order today? America dealing its sovereignty, borders and Constitution away.

    3. When you use the word “conspiracy”, what you mean is that a group of people sat together and drew up a specific plan and endeavored to execute it. Wayne illustrates the kind of “conspiracy” that has been executed, similar minded people become empowered and bring together similar minded people with a general philosophy and or goal. The Neo Con agenda will do just fine here.

    4. There are some things that “happen” that are beyond the capability of the everyday person to understand let alone believe.

    “A big lie (German: große Lüge) is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” Hitler asserted the technique was used by Jews to unfairly blame Germany’s loss in World War I on German Army officer Erich Ludendorff.”

    So we are not talking about two criminals getting together and conspiring to knock off a jewelry store, we are talking about something much, much, much bigger. Hitler knew what he was talking about and so the lesson was learned and applied when necessary.

    I re-post Strategy Over Morality (S.O.M.) here again because it directly applies to this conversation. If and when you come to really understand this you will at once be terrified and comforted, as strange as that sounds.



    How civilizations, governments and wars throughout history are founded, fought and must at their existential core operate.

    Strategy Over Morality describes a two-tiered “conversation” between a Public and their Leadership where the Public believes there is only a single, no tiered conversation occurring and that single conversation relates to the Public’s morality model perspective.

    A model in which leadership can choose to formulate an interpretation of their core fiduciary responsibilities which becomes paramount over and above the public’s morality model. Where plausible deniability can be claimed when “immoral” acts or strategies are employed by leadership or by arms length leadership proxies.

    In this “conversation”, leadership steps “down” to the public’s level and presents information, agenda or strategy in a tailored, palatable package the public can believe and comfortably accept. Leadership then steps back to their “higher” level, formulates and executes “necessary” agenda and strategy where the public’s interpretation of morality is not relevant.

    CONCLUSION: The public lives and operates under a moral code perspective which they assume their leadership is constrained by. This is a subjective false perspective conclusion on the part of the public, in fact leaderships core fiduciary responsibility requires that leadership is or can be selectively or necessarily void of “morality”.


    PUBLIC: The individual citizens of any civilization, society or country.

    LEADERSHIP: Any macro governing body concerned with the formulation and implementation of laws, strategies and policies, both civil and military.

    LEADERSHIPS CORE FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITIES: Above all else the promotion and survival of the society, culture, boundaries, power and treasure.

    Related questions:

    1. Who’s benevolence and self interest model would you rather live under, yours or your enemies ?

    2. What steps will you not undertake in order for your benevolence and self interest model to prevail ?

    3. When does morality trump power and treasure ?

    4. What influences leadership and agenda ?

    Answers and Rules of operation:

    1. You never want to live under an enemies benevolence and self interest model.

    2. You will take any steps in order to live under your benevolence and self interest model.

    3. In order for “morality” to be implemented it is initially trumped by survival and power. “First we eat, then civilization”

    4. The possessors of power and treasure always influence leadership and agenda.

    5. Leadership never willingly gives up power.

  • wayne

    Steve mentioned:
    As Pirate’s say “Two can keep a secret if one is dead…”
    HA! Good one
    –total tangent: as a criminal justice guy: What is “conspiracy with intent to posses with the intent to deliver?” (as it references illegal drugs) Interacted with a few people who went to County jail over that charge, but they never actually “possesed or delivered” anything. It’s sounds like a Thought-Crime or am I over-analyzing it all? (complex drug-deals with multiple people, gone bad.)

    Cotour: Not being totally naive. And none of this mess we are in, is “accidental.” Progressive’s have slowly & methodically “progressed” us into all this.
    Yes, conspiracies have & do exist, just do not believe it is as overtly coordinated as one might think.

    An example that is not perhaps appropriate or exactly on point, but illustrative:

    Our particular Banking System creates Money (via credit & fractional-reserves) however, no single Banker (or Bank), actually “creates” money. (and they would be correct in large measure) It is however, the not-nescessarily coordinated actions of them all, which results in the creation of money, as part of the banking-system. It’s a systemic-problem. No one single Bank “creates money,” it is only created as it passes-through other-banks. It’s not coordinated nor a conspiracy, it’s the way the System is engineered.
    (A fine point but valid. I guarantee it. I am well-versed in our Country’s historical monetary system & how & when it started to get real-weird. It was a long ong step-wise process. (Recall the battles over the 1st & 2nd Bank of the United States, early 1800’s)

    Tangent– prior to the FDR 1930’s, Banks & the owners of banks, were under “double-liability.” If the bank went Bust, the Directors were Criminally & Civily responsible. They not only went to jail, they were personally liable for the losses. (Think George Baily in “It’s a Wonderful Life.”)
    Customers kept track of their Bank & imposed consequences (by moving their money) if the bank was wheeling-n-dealing in risky business. A Bank run was a vote of no-confidence & Banker’s were historically ultra-conservative in their action’s. There was no such thing as a “20 year Mortgage” prior to FDR, you bought a house largely with cash & a Farm with a 5 year Note if you were credit worthy. People lost their Farms because the short-term Note came due.
    The whole FDIC thing (& a slew of FDR imposed laws– removed that responsibilty from individual bankers, to the Feds, (and the Federal Reserve) and thus to us all. Nobody really cares now, what their bank is doing, because our deposits are all insured by the rest-of-us.

    (J.P Morgan is attributed as saying: “Gold is money, everything else is Credit & Debt.)

    -Historically– Banks just stored your Gold & Silver Coins and issued you paper-receipts, which were then commonly accepted in Trade in the course of commerce.
    You could then take your receipt to a bank and get gold/silver coins.
    Our Founder’s hated the whole concept of Paper-Money, because it wasn’t considered Money. (Constitution specifies “coinage” not “printing money.”)

    There are valid reasons for using paper money & credit, but it has morphed into a huge mess, precisely because Governments get too big, too powerful, and insert themselves into all sorts of things they have no “legitimate” right to do.

    None of this is a “conspiracy” as such– it didn’t happen overnight or all-at-once. It was a slow, methodical, ratchetting process conducted by like-minded individual, pursuing their CRONY WAYS with a ever powerful State

    [–Mr. Z– weigh in on this, if I’m crazy. You are particularly up on Colonial America!]

    Unfortunately, when Governments have to borrow money, because they SPEND TOO D@#$ MUCH, they become entwined with the Banking System, it’s a viscious cycle. Governments sell Bonds to Banks, Banks market them to us & in the process, create money. No or little Federal Debt or yearly deficit’s?– vastly less Government influence into the Banking System.

    FDR made the ownership of Gold a Felony, and he repudiated the Debt in part when he devalued Gold from $20/ounce to $35/ounce. Don’t let anyone tell you “we have never repudiated our debt.”
    –I am not a Gold-Bug, but our paper money is largely worthless, when our confidence in the whole affair degrades to a certain point, it will be only fit to paper your walls. Think Weimar Germany.

    Whoops– I see the thread has expanded geometrically, will post this.

  • Richard

    Human nature is a funny thing. If Kasich was the nominee, the Republicans walk into the White House. Instead the base focuses on Trump and Cruz, who are almost certainly unelectable. Oh well.

  • Steve Earle

    Cotour: I know there are valid reasons to be wary of the “New World Order” backers. I’m just not sure that the movement rises to the level of a worldwide conspiracy as opposed to a poorly chosen tag line by some speechwriter…

    I am somewhat familiar with SOM: “First we eat, then civilization”. I can see where there have been individuals that practice that mindset, the Clintons obviously come to mind, but the one step in SOM that we haven’t seen here in the USA is Leaders not willingly giving up power. At least in the political sense. We are blessed (so far) with one of the few society’s in history that continue to have peaceful transfers of power on a regular basis. American Exceptionalism at work again :-)

    Wayne: Very interesting about our money system. What steps would you take if you had your “druthers” to change the system we have now? Reinstate the Gold Standard? Reinstitute Criminal and Civil Liability for Bankers? Drastically reduce the ability of Government at all levels to issue Bonds?

    As far as the Drug Conspiracy Laws, we do have those in order to be able to prosecute dealers who aren’t physically involved in the street transactions. Those “conspiracies” are usually just a few people sent out by one gang leader to sell and bring back money. Using that, the entire drug gang can be taken down as opposed to just a few small fish here and there.

    The same is true for larger criminal “conspiracies” such as the Mafia, etc. This is where the RICO Act comes into play with the FEDs (The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act). And again, just like on the local level, this gives law enforcement and prosecutors the ability to break up the whole organization, not just nibble around the edges.

    The Patriot Act was sold in part as the RICO Act for Terrorism. And it was true that RICO does not apply for acts of Foreign Terrorism plotted overseas, but committed here. The Patriot Act gives many of the same investigative powers to go after the leaders of Terror organizations not just the idiots who get talked into strapping bombs to themselves…..

  • wayne

    Cotour– Not 100% discounting the New World Order people, just personally feel it’s not as-coordinated. But, like Progressivism, it is a Problem. The Bush Family has a lot of issues I do not like, but that having been said, I never thought they actively hated America, like the Left does. This new breed of folks hates America.
    –Check out anything by Dinesh D’Souza; He explains Obama’s hatred as being grounded in “anti-colonialism,” He’s systematically “knocking America down to size,” in his mind. What might appear to be “bungling” to us, is actually his Goal.
    –Agree in part with some elements of SOM, but as Steve said:
    [We are blessed (so far) with one of the few society’s in history that continue to have peaceful transfers of power on a regular basis. American Exceptionalism at work again :-) ] amen brother!
    Richard: respectfully counter-differ with your thoughts on Kasich, but I am the Base, and he’s not well liked. (you are correct sir!) He was rock-solid 20 years ago, but not-so-much today.
    Steve– thanks for input on “drug-conspiracies,” makes more sense to me now.
    –It’s the “intent to posses with the intent to deliver” ‘thang, that always confused me.

    As for the Monetary System— if I had my druthers —
    It’s a complex system that has been put in place gradually and would require slowly backing us out of it to avoid major disruptions. (and as Cotour opines, in part, that sort of Power is not yielded easily. A lot of Oxen would get gorged in the process & they would actively resist.
    As an aside– “Politics is War, without the guns.” (but with the threat of guns always lurking.)

    I’d wager you remember when the Government switched our Silver Coins to base-metal in the mid 60’s?
    (FDR had previously wiped out Gold coinage and Gold-certificate’s.)

    –I’m not a gold-bug, but one good thing would be to turn back toward using Gold/Silver for money, rather than Federal Reserve Notes.
    –All our paper-Money (20th century up until 1964/65) was originally convertible into gold/silver “on-demand.” People trusted it infinitely more because they could always go to a Bank and get metal. It was easier to use paper Money, than lug around a lot of Gold/Silver, but it’s been totally disconnected from metal now.
    Remember Silver-Certificates? “The Treasury will pay on-demand $1 worth of Silver.”
    (Inflation made the Metal more valuable than the Paper & people actively converted those into silver-coins, until the Government took that option away.)

    We should increase the amount of “reserves” Banks hold, currently they are only required to hold maybe 3-10% of Deposits. (That allows them to “create” 10-30 times the amount of money they actually hold in reserve.)
    –In practice Banks in general “only” are able to “create” maybe 3-7 times the money they hold, but that has to do more with the fact that people actively transfer money around, use credit instruments, hold cash, etc. That’s a complex subject– would take a book to fully flesh-out.
    I’d advocate for a minimum of 20% to start. It would be a move toward enforcing Discipline onto Banks.
    (Currently banks are paid .25% on Reserves, from the Fed— we never did that until 2008-ish. They make more money on that, than they do on actual loans.)

    Government should not borrow and spend so darn much money. 6 “Money Center” Banks completely handle the financing for the Government– it’s an incestuous relationship.

    Have a few more suggestions, but must go VOTE for CRUZ! back later.

    Good input by all!

  • Cotour

    When you are immersed within the zeitgiest of your culture you may not be able to “see” what you are within, because you are within it.

    Think of the IMF, The Patriot Act, The ITC, The FED, NAFTA, The Euro Zone, Fast And Furious, Lois Lerner, etc, etc, etc, you live within this modern reality and that modern reality says that what you thought America is it in reality may very well not be, exactly.

    And then you have the big lies, ala Hitler, realities that are presented to you that your moral perspective will not allow you to believe or understand. These include false flag events and other reality bending events.

    And our Constitutional system proscribes the surrendering of power, power is not surrendered willingly. I make a distinction here. They willingly surrender it because those are the rules, if they could work around the rules they would. For example, the establishment insists on there own replacements for president and you see this playing out today. They are squirming and doing everything that they can, without just coming out and seizing power and installing who they prefer. The Founders were so wise in the counter balance mechanisms that they specified. But in the end the establishment will prevail more rather than less.

    S.O.M. or what ever you might call it may fully dawn on you one day and the light bulb will go off and you will think of these posts, and you will become terrified at the thought of what the reality actually is and then you will be strangely comforted in the fact that at least you now better understand it, as I was.

    In many, many ways, especially in America we live in a fantasy.

  • Cotour

    Your fantasy reality is shaped, lots of interesting things get discussed, settled and created in “secret” meetings on Southern islands in America :


    Both sides of the establishment created Trump by its continuous abuses of power, and now they conspire to unmake him.

  • wayne

    Love you man– But my light-bulb went off a long time ago. I’m already “awake” but not in the exact way you describe.
    I’m already terrified of what is going on.

    Again– always appreciate your input! (sincerely) & do not dismiss your thoughts outright. You’re thoughtful & more importantly concerned. (just not “my-bag” as it were.)

    Heavy turn-out at my local polling-place already today. Two votes for Cruz in-the-bag already. (brought a friend who has sat out for 15 years)

    Steve– (anyone) — you might like the work of Murray Rothbard. They have all of his material (audio/video/writing’s) archived at http://www.mises.org
    I do differ with some of his belief’s & some of the mises.org folks dislike (hate) Lincoln way too much for me. (But my 80% allies are not my 20% enemies.) Statism is 100% the real enemy.
    Highly recommend his audio series covering Revisionist American History from 1870-1945. (he’s deceased) “Things the Progressives never want taught in school.”

    Mentioned before, “Libertarianism” is a huge tent, and he was what they call an “Anarcho-Capitalist,” but he’s not a classical-anarchist at all.

    His Wikipedia entry is fairly “fair,” start with that & see if his thoughts might appeal to you. His “The American Economy & the End of Laissez-Faire 1870-1945,” is fascinating.
    –available in book & audio form. He’s a humorous lecturer & easy to follow.

    He wrote extensively on the politics & monetary system of Colonial America as well.
    One of his contentions (amount scores) — The only “just wars” we have been engaged in the past 250 years, we’re the Civil War & WW-2. I’m not entirely down with that, but give’s you a flavor. (He’s largely pacifist in nature except for defense.)
    He is a master on the Monetary System as well– whether you would like him or not, he is extremely informed. (No Alex Jones stuff in his writing’s & Alex would probably attack him.)
    That being said, I draw my knowledge from a wide & diverse variety of economic/political thought. (I read it all– Marx to Milton Friedman, and I do catch an occasional infowar broadcast, just don’t agree with alex 98% of the time.)

  • wayne

    My one “advertisement” for mises dot org:

    “The Mises Institute, founded in 1982, teaches the scholarship of Austrian economics, freedom, and peace. The liberal intellectual tradition of Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) and Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995) guides us. Accordingly, we seek a profound and radical shift in the intellectual climate: away from Statism and toward a private property order. We encourage critical historical research, and stand against political correctness. The institute serves students, academics, business leaders, and anyone seeking better understanding of the Austrian school of economics and libertarian political theory.”

  • Cotour


    Please do not think me an Alex fanatic, I am not, but he does tend to identify a different perspective, I take him with many grains of salt.

    On Libertarianism: Its a philosophy and not a form of governance. I live my life under Libertarian principles of respecting others and expect the same but I understand that it does not apply in the administration of governance, it creates chaos. *It may inform governance* but governance can not practically be run in such a way.

    And I strongly suspect that your light bulb is on but there are another couple of notches on the dimmer (every ones dimmer) to go before everything is operating within optimal designed limits.

  • wayne

    No, don’t fear– I never got the impression you were an infowarrior, at all.
    Again– I for one, appreciate your input, look at your links & consider your voice valuable. I can’t really tell who among us is any particular bent. (I overshare but think it’s valuable in-part, to lay my cards on the table. I hope that doesn’t button-hole me into stereotypic clichés, because I for one, try very hard not to do that to other’s. Not sayin’ you are, just sayin’ in general.)

    I would counter-differ on Libertarianism not being a form of Governance, It’s essentially how our Founder’s lived and designed our Government. Power is (was) dispersed & people did basically what they wanted, with a heavy “responsibility” component within our form of Government & historical Belief systems. Steal a horse and you got hung. Seems “medieval” today but a man’s horse was often literally his life & well-being. We have advanced since then, but the concept of not-stealing other’s stuff survives, except for the Bernie types. (and Progressive’s– they want you like it when THEY steal your stuff, ‘cuz “it’s for your own good. You are too stupid to control yourself.”)
    –Described more eloquently by folks like Steve, Edward, Mitch, etc. in prior posts.

    As I said– Libertarianism is a huge tent– Classical-Libertarian thought is indistinguishable from our early form of Government. “We” are not anti-government, we are pro limited Government. (Can’t speak to all the variants. The divide between & among libertarianism, is perhaps as wide as the divide between Statism & Freedom.)
    [as an aside– I’m generally on the a-theist side of the coin, more of a Deist, but I am fully aware we are a Judeo-Christian influenced Country in our Founding, and our Documents.
    I for one, don’t fear our “Religious” background. (YES-dislike the Muslim faith– they need a Reformation) and/but fully appreciate our heritage is a vital component to things like morality & cohesion within a Civil Society. (as in “civilian” non government sponsored entities.)
    Classical Libertarianism is NOT anarchism. (Pure Anarchism, like it’s polar-opposite Fascism is tremendously authoritarian & communistic. It’s akin to the State of Nature.

    Rothbard is tagged as & would accept the label of, “Anarcho-Capitalism,” but he is nothing like a stereotypical cliché, “anarchist.” He’s all about voluntary exchange & self-restraint, within & among like minded individuals & societies.

    As a brief quasi-example for me alone; I would favor returning to pre-1907-ish “drug-laws.” Wherein they weren’t “illegal” they just were. We relied on natural consequences & religious institutions to impart a sense of self-control & responsibility.
    In 2016 I would have to oppose that sort of blanket “legalization” for the reason our Country is just not set up (or rather what it has morphed-into) to handle that. (Holy cow, we give potent opiates to people, for free (Medicaid), & pay them to eat & live. That, is a disaster. (If one pulls their own weight & doesn’t infringe on me, I don’t care if they are “high,” but in our Progressive world, all those type of folks actively become “our” problem, because of the Progressive Mind-Set and structural changes that have been imposed on our historic Way of Life.)
    As Steve noted a while back, that type of non-illegalization of substances would ultimately hurt innocent soles such as Children.
    The social, religious, and economic pressure, to not be “high” all the time was a real thing. (and if you didn’t exchange your labor or intellect for food/shelter, you didn’t eat or live very long or very well.)
    (That all being said– our religious heritage & common-sense, instructs us to defend & assist those less fortunate or afflicted, by our own free-will, between & among ourselves. It’s only when we allowed the State to interpose themselves between us & our fellow citizens, with a variety of well-intentioned but failed “welfare type” programs, that dragged us to this point.)

    I’m primarily a Conservative, because I want to conserve the practice’s and ways humankind has learned, that work. And reject those systems that we already know are failed. Founder’s gave us the best path toward an ideal, ever known on the Planet.
    We shouldn’t even be having a debate about socialism/communism, it’s clearly a failed methodology, anti-human, anti-progress and terrible. (IMO) Why on earth folks would consider giving it try, again, is “crazy.” I mean, 100 million killed in the last century is enough for me to know in my heart it’s crazy. But in a Free country that’s the battle of idea’s we must be vigilant about.

    Yo– here’s a mind-blower on me: I’m largely a Skinnerian Behaviorist, but I also believe in the concept of “free-will,” in the Human Realm. (More eclectic in my method’s as I get older, I go for what works rather than a strict adherence to Behaviorism.)
    People largely make choices, not exclusively, but largely. (we are slaves to our biological evolution, but posses self-awareness, and therefore a Choice.) Nothing would work if we fully believed in mechanical determinism in the Human Realm. (people and their emotions/biology, are “messy.”)

    In Physics/Astronomy/Science– firm believer in deterministic process’s. (except for Quantum Mechanics which is highly probabilistic but not “random” as such.)
    Big fan of the concept of Emergent Order, in Biology, Systems, and Life.

    Interesting side-note: Dr. Penrose is trying to develop theories relating Quantum Mechanical Process and Human Consciousness.
    tangent– John Batchelor show just re-ran a 40 minute interview with Dr. Penrose on his Conformal Cyclic Cosmology & “Cycles of Time.”
    Good stuff.

    Again, fully appreciate everyone’s input.

  • wayne


    “Never say Never.”

    –Listening to my Man Mark Levin [marklevinshow dot com] rail against the Republican Establishment tonight & the usual Crony’s; Rove, Mitch, Ryan, et-al. (Referencing that “secret meeting” the crony-capitalist’s had at that island.)
    –Mark’s opinion is, “These Establishment Crony’s are a thousand times worse than any of the Republican Candidates, including Trump. And I have serious problems with Trump.”

    –so, once again, as I have mentioned before; in some bizzaro alternative Universe, I MIGHT not bail and go with a Gary Johnson.

    Plan A, of course is to Vote for Cruz & I have, –will be checking results later tonight. Feeling Good about it, but Michigan has let me down before.

    -The RNC alters Delegate allocation, depending on how your State voted in the prior Presidential election, Michigan went Obama, so that effects delegates here in 2016.(Perfect example of the crony-GOP-establishment.) CRUZ needs to take certain congressional-districts to get his fair allocation of “proportional” delegates.

    We’re a closed primary, but you can choose a Repub or Dem ballot, so it’s not really ‘closed,’ in the sense of only Repubs can vote in Repub Primaries ‘cuz folks do not have to register as one or the other party.

    Plan B: I have not yet developed fully & would be waiting until the Convention to flesh that out. (don’t have enough facts yet, waiting ’til summer.) I do “have serious problems with Trump.”

    The establishment is pulling another one of their “night of the long knives” attacks on Cruz, yet again. (Just like they did with Reagan in ’76, ’80 & ’84.)

    –Is the Convention in Cleveland this year? I heard something about the Cleveland Police
    “stocking up on riot-gear.”

    I’m intentionally not watching my (previous) favorite-cable-news-channel or subjecting myself to endless punditry anymore, but I do love Levin. (I would crawl on broken glass for him.)

    Not shilling for Levin, but if anyone wants to check him out– he has the 1st episode of his new streaming-TV-show available for free. Correction– all week is FREE. (roughly 30-45 minutes, live at 9pm. & on-demand thereafter.
    It’s an excellent representative sample of his entire philosophy. levintv dot com. Radio show-3hours- is always free & he has 3 years of archived shows available for download.

    Mark Levin, “The Great One,” “Defender of Dogs,” & “Rock solid Conservative.”

  • Cotour

    *Trump, the more interesting candidate, a total DEFCON 1 curve ball. The establishment fears him the most, has his own money by the bushel, is a chameleon as need be, knows who hates him and gives it back in exponential doses and may be more interested in fixing / leading through leverage, compromise and brute force and not so much by Constitutional rules and principles. A natural intuitive leader. (obnoxious as hell, but likable :)

    *Cruz, the more traditional Conservative, scares the establishment but they will be able to handle him in the traditional ways. A schooled nerdy technician, can dissect you and you barely know it until you attempt to respond.

    *Levin, I listen to him most nights, is very informative and educational on the subject at hand, needs to take a pill to tone down the yelling, I do enough of it for both of us. Sometimes I have to turn him off when he gets on my nerves. I do not know how / if he translates to the visual TV medium (he’s a bit of a facia brute) he may just be someone that should be heard and not seen.

  • Edward

    Cotour wrote at March 7, 2016 at 4:41 pm:
    “By making this statement it entirely negates everything you wrote after it. ‘He just got fooled into making a deal with the Democrats.’”

    The deal that Bush got fooled into making was for Bush to put up his part and then the Democrats would carry out their part. On the other hand, if you cannot arrange for the demonstrably untrustworthy Democrats to do their part first, then making a deal with them is folly, and electing someone on his ability to merely make deals, rather than the right kinds of deals, is also folly.

    Yes, we are in the tyranny that we are in because our leadership made deals that took us closer to tyranny and never deals that brought us closer to liberty. Even Reagan was not able to make such deals with the Democrats during his eight years.

    I don’t know where to plug in the words “New World Order,” but it looks like the UN’s Agenda 21 is trying to make the whole world a tyranny, run by that set of elite intellectuals who think that “one size fits all” types of solutions are desirable — or at the least, desirable for the tyrants.

    As to the “naivete” belief system empowering people, my point is that Democrats work on the “get the other guy before he gets you” philosophy, but most of the rest of us work on the “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” philosophy. In my experience, that latter often gets people into trouble, when the others follow the former philosophy. Indeed, a planned agenda can depend upon the naive to be fooled into making agreements that are routinely broken, and we are filled with such examples.

    The Sixteenth Amendment was sold to the American public by making them confident that it was never going to tax anyone who was “undeservedly” rich, and even then it would be a small tax. Social Security was sold as an insurance program but justified before the Supreme Court as a tax (you will find that the Sixteenth Amendment has been used against us many times). The “War On Poverty” was supposed to reduce poverty, but all that happened was that the poverty rate stopped falling, and now seems to be rising again — once again, tax moneys were used, in this case to pay people to not work. Obamacare directs us as to how to spend our money, but a fine was turned into a tax to justify the punishment of all who disobey governmental orders. Even social liberalism, which was supposed to increase “fairness” for all, has been used to punish those who disagree or speak out, and these punishments not only don’t fit the (non)crime, but are cruel as well as unusual.

    The public naively believed the Democrats and progressives when they told us that such changes were for “the greater good.” Apparently, “the greater good” means that it is good for those “great” leaders who implement the progressive policies. Notice that the Clintons went from rags, as they left the White House, to riches, as they gave half-hour speeches for huge sums of money.

    So, yes, such naivete empower the confidence men, but the point of pointing it out is to arm ourselves to push against the tyranny.

    Wayne wrote at March 7, 2016 at 8:06 pm: “I am not a Gold-Bug, but our paper money is largely worthless”

    “Full faith and credit” depends more on the ability of We the People to be productive than it does on gold or silver in “the bank” (or Fort Knox). The whole idea of debt is that future productivity will allow for the repayment of the debt. The ability to do so is measured in different ways, such as a mortgage provider may not lend you more that four times your annual income, as your ability to repay the debt decreases too much, when it goes above that amount.

    In fact, after reading “The Ascent Of Money,” by Niall Furguson, I have concluded that money, including coinage, is more like an IOU than it is an intrinsically valuable commodity. “IOU this much in goods and services, but someone else will provide those goods or services, and eventually I will pay back that other person in goods or services when this note, or another fungible note, comes back to me.”

    The only real value that precious metal coins have is that the metals can be turned into jewelry or used for industrial purposes, which is better than the non-value that paper has, if everyone lost confidence in the currency.

    Wayne wrote at March 8, 2016 at 8:19 am: “We should increase the amount of “reserves” Banks hold”

    Be careful! holding reserves only protect against bank runs, but they reduce the amount of currency available to expand the economy. Make sure that the balance does not tip too far in favor of one at the expense of the other.

    Cotour wrote: “And our Constitutional system proscribes the surrendering of power, power is not surrendered willingly. I make a distinction here. They willingly surrender it because those are the rules, if they could work around the rules they would.”

    As Steve pointed out, this is part of American Exceptionalism. We The People have the freedoms that force this peaceful and regular change of power. It is the power of those who are governed that forces the political power transfer to be peaceful. Mao was wrong, political power need not come from the barrel of a gun, but from his authoritarian point of view, it was a necessity, as he could not allow his citizens power if he were to keep his power. In free societies, power is shared by the people and the government, otherwise the people would not be free.

    Cotour wrote at March 8, 2016 at 5:28 pm: “Levin, I listen to him most nights, is very informative and educational on the subject at hand, needs to take a pill to tone down the yelling”

    I largely agree with this much of your statement. I want to yell at my radio, but I don’t want my radio to yell back.

    (Whew! Clearly, I need to abandon the rest of my life and check in on this thread more often, just to keep up. Sorry for misspellings, misunderstandings, and misinterpretations, I did not have much time to review it before having to hit “send” and go to my next task.)

  • wayne

    Edward My Man!– very good insightful well written post. Differ slightly with you on some finer points, but all-in-all, I’d be standing right next to you in combat, without a doubt!!

    Cotour My Man! (I can’t tell by your moniker, sorry!)
    Well written post! I’d be shoulder-to-shoulder with you as well! I would counter-differ on some finer points but, no problemo.
    [You know Cruz is my man.)

    I love Mark! I’d follow him through a mine-field, on broken glass. He translates to “TV” exceptionally well. Been following him since the late 80’s. I’m terrified he’ll have a 3rd (4th?) heart-attack before CRUZ is inaugurated. Met him for 1 minute at a Tyson’s Corner book signing awhile back. (my daughter is in Virginia.)

  • wayne

    Edward wrote, in part:
    “Democrats work on the “get the other guy before he gets you” philosophy, but most of the rest of us work on the “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” philosophy. In my experience, that latter often gets people into trouble, when the others follow the former philosophy.”

    –That, is pure Gold!

  • Wayne

    Edward wrote, in part:
    “I want to yell at my radio, but I don’t want my radio to yell back.”

    I’m tired of yelling at my radio! (His cardiologist says it’s a “healthy” type anger!)

    –All you folks are great!
    Hat tip to Mr. Z for attracting such an audience.

    I am getting a bit tired of all these political machinations by the elites.

    — How ’bout some Quantum Mechanic’s and Cosmology cage-matches, next week??
    (I’ll bring coffee if someone brings snacks! HAR)
    –You folks make me smile & laugh out loud!

  • wayne

    Hate to be a downer— watched some of the Trump news conference &…..

    He’s crazy. He really is.

    Voting Gary Johnson if everything goes completely insane & it morphs into,Trump Vs. Anyone.
    Can’t believe Michigan appears to be going for Bernie, but then again Michigan went for Obama.

    Just sent Cruz my $10 and signing-up to do campaign-stuff for him.

    Watching Mark on streaming… free all week. He’s exceptionally good in long-form. (he used to do a lot of TV appearance’s in the 90’s, but they only gave him 2 minutes.)
    For folks who don’t enjoy the “screaming” — he’s remarkably reserved on “TV.”
    It’s a different medium than radio.
    (I do have a bromance going with Mark, but he’s not a politician, whom I generally all distrust, except for CRUZ!)

    Again– you folks are GREAT! Don’t always agree with everyone, but no problem!

  • Cotour

    Let this be Wayne’s (and Z’s) reality check:


    Let the ice cold waters of reality awaken us all!

    How will Cruz be controlled and made to come to heel? The family BUSH.

    Like I have stated before, I have no problem with America owning, running or heavily influencing the rest of the world. Just do not allow the cost to be the surrendering of our sovereignty, Constitution and freedoms.

  • wayne

    Cotour wrote, (in part):

    “I have no problem with America owning, running or heavily influencing the rest of the world.”
    I’m on board with that! Canada would be an easy additional 25 States, Russia probably 200 additional States, etc., etc.
    As long as we locate Congress on Easter Island & don’t allow them to communicate with the outside world!

  • wayne

    Yo– not going to pull the “H” card on Trump, but this is exactly what it must have felt like in the middle of Europe in the 1930’s.
    Well, I did what I could do at the primary level, now to double down & work for Cruz as best I can with what resources I can devote.

    Reagan had a small percentage of Progressive’s on his payroll as well.

    Who, prey-tell? works for the billionaire.

    Hey– did you know Kasich’s Dad, was a mail-man? The hidden mail-man demographic is making it’s weight felt…
    Levin say we should name a Post Office after his Dad & send John back to Ohio.

  • wayne

    Cotour opined: referencing the billionaire–

    “…is a chameleon as need be, knows who hates him and gives it back in exponential doses and may be more interested in fixing / leading through leverage, compromise and brute force and not so much by Constitutional rules and principles.”

    We already had 7 years of this!

  • Cotour

    Obama is not a chameleon, he plainly told people who he was and what he intended to accomplish, you are confusing yourself. The difference is that Trump assess a situation and tailors his attack / moves accordingly.

    Trump is an intuitive chess player / chess master, and Obama is an undercover Marxist / leftist operative posing as a Democrat who’s only agenda that can be implemented by executive order is to attempt to reconcile the evils that have been perpetrated by the “white man” (CIA etc) for the past 300 years.

    Trump is a force of vision man and Obama is a political technician / race pandering “white” knight. I make a distinction, he is more of an internal shape shifter, he can seamlessly shift between the white and black worlds as a function of an internal learned ability being both black and white and being highly intelligent and well schooled. That is where Obama’s strength is anchored.

    Two very different political types, know thy enemy.

  • Wayne

    Cotour wrote:

    “….you are confusing yourself.”
    “Two very different political types, know thy enemy.”
    Respectfully counter-differ with both;
    Actually, no.
    They are both Statist’s.

    “Me think’s thou doth protest too loudly!”

    [as always: enjoy your comment’s! :) ]

    Q: Whom is your 2nd pick, bedside’s Trump? (excuse if I have missed that, my brain is only moving at “impulse-power” this morning.)

    Can I suggest we move this thread to another link, it’s getting hard to keep up with everyone’s Post’s?
    I see Mr. Z just posted a newer political-themed comment.

  • Cotour

    Most politicians technically are “statists” in our modern world, there are few that sincerely advocate for less state or federal power as a general rule. Levin uses this term a bit too much IMO, our country will not be reverting to the 1776 version of governance any time soon.

    I think my second choice has just cancelled himself off my list, Cruz’s campaign just brought on Neal Bush as a money man. Lets start putting it all together, Cruz’s wife is a Goldman exec. , Neal Bush was just brought on as a money man. Who will primarily be “guiding” Mr. Cruz if he becomes the president in your opinion?

    Like I pointed out before I understood the addition of N. Bush to the campaign, Cruz will be a conservative and he will be controlled by the leadership using the usual techniques of political control.

  • wayne

    –respectfully counter-differ.
    (and sorry I forget you had been leaning toward Cruz, a little brain-fog today on my part.)

    We had Statists wrestling for control, as early as 1800. (I love Levin but that’s not where I learned of Statism.)

    Heidi is far from a “Goldman Exec,” a bit too close to smear by association for me.
    (I’m positive Trump has dealt with the Mob, you don’t move a single load of cement in NYC otherwise, but I wouldn’t say he’s “mob-connected,” as such. Jury is still out on all that…)

    Whom would be your 3rd choice? (whether they had a shot or not.)

  • Cotour

    Heidi Cruz is A MANAGING DIRECTOR at Goldman, you have a very high bar to at the minimum recognize a potential conflict of stated interest.

    And I find it interesting that you do not comment on the Neil Bush information. Are you a cherry picker like the Z man? Never fall in love with any candidate, its a bromance or a romance that can only end in varying degrees of disappointment.

    I do not now know if there is a third choice, we will have to see how it all lays out in the coming weeks before a solid strategy can be reliably understood or worked out.

  • wayne

    How many “managing directors” does Goldman have? She’s in the wealth-management office in Texas, if I’m not mistaken. (She’s not on their Board of Director’s.)

    –unfortunately I’m moving very slow today so I’m taking the bait. [SMILE!]

    – Not my job to defend Cruz, it’s Trumps job to adequately explain why he’s all-over the map.

    –Don’t know Mr. Z personally, but I trust his opinion on a whole lot of stuff, especially Space. On board with his “expose,” as it were, of all the totalitarian/authoritarian stuff going on, as well. (which, as you know, I lump together as “Statism,” left/right or “independent,” varieties.

    I just don’t have an opinion on Neil Bush. (and as you probably know, I generally have an opinion on “everything.” (smile!)

    My dislike for the “whole family” (smile) is predicated on how Reagan was undermined, and “Read My Lips,” by Sr., & Medicaid Part D, No child left behind, and Bail-Out’s by Jr.
    (I had little reservation with invading Iraq, much to the chagrin of my Libertarian friends. For what reason we didn’t utterly destroy the entire Country is a “tell” IMO. )

    To “win” a War, (the necessary objective) the enemy must be utterly defeated ; break ALL his stuff & kill a huuugggeee percentage of their population, until they are utterly broken, physically & but vastly more importantly, psychologically.
    -We didn’t stop at the German frontier in WW-2, it was necessary to utterly defeat them, no matter how many “good” one’s got in the way. Only them would the population know in their hearts, “forever,” they F-ed up big time by acquiescing or supporting their crazed leaders.
    –Same for the Japanese. (My dad would have been in the 1st wave for Operation Downfall in September ’45. As it is I “only” lost 2 uncle’s in France.
    You will recall, they signed Surrender Documents, not an Armistice agreements.

    –Jeb, actually did a very conservative stint as Governor in Florida, but that was 15+ years ago. His lack of active support for Conservative cause’s since that time is also “tell.” His Amnesty stuff sealed his fate.
    (I actually liked Carly, not a rock-solid Movement Conservative, but had a lot of positive’s going, just “better” choices for me.)

    What if you had-to pick a 3rd choice? — anyone, whether actually running or not.

    again, you always make me think. (you are probably my “82.5% ally rather than my “17.5%” enemy.) [SMILE!]

    tangent: I committed a few logical-fallacies’ in this post, anyone able to spot them all?

    Again (and always) appreciate the lively back-n-forth!!

  • Cotour

    If there were 10,000 managing directors for Goldman, what is your point?

    Her pay check came from the account of Goldman, are you unable to draw any conclusion from that fact? Nothing?


    You can draw no reasonable conclusion that a Bush son is now involved with raising funds to put Cruz in office?


  • Wayne


    What’s your point?
    Trump is some sort of Angel?

    Now, your just lashing out.

    Whom is your 3rd choice?

    Check the wiki page on Logical fallacies. I actually have an idea when I’m committing them.

    Dropping down from “82.5%” and quickly…

  • Cotour

    If you did not read the article, details like this actually has meaning when we are talking about politics and who may have certain loyalties to whom. If you are anti establishment / anti Republican leadership you must consider and weigh such information because there is a direct connection between the two. You may still boil it all down and still come to the same political conclusion, but you can not reasonably / honestly come to that conclusion and call yourself anti establishment / anti Republican leadership :

    “Managing director is the firm’s second-highest rank, according to Bloomberg. She works as the regional head of Goldman’s Houston office in the private wealth-management division, which serves accounts with larger than $40 million with the firm. She was promoted to that position in 2013 after working as a vice president for seven years.

    Senator Cruz met Heidi Nelson while they were both working as political advisers on George W. Bush’s presidential campaign in 2000. They married in May 2001.

    Heidi Cruz worked in Bush’s White House after he was elected, working as director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council from 2003 to 2004, before joining Goldman Sachs in 2005.”

  • wayne


    So, whom is your 3rd choice?

  • Cotour

    I stated that I have not formulated a strategy as of yet, let a few weeks go by and lets see what is what. A 3rd choice is essentially a protest vote and will only have symbolic meaning and that may be idealistic but a net negative move.

    I was noodling with Trump and Cruz joining forces and creating an alliance before the convention and some how short circuiting the leadership but the news about the invisible Bush, Neil joining the Cruz campaign to raise money is a big indicator for me and changes my opinion. Look into Neil’s history and activities and enlighten yourself. Not to mention that he IS A BUSH.

    A choice is going to have to be made that counts in some meaningful way if none of the candidates presented are acceptable. Bernie and Trump right now represent the choices.

  • wayne

    Well, I guess you are right Cotour. You’ve convinced me. I’ve been totally brain-dead with the vaccines & fluoride, all along.

    We could save a lot of time, money, and energy & just call off the election and install Maximum Leader right now, might as well extend his term to 10 years.
    Might as well consolidate Congress into the office of Reich-Chancellor while we are at it.

    “He will make the Reich Great yet once Again. He will tear up that crummy Versailles agreement and make a better deal. He hates that Stalin guy, although Stalin is a wonderful leader & the Communists are great people, some of them are killers, but Maximum Leader can cut a deal. (he gets along with everyone don’tcha know, except for that “Liar Cruz,” that “pathologically-ill Carson,” “little Marco,” on and on and on….

    He’s every person, you need him to be, it’s your Cult of personality.

    Do you really, really, really want to “make” me understand why the One True Inevitable Leader is GOD on Earth?
    …..Or is more important, that I Love Big Brother with all my heart & soul?

    Yeah– I took the bait.
    (Sorry to Mr. Z., don’t mean to clutter up his website, with my foolishness and closed mind.)

    So– whom is your 3rd choice?

  • Cotour

    I do not know where you are pulling all of that “maximum leader” stuff from, I am presenting you with facts and a formulated opinion based on those facts.

    There is no 3rd choice if you are anti establishment / anti republican leadership. For me anyway.

    My ideal fantasy political partnership? (but they are not running) Ben Carson / Allen West. Probably the finest Americans in politics today.

  • Wayne


    Ben Carson & Allen West— excellent people. Fully agree!


    “Brought my ball, back to play.”

  • Edward

    Wayne wrote at March 9, 2016 at 2:09 pm: “I’ve been totally brain-dead with the vaccines & fluoride, all along.”

    Oh, my! That explains a lot of my own problems.

    Who knew that the conspiracy theorists of half a century ago were right, and that the communists were going to take over?

  • Cotour

    This headline tells the tale.


    The Republican establishment identifies their second most acceptable (read potentially controllable) choice after they come to understand that their inside man Rubio is not a player and is gone.

  • Garry

    Wayne wrote,

    “To “win” a War, (the necessary objective) the enemy must be utterly defeated ; break ALL his stuff & kill a huuugggeee percentage of their population, until they are utterly broken, physically & but vastly more importantly, psychologically.”

    Wayne, I love how you’ve brought more discussion to this site and find myself agreeing with you a lot, but I have to disagree with you here.

    You are describing how we defeated Japan and Germany, and under the circumstances, that was 100% necessary. But not all enemies are created equal.

    I think it’s possible to win a real victory in a limited war; the key is to get rid of the leaders and win over the people. Yes, often a whole lot of stuff has to get broken and quite a few people die, but the population itself is not necessarily the enemy. I acknowledge that we have to be willing to break all their things and kill a huge percentage of the population if necessary, but it would be better if it didn’t come to that.

    The first Gulf War (in which I was a participant) may have had a satisfactory ending (and prevented the next invasion), if we had taken out the Hussein regime and installed/oversaw the election of a better government. Yes, we broke a lot and killed a lot of people, but showed restraint.

    I can also foresee situations where the local population revolts, and we support them, in which case the population isn’t necessarily our enemy (North Korea comes to mind). However, that often has unintended consequences (see Libya). After growing up in the Cold War, I’m careful not to equate a government with the population. I wish I knew more about people in places like Iran; I have one Iranian friend and I’ve been surprised to learn how much the people are like us.

    We’ve also had a related problem about combat deaths and destruction; we value the lives of our warriors (as we should) but are too often unwilling to hang in there in the face of casualties. I’m convinced that our withdrawal from Somalia after a small-scale battle in the mid 90’s emboldened our enemies.

    My main takeaway is that we shouldn’t go in to a war unless we are totally committed to doing whatever it takes to win. But I think it’s dangerous to think we always have to destroy a country and its people to prevail.

  • wayne


    Very good comments. Thank you! (thanks for being in the military, have a 24 yr old cousin who spent a bit of time in Iraq.)
    Agree in large measure. (98%!) Counter-differ on some fine points. (2%)
    Your last paragraph gets to the whole heart of the affair of War– “we shouldn’t go to war unless we are totally committed to doing whatever it takes to win.”
    -War is a serious damn business.
    I personally don’t think we could fight a WW-2 again and win. Our Leaders don’t have the stomach & our people for the most part lack the “will.”
    -John Kerry would make a deal with Hitler & Tojo.

    –This gets to the rules-of-engagement and you are far more equipped than I to speak to those, but our enemies don’t have rules-of-engagement.
    –Modern day. Our friends don’t trust our will, and our enemies don’t fear our resolve.
    I blame Obama.

    Most excellent, concise, and on point post I’ve read on “war” in a long (long) time!

    You should try and catch “The Man in The High Castle,” series on Netflix. (10 parts complete)
    Alternative history with a huge twist. (Philip K. Dick, if you are not familiar, although it doesn’t follow the book too closely.)

    In brief; We lost WW-2; Nazi’s control the Eastern USA, Japanese control the West. Things
    get even more bizzaro after that. (Hitler is still alive.)

    You can find it on YouTube if you search carefully, although Netflix actively pulls down the episodes for copyright reasons. (they want you to pay for them!)

    again, great post!

  • wayne


    “Man in the High Castle”
    official trailer

    Opening Intro:

  • Wayne

    That should be “Amazon,” rather than Netflix.

  • Wayne

    Yo, Cotour–

    Mark Levin formally endorsed Cruz yesterday on his streaming-“TV”-show.
    Would be interested on your feeling’s of such. (One endorsement either way doesn’t matter a whole lot, fully grant that.)
    –His video-show is very good, infinitely less “yelling” compared to radio, if that’s a turn-off for anyone. It’s free all week. Highly recommend anyone at least take a look, just to sample it.

    He has been an active defender of Trump against unwarranted attacks, although remains to have “serious problems with him.”

    Interesting factoid, to me at least, ‘cuz I live in the State– County-by-County vote distribution, Cruz V. Trump; Trump took practically every County except for a few on the Lake Michigan shoreline, middle of the State.

  • Cotourj

    My take is that although Cruz has demonstrated many Conservative traits in his words and actions, but he is still an inside man. He is a player playing the game, he is not changing the rules. If you ultimately resolve to play by their rules you are resigned to forever play their game. And it is plain that their game does not have the best interests of our country in mind related to our sovereignty and our Constitution, it has everyone else’s interests in mind, but not ours.

    The two party’s present their candidate offerings to the public and the public is free to buy THOSE goods. But in this cycle the public is so outraged and so pissed off, over and over again the party leaderships have sold one version of American government and have delivered a totally different product to their customers. A classic bait and switch. And this version of goods involves the selling out of the foundation blocks of America, they are in the process of destroying our foundation. Not by mistake apparently from my perspective, but by some kind of crazy agenda related to political correctness? The lowering of our natural cultural and political defenses that provide a platform, a hegemony, to create a world and an America run by the same people who sell “Global Warming / Climate Change”?

    (when I use the word “Hegemony” I primarily mean it in reference to Americans permitted to live as Americans and to promote American beliefs and values, welcoming legal foreign immigrants to america to become American and not so that Americans provide the cultural noose so that we adapt to them so they can recreate here what they were fleeing from over their. This is the insanity of the lefts philosophy where “everyone and every culture is equal”. They are not! This is what our leaders are selling as the solution to our problems and our future. I strongly disagree!)

    So Cruz, while an intelligent, apparently Conservative man, trained in the rules of governance, is a man of the machine and will in the end serve the machine to continue in general the agenda that the machine is implementing, the dissolution of American values in order to evolve our country into a U.N. like run organization and not a sovereign country.

    This is why Trump and Bernie Sanders are sooo popular with the masses, they are seen as not willing to play the game by the rules presented. Now choose between the two, or go along to get along. Pay attention to what the people of America, the unwashed masses are transmitting to you.

    You asked.

  • Garry

    Thank you for your post, Wayne.

    I should point out that although I participated in the Gulf War, I didn’t participate in combat, and never saw the enemy. I was part of the amphibious force that sailed within 2 weeks of Hussein’s invasion, and we prepared for and waited to execute an amphibious assault that never took place (I’m very glad of that).

    Rules of engagement have always been part of our wartime experience and have generally been managed at the highest levels. Rules of engagement are very important, but in this age of instant media, they tend to be micromanaged even more conservatively.

    At their best, rules of engagement reflect our moral values as a society, but too often those values are too idealistic and those writing the rules of engagement (and critics at home) tend not to think through possible scenarios to the extent that they should.

    It’s been well documented that in World War Two the Japanese acted very immorally, especially towards non-combatants. Once we destroyed their country and their will, many Japanese fully expected us to systematically rape their women, evict people from their homes, and commit other atrocities during the occupation. Our discipline in not doing so was truly the key to rebuilding Japan and making them a trusted ally.

    I lived in Japan for 4 years, and often met Japanese vets of World War Two. Many of them didn’t comment at all about the War. Some of them talked openly about what a wonderful job we did rebuilding the country and were grateful even to me, although I was born a generation after the War ended. Others were very bitter even 50 years after the War, and said some things that chilled me to the bone.

    It’s impossible to win over the hearts and minds of all, but I was surprised about how many expressed their gratitude. The children of World War Two vets sometimes made comments that were a little chilling, but I have never heard any Japanese of subsequent generations express any resentment, etc. about World War Two (other than members of brainwashed right-wing groups that drive their buses through Tokyo while playing martial music and making outrageous statements on bullhorns). The situation would be very different if we hadn’t had very good discipline during the occupation, which depended on something akin to rules of engagement.

    I’m not sure if we can fight World War Two again either. The biggest factor is related to media and communications; there was a lot of censorship in World War Two, and I don’t know if that’s possible anymore. Tarawa in particular was censored heavily, as the brutal carnage would have shocked the public to the bone. Coverage at the time was by newspaper and newsreels, as opposed to the Marines landing in Somalia in late 1992 in the full illumination of tv news reporters. (As an aside, I think the Marines handled it wrong that night; once their cover was blown they should have stopped low crawling, stood up, and announced “we’re going from here to [our destination]. We advise everyone to stay out of our pathway, because we will do anything necessary to defend ourselves.”)

    I’ve read a lot of military histories, and my favorite kind is written after interviewing hundreds of people who were there, of all ranks, and presenting a mosaic of what happened; I think they paint the most acurate picture of what actually happened. Every book I’ve read of that type shows a lot of SNAFUs, a lot of examples of clueless and/or overly political leaders giving stupid orders, etc. We’ve usually won through carrying out the truly stupid orders halfheartedly and adapting to the changing situation. As a German general said (paraphrasing) “American are good at war, because war is chaos, and nobody operates better in chaos than Americans.” We’ve also won by taking extreme measures, such as burning whole cities (as in the Inchon-Seoul campaign).

    Even in recent times, we have had good results by these methods. The series of battles in Fallujah are a good illustration of what we can do when we give a long leash to our dogs of war. The trouble is that, more typically, once we suffer some deaths and/or atrocities, we turn tail rather than fight the second battle. In this case, we fought and won the second battle, which led to further successes, but we later turned away and gave it all up.
    Somalia is an example of where we turned tail too quickly; perhaps we should not have been there in the first place.

    “–Modern day. Our friends don’t trust our will, and our enemies don’t fear our resolve.”

    This is the most pithy statement I’ve read on where we stand today; great job! Obama certainly accelerated that, but I blame Clinton as well. Bush eventually got it and was on his way to salvaging Iraq and Afghanistan when Obama gave all that up.

    I have a lot of faith in today’s young people, and I think that, if given the right leadership at the lower levels especially, today’s young people would respond well in a World War Two scenario; after all when that leadership was there they did a great job in Iraq and Afghanistan. The question is whether that leadership would be there, which is a partial function of whether the higher levels of leadership would allow it to be.

    I’ve heard about The man in the High Castle, and was interested enough to read the plot summary, but alternative histories aren’t my cup of tea. Thank you for introducing it just the same.

  • Cotour

    I left out the answer to your actual question: What do I think Levins Cruz endorsement means?

    Levin has from the beginning been a supporter of Cruz, plainly. He sees Trumps antics as being dis-qualifiers and sees Cruz as a rock ribbed Conservative, and he may be. Maybe he sees Trump as being too disruptive to the system? But Levin seems to be totally disregarding the public’s voice, its very loud voice. He is making a choice and is attempting to leverage his celebrity into saving the Cruz campaign from destruction by the mass support of Trump (and Bernie). Levin understands the machine and how it operates and sees Cruz as being the best tool to adjust it. I understand his logic.

    I think that his endorsement will in the end be unimportant, it is a last ditch effort to save his candidate from being eliminated.

  • I think your analysis is cogent and likely explains why so many people are voting for Trump. Sanders however is a far more inside man than Cruz, by a long shot. Those voting for him simply don’t like Hillary, whom I think they see as a very corrupt and dishonest politician. Many are also very much communists, and see Sanders as someone who will bring communism to America.

    If this analysis is why the voters are going for Trump, however, it has a problem. It assumes things about Trump that are simply incorrect. His actual deal-making history with both parties shows him to be a man of the machine in the highest sense of the word. He will change nothing. He will only accelerate the worst aspects of what has been happening in Washington these last few decades.

    Cruz might have many contacts with that machine (as you so love to point out), but guilt-by-association does not make one guilty. Unlike Trump, Cruz’s actual track record shows that he stands first for Constitutional principles and will challenge that machine when it breaks those principles. If we want to force the machine to go in the right direction, he appears to be the best man right now for the job.I remain hopeful that the majority of the Republican Party will rally around him and beat Trump in the end.

    One more thing: Trump might be getting about a third of the vote, but polls continue to consistently show him losing to either Clinton or Sanders. And I believe these polls. When push comes to show, he will not be favored by the majority of voters in November. For this reason alone the Republicans should reject him.

  • wayne

    Always read your comments! I asked precisely because I wanted your take. :)
    –counter-differ on some but no problem.

    Another well thought out & well written post! Always enjoy. (I never served so any input is great.)

    Yeah, we censored news in WW-2 & rarely if ever showed dead-America’s to the Public. But pretty much everyone knew-someone who was in & we/they, sorta expected that the Military would be brutal, so everyone could come home, ASAP.
    tangent– was listening to an NBC radio, “complete broadcast-day,” archive on/for D-Day. [good stuff at http://www.archive.org] search “D-day complete broadcast” for a slew of various versions from all over the Country.
    -Very enlightening on how restrained our media was– they had zero endless commentary & speculation. “Just the Facts,” type stuff, given morale was always a consideration. (yeah, it was “controlled” but we had sorta learned our lesson from WW1 on over the top “atrocity” reporting.)
    FDR requesting a nationwide Prayer, type stuff, — really hits me on a purely emotional level. Can you imagine that today?
    [1 uncle died on the beach, other 1 killed at Battle of the Bulge. My dad was slightly younger but would have been on the beach for the Japanese invasion in fall of 45.]
    ((and I wouldn’t be alive today))
    — when I was a kid, “everyone’s” Dad had played a part in some way, WW2 or Korea.)
    –“Those who wait & work, also Serve!”

    If you like Military History– search “Gresham College History lectures” at youtube, (the British are good at “lectures,” especially War & Physics!) & you probably already know the WW-2 Museum (in Louisiana?) has huge amounts of video-lectures & history. Really, really good. (War College has great stuff as well.)

    Good commentary on the Occupation!
    That was where we could really lead-by-example & explains in-part, how tight we are with Germany/Japan today. (excepting the small % as you mentioned)

    –Oh, you would enjoy the German TV mini-series, “Generation War,” (like 3-4 hours long) it’s sorta their version of Band of Brothers, & without skipping over their nastiness. It caused quite a stir when it was run in Germany just a few years ago. (brutally honest, the good, terrible, and otherwise.) If you search, you can get the whole thing for free.

    You have some GREAT sentence-thought Gem’s as well!
    I can’t take credit for mine being 100% original thoughts, but thanks just the same!

  • Garry

    We talk about insiders and outsiders like they’re binary, but I think there’s such thing as being too far outside the system to bring it back on course.

    Without knowledge of how the system operates, and having a vision of how it should change, one cannot effectively challenge the system.

    I think Cruz not only has an intimate knowledge of how the system is designed and how it works, but has done his best to change things. For all the congressman and senators elected to oppose Obamacare in 2010, Cruz has done the most, and risked the most, to actually try and defeat it. Yes, maybe he is too much of a showman at times, and he comes across as a phony in some respects, but he’s the only one I’ve seen making a serious effort.

    My wife’s theory is that Trump announced he’s running from President, purely with the intent to enhance his brand. Once he found he was winning, he thought he can actually win, but has no idea what he would do. I don’t believe this theory, but I can’t dismiss it out of hand either.

    Trump’s whole offering so far is attitude, with very little substance. I’ve been disappointed again and again by his simplistic slogans and failure to show any knowledge of how things work and what has to happen to get things done. He even took a few days to address the David Duke endorsement, stumbling at first. To be fair, Cruz hasn’t revealed as much as I’d like either.

    As I’ve said before, both are Rorschach tests, especially Trump; we tend to see what we want to see. But Cruz has shown real actions and better understanding of the issues.

    I think the best analogy for Trump becoming president is Arnold becoming governor of California, or Jesse Ventura becoming governor of Minnesota; tough guys who owed their image to and were elected largely on the basis of their attitudes (and their fame outside of politics). I don’t put Reagan in their category; his image was not a Hollywood tough guy, he had a degree in economics, learned negotiation skills as head of the Screen Actors Guild, and spent years working for GE learning and lecturing about politics, followed by great success as governor. Besides, he didn’t have nearly the stature as an entertainer than the others did.

    Both candidates have visible flaws, but I’m behind Cruz at this point.

  • Cotour

    Reading your response here I know that we ultimately see this entire situation in basically similar ways, we just interpret the strategy to get to the desired result a bit differently. I think we both understand that there are very powerful, self interested forces that surround all of our choices and they will have their pound of flesh and as much influence and control over the massive power that we are discussing as they can possibly acquire, by hook or by crook.

    Yes, Bernie being a Leftist is a man totally immersed in the machine, the machine for the sake of the machine, its so beautiful………. I see Trump however as someone who has a history of buying off the machine as a function of his business activities. He uses the machine and the rules that exist as the means to effect the ends that he needs, two ends of the same corrupt monster.

    At this point I see either Trump or Cruz facing Hillary, probably Trump. Bernie will rile up his supporters and they may in time burn down the Democrat party, but shy of the FEDS taking Hillary away in cuffs she will be the candidate and Trump will mercilessly shred her, and I think that the people will accept his man handling of her.

    When its all boiled down and the people are going to vote and the choice is going to be Hillary or Trump I have to go with a 52 / 48 likelihood that the Republican will prevail in this cycle. This is where the vote counting concerns me, why are the electronic votes for the American presidency counted in Spain by a Soros controlled company?

  • Wayno

    Garry/Cotour–both good posts.

    Garry opined:
    [“We talk about insiders and outsiders like they’re binary,…”]

    Excellent point. We have the political-class establishment, business-class establishment, academic-class establishment, etc. They are all “establishment insiders” just in different realms.
    –They may even work against each other on the fringes, but for me– all “Statists.” At the end of the day, they are all “one.”
    The US Chamber of Crony Capitalism is a prime example. They don’t represent the vast majority of small-medium business’s in any way shape or form.
    Good point about Arnold/Ventura. Arnold was never Conservative. Ventura neither, but while they both appeared to be “outsider’s” they each had vastly different agenda’s. Arnold- Progressive. Ventura–tin-foil hat stuff.
    Trump has flirted with politics before, just never pulled the trigger. When you get super-rich, often the only thing left to achieve, is Political Power. Think Bloomberg.
    –Excellent summary of Reagan, he honed his belief’s & skill’s over decades.
    Being an Actor was a Feature rather than the Bug the left used against him.
    (If you notice– lefty Actor’s are worshipped for their ‘political analysis,’ & “thoughtful insight.” Conservative Actor’s are of course “stupid,” and “just actors.”

    Tangent– often thought Whoopi Goldberg lost her mind & think’s she’s the “all-knowing & brilliant” Star Trek Character she played on TV. Know what I mean?

    –I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express, as well. Doesn’t make me a Physicst… I just play one on the Internet! (HAR)

    Cotour opined:
    [“…shy of the FEDS taking Hillary away in cuffs she will be the candidate.. ]

    Even if she was indicted before November, or even convicted afterward, she can still run & hold office. There is no prohibition on people indicted/convicted holding office.
    She would have to be impeached by the next Congress if elected.
    Comey is getting a lot of heat, but ultimately Obama political-appointee’s make the decision as to prosecute or not. And I think not.
    I would venture to opine Obama might be waiting for the Republican convention, before he decides what to allow the DOJ to do. Who knows? He’s so DIABOLICAL I can’t keep up with him & his ilk.
    Yes– I would agree we essentially desire similar things.
    (You’re back up to my “88%” ally! HAR… just goofing you. :) )

    Counter-differ on your characterization of Cruz being “controlled,” but no problem.

    You all know I’m for CRUZ. Which to me is better than being “against the other man/woman.” Held my nose twice with McCain/Romney, against Obama.

    Garry– definitely YouTube search the phrase, “Gresham College Military History Lectures,” just took a look to see if they had anything recent posted & spotted many I know you would enjoy. Good one on the “American Way of War Fighting”, among scores of others.
    (I am less able to critically watch them, than perhaps you. But generally I can tell pretty fast if the speaker has some sort of Agenda which clouds the “facts.”)

    Mr. Z; This is one damn-interesting website! Science & Conservative politics, a great pairing I seldom see, if ever!

  • Garry


    Will definitely check that out, probably not today (have bookmarked the search results in youtube). Thanks!

  • Wayne

    Garry My Man!

    Hope you get a chance to delve into their material. The actual College website (in the UK) has vastly more material posted, but I find it cumbersome & difficult to search myself. –YouTube generally groups the various subject matter together pretty well.
    Stumbled across Gresham looking for (quality) Physics/Astronomy lectures & then got wrapped up in their History/Military material, as well. ( I finally know how Britain turned all Socialist last century, & stuff on WW1 I never knew.)

    One thing about the British Academic Institutions– they have a lengthy history of presenting quality public-lectures on all sorts of topics. Some of it’s junk, but Gresham is particularly good. (“since 1597”)

    Semi-retired so I have time & download-software that grabs the actual YouTube links; allows me to choose quality-level, start, stop, schedule the downloads for overnight, etc.
    –Then I can watch the full-file videos without any commercials, at my whim. (if you snatch the full-files, >no commercials & you can play them on your computer or route them to your TV, burn DVD’s, whatever.)
    (Har, I grabbed almost 80 GB’s of material last month alone. Stopped watching “our-favorite-cable news channel,” in favor of physics & astronomy.)

    –I’m babbling now….., but if you enjoy science, The Perimeter Institute in Canada & Stanford University in California, have huge amounts of lectures available on YouTube as well.

    Very picky with this material & try hard to find top quality stuff.
    (Dr. Penrose & Dr. Susskind are among my favorites for Cosmology & Physics.)

    Good luck!

  • Edward

    Garry wrote at March 10, 2016 at 8:26 am: “It’s been well documented that in World War Two the Japanese acted very immorally,”

    My understanding is that the Japanese had been honorable warriors until about the time they invaded China in the 1930s. Somehow the philosophy got turned on its head and they did some horrendous things in China and the Pacific.

    Garry wrote at March 10, 2016 at 8:26 am: “I’ve read a lot of military histories, and my favorite kind is written after interviewing hundreds of people who were there, of all ranks, and presenting a mosaic of what happened;”

    Try also the British series “The World At War,” as it interviews the guys “in the trenches” and the civilians on the receiving end of the bombs.

    Garry wrote at March 10, 2016 at 10:11 am: “Without knowledge of how the system operates, and having a vision of how it should change, one cannot effectively challenge the system.”

    Cultures are difficult to improve. You can easily change them by feeding people’s fears and other ‘negative’ emotions, but getting people to respond to the more positive emotions is harder. One example is the company Hewlett-Packard, which had developed a culture known as “The HP Way.” During economic downturns, the company did everything it could to avoid layoffs, but that changed when less creative management took over. The HP culture degraded almost literally overnight.

    Getting politicians to behave in ways other than those that We the People have rewarded them for over the past many decades will be difficult indeed.

    Schwarzenegger tried in California. When he failed to get the legislature to make changes, he brought his proposals to the voters, who then turned him down. Apparently we elected him for his acting or his celebrity, not for his ideas. Silly us.

  • Wayne-Man

    Edward my Man!

    It may have been earlier than 1930’s for the Japanese, I just don’t know. They were indoctrinated that all non-Japanese were inferior. (Big hatred for the Chinese.) Not too up on the variations of the Traditional Warrior Class Vs. the ruling political- elites.

    “World At War”– excellent series! (Who was the narrator?? It’s on the tip-o-my-tongue.)

    HP– personally, I like my HP equipment very much; Have always bought HP computers & calculators & wouldn’t dream of buying any other brand. What’s your take on when Carly F was in-charge? I was under the impression she did a good job during a bad time for tech overall (?)

    Arnold–Like him as an actor but from what I’ve been told he didn’t do a great job ((a “progressive”)– expand on your thoughts if you like, I’ll read them!
    California has a lot of ballot “initiative’s” do they not? How does that work for you guys? (my impression was that he could have been Reagan-esque early on but the State had just basically changed too much and was totally against him

  • Wayne

    Edward– have you been to the Reagan Library? (They will be covering Nancy’s funeral through the Library website.) I have not, but would love to visit– the area looks beautiful!

  • Garry

    I haven’t watched The World at War since I watched it Sunday nights with my dad, when it came out back in the 70’s and I was a kid. It made a big impression on me; it showed human suffering in a way that made the viewer sympathetic, and left the impression that war is a very serious business and not some glorious John Wayne movie. I’ll have to check it out again when time allows.

    The Japanese are a very honorable people, but they can also be sheep-like. We say “the squeaky wheel gets the grease,” they say “The nail that sticks up gets hammered down.”

    Many of their atrocities and war crimes (such as forced prostitution) were official policy of their military, whereas in recent times ours (Abu Ghraib, for example) tend to be done by rogue soldiers or small units. I can imagine many Japanese just following along.

    The three monkeys (speak no evil, see no evil, hear no evil) come from Japan, and are very illustrative in some circumstances. I’ve been on a crowded train platform where some coward slapped his girlfriend brutally and repeatedly, and none of the 500 people there saw or heard a thing. I’ve also seen women groped on the train with everyone (including her) ignoring it (although one time I was able to discreetly shove the offender away from the victim, never making eye contact with either party).

    In my experience, it’s a very rare Japanese person who will initiate any immoral act, but at the same time, it’s a very rare Japanese person who will actively speak out against any immoral act in progress. In some way we can’t understand, we bring shame on the victim when we notice the offense.

  • Wayne


    Very interesting!– they showed “World at War” on Sunday’s in my market as well- -1970’s. 26 episodes if I recall correctly.
    –Narrator was either Richard Burton or Lawrence Olivier (spell ?)

    Very interesting cultural info on the Japanese!

    – Have a metallurgist friend who worked for Mitsubishi Heavy Industry in the 80’s/90’s, outside of Tokyo. He fell in love with the Company supplied Japanese-language teacher they had for him. She was fascinated with all things American, Baseball, Mickey Mouse, anything, & she spoke perfect English.
    -They ended up getting married after his contract expired & came back to the States. She was amazed “everyone” had a front/back yard with lawns, etc. (Yes, he did learn to speak Japanese very well.)
    -He did say, it was a cultural shock adapting to their business culture. They were however impressed he took the time to learn Japanese & their Customs.

    –I’m vaguely familiar with their biological war-crimes in WW-2 “Unit 361” or something like that. (Far more familiar with Germany– have another Uncle who was drafted in 1966 & worked on Missiles in West Germany.)

    –Interesting tangent you would enjoy; He went through basic training & on the last day, thought briefly about volunteering to go to Vietnam “to get it over with”– but my grandfather had told him before he went — “Never volunteer for anything.”

    Day after he graduated Basic, they sent him to Missile Training & then to West Germany for 3 years. (family was overjoyed)

    –I do know we treated them differently than Germany, during the occupation. Less War-Crime prosecutions than in Germany & no Japanese type “Denazification” programs as we did with Germany. I guess “shaming” & defeating the Emperor in 1945 made a distinct impression on the population.

    –My wife’s Uncle fought on Iowa Jima for 13 days before he got wounded– about all he ever told us was, “it was hell on earth & we never took prisoner’s.” > Lived to a ripe old age but just never told “war stories,” at all.

    Listening to a Mr. Z podcast right now. ( from Thursday John Batchelor Show)

    I think you would enjoy “Man in the High Castle,” there’s a heavy Japanese/Buddhist element going on in the “Pacific Occupied States” story line.

    Thanks for the info tidbits!
    Very interesting, diverse, and well-informed folks here!

  • Edward

    Wayne wrote: “‘World At War’– excellent series! (Who was the narrator?? It’s on the tip-o-my-tongue.)”

    Sir Lawrence Olivier. He did a great job; it pays to have an actor do the narration, as he knows when to sound upbeat and when to be depressing.

    Wayne wrote: “What’s your take on when Carly F was in-charge? I was under the impression she did a good job during a bad time for tech overall (?)”

    Carly was the one who killed The HP Way, which demoralized many. She was not looked on kindly for a long while, around here. What is worse, it is generally acknowledged that it takes a good eighteen months for a turnaround to occur, and she was fired after a year — before she could get any credit for HP’s recovery. It is hard to say, now, whether the recovery was due to her efforts or if the next guy deserves much of the credit.

    As for Arnold, he came after Davis, who was so progressive that he made Arnold look like a constitutional conservative. Many of the things that Schwarzenegger tried — but failed — to do in his first term were to undo the damage that Davis caused. We will be paying the price of that damage for decades. I have no idea why he was reelected.

    Unfortunately, I have not been to the Reagan Library. Despite having friends and second cousins in the Los Angeles area, I have not taken the time from my visits to go there.

    Garry wrote: “I can imagine many Japanese just following along.”

    This is what happens when a culture is under a tyranny. The citizenry is “hammered down” into submission and learns to obey orders and not act independently. Interestingly, the difference was noted in Tuchman’s book “The Guns of August.” German officers were being shot by citizen snipers, and since the German population would never act without the knowledge of their leaders, the Germans assumed the same was true in Belgium, so they shot the mayors of the towns closest to where the sniping occurred.

    A free people act independently. This is what is meant when we say that Americans are ruggedly individualistic. Individualism comes from the freedom and the ruggedness comes from not being babysat by the government. If you can’t do it by yourself, form a team, but do not ask what your country can do for you, as you are adult enough to live your own life. Plus, you are adult enough and productive enough to be able to ask what you can do for your country.

    Wayne wrote: “[The Japanese were] impressed he took the time to learn Japanese & their Customs.”

    I took a “cross-cultural communications” class in college. Learning and following customs is appreciated anywhere you go, which is probably why Americans and the French are considered rude most of the places they go (and why the Muslims have such a poor reputation in Europe, right now).

  • Wayne

    Edward: opined in par:

    [This is what happens when a culture is under a tyranny. The citizenry is “hammered down” into submission and learns to obey orders and not act independently.]

    Yes. Germans under Nazi’s (& before) believed in the “Fuhrerprinzip” (Fuhrer-Principle)
    (Similar with Russians under Stalin as well)


    — Following Orders & Doing your Duty (as defined by the State) was valued above all, to the point where individual soldiers & units were not noted for their ability to adapt under chaos. (Was it you that noted “Americans thrived under the Chaos of War.” or was that Garry?)

    –Our Military (Garry weigh in if I’m off!) follows orders (legal-orders) but good old American ingenuity and can-do attitude allows them to adapt to the situation at hand & complete-the-mission under adverse situations that pop up in the fog-of-war. Germans often failed to act decisively, until they had explicit instructions from the top.
    (They could fight well, don’t get me wrong, but had no individuality in the eyes of the State.)

    –That, I suppose, would work great, if the top dog was Absolutely Perfect, ya know?!
    (It also breeds side dealing and corruption.)
    Your Belgium illustration is a perfect example.

    Great comments.

    Appreciate your take about HP & Arnold.

    I would suggest we terminate this thread & pick up in a more recent one. (HALT & Catch Fire!]
    I can’t keep track of who-said-what, anymore. (HAR)

    Always enjoy! Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *