Nᵊtzarim Views On Today’s News

What happens in America, often aped in Israel

Socialists “Engineer” News-To-Newsspeak; Science-To-Sciencespeak

Ass. professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton U, Jonathan Mummolo, claims that his study, which even made it into Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) , finds that “Militarization of police fails to enhance safety, may harm police reputation”.

Let’s examine the logic of some of his claims — beyond the fact that his study apparently contains zero input from law enforcement, especially law enforcement scholars and academics.

“He found that militarized policing does not lead to less violent crime or less violence against police officers”

“Lead to less violent crime… against police officers”? So, arts-degreed non-scientist Prof. Mummolo expects SWAT capability, by its inactive presence alone, to magically tame bank robbers and terrorists into shoplifters and paint vandals who won’t defend themselves, by all available means, from arresting police officers?

“Less violence against police officers”?

Let’s see… the amount of violence from someone arrested by SWAT for terrorism is unlimited violence. Send in non-SWAT police the prof wants us to believe that the terrorist will tone down his violence against being arrested? This same comparison stands for all kinds of crime.

“Seeing militarized police in the news also may harm police reputation.”

“May” should always trip a mental alarm to check for a firm premise. Otherwise, all conclusions based thereon are ex falso quodlibet“. Seeing militarized police may, perhaps more so, reassure the public that police are better able and equipped to protect them from criminal and terrorist gangs and cabals.

But we live in a time in which socialists try to convince us that the police are the enemy and the socialist, Goebbelsspeak media, is “the free press”.

Socialist Slant On “Racist Cops”

“Mummolo also wanted to test whether militarized tactics occur more frequently in communities of color. To do this, he analyzed the relationship between the percentage of black residents in a particular geographic area with the volume of SWAT deployments per 100,000 residents. After controlling for social factors and local crime rates, he found that black residents face a more pronounced risk of experiencing militarized policing.”

“After controlling for social factors and local crime rates…”? Sounds convincing to a high school student maybe (or an arts-degree college grad). But what does it mean? Trust him?!? Many publicly available statistics show that the outrageously lopsided proportion of violent crimes emanate from drug gangster ruled neighborhoods popularly designated “of color”. So it’s perfectly logical that law enforcement address these violent crimes in roughly the same proportion – with the exception that this emphases costs disproportionately vastly more both in equipment and dollars.

No Benefits of SWAT?

“On average, the results show that creating more SWAT teams and increasing SWAT deployments had little to no benefits in terms of crime reduction or officer safety.”

Compared to what?!? Crime rates and officer safety from years before SWAT? That asks you to assume that these rates wouldn’t gave gone up without SWAT. The prof asks you to compare pre-SWAT conditions with the unknown of what the rates would be if SWAT hadn’t been adopted in those areas. That is a speculated comparison that cannot be known — which disqualifies the study as non-science.

Public’s Perception?

” First, respondents read a mock news article about a police chief seeking a budget increase”

This is how fraudsters defraud the public. One pic of a police dept. bristling with equipment v a second pic of a police dept. having only Barney Fife. Which one needs money and equipment and which one does not? That portrays public perception? Seriously?!?

“The results show that citizens react negatively to the appearance of militarized police units in news reports and become less willing to fund police or want police patrols in their neighborhoods.”

If that non sequitur doesn’t have you ROFL, then you’re a couple of IQ points short of an experimental AI care dogbot.

Dems Against ICE & Enforcement Of Immigration LAWS

Dem defame Trump/​GOP & ICE as “Nazis”

But now that it was Trump/​GOP & ICE who deported the last Nazi death camp guard, which Dems never did…

BTW, has anyone else noticed that, lately, Chuck Schumer hasn’t been looking the cameras in the eye when he does 180°s, contradicting Dem positions, anymore?

Pulling Security Clearances Of Ex-Officials

Background disclosure: As a USAF Intelligence Analyst in the mid 1960s, I held a Top Secret Crypto Codeword security clearance; technically the highest security clearance there was. Such clearances, of course, were “need to know” so, if we had no need to know, then we had no access to unnecessary sensitive information. That was true of everyone — except some top officers and politicians who did not need to demonstrate any “need to know”. Their security clearance was the same as mine except “Unlimited” by “need to know.” What I needed to know for my job covered the same sensitive intelligence information.

Interesting point of information I just learned: the sensitive information covered by the term “Crypto”, above, was invented and patented by Hollywood actress of the 1940s, Hedy Lamarr. Wow! Never knew that back in the ’60s. It’s the basis for everything encrypted today from police scanners (at least here in Israel) to GPS to WiFi!

Needed For Consulting Ex-Officials?

Some argue that Ex-Officials should have access to intelligence in order for current administrations to consult them. This is a deliberate lie. It is improper for a current admin to share classified information with any person solely because they are an ex-official. It isn’t necessary to share sensitive intelligence in order to obtain their advice. Wording questions carefully is sufficient. Beyond that is leaking intel.

Thus, former officials don’t need a security clearance, and certainly have no “need to know”.

Normally, terminating access to sensitive information is sufficient; leaving the security clearance suspended. This allows the security clearance to be re-certified if future need to know is established AND proper investigation of the interim period produces no problems.

The Danger Of Not Pulling Clearances Of Former Officials

Intelligence is of no use to a person no longer actively carrying out intelligence work. It’s simply knowledge to be bottled-up and taken to the grave. The only place where intelligence knowledge is important is when an individual either desires to sell it (treason), leverage it to gain power (probably treason) or to collude with a foreign power on behalf of a Dark Government Swamp (definitely treason).

The treason involved in selling it is obvious. Leveraging boasted inside intelligence knowledge to pump-up one’s consulting income is riddled with problems: those who are willing to pay for consulting based on insider intelligence are shadowy villains. Approaching foreign powers with inside intelligence as an asset as a means to court and persuade foreign leaders is treasonous collusion by a Dark Government Swamp predator intent on leveraging his or her way back into power.

So which is Brennan, et al. so upset about? Collusion? What’s good for the goose…

What I don’t understand is why Hillary & her coterie weren’t the first to have their security clearances pulled?

“Science” Finds “Core Thinking Error In Creationism”?

“It’s not uncommon to hear someone espouse the idea that “everything happens for a reason” or that something that happened was “meant to be.” Now, researchers reporting in Current Biology on August 20 have “found” (??) that this kind of teleological thinking is linked, asserting — non sequitur — causality, to two seemingly unrelated beliefs: creationism (“the belief that life on Earth was purposely created by a supernatural agent”) and conspiracism, the tendency to explain historical or current events in terms of secret conspiracies or conspiracy theories.

“We find a previously unnoticed common thread between believing in creationism and believing in conspiracy theories,” says Sebastian Dieguez of the University of Fribourg. “Although very different at first glance, both these belief systems are associated with a single and powerful cognitive bias named teleological thinking, which entails the perception of final causes and overriding purpose in naturally occurring events and entities.”

While this speculated “thread,” supposedly between the two, of teleological thinking may be true of conspiracy theorizing, it is no more than a myopic shortcut failing to see the legitimate logic regarding creation. More likely, teleological thinking is a myopic view even of conspiracy theorizing.

Even conspiracy theorizing generally begins with a bias that leads to theorizing post hoc ergo propter hoc (effect implies cause) for some event to satisfy that bias, not teleological belief that the event, per se, is a cause that innately leads, non sequitur (!), to the theorized conspiracy.

“As such, creationism could be seen as a conspiracist belief system (indeed, involving the ultimate conspiracy theory: the purposeful creation of all things [7]), and conspiracism as a type of creationist belief targeting socio-historic events (e.g. specific events have been purposefully created by an all-powerful agency).” This is plain quackery pawned-off as “science.” Why the journal published this faux-science, amateur non sequitur is beyond credulity.

In the case of creation, however, Mr Dieguez is far into the weeds. The logic of creation is an effect that physics demands had a Cause, not an effect that exhibits its own purpose or design. This is also where most “Creationists” have gone awry.

Thereafter, creation — Nëtiy•âh — is proven by physics; only the design and purpose remain to be debated. This is simply proven by reductio ad absurdum:

  1. Everything in the universe is an effect resulting from its cause, and every cause in the universe has its resulting effect.

  2. There is no physical cause of the origin of the universe ex nihilo.

  3. Therefore, there is no universe. (But there is a universe! Proof by disproof) Q.E.D.

That the universe, our world and we exist at all is, therefore, proof of creation, which implies a Creator-Singularity.

Given the incomprehensible complexity of the universe, and that it was created by some external Cause; only an imbecile would suggest that the universe was created by an unintelligent Creator or that the Creator is not a Singularity. That is NOT conspiracist thinking!

Dieguez reasoning is as illogical (i.e. unscientific) as “reasoning” that glass, some plastics and air share similarities in transparency so that, therefore (rolleyes2015x15), it’s ok to breath fiberglass!

Surprise! By rejecting logical and scientific proof to pursue his own anti-Creator agenda, Mummolo, enabled by Current Biology, expose their own, circuitous, teleological and conspiracist thinking!!!

If we reject wild, theorized speculation by the same genre of physicists who, only a few years ago, insisted that anyone who didn’t “know” that the universe always existed was ignorant, then changed to insist that anyone who didn’t “know” that the universe was expanding at a decelerating rate was ignorant, and now insists (correctly) that the earth is expanding at an accelerating rate is ignorant, throw out countless speculations that make science fiction seem tame in their futile campaign to continue denying a Prime Cause of the universe ex nihilo. They’re still just kicking that can down the road to avoid dealing with reality: a Creator, which implies an intelligent purpose.

Avᵊrâ•hâm being the first to reach this conclusion, the Name he associated is the proper Name to accept and recognize: י‑‑ה, and His (Tōr•âh; Instruction, i.e. Life’s Instruction Manual), after 4,000 years of enduring experience and history, is more reliable than any other half-baked sciencish superficial out there trying to peddle some alternative – even when the hawker has a doctorate, represents an Ivy League university and it’s published in a respected scientific journal! What’s logical is scientific and what’s not’s not!


Chalcolithic (Pre-Bronze, Copper-Stone Age) Iranian & Turkish Skeletons Buried In Northern Israel

Israeli scientists document Iranian & Turkish migrations into the norther Levant, mingling with the indigenous Kᵊna•an•im c BCE 6500 — roughly the same millennium as the Ma•bul, roughly 2740 years before the rabbis say the universe was created! (See my Chronology Of Tanakh, From “The Big Nᵊtiyâhjump-to, Live-Link Technology)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s