Old Day Dawning

Hi, I am starting up a blog because I've had a few requests to do so.
Some people who have read my Amazon reviews (Martin Horan "Crusader") have requested that they'd like more info on yours truly. So, this is as good a way as any to give that info. And now, on November 10th, 2008, is as good a time as any to start.
I say this is "as good a time as any" as things can only get worse, judging by the way the world's now heading.
We thought it couldn't get any worse while America was run by Mr Bush. Then the US electorate proved us all wrong by voting for Mr Obama, hand picked for them by the "luvvies" in the American media. Not to mention urged by sheople all over the world!
Before some sharp person accuses me of plagiarism, I hasten to add that I did not invent the term sheople. But it is a kind of Orwellian word that does describe so many of the chattering classes these days. So I use it as a salute to whoever first coined it. And I would like everyone to note this now: I too am not adverse to making up my own words a la James Joyce. For example, "Dire Rear" is my own creation for a certain ailment of bodily functioning.
But, be that as it may, it is a sad time ahead when Americans pick their presidents on the say-so of superstitious celebrities like Oprah Winfrey -- a lady who openly scorns objectivity and logic for feelings, though she is otherwise very intelligent. (It's possible to be highly intelligent but not very astute.) And it is interesting how her audiences, much to the great amusement of British viewers, leap and howl at her beck and call. You would think that she was some kind of benefactor to humanity the way her fans shower her with unadulterated adulation.
Scary or what?
But, there again, from what Brits see via the US media, the Yanks seem to pick their presidents that way too -- with unadulterated adulation. They have just picked their latest president pretty much as the Germans picked Hitler. He was picked on his charisma and his ability to talk of peace. Just like Hitler! But no-one knows much about him; the Germans knew so little about Hitler. He also is pro-Arab, as was Hitler. And the Arabs are pro-Obama; they were also pro-Hitler.
Hitler cared little for innocent life. Obama shows that he cares little for the most utterly innocent of human life for he is pro-abortion. Interesting that this family man, who beams big smiles and talks peace, but very little else, can be pro-abortion!
Immanuel Kant said, "Facts without concepts are blind facts." All that Obama spoke, during the US circus they call elections, was platitudes -- platitudes and generalities. And the US electorate who were bedazzled by him cheered all these platitudes. And all of Obama's platitudes were entirely bereft of concepts.
"Change" was all he could come up with. And each time he shouted "Change!" the sheople cheered. They cheered and no-one asked, "What kind of change?" Interestingly, when the Chamberlains and others in the 1930s were believing Hitler's claims to being a man of peace, and that he would bring change, they didn't bother to ask, "What kind of change?"
They were too optimistic to bother about that. Change, they "reasoned" can only be good.
But it is scary to see sheople whooping and hollering and cheering politicians, no matter what they have to say.
This does seem to be a particularly American phenomenon. True, Iraqis did that kind of thing under Saddam; Russians and Chinese did it under their dictators. But, be fair, they'd have been executed if they didn't. So why do Americans do it?
I remember some years back, in the late 1970s or early 80s, seeing on TV an American college graduation. When each student was called up to the podium to receive their diploma, the young women jumped up and down and screamed. They hugged each other as tears rolled down their cheeks. To be honest, the men behaved just as ridiculously. I wondered why they were behaving so outrageously just to pick up a diploma.
Maybe that does happen this side of the Atlantic too. I just don't know of any asylum where they give out diplomas.
Each four years or so when the US election circus hits town, we see this same kind of behaviour from all kinds of people. A politician says something and people of all races, religions, ages, conditions and political leanings are whooping and hollering like they're attending a Benny Hinn "Signs and Wonders" convention.
If you haven't seen the Oprah Winfrey show where Tom Cruise was the guest, please bang into YouTube and watch it. But watch it alone because, if you do not want to die of embarrassment, you will at least look for a corner to cringe in. The audience reaction to Cruise's bizarre antics, was almost beyond belief. Cruise behaved like... well, as someone said to me, "Like he was demon possessed." And the whole audience like one mind whooped and hollered and screamed as he did so. So if you Google that one, it'll give you an idea of the graduation ceremony I mentioned above .
And yet the Cruise/Winfrey debacle wasn't far removed from the sheople's reactions to their political gods. Because they are seen as gods. I mentioned a Benny Hinn convention above. (He is a religious charlatan who blatantly leads the gullible by their noses.) But the American electorate, if what we see via the media is anything to go by, are no different from these whacko religious conventions. This is in spite of the fact that these gods have had their feet of clay exposed for decades.
Why are Americans so gullible?
Don't get me wrong. I like Americans. I like what Americans used to stand for. I liked their system. They are a generous people, by and largely, and they are honest. They are optimistic, go-ahead and they are on anyone's side who wants to have a go. They are not cynical at all. But, when it comes to politics, that is their downfall.
If any American people are reading this, I'd like to say that I've been to your country, and I'd have been happy to stay there for ever. My wife and I loved it so much that we were depressed for months after having to leave that wonderful place to return to Britain. "Wonderful place" certainly pertains to South Carolina where my wife and I stayed.
I did not find the people there as we see them on the media. I found them to be solid, earthy, hard-working people with common sense. I'd have trusted them with my life. Really.
And at least American kids -- though they may whoop and holler and cry and jump when they graduate from college -- at least they do not fall around like drunken bums and disgrace their nation when they are abroad. There are many decent British people who are so embarrassed by the vulgar and obnoxious behaviour of our youth that they wish our own sheople could be as nice as everyone else's! And I certainly wish that British youth behaved as American kids usually do.
Anyway, I just wish Americans would go to the polls as the British tend to (that is, those still foolish enough to vote) with the attitude of trying to find the best of a bad bunch. Americans have sold themselves down the river by allowing a hypocritical lefty-liberal media grind it into the ground.
But many Americans know that. The wise ones are in despair.

I will say here that I am now updating what I wrote above. I wrote the above a couple of nights ago into the wee hours of el manana and was so tired that I went to bed. This is the earliest chance of my being able to add more. To be honest, I've had to get my wonderful wee wife, Julie to help me, as I am hopeless with computing thingies. That done, back to the blog.

So that's my start. I have more opinions that Tristam Shandy so if you are interested you can look in.
It is said that opinions are like old socks. We've all got a few and they're usually full of holes. And one of my opinions is that the media is full of people who are no longer real journalists but people full of opinions. Most people want to be right and they think that being right is by refusing to look at the other side. That's not being right, that's being stupid. That's why another opinion of mine is that it's downright stupid to be political.
To be right one has to be logical. To some folk being logical comes naturally. I had to learn to be logical because I was a fairly emotional person. And it's nigh on impossible to be emotional and logical at the same time. I learnt that the hard way. I wrote an article on being logical and I'm going to include it sometime in my log or on my about-to-be-launched sometime website. That's because I wish more people would learn to be logical. If people were logical they wouldn't very likely be sheople and the ruling elite would not like that. People who can think logically are not people who are easily controlled -- by the media, politicians, religious manipulators or by any other groups or individuals. So my opinions at least will be logical and that makes them more than just opinions full of holes.
Back in the first half of the twentieth century, an Oxbridge professor, Susan Stebbings, wanted logic taught in schools. She wrote an amazing book called, Thinking to Some Purpose. Another logician Robert Thouless, who wrote a book in the 1930 called Straight and Crooked Thinking, was also up for logic being taught in schools. His book was the first book which really got me thinking logically and, therefore, objectively. Soon after reading his book I was seeing clearly through the cant and hypocrisy not only of politicians (their cant and hypocrisy's easy to spot) but of journalists (sometimes nearly as easy), academics and even of myself! It is always easier, after all, to see other people's faults than it is our own. But logic helps us to do even that.
About ten to fifteen years ago I picked up a second-hand copy of R.W. Jepson's Clear Thinking. It was first published in 1936 and the sixteenth edition was published in Hong Kong. Apparently its contents were the result of an experiment with schoolboys "tried out with a Lower Sixth Form" but it certainly did not catch on with the world at large.
However, the idea of teaching logic in public schooling was never taken up. It was for the most part ignored. Right up to this day, even when such a brilliant thinker like Edward De Bono has hinted at the idea, it has still been ignored. But when it has not been ignored, it has been met with stout opposition.
When the idea was hinted back in the days of Stanley Baldwin he angrily ridiculed the idea. He claimed that the British did not use logic but "muddled though" and this was supposedly what made us great.
It is not hard to see why the powers that be do not want logic taught in the state schools. I suppose that sort of thing's okay in the places like Eton, Harrow and Gordonstoun where the masses and minions are in short supply. But the pupils attending those "public" schools are not going to buck any system they can objectively discern through logic. Why would they? The system would always work for them. Besides, future rulers learning logic would realize how dangerous logic would be if taught to the minions. It would mean that politicians, journalists, solicitors, the makers of the laws and so on, would have to be truthful. Always! Joe Public would see when they were not. That's because Joe Public could no longer be led by the nose like the sheep following the one led by the farmer.
Imagine if the people in the US had been taught logic in their schools. They would never have had crooks like Richard Nixon as President. The guy would have been rumbled from the outset.
You may remember when the people of North America gave Jimmy Carter the royal boot.
That apology of a man got America into such a mess by appeasing his nation's enemies and snubbing its allies, he made Guy Fawkes and Benedict Arnold appear like staunch patriots. When Khomeini became absolute ruler of Iran, he had Carter pleading for the return of US hostages. The Ayatolla ridiculed him and would not let the hostages go until Reagan was ready to step into office because he, Khomeini, knew that Reagan would attack Iran. Reagan was ready to stop allowing America's enemies to humiliate them.
Carter was so arrogant and self-righteous that he told America on his being booted out, "It hurts." There was a man if ever there was who desperately needed to learn a bit about logic. He was way beyond learning about humility. His "It hurts" sums up how in spite of the mess he made of everything, Americans were wrong to reject him. But that's liberals for you!
Well, had Americans been taught logic in their schools, Carter would never have been elected in the first place. He'd have been seen as an outright puppet and weakling ready to appease every bully and blame the victims -- which is exactly what he did. He was the start of the end for America. He made the Home of the Brave look like the Home of the Saps and he made the Land of the Free ready to become the Land of the Vanquished.
It all started with Carter. Why? Because Carter was the most blatant New World Order man. Not because he had the wit or sense but because he was an obsequious patsy and therefore the puppeteers man of the time. You have only to pay attention to see what that ludicrous "man" is still up to. He is weakling and a coward. He was the worst president the US has ever had. But he doesn't think so. He is like all arrogant men who are all moral weaklings: They are convinced of their own moral superiority to others (again that's liberals for you), but they cannot see far enough to turn back. Carter is still headed down the same road which was set up to rob America and the West and integrate us into a synthetic World Order.
Had Americans been taught logic in their schools before he came to power, and kept having it taught, America would not be in the state it now is. I mentioned Guy Fawkes above but Carter was worse than Guy Fawkes. Fawkes, at least, had some excuse for his treachery. He felt, albeit wrongly, he was helping his country return to its original status quo. See, a bit of logic would also have helped Guy. Carter must have known he was out to weaken America for no other reason than to assist in the creation of the New World Order based on the ideas of Adam Weishaupt and Albert Pike. (I'll hopefully return to these conspirators at a later date.) Until a few years ago, our "leaders" kept quiet about it. The term has been dropped in public for years. But only occasionally so we, the Great Unwashed, wouldn't notice. It was actually used by the Queen of England, I read recently, at Prince Charles' inauguration as Prince of Wales. George Bush senior used it openly. So did Blair. Then it became more and more used by world "leaders" that it would be foolish to deny it. Actually, it's been slipped into our consciousness so cleverly -- deviously, really -- that the sheople now accept it as inevitable and a good thing.
So Carter has done his job well. Not because he was good at it but because he was incredibly bad. But that fitted in with the plans of the boys at the top. Without Gibbering Jimmy there could not have been the equally cunning Clintons and the New World Order's greatest trick, Obama.
Now, a sound grounding in logic -- keeping the Bible and the classics forefront in the public schools' curricula -- would have prevented America becoming what it's become. It would have kept Carter out of the White House and the other crooks who followed him. The Tom Cruises of this world and the superstitious Oprahs and the sheople who whoop and holler at their every words would not be holding common-sense in the US to ransom. That's because with such an educational system, the members of the media themselves would be much wiser. And knowing that the American people, then, were so objective, they would never dare to broadcast, televise or print the brainwashing garbage they do. They would know from the outset that it would never be tolerated.
But they know that it is tolerated and so they carry on and America suffers. Americans generally know that something's gone wrong with their county. But for the most part they don't know why. They don't really know that they're suffering. They have a bit of an inkling. But they've been led to belive that charismatic but shallow Obama will deliver them as if he's a saviour.
However, they will find out soon enough when they actually are suferring under his rule. Things, I said at the start can only get worse.
I am not having a go at America. I was livid when the media here in Britain, run by liberals and lefties were from the outset critical of America. Now forget whether 9/11 was or wasn't an inside job at the time. Because when it happened, folk in Britain generally felt that as the US had been attacked they had a right to retaliate. Most even bucked the media on that one. It was the lefties who came out in marched against it. The lefties were right for once when they stated "If you're not marching with us, you're against us." And while they marched in their millions in our cities against the US attacking Iraq, tens of millions did not march. Needless to say, our lefty-liberal media never did point that one out. The majority were for retaliation according to the lefties' own admission.
I too have no problems with the attacked retaliating. True, I'm not so sure these days if 9/11 was an inside job. So many things point to it. But. We still don't have all the facts. Still, if America was to retaliate, she should not have waited for the UN's go-ahead. Nor for anyone else's go-ahead. The people who attacked the US didn't wait for anyone's go-ahead. (Besides, it's perfectly feasible that the UN themselves were involved in 9/11 because it went along fine with their own devious plans.)
However, Iraq were not the culprits. The biggest exporters of terror were and still are the Saudis and the Syrians. Just ask the Lebanese! Theyu're suffering at the hands of those two dictatorships.
But House of Bush have a lot of involvement with the House of Saud. (Google Unger's book, House of Saud, House of Bush to get the real info.) So a little bit of logic will show you something was far wrong when Iraq was attacked.
Britain, under on-the-square Blair, went along with the attack on Iraq. And Britain is just as bereft of logical thinking as is America. Now Blair was not a puppet like Carter. He's an astute man. He didn't "convert" to Catholicism for nothing. His wife is an open member of the Opus Dei. No, I'm not being slanderous. She openly admits it. But his conversion was more than that. Blair throughout his political career has run with the hares and with the hounds according to how it helped him. One of the most powerful institutions in the world is the Church of Rome. Blair doesn't want to stop with Britian he wants power in Europe. Thus his "conversion" to Catholicism.
But how can that have happened in Britain? The very idea of a former PM of Britain converting to Catholicism would have seemed preposterous. This is the country where we had the Reformation, defeated the Armada, frustrated Guy Fawkes, embraced the Glorious Revolution after putting the traitorous James to flight at the Boyne. Yet the unthinkable has happened here in Britain. How come? Because we've never been taught logic in our schools.
Oh, we don't whoop and holler and jump up and down and weep at graduations or when politicians speak (we may weep when politicians speak but it's not with joy) or when empty-headed muffins of celebrities are on talk shows being as ridiculously stupid as they inevitably are; but we have something worse. We have crass, vulgar semi-literate morons who pickle their brains with booze till they collapse senseless in pools of vomit in the streets. And these mindless morons are not people raised in slums and poverty. In fact, when the majority of people in Britain were poor and lived in slums, they did not behave like these overfed cretins. For one thing, the young people in the sixties, who did not have the qualifications to attend a college or university (while the above slobs do) were not only poorer materially, they were better educated. Yes, going to ordinary state schools, they came out with more knowledge in their minds than these bums do now. That is easily seem because talking to any young person today shows you how ignorant they are. They do not have as much in education as the very basics and their world views are mere reiterations of the politics of the media.
The same goes for the status quo. Back in the sixties, because they were the status quo they saw it as their duty to set an example. What do we have for an example today? I'll tell you. We have a prince who is to be future king who talks to plants and believes that Islam is a religion of peace. His two sons, if they are any more intelligent than he (which would not be hard), certainly do not show it. They live in luxury on the taxpayers' backs and they are utterly bereft of any sense of shame.
Marie Antoinette had more sense than the lot of them put together. And, despite her "Let the people eat cake" remark, which even then is always taken out of context, she did not have the benefits then of the education open to our "upper crust."
There's another sad story: The French Revolution. Indeed, when the Reign of Terror exploded it was due to the masses being stirred up -- as in the Roosky Revolution -- because they'd never been taught logic. That would never have happened had the ruling elite in both cases used a bit of logic and had it seen to that their subjects were taught to think logically.
Had our present Royal Family been taught a bit logic, they would not behave as they now do. Had they seen to it that their own subjects were taught it, there would be less trouble in our nation now. But it does not suit the ideas of Prince Charles and Co., LTD., here in Britain, as with their limited company elsewhere, to have the masses thinking logically. So it will never happen this side of Armageddon.
Okay, so I may seem a wee bit simplistic. Logic will not sort out all of our problems. But it certainly will help a great deal. So would getting back to the study of objective history as would reading the classics.
For example, whenever anyone tells me that they are into New Age thinking (I use "thinking" because I cannot find an appropriate word) or that they are into "Buddhism" -- or any other kind of eastern religion or "philosophy" I know that they know zilch about Classical philosophy. It is obvious that they have never read Plato or Aristotle or even the Roman stoics like Seneca or Marcus Aurelius. Had they done so they would see that Eastern religions are little more than stupid superstitions. The inferiority of Eastern thought is so obvious to anyone who has read the classical philosophers. Aristotelian logic or Socrates' dialogues (recorded by Plato) in themselves are stark contrast to any Eastern so-called philosophy or religion -- all of which is bereft of any kind of logic.
A similar thing happens when people actually stop there with the classical writers. I can tell that such people know absolutely nothing about the Bible.
When people condemn the Bible, it is always arguing from ignorance. It's as easy for any Biblically-literate person to see that, as they know it from experience.
Isn't it interesting that besides all the encouragement in the Koran to murder anyone who disagrees with Islam, and blatant claims of the inferiority of women or its ruthless attitude towards homosexuals, it is rarely attacked by by the Western media or by liberals. Yet the Bible comes under such attack from people in the media and liberals who preach the equality of women (as does the Bible) and campaign for the rights of homosexuals. The Koran preaches killing homosexuals. The Bible just demands that they repent. In fact, the New Testament shows us that homosexuals did stop practising their sodomy and became Christians.
So why are the media and the liberals so silent about the Koran and so vociferous in their condemnation of the Bible?
This is the same media with a liberal agenda which condemns Israel which is the only country in the Middle East where all religions or none are tolerated, where homosexuals are not persecuted and where women are treated as equal to men. This is the same liberal media that blatantly and subjectively supports the "Palestinian" cause. This "Palestinian" cause flies in the face of history as there is no such people. The name Palestine was given to the land of Israel by the Romans and the indigenous people of that land who called themselves Palestinians until Israel was renamed were Jews. History, very frighteningly, is being rewritten and it is the liberal media which is going along with it. What makes it worse is that Hamas and Heezbollah are murderous maniacs who are carrying out their fury in the nameof Islam.
This blatant hypocrisy and it is a blatant act against logic.
There would not be this outrageous prejudice in the media if the "journalists" were logical. So how did this crime against logic come about?
You see, if people really knew the Bible, they would see through clearly that logic had been abandoned for feelings.
How can a person tell that from knowing the contents of the Bible?
Well, even fairly recent history can tell you that much, without reading the Bible.
As H.H. Halley wrote back in the late 1930s:
Hinduism has made India what it is.
Confucianism and Buddhism have made China what it is.
Mohammedanism has made southwest Asian and north Africa what they are.
Roman Catholicism has made Italy, Spain and Latin America.
Protestantism has made Britain, United States and Canada.
THESE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES, and SPEAK LOUDLY.
That sums it up in a nutshell. Back then it was obvious to all which nations were the most prosperous and most law-abiding. Indeed, in the sixties, it would never have been believed by most Britons or Americans that our nations would be -- as prophesied in the Bible -- the underdog and that the heathen and Romanist nations would be in the ascendancy. As the Bible also prophesied, it would be for our own apostasy.
And all that has happened to the point that we can no longer even think logically.
And those are not mere opinions. They are facts. And they are not facts without concepts like the platitudes that come from Obama's mouth. Thought i have to say, he would have made a good lawyer or journalist. By today's standards I mean! That's why he is a good politician and a rotten statesman.
Don't hold your breath waiting for logic to be taught in our schools. The teachers themselves, for the best part, are subjective, unthinking patsies. So what else could their pupils ever hope to be?
And so to chill out.