|
|
PRIDGER |
|
E-Mail |
John Q. Pridger's
|
|
BUY AMERICAN:
http://www.usstuff.com | http://www.madeinusa.org/
| http://www.stillmadeinusa.com/
| http://www.buyamerican.com/ |
|
|
|
PRIDGER |
|
E-Mail |
John Q. Pridger's
|
|
BUY AMERICAN:
http://www.usstuff.com | http://www.madeinusa.org/
| http://www.stillmadeinusa.com/
| http://www.buyamerican.com/ |
|
|
Pridger's Web Host Important Links BLOG DEC.
2008 JUL-DEC.
2007 DEC.
2006 |
Thursday, 27 August, 2009 THE CHINESE SEEM TO BE GETTING A LOT OF THINGS RIGHT Not only have the Chinese taken advantage of all the advantages our hapless leaders have offered them, they have apparently taken a lesson from Pridger or at least Henry Ford. Pridger predicted they would a long time ago. It's only common sense. When our financial capital system crashed (as was inevitable), the much ballyhooed global economy turned into a lemon. But the Chinese are taking that lemon and are making lemonade with it. While our trusty leaders have thrown multiple trillions of dollars at the bankers and other shysters who crashed out economy, the Chinese are focusing on their real economy. The manufactured goods that are no longer finding export markets are being redirected to the vast Chinese market! Who couldn't have seen that coming? And to think! Western financial capital had always deluded itself in believing the vast undeveloped Chinese market would eventually belong to it! Though it was totally detrimental to the interests of the American people, this is about the only good and positive thing our trusty mis-representatives have accomplished during the last generation helping China transform itself from a poor backward nation into an industrial powerhouse. It relieves a lot of Americans from the necessity of working in those dirty old factories and smoke stack industries. Since China has a domestic market about four times larger than our own, all it has to do is to develop that market. It already has the industry to do it with, thanks to our leaders and the big capitalists that pull their strings. What's more, China has plenty of brains. While our leaders have been selling us on the benefits of international interdependence, China has been diligently working toward economic independence and agricultural and industrial self-sufficiency. While we are now hamstrung as the result of our own greed, China has a free hand to do whatever it has a mind to. While our financial and banking system has proved itself a leaden albatross around our national neck, China has put its financial system to work building a great national economy. The key is that the Chinese government owns its banks while, on the enlightened side of the Pacific, the bankers own our government. China is in control of its own economy because it owns its own banks and issues and controls its own money. And, of course, it has an economic plan that naturally focuses on its own real economy, rather than global financial markets. Our Secretary of State and Secretary of the Treasury have to go to China, cap humbly in hand, to beg credit and support for our own failed financial system, our dollar, and our global economy. This is nothing short of poetic justice. What was Henry Ford's lesson? In a nutshell, if you have a large and profitable manufacturing plant with a lot of workers, which produces something a lot of people want, keep prices low, and raise the workers' wages so they can buy the products of their labor! It's as simple as that! That's what Ford did, and (though he shocked and outraged fellow industrialists and financial handlers), the Ford Motor Company prospered as never before, and Ford himself never had to stand in a soup line. Pridger believes China got the message a message which has been totally lost in America since financial capital totally vanquished and perverted industrial capital, totally transforming the American economy into a huge casino. See Ellen Brown's excellent article "THE SECRET OF CHINAS MIRACLE ECONOMY: THE GOVERNMENT OWNS THE BANKS RATHER THAN THE REVERSE" at: http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/secret_of_china.php Ellen Hodgson Brown is the author of Web of Debt, the Shocking Truth About Our Monetary System, And How We Can Break Free. Her web site is: webofdebt.com. Pridger hasn't read the book yet, but he's read enough of her on line articles to know that she's right on track. John Q. Pridger
Sunday, 9 August, 2009 THE "BIRTHER" PROBLEM It just won't go away! Naturally there will be a lot of Republicans and fringe lunatics (including some Democrats and liberals) who will continue to question President Obama's eligibility to become president. However, Barack Hussein Obama is already the president of the United States of America. Everybody knows that. It's obvious. It's a fait accompli the people have spoken! Whether Obama was, or was not, a "natural born citizen" during his campaign is totally irrelevant. The people who selected him, and then those who elected him, didn't care. They still don't care. He got elected anyway. Whatever the facts are, and whatever the definition of "natural born citizen" is, or will be changed to be, we can rest assured that Obama officially became a natural born citizen the day he took office. The Constitution says that a president must be one and Obama is president after all. What is it about all this that the "birthers" don't get? Do they really believe that the Constitution is still the Supreme Law of the Land, and that teeth have little fairies? Obama was elected, in part (and in the full light of day), because of his unique multi-national and dual-ethnic background, and the rich cultural experience of his youth in foreign lands. His exotic father and step-father, and his adventurous young mother are what makes his story so appealing. The story of his parentage, conception, birth, childhood experience, and political career, reads like something from a holy book or fairytale. Obama, himself, could clearly see this and wrote two books about his life long before him imagined himself as president.
Even more amusing than the "birther" movement (which we can understand), is its opposition. It could care less about any "technical qualifications" for becoming president. But now that it's been brought up, they believe, apparently without any credible evidence beyond those who say "trust me," what the birthers have thus far refused to believe. The evidence on their side is questionable at best, and proves nothing relevant to the issue of "natural born citizenship" status. A genuine Hawaiian "Record of Live Birth" proves nothing more than that his birth was registered in Hawaii. We assume, of course, that somebody did actually check. Even the apparently legitimate Hawaiian "record of live birth" raises some serious questions. Barack Hussien Obama, Sr.'s race is described as "African" which has never been an officially used racial designation. Africa is a continent occupied by many races, not all of which are black. It doesn't take any credible evidence to provoke some doubts about the circumstances and place of Obama's birth since there appears to be no credible evidence proving he met the constitutional requirements for the job on more than one point. Even Obama seems to be a little confused on the matter of details of his birth and infant years, and certainly seems to be going to great lengths to hide something. This, in itself, is more than just a little suspicious. What is there about his official vital records that must be kept from his constituents? As a result of the birther investigations, no doubt, Obama himself is finding out much more about himself and his parents than he knew before. A lot swings on the matter of defining exactly what "natural born citizen" actually means. Unfortunately, the Constitution, which invoked the phrase with regards to presidential qualifications, neglected to define it. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States In the end, it is going to amount to hair splitting, whether all "born citizens" (whether born on American soil or to American parents abroad), are "natural born citizens" or are they just "American citizens" by birth, but not qualified to hold the office of the presidency? Can dual nationals be considered "natural born citizens"? Can individuals who have adopted new nationalities and returned to the States "informally resume" natural born status? Does a foreign father, who does not become a naturalized citizen, preclude "natural born citizenship" status? The Birther fiasco with Obama will probably force Congress to define, once and for all, what a "natural born citizen" is. What does Pridger actually believe with regard to Obama's birther problems? Nothing. He does suspect a few things, and feels that there is definitely something fishy in the air. Just what it is remains to be seen. What is a tempest in a teapot to Obama fans, is a serious matter to the birthers, who apparently still believe the Constitution has a definite meaning and purpose. Some of them aren't even racists as the Obama supporters claim. John Q. Pridger Thursday, 11 June, 2009 SHOOTING AT THE HOLOCAUST MUSEUM Pridger cannot resist commenting on yesterday's shooting at the Washington D.C. National Holocaust Memorial Museum. Prior to the shooting and all the media coverage, Pridger had never heard of James von Brunn. It appears he was a very angry man who, nearing the end of his life, intended to go out in a blaze of glory while making a statement. Attorney Edgar J. Steel has probably summed up James von Brunn's motives as good as any. Read his article "Why He Did It," at: http://www.nickelrant.com. Von Brunn apparently killed Steven Johns, a black security guard, in cold blood as soon as he entered the building. Perhaps Mr. Johns even opened the door for the elderly gentleman. On the other hand, it's possible the security guard was hit by the same hail of bullets from fellow security guards that brought von Brunn down. Von Brunn was hit several times, and several bullets missed their mark. The only reason Pridger even thinks of this possibility, is that it doesn't seem von Brunn had armed himself with a view toward maximizing the damage he might do. One account said he was firing at random. According to news accounts, he was armed with an almost hundred year old .22 rifle. Von Brunn was an ex-military man, and undoubtedly knew that you don't go into battle, or to a mass murder with a .22. Though a .22 is a deadly weapon, it falls short on stopping power, and simply isn't a weapon of choice when confronting guards armed with .38s or 9mms. Obviously von Brunn was much more interested in making a statement while committing suicide than he was in killing as many innocent people as possible. Whatever the case, of course, there was plenty of criminal intent. It was a desperate, foolish, criminal, and counterproductive act. And in the end it can even be characterized as a selfish act. At best it will merely serve the propaganda interests of the very forces with whom von Brunn had carried out his Quixotic battle over many decades. At worst, it will result in more oppression laws and further loss of liberty for all of us. Most lamentably, an innocent man was murdered, and his wife made a widow and his children fatherless. To von Brunn, Johns may have merely been an "enemy combatant" but to the rest of us he was a family man merely trying to make a living. HATE CRIME? Of course, since von Brunn made no secret of his racial biases and prejudices, he will undoubtedly be charged with a "hate crime." Perhaps his crime was motivated by hate. It would certainly appear so. But murder is a capital crime punishable by death or life in prison whether it was committed out of hate or just a love of killing. So, what's the point of making "hate" a crime add-on, no matter what nature of crime it may be? A crime is a crime, regardless of motive. No crime is any more a less a crime by virtue of hatred, pure viciousness, or merely the joy of doing what one knows to be wrong. Is hatred any worse than a purely vicious or criminal nature? Juries have plenty of latitude to throw the book at anybody they convict of a crime on the basis of the merits of the case alone. Requiring a more severe sentence because of alleged hate is ludicrous. Codifying hate as a crime or a super-charge in addition to the real charge, can only serve one purpose to stifle freedom of expression, and even freedom of "thought" and to intimidate people, potentially preventing them from exercising their most fundamental rights. It's only real intent is more than just obvious and that is to stifle unpopular, or politically incorrect, opinions and inquiries. Where is it leading? For one thing, nobody is supposed to question anything thing as sacrosanct in our society as the "Holocaust." Just making that simple statement is practically a hate crime in itself these days. The very concept of "hate crimes" is a monumental provocation to people like von Brunn. The Holocaust museum itself appears as an "in your face" monument to hate itself to many and it is seen as an insult to all Christians who would forgive and forget but for the constant reminders with which we are constantly showered. Given the museum's very high profile presence on the Washington Mall, and obvious government support, people like von Brunn see it as evidence of ZOG the Zionist Occupational Government. The rationale for the museum, of course, is that it stands as a reminder that we must "Never Forget" what WASPs did to Jews during World War II, and what many would like to see again, and that it can never be allowed to happen again. But in the final analysis, to many, it is seen as both insult and provocation. The entire debate over and for "hate crime" legislation is totally ludicrous. We hear terms like "protected groups" minorities, women, homosexuals, perhaps even pedophiles, and even military personnel! What about everybody? Shouldn't everybody be protected against violent crimes regardless of motivation? Aren't violent crimes against puny white men just as likely to result in bodily harm as serious as crimes against black football players or little old women? Are white men somehow immune from crimes motivated by hate? Whatever happened to the idea of "equal protection under the law"? Have we forgotten that all people are supposed to be equally protected under any law of the land? In all seriousness, Pridge wouldn't be surprised to learn of a proposal that violent "criminals" themselves should be a "protected group." After all, the rest of society often hates them and would wish bodily harm to come to them. Could a judge or jury be found guilty of a hate crime for convicting a proven criminal? The very fact that such a category as "hate crime" could be fostered upon the American people by their so-called representatives, is evidence that this country has declined into a state of moral doldrums. Pridger hereby declares that all hate crime legislation is itself a hate crime. John Q. Pridger
HOLOCAUST DENIAL The modern "hate crime" of "Holocaust denial" is not just believing that the Holocaust didn't happen. It includes questioning the details and the numbers. To question the six-million number is to be a Holocaust denier. To seek hard evidence of any of the disputed details is Holocaust denial. And Holocaust denial is actually a crime in several countries. If you don't believe everything the Holocaust establishment says about itself, you are deemed criminally prosecutable in some countries. The Holocaust is about the only thing in the world that it is illegal or hateful to question or doubt. It is fine to doubt anything else, but not any of the details about the Holocaust. In the United States, where we still officially have freedom of speech, it's still legal to doubt and ask the questions about the Holocaust. But, if you do so, powerful forces will brand you as a Holocaust denier and a hate monger. This alone tends to make a lot of people angry. Some become very angry and frustrated, as James von Brunn apparently was. What are the numbers? The number IS 6,000,000! Period! It's easy to prove this number, of course the math is easy. There were six million Jews in central Europe just prior to World War II. Hitler gassed six million of them during the war. And there are six million Holocaust survivors constantly reminding us about THE crime of the twentieth century. Obviously, this proves that Hitler gassed six million Jews. The number IS six million. End of debate! Question it and you are a Holocaust denier and a dreadful anti-Semite. Of course, Pridger is being a little facetious about a very serious matter, and a horrible period of history. He apologizes for that. Scores of millions died in, and as the result, of the war undoubtedly including very large numbers of Jews at the hands of Hitler's Nazi regime. There was a holocaust, and the holocaust was the war itself. And there was a Jewish Holocaust within that holocaust that cost the lives of a great many Jews. Whether it was 6,000,000 or a smaller number, Pridger doesn't claim to know. What is obvious, however, is that very powerful forces enforce that number in this country and around the world, and it is extraordinarily politically incorrect to question it. One could perhaps be excused for questioning some of the recorded history of World War II, simply because the history of any war is always written by the victors and the victors always tend to be a little biased in favor of their own historical image. Though the Allies clearly won the war, in the final analysis the Jews won more than any other single group, despite their great suffering and sacrifice. They finally got their coveted "Promised Land" (once and for all), as part of the fallout. (Ironically, the Soviet Union won much more initially, but has since lost more than they gained.) And (partly on the moral capital facilitated by exploiting the Holocaust), the Jewish people have become so politically powerful in western nations that, despite their former persecuted status, they have become the world's preeminent "protected group." Perhaps this is simple justice after a long history of persecution at the hands of alleged Christians. It's an irony of history that Jews were persecuted much more harshly, and for a longer period of time, by Christians than by Moslems. Now that situation has reversed itself. Christians, especially Christian Zionists, embrace the Jewish people as the God's Chosen People, and the foundation of Israel as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Ironically, the founders of modern Zionism, as well as the founders of Israel were largely secular, non-practicing, Jews. They founded the State of Israel based on "biblical rights" they really didn't even believe in. Arabs and other Islamic states in the region are now the sworn enemies of Israel because it occupied Arab land to fulfill its Biblical destiny. This is why the future of Israel remains so tenuous and uncertain in the long run. Saying this, of course, is heresy in the west perhaps downright anti-Semitic. But it is a sad truth. Without our commitment to Israel, as our outpost on the shores of the oil-rich hinterlands, Israel probably could not survive. But, as a nuclear power, it has the capability to call up Armageddon at any moment it feels sufficiently threatened. In both World Wars of the twentieth century, it took the United States to really make them into "world wars" a heroic accomplishment! The second one beat all the wars that had ever come before. It was another war to end all wars and forge global peace and prosperity for all. And look where we are today. We're apparently willing to risk more world wars, apparently on behalf of Israel. But, realistically, Pridger suspects that Israel would not be the cherished strategic asset that it is if it were not for the coveted oil and gas riches of the Middle East. We look upon Israel as our forward military base, and a bastion of western democracy and progressive values in a vast wasteland of hostile Arab states. And here we stand, with a trigger-happy, always threatened, and always threatening, strategic ally. There it stands a mini nuclear super-power as the most god-awfully heavy mill-stone any nation has ever had hung around its neck. John Q. Pridger
Tuesday, 9 June, 2009 FLAWED ASSUMPTIONS AND MODELS Pridger discovered an obvious problem a long time ago. The problem Pridger had been focusing on was, "How can a nation such as the United States go so radically wrong for such a sustained period of time without discovering the error or suffering a serious correction?" Recently, while investigating other unrelated matters, Pridger stumbled upon a very apt illustrative explanation. Here it is as expressed by a computer "nerd" on the subject of statistical web site performance. (http://nerds-central.blogspot.com/...design) The subject is "Modeling Web Site Response Times."
What does this have to do with the subject matter that concerns Pridger's Blog? Everything. Among other things, it reveals a basic truth about just about everything that has to do with politics, economics, and public policy planning. Everything, or almost everything, is based on flawed, or intentionally distorted, assumptions. The key phrases here are: "(W)e have to make that assumption otherwise we cannot do the analysis". In other words, our universities are teaching students to make an assumption so that a calculation can be made, irrespective of if the assumption is correct. Without testing the core assumption, the results of the analysis are meaningless - be we turn an blind eye to that...IF YOU DO, YOU WILL BE WRONG! When a basic premise is in error, all the scientific rationalization in the world will fail to provide correct solutions to perceived problems. This is true in any area of scientific inquiry. And it applies to all levels of all quasi-scientific subjects, including economics and the so-called political sciences. One can be fairly certain that the whole array of economics and business sciences, as well as physiological sciences, are literally bubbling with Gaussian curves that serve as the fundamental model for arriving at socio-economic policy. If our universities and schools of economics and political science are teaching students to base their thinking on false or flawed models, or fundamentally flawed political premises, the result is cumulative error, including such things as recession, depression, and economic collapse. During the years of Pridger's inquiry into political conspiracy theory, he often wondered how it was that such convincingly rational reasoning and arguments could be so successfully employed to keep our entire socio-political and capitalist machinery going down exactly the wrong road. Reading such publications as the Council on Foreign Relations' Foreign Affairs, Pridger has noticed two things. (1) All of the articles were very well written, often went into almost overwhelming detail on the given issues, and were exquisitely rational and convincing. (2) Many were based on what, from Pridger's perspective, were seriously flawed premises, which were not spelled out, and certainly wouldn't be questioned by the average reader or even most un-average readers. In other words, the articles were brilliant, but they were usually based on certain fundamental "givens," or truths, that the reader must take for granted, or otherwise agree with, in order to accept the validity of the policy proposal or argument being presented. Given the assumed validity of the unstated premise, reasoning and rationalizations were flawless and very difficult to fault or refute. If one does not perceive the false or flawed premise, he would most likely be totally convinced that the writer's reasoning and conclusions are themselves flawless. We can equate those unstated premises to the Gaussian norm of the subject the platform of truth upon which the fundamental premise has at some elemental stage been taught, and from which the present subject matter is to be viewed, explored, and expanded upon. The author himself often has nothing to do with constructing that Gaussian norm, but must simply believe it to be the valid premise from which he or she writes and elaborates. The writer either assumes it to be correct, or he is actively part of a conspiratorial group which seeks to further a deceptive agenda. Of course, he may believe it is a wonderful and beneficial agenda, intended to serve the greatest good for the greatest number of people. But this would be "as he sees it."
The list could go on and on. Any one of these correct or incorrect statements can serve as the premise to expound upon a complex subject which, while not questioning their core veracity or ambiguity, builds a perfectly rational and convincing model which furthers our understanding on certain related subjects. John Q. Pridger Friday, MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY! 2009 PICTURES ARE WORTH TEN THOUSANDS OF WORDS Progress is disheartening. Our trusty leaders have really been doing a number on us. Ed Miracle's Famous painting "I Told You So!" says an awful lot. We had been warned since the very founding of the nation. If Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, or hundreds of others through the 19th and 20th centuries could come back and see the mess we're in today, they'd all be saying the same thing, "I TOLD YOU SO!" Even Pridger can say it! If a nation insists on going wrong, pretty soon something is bound to go wrong.
Things have come to such a pitiful state in this country, and the world, that Pridger is about to take the cure and quit blogging. What's the sense of going on with the charade of pointing out what has gone wrong when the future all depends on the caliber and agendas of politicians and special interests presently running the show in Washington, New York, and elsewhere? Quality politicians and true American statesmen are so few in Washington that they can be counted without progressing to the toes. We've reached the brink, as shown in Mr. Miracle's painting. All we can do now is play our cards close to the chest, watch, wait, hope for a soft landing and keep our power dry.
Pridger has felt somewhat overwhelmed by the rapid progression of current events and the depths of their ominous implications. This being so, during the last several months or year, this blog has taken on the characteristics of a marathon to keep up with current events rather than disseminating simple common sense as was originally intended. So, Pridger feels it's time to get off of the beach and into more secure and congenial environs for a while.
Pridger is headed for the woods for the cure as portrayed in another famous painting (Pre-Raphaelite "Mermaids"). Rigorous therapy will hopefully see Pridger through the toughest period of "current events" and blogging withdrawal. Pridger laments having had the dubious honor of watching, during his adult lifetime, the greatest nation on earth totally lose its bearings and go wildly astray. Through its mis-representatives it has repudiated its own principles, it's former national culture, and effectively its own Constitution and, post haste, it has finally succeeded in committing economic and political suicide.
Here's hoping this nation will rise again like a Phoenix from the rubble of various sundry collapsed inverted pyramids. But things look pretty hopeless. More likely the shysters will simply pull a few more rabbits out of their hats and restart the same sort of Ponzi activity that got us where we are today. Unfortunately, the foxes still guard the hen house and the destroyers themselves are presently the anointed "fixers." John Q. Pridger All quotations and excerpts are based on non-profit "fair use" in the greater public interest consistent with the understanding of laws noted at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html.
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
vs.
The New
