Just Like Germany

10/24/2018

In sports, they used to say, “Just like Mike.” In politics it’s about to become, “Just like Germany.” That is, politically, America is about to go down the same road as Germany.  Recent elections in Germany reflect a growing disenchantment of the German people with their government, especially when it comes to the immigration issue.  Angela Merkel may soon have to give way to a new government, one which may have a mandate to address Germany’s ever-growing immigration issue.

Similarly, here in this country, one of the major issues for the mid-term elections is immigration, especially in light of the hype surrounding the migrant-caravan crisis. The stage has been set for a showdown on this issue.

However, the immigration issue goes beyond the polarization of politics as highlighted by the deepening chasm between left-wing and right-wing ideologies. Much more is at stake. The conflict is an extension of what is playing out in Germany and across the globe, a conflict between globalism and populism.

In this country, the conflict can best be described as between those espousing “open borders” and those who support the MAGA movement.  There are a number of arguments for and against “open borders”, but there is one argument that I think overrides all others and yet almost never gets mentioned. That is, “open borders” requires that we ultimately get rid of our nation-state.  It would be the end of the Republic as we know it.

If you want to know how other countries feel about “open borders” just go ask China, Russia, or Saudi Arabia.  They all have much stricter immigration policies than we do.  And why is that, exactly?  It’s simple.  Their nations would cease to exist without borders.

 

All Americans…are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country.  The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants.  The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers.  That’s why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders….”  – President Bill Clinton

 

Advertisements

Political rhetoric has really gotten to the point where no one is listening anymore, if in fact they ever were.  Everyone seems to have an opinion about why things have deteriorated so much in just the last two years.  Some blame the activists while others blame the rich, white men.  Everybody blames somebody else (never themselves) and compromise is strictly a thing of the past.

Traditionally, the political groups were generally split into two camps, liberals and conservatives. Of course, some people were liberal, on say social issues, and conservative on economic issues.  Thus, the lines were often blurred. However, these labels have become increasingly meaningless in today’s political landscape.  What could have caused such a sea change?

In just the last two years, there has been a growing trend in the election of populist world leaders including Giuseppe Conte (Italy), Viktor Orban (Hungary) and Roumen Radev (Bulgaria).  In addition, there was the Brexit vote in England to leave the EU.

What has been playing out on the world stage is an awakening of the masses against being governed by unelected bureaucrats (globalists).  The result has been the election of populists (nationalists) who put their countries first. A version of that has taken place in this country with the election of Donald Trump (a nationalist) over Hillary Clinton (essentially, a globalist).

Over time, empires rise and fall and ideologies come and go. Elections do have consequences, after all.  However, the transition from one ideology to another is often chaotic.  In this case, populism and globalism are mutually exclusive ideas. That is, they cannot co-exist.  Hang on, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

 

“If supranational forms of sovereignty are to be real, they can’t tolerate the ongoing existence of national sovereignty.” –  Dr. Samuel Gregg, author

 

When I was growing up in a working class neighborhood in Chicago, most people were democrats. Mayor Richard Daley ruled supreme. Fast forward to the present and Chicago has become the violent crime capital of the world and instead of Daly it has Rahm Emanuel as its mayor.  Boy how things have changed.

However, that’s not all that’s changed. Back then, the Democratic Party was the life-blood of the city.  Jobs and politics centered around the Democratic Party which identified itself with the average man-on-the-street. Today, it has morphed into something quite unrecognizable.

Today, the party has been taken over by the likes of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Andrew Gillum and Beto O’Rourke and left-wing protests are often organized by Antifa and party candidates increasingly get their funding from people like George Soros. Then there’s the use of agent provocateurs such as Linda Sarsour, who masquerades as a supporter of women’s rights when she is really a Muslim who believes in Sharia Law. I doubt that most women understand what that truly means. The really scary thing is, though, that today there is no longer room in the Democratic party for moderates and even liberals are not considered far-left enough. For example, Ocasio-Cortez will not support Bernie Sanders presidential bid for 2020.

The political landscape is changing by the day.  According to students at Cal Berkeley, violence is justified as a means of self-defense when someone offers up beliefs that run counter to their way of thinking. Even people of minority groups like Milo Yiannopoulos or Kanye West are publicly humiliated or not allowed to speak.  What we’re experiencing is mob-rule. Of course, some people don’t want to hear that expression and, accordingly, it’s been banned by certain parts of the mainstream media.  It’s politically incorrect, I guess, even though recent polls show that a vast majority of minority groups are opposed to political correctness.

So, if the Democratic party increasingly does not represent the average American, since minorities are beginning to move to the right politically (blacks and hispanics oppose immigration) and since the party conspired to deprive Bernie Sanders of the party’s 2016 presidential nomination, exactly who does it represent (other than perhaps illegal immigrants, that is)?

One thing is for sure, though, it surely doesn’t represent me.

 

“The far Left has totally hijacked the Democratic Party. The socialist message will resonate with some naïve, far-Left voters, many of whom are economically ignorant. A big part of this problem is that colleges today are more interested in teaching kids how to become professional protesters than they are teaching them anything about economics or finance.”  –  Kristin Tate, political commentator

 

So, I’ve had a plethora of questions about my recent post, “ Dr. Einstein, Reality and Schrodinger’s Cat.” It’s a tricky question about Schrodinger’s cat.  Was it alive or dead? Before I give you the answer, though, a little background is probably in order.

The universe is made up of atoms, right? Then there are electrons and quarks which are the basic building blocks of the atom (i.e. sub-atomic particles). However, scientists say that even with the electrons and quarks, the atom is essentially empty space. So, what does the universe consist of if everything is empty space?  The thing is, though, that empty space isn’t really empty. You see, empty space is teeming with life.  Teeming. It is a hotbed of constant creation and destruction which is the very fabric of reality (and all matter).

Let’s backtrack, though, for a second. Science is fundamentally a process of observation and measurement. In that regard, science has what some scientists refer to as a measurement problem. It’s all the fault of the atom. You see, the atom is the most mysterious object in all of creation.  That is, it only appears after it has first been observed and measured!!!

Aside: You might recall that an observation and measurement were at the heart of the Double-Slit Experiment that I mentioned in “Dr. Einstein, Reality and Schrodinger’s Cat” which prompted many of your questions.

Here’s the conundrum. An atom does not exist, as an atom, until an observer looks at it.  That is, the act of observation and measurement creates the atom, and by extension the whole universe. As physicist John Wheeler put it, “The universe does not exist ‘out there,’ independent of us. We are inescapably involved in bringing about that which appears to be happening. We are not only observers. We are participators.”

So, how does it all work, then?  Putting aside all the theories, the fancy formulae scribbled on chalkboards and the myriad of science textbooks, what exactly is reality? Well, physicist David Bohm says that the quantum field is the true source of our reality. However, according to this theory, our physical world is a projection from another realm, a deeper source of reality which is beyond space and time.  A projection you understand.  Holographic no doubt.  As John Horgan explained though in his book The End of Science, it is not possible to observe what exists beyond space and time by simply observing nature. Ah, yes, there’s the rub. The really scary thing is that scientists will never be able to prove what lies beyond space and time since they can’t observe beyond space and time.

Since science has reached it’s physical limitations, we live in a time when the great geniuses of science are, by necessity, theoretical physicists. That inevitably will probably lead to a philosophical discussion about God. However, at the moment, scientists typically avoid addressing the God question, especially since many scientists are atheists, though it does come up if only through some oblique references. Here’s a few examples:

  • “Life is the most mysterious of all the wonders of creation because atoms  have been assembled in such a way so that they can ponder their own existence.” – Martin Rees, astrophysicist (and an atheist)Aside: That’s exactly what we all have been doing since at least the time of the great Greek philosophers. Pondering our existence.  Needless to say, it takes intelligence to ponder one’s own existence.  That’s what sets man apart from all the other species.
  • “The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself.” – Carl Sagan, astronomer (and an atheist) Aside: How does the universe know itself without intelligence?
  • “Super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature.” – Antony Flew, a former atheist

So, one does not have to mention God (or even believe in God apparently) in order to understand that Creation could only have been facilitated through intelligence.

 

Epilogue

Back to Schrodinger’s cat. Actually, quantum mechanics says that Schrodinger’s cat was both alive and dead.  Both, you understand.  That’s because unobserved phenomenon can exist in dual states, or, as I would prefer to say, in an intricate web of infinite possibilities. That is, an atom is merely a possibility until it, the atom, is observed.  Pretty cool world, right? Of course, quantum mechanics also has the “many worlds” interpretation but that may be a bridge too far.

In the end, Schrodinger’s cat is all about choices since, as John Wheeler said, we are the observer. You have to choose.  You can either choose the blue pill or the red pill, but either way, it’s your choice.  As Morpheus said, “But I can only show you the door.  You’re the one who has to walk through it.”

 

“The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment.”  – Bernard d’Espagnat, physicist

 

 

When I was a kid, we used to watch Superman on the TV. In Superman’s world, people couldn’t believe their eyes when they looked up in the sky and saw him.  It just wasn’t possible, they would say.

Today, as an adult, I look up in the sky and I also see something that is impossible – the moon. That is, I look up in the daytime sky and I see both the sun and the moon at the same time. The impossible part is that when the moon and the sun are directly across from one another (e.g. if the sun is in the east and the moon is the west), you don’t see a fully illuminated moon.  Sometimes, it’s only partially lit.

Science has always explained the moonlight by saying that the moon reflects the sunlight.  Even if that were true, which it’s not, the reflective part of the moon would by necessity indicate the direction of the sunlight and, therefore, the direction of the sun.  Accordingly, if the moon and the sun are directly across from each other during the day, you must always be able to see a fully illuminated moon. By necessity, you understand.

This same logic somewhat applies at night as well.  For example, if the sun has recently set (say two hours after sunset), the night sky is pitch black.  There is no sunlight whatsoever.  If the earth was a globe you would explain that by saying that the sun has disappeared over the horizon in the west.

However, if the cycle of the moon was such that it was low in the eastern sky two hours after sunset (and for that matter the rest of the night), then there would be no line of sight between the moon and the sun and no sunlight would be reaching the moon. By definition, the moon would have to be in a new moon phase.  That is, you couldn’t see it because there would be no sunlight reflecting off of it.

Funny thing, though, because when I look up in the sky under those circumstances, I do see a moon. Sometimes, the moon is full even though the sun is obviously not directly across from it in the sky.  Even worse, sometimes the moon is partially lit. Why even worse? Well, the side of the moon that is illuminated is pointing away from the sun. By definition, that’s impossible, you understand.

All this flies in the face of accepted scientific theory and almost any science book will parrot the same discourse.  I said scientific theory you understand. The problem is that one does not have to be a scientist to look up in the sky and see the sun and the moon as I described, and if you really think about it you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand that they, therefore, have been lying to you. It’s a dirty little secret that you’re not supposed to know about…but, of course, now you know.

 

“Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.”   – Michael Ellner