Who, Why, How

Who, why, how.

I keep rotating the questions.

Someone has been hacking my private mail since 2007. It was the company monitoring me. I saw emails deleted. They even sent me a Trojan. This was not just work mail, but personal.

Later, it escalated into sending people my way to snoop or set me up. Job replies would be deleted or never reach. Book proposals, inquiries, all waylaid.

I would shut down my email and start another…and I would be safe for a few months and then it would start all over. Personal letters, phone calls, messages and always the listening.

I pulled out the land lines after things I discussed showed up in different articles all in the same incestuous web of newsletters. Who was feeding that stuff to them? Was it intelligence? Or was it some contractor?  Was the boss involved, and which boss?

Every quiet moment alone, only I wasn’t alone. Every family joke, that my enemies now knew.

 

 

But why?  And why this latest sabotage of my domain?

Who else was in on it with them? Someone at the hosting company. Yes, probably. 

American censorship, free market style. The market has spoken. Only not the market, but criminals.

White-collar criminals. The ones who never make the headlines with those Mexican rapists conjured by the crook-in-chief. The Mossad stooge.

Should I connect the dots from spammers to hackers to domain squatters and domain sabotage? I think so.

And why? Well, first, why not? If you can inflict damage with impunity on an enemy…and apparently I am an enemy for having been a victim/ target…why not.

But something else is ticking inside those malevolent heads.

What is it, fellows?

 

 

Back to Blogging

Apologies for the site having been down so long. First, there was a long spell of bot attacks that I could never tackle in time.

Then, there were a bunch of technical glitches. I’m up now, but for how long I can’t say. I’ll take it as it comes.

My latest preoccupation is the growing menace of biometric identification, the worst specimen of which is India’s monstrous Aadhaar card.

Aadhaar, as duly noted on this blog, has the same meaning as Al Qaeda, that is, ‘the base’..which is another word for a ‘the foundation’. But it is also a pun on a more obviously ominous word – ‘data-base.’

A data-base of human beings, that is.

These sorts of cogitations will be dismissed in the major media as conspiracy theory.

But it is nothing of the sort, to anyone who follows the day-to-day encroachment of the state on the remaining rags of privacy.

Aadhaar is exceptional in that it includes a person’s name, his/her parents’ names, a photograph, all ten finger-prints, iris scans, and a signature, all in one easily duplicated piece of paper.

Already, despite Supreme Court pronouncements to the contrary, the Indian government has demanded it for public welfare schemes, for government scholarships, for new bank accounts, for government pensions, for gas subsidies, for cell phone accounts, and now, perhaps,  for income-tax filings.

Already, millions of people with Aadhaar have had all their personal and financial details leaked, for weeks and months at a time, on multiple government websites.

The implications are horrendous, by any measure. The helpless citizen is now trapped between the surveillance state and the criminal mafias, pinned down like prey, cowering between the gimlet-eyed eagle of global government overhead and the insidious snake of international crime underfoot.

Trump Exposes The State For What It Is

Karen Kwiatkowsky at LRC  sums up my own feelings about Trump, his fans, and his critics:

If Donald Trump turns out to be power-hungry, corrupt, and stupid, if he becomes an icon of an arrogant emperor, it would simply be the first time in recent decades that we the people widely recognized those characteristics in a president.  This – what we are watching today – is how an all-consuming, and all involving state behaves, in its natural environment.

The upset and sadness regarding the new administration by a whole sector of Americans (and their mainstream media translators) is the result of their own ignorance of how the government of the size and scope of the US government actually works.  Fascism seems to be the word of the day – but our government is a long established crony capitalist state, one able, willing and eager to take by hook, by crook and by force, whatever it wants from any citizen of non-citizen alike.  This is old news.

Those who love the glory of the state, adore its power and enjoy its parental aura, have built and supported the state we have.  Donald Trump is the perfect man to lead it.

I certainly hope that he might also be the perfect president to destroy it.

Either way, I see nothing worth complaining about.  Our energies should be spent on living freely, prospering and helping others to do so.  We should pay attention to the teeth-gnashing of the ruling, chattering and echo-chamber classes only so far as it informs us on potential vulnerabilities of the state that we may use practically, and as teachable moments.”

Trump Refugee Cap Is Not “Muslim Ban”

As usual, the mainstream media around the globe are hysterically misrepresenting the facts about the Trump restrictions on immigration. This is no blanket ban on Muslims, as a careful reading of the text shows.

From the Powerline blog:

David French does a good job of separating the facts from the hysteria. For the hysteria, French cites the usual suspects: Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, the Huffington Post, etc.

For the facts, and for perspective, French begins with this:

[T]he order temporarily halts refugee admissions for 120 days to improve the vetting process, then caps refugee admissions at 50,000 per year. Outrageous, right? Not so fast.

Before 2016, when Obama dramatically ramped up refugee admissions, Trump’s 50,000 stands roughly in between a typical year of refugee admissions in George W. Bush’s two terms and a typical year in Obama’s two terms. . . .In 2002, the United States admitted only 27,131 refugees. It admitted fewer than 50,000 in 2003, 2006, and 2007. As for President Obama, he was slightly more generous than President Bush, but his refugee cap from 2013 to 2015 was a mere 70,000, and in 2011 and 2012 he admitted barely more than 50,000 refugees himself.

The bottom line is that Trump is improving security screening and intends to admit refugees at close to the average rate of the 15 years before Obama’s dramatic expansion in 2016. Obama’s expansion was a departure from recent norms, not Trump’s contraction.

About the 90-day ban on people entering the U.S. from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, French has this to say:

[T]hese are countries either torn apart by jihadist violence or under the control of hostile, jihadist governments. The ban is in place while the Department of Homeland Security determines the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat. It could, however, be extended or expanded depending on whether countries are capable of providing the requested information.

The ban, however, contains an important exception: Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked. In other words, the secretaries can make exceptions — a provision that would, one hopes, fully allow interpreters and other proven allies to enter the U.S. during the 90-day period.

To the extent this ban applies to new immigrant and non-immigrant entry, this temporary halt (with exceptions) is wise. We know that terrorists are trying to infiltrate the ranks of refugees and other visitors. We know that immigrants from Somalia, for example, have launched jihadist attacks here at home and have sought to leave the U.S. to join ISIS.

Indeed, given the. . .recent track record of completed and attempted terror attacks by Muslim immigrants, it’s clear that our current approach is inadequate to control the threat. Unless we want to simply accept Muslim immigrant terror as a fact of American life, a short-term ban on entry from problematic countries combined with a systematic review of our security procedures is both reasonable and prudent.

French opposes application of the ban to green-card holders because they have already gone through round after round of vetting. He notes, however, that Trump’s order, by its terms, doesn’t apply to them. Thus, the administration should intervene to stop the misapplication of its order to green-card holders. If it doesn’t, “it should indeed be condemned,” French says.

What about the indefinite hold on admitting Syrian refugees? French finds this to be fairly inconsequential — a return, largely, to the Obama administration’s practices from 2011 to 2014:

For all the Democrats’ wailing and gnashing of teeth, until 2016 the Obama administration had already largely slammed the door on Syrian-refugee admissions. The Syrian Civil War touched off in 2011. Here are the Syrian-refugee admissions to the U.S. until Obama decided to admit more than 13,000 in 2016:Fiscal Year 2011: 29Fiscal Year 2012: 31Fiscal Year 2013: 36Fiscal Year 2014: 105Fiscal Year 2015: 1,682.

To recap: While the Syrian Civil War was raging, ISIS was rising, and refugees were swamping Syria’s neighbors and surging into Europe, the Obama administration let in less than a trickle of refugees. Only in the closing days of his administration did President Obama reverse course — in numbers insufficient to make a dent in the overall crisis, by the way — and now the Democrats have the audacity to tweet out pictures of bleeding Syrian children?

It’s particularly gross to see this display when the Obama administration’s deliberate decision to leave a yawning power vacuum — in part through its Iraq withdrawal and in part through its dithering throughout the Syrian Civil War — exacerbated the refugee crisis in the first place. There was a genocide on Obama’s watch, and his tiny trickle of Syrian refugees hardly makes up for the grotesque negligence of abandoning Iraq and his years-long mishandling of the emerging Syrian crisis.

When we know our enemy is seeking to strike America and its allies through the refugee population, when we know they’ve succeeded in Europe, and when the administration has doubts about our ability to adequately vet the refugees we admit into this nation, a pause is again not just prudent but arguably necessary.

What about Trump’s directive to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality? French puts this directive in perspective by noting the extent to which persecuted non-Muslims almost never seemed to benefit from Obama’s refugee policy:

[When] Obama dramatically expanded Syrian refugee admissions in 2016, few Christians made the cut:The Obama administration has resettled 13,210 Syrian refugees into the United States since the beginning of 2016 — an increase of 675 percent over the same 10-month period in 2015.Of those, 13,100 (99.1 percent) are Muslims — 12,966 Sunnis, 24 Shi’a, and 110 other Muslims — and 77 (0.5 percent) are Christians. Another 24 (0.18 percent) are Yazidis.

As a point of reference, in 2015 Christians represented roughly 10 percent of Syria’s population. Perhaps there’s an innocent explanation for the disparity. Perhaps not.

In any event, federal asylum and refugee law already has a built-in religious test. The term refugee means “(A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality . . . and who is unable or unwilling to return to . . . that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of . . . religion [among other things] . . .” Thus, as French says:

Religious considerations are by law part of refugee policy. And it is entirely reasonable to give preference (though not exclusivity) to members of minority religions.

Finally, French emphasizes that “you can read the entire executive order from start to finish, reread it, then read it again, and you will not find a Muslim ban.” He concludes:

Now is the time to take a fresh look at our border-control and immigration policies. Trump’s order isn’t a betrayal of American values. Applied correctly and competently, it can represent a promising fresh start and a prelude to new policies that protect our nation while still maintaining American compassion and preserving American friendships.”

 

Will The Real Rape Culture Please Stand Up?

 

A horrendous allegation of gang rape at Baylor University.

Nothing has been proved yet, and what with all the false rape charges, I would like to find out what really happened before going there.

Still, on the face of it, I find it credible.

Is this a contradiction of my previous blog post about false rape charges?

No. Arguing that feminist laws are exacerbating false-rape charges in India in no way makes me unable to see real rape when (and if) it occurs.

There is NO rape culture in the US if you are talking about the average bloke and the average family.

On the contrary, there is a culture of misandry.

But in certain specialized settings, there is a rape culture.

One setting is the military – an outgrowth of the state.

The second is also an outgrowth of the state – the billion-dollar sports industry, with its endless stroking of athletic narcissism, its addiction to steroids, and its entitlement culture off the field.

The third locus of genuine rape culture is in certain venues in colleges, in bars and voluntary associations, where political correctness comes to an end and atavistic urges fueled by drugs, alcohol, and often violent porn, take over as a back-lash.

Here too, the state can be blamed. It is only the existence of enormous subsidies from the state that make this kind of permissive partying life-style possible.

The other two sites of genuine rape-culture are the prisons (also an outgrowth of the state) and criminal gangs on the street (fed by prison culture).

None of that has anything to do with traditional patriarchy.

Rather,  the causes lie with intoxicants, the break-down of community standards, and the inculcation of the military ideal of a “killing machine” into even civilians, via a mindless sports culture, through criminal gangs, and through a prison-culture that is widely imitated by young people.

The state is central to the culture that promotes rape. The traditional patriarchal family is not.