Monday, December 11, 2017

Dome of the Rock versus a new Jewish Temple - by Dr. Joel McDurmon

There is absolutely no need to replace the Muslim Dome of the Rock with a Jewish Temple. Why is that you ask?
Well, first of all, the Dome is very pretty and it sure will make a nice Church some day.
But secondly, the idea that people are still talking about how a Jewish Temple must one day (soon) stand in the place of the Muslim Dome of the Rock is pure superstition. It is founded upon a tradition—infused with some imagination—and not upon any command or prediction of God’s Word.
With all of the talk and Bible study concerning the Jewish Temple Mount, you would expect the Bible to have much to say about that particular Mount. But most Christians—especially the ones who lecture us most about a coming rebuilt Temple—would certainly be surprised by how little the Bible actually says about that location, let alone any future physical building upon it. Most of what is assured to us today—and what is the subject of geopolitical tension and theological fighting—is founded upon little more than assumptions.
We are told in 2 Chronicles 3:1 that Solomon built the Temple on Mount Moriah and that this was the location of Ornan’s threshingfloor which David purchased. Today archeological evidence places the site of the Second Temple (Herod’s Temple, the one which stood when Jesus walked the earth) where the golden-domed Mosque now stands. But surprisingly, there is no archaeological proof that the first Temple, Solomon’s Temple, stood on that same location, although there is no evidence of it being anywhere else, either. But this is not the main point of the story.
Before we go further, we should remember that there are actually a series of mountains associated with the city of Jerusalem: Mounts Moriah, Zion, Olives, and a few others that have little or no biblical significance of which we can tell. Mt. Zion is the highest peak, and stands almost half a mile west of the Temple Mount itself, which is Mt. Moriah. Between the two is a considerable valley. Even farther east of the Temple Mount, across an even deeper valley, rises the Mount of Olives which is also higher than Mt. Moriah. From this peak, Jesus and His disciples looked westward upon the Temple, and Jesus declared its pending destruction (Matt. 24, Mark 13, Luke 21). A picture from the Mount of Olives today reveals the Mosque to the west where the Temple once was, and the clearly much higher ridge of Mt. Zion farther in the western background. Here’s a simple cross-section on Wikipedia illustrating the relationship in size and location of Mt. Zion (left) and the Temple Mount, Moriah.
The Biblical Data
On what grounds was the Temple ever built on Mt. Moriah to begin with?
For the location of the Temple, the Bible tells us Solomon chose Mt. Moriah, “where the Lord had appeared to David his father, at the place that David had appointed, on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite” (2 Chron 3:1 ESV). “Appointed” is more properly “prepared,” as the KJV and NASB have it. David not only appointed this place, but actively established, made ready, or set up the site. And why did David establish this as a site for a “permanent” Temple? Did he have a command from God to do so?
Not really. The story of David and Ornan is told a few chapters earlier in 1 Chronicles 21. God had sent a plague upon the people of Israel as punishment for David numbering the people (1 Chron. 21:1–14). Via the Angel of the Lord, the plague killed 70,000 men. When the Angel reached Jerusalem, God stopped short of destroying the city, and the Angel was stopped at the point of Ornan’s threshingfloor.
Then God sent the prophet Gad to instruct David to go to Ornan’s threshingfloor and set up an altar in that place. This would have been a simple altar of uncut stones and without steps, according to God’s law (Ex. 20:24–26). David obeyed. The altar was eventually set up, David offered sacrifices and prayers to God, and God answered by fire from heaven upon the altar. All said and done, the Angel of the Lord was commanded to sheathe his sword, officially ending the plague upon Israel.
It is important to note all that was required of David, and the purpose for it. David was only required by God to build an altar, not even necessarily to sacrifice on it. And the purpose of the altar was clearly in response to the presence of God’s wrath via the Angel of the Lord and the temporary instance of the plague. There is no indication anywhere that God intended this to be a permanent location, and there certainly is no requirement, commandment, or statute that it should be so.
Ornan, however, was actually willing to donate the whole property to the King for this purpose. David insisted on paying for it. The transaction went down. Therefore, the property legally belonged to David. Since God never indicated any need to dedicate the property to the Lord or a Temple or Priesthood, then we can only assume that for the rest of David’s life, the property legally belonged to the King.
Consequently, it was purely David’s decision—not God’s command—that the Temple be built at the site of Ornan’s (Araunah in 2 Sam. 24) threshingfloor.
But David himself was not allowed to build a house for God; God forbid him to do so because he had been a man of bloodshed and war (1 Chron. 22:8). Rather, David’s future son would build the house, and “his name shall be Solomon” (1 Chron. 22:9). He would be a man of rest.
As a side note, we could easily assume that God referred to David’s then immediate son Solomon. But remember, when that Solomon was born, it was David who named him Solomon; God sent the prophet Nathan to give the child a different God-given name, Jedidiah (2 Sam. 12:24–25). God did not see David’s “Solomon” as Solomon, but Jedidiah. Moreover, David’s words to Solomon indicate that the son who would build the Temple and bring peace was yet to be born: “Behold, a son shall be born to you who shall be a man of rest” (1 Chron. 22:9). Obviously, as David spoke, his Solomon was already born, alive and listening to his father speak. We are left to conclude that the ultimate Solomon—“peaceable and perfect”—which God promised David was Jesus. In the mean time, Solomon would provide a type of that yet-to-come True Solomon.
When Solomon later built a house to the Lord, he followed through with what his father had already established and prepared (2 Chron. 3:1). Like his father, Solomon had no explicit direction or command from God where to put the Temple, but only directions to build it and how. In addition to having bought the real estate and established it as the site, David also prepared raw materials, construction supplies, organized labor, and secured government clearances, support, and aid for the construction project he put before his son (1 Chron. 22:2–5, 14–19).
The whole project, from conception to completion, was David’s design. The only exception was the pattern for the Temple and its instruments: these God supplied to David (1 Chron. 28:11–19). But of the location of the Temple, God commanded nothing. It was David’s decision.
David decided this location not because he had a command from God or directions from the prophet, but because he was afraid of the Angel of the Lord that had been stationed at Ornan’s threshingfloor. Even though God had accepted David’s sacrifices, the Angel of the Lord had sheathed His sword, and the plague and threat were ended, David nevertheless was afraid.
Meanwhile, the actual priesthood, the tabernacle, and the ark of the covenant were all fifteen miles away in Gibeon (1 Chron. 21:29; 16:37–43). But, “David could not go before it to inquire of God, for he was afraid of the sword of the angel of the Lord” (1 Chron. 21:30). Yet in the very next verse (22:1), we find David declaring of Ornan’s threshingfloor, “Here shall be the house of the Lord God and here the altar of burnt offering for Israel.”
So not only did David not have a command from God where to build, but he never even asked God. Afraid to leave the place he was at, he just declared it, unilaterally, the site of God’s House.
Thus the location of Solomon’s Temple was the result of David’s momentary weakness and self-interested convenience.
[This essay and many more like it are available in the author’s book Jesus v. Jerusalem: Jesus’ Lawsuit Against Israel.]
Zion or Moriah?
Many people have argued that the site on Mt. Moriah is significant for the Temple because it is the same spot where Abraham bound Isaac as a sacrifice, and where God provided the substitute. Thus David’s altar was upon the same spot as Abraham’s altar, and thus the Temple belongs there. The proof of this is supposed to be in Genesis 22:2, where God tells Abraham, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.”
Notice, however, that God here does not designate “Mount Moriah” as it is designated in 2 Chronicles 3:1. Here it only says the “land of Moriah,” which is a general area. Remember that this area, assuming it is the Jerusalem area, has several mountains. In this general area, God promises to reveal to Abraham “one of the mountains” on which to sacrifice. In the rest of the story in Genesis 22we are never told exactly which one of the mountains God chose.  Anyone arguing that it must be Mount Moriah is trying to get away with an argument from silence—a pure assumption unwarranted by the Scripture.
But there is good reason for this silence. God does not want any particular geographic location to become an idol for His people. He wants us to be free from all idolatry, including inordinate attachments to the rituals and rudiments he once commanded. At other times, God has “hidden” certain things in order to prevent idolatry. He would not allow the whereabouts of Moses’ body to be known after his death (Deut. 34:5–6). Similarly, He allowed the ark of the covenant to be lost (contemporary claims notwithstanding), as the Jews had allowed the mere presence of it along with the Temple rituals to become idolatry. Even after the Solomonic Temple was destroyed and the Second Temple rebuilt, the ark was never restored. Thus the writer of Hebrews could not speak of its existence (Heb. 9:5). Likewise, nowhere does Scripture specifically prescribe the location of the alleged Temple Mount. The word “Moriah” only appears in Scripture in two places (Gen. 22:2 and 2 Chron. 3:1), and “Mount Moriah” only the one time, and this was David’s choice, not God’s.
Scripture does say where God has chosen to dwell forever, and it is, in fact, in Jerusalem. Psalm 132:13–14 says it plainly: “For the Lord has chosen Zion; he has desired it for his dwelling place: this is my resting place forever; here I will dwell, for I have desired it.” But this does not require a Jewish Temple to be rebuilt at all, let alone on Mt. Moriah. Even if we presumed to interpret this literally (and we should not), and presumed that God’s “dwelling place” indicates a literal Temple, then we should more properly desire a Temple upon the higher peak of Mt. Zion rather than Moriah; for the text says, “the Lord has chosen Zion.” Now, many times, especially in the Psalms, Scripture uses “Zion” to designate the entire city of Jerusalem. But this would rather expand the available real estate rather than narrow it to the so-called Temple Mount: we should then be open to place such a rebuilt Temple anywhere in Jerusalem.
I will summarize all I have said to this point: Scripture nowhere designates the so-called Temple Mount as a necessary place for a Jewish Temple. It never did, God never said it, God never required it, and He does not require it now or anytime in the future.
In fact, the new Temple is not literal to begin with. God has chosen Zion, and Hebrews 12 makes quite clear that those who believe in Christ has joined the body of the faithful and “have come [past tense; “arrived at already”] to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem” (Heb. 12:22).
A Re-Built Temple?
But many Christians today, swayed by the old dispensational school of theology, believe strongly that the exact location of the Temple Mount, Mt. Moriah, must be the location of a future Jewish Temple. And, of course, the problem is that large golden-domed Al Sakhra Mosque (and actually a second mosque as well, the Al Aqsa, sits within the southern wall of the Temple Mount) sits on that location. Supporters of a rebuilt Temple, therefore, wish for the day that Mosque will be removed. For example, one dispensationalist woman in the video Waiting for Armageddon is so committed to the claims of that system that she punctuates her tour of the Temple Mount with the exclamation: “There’s no place for that Mosque. It has to be removed.” In the same production, tour guide and dispensational scholar H. Wayne House imposes his belief in a rebuilt Temple via Photoshop: he displays a picture of the tour group with Temple Mount in the background, but he has digitally cut out the Dome-of-the-Rock, and spliced in a rendering of the Jewish Temple. Voila! A digitally-answered prayer for a future re-built Jewish Temple on Mt. Moriah.
This prayer bears two parts: 1) that a future Temple must be built, and 2) that it must be built exactly where the Dome sits now.
The first claim often makes reference to Revelation 11:1–2. There John is told to “measure the temple of God.” Dispensationalists assume that this must refer to a Temple that will be built in the future. One reason for this is due to their belief that Revelation was not written until AD 90, when no Jewish Temple was left standing. But this assumption rests on highly fragile footing, surprising considering that so many people are ready to stake an international holocaust on it. But the work of Kenneth Gentry and others on the dating of Revelation has left this “late date” view severely crippled. His book Before Jerusalem Fell has established for decades now that Revelation was much more likely written before AD 70. David Chilton’s Days of Vengeance shows why such a dating allows the book to make much more sense: it pertained to localized events of that time and place. And with an “early date” of AD 66 or 68 or so, it makes sense for John to be told to “measure the temple,” because the Jerusalem Temple was still standing.
Nevertheless, even if we granted that Revelation 11 speaks of a future Temple, it says absolutely nothing about where that Temple must be located. Silence. Anyone who assumes it must be Mt. Moriah, in the place of the Dome-of-the-Rock, is adding to Scripture.
Why Not Start Tomorrow?
So we are absent any—and I mean any—Scripture mandate about where a Temple should have been, or should be located. This is no big deal to me, of course, since I do not expect a rebuilt Temple anyway—certainly not one of any prophetic significance. But it should be quite freeing to a Zionist or a dispensationalist. For these people now no longer have to worry about replacing the Dome-of-the-Rock (perhaps, for my service in providing this illumination, they may desire to send a donation to American Vision). Since the whole complex of mountains called “Zion” is at their disposal, they could biblically and prophetically start building a Temple tomorrow, or even today.
Israel has control over all of Mt. Zion except the Mosque-domed Temple Mount. But Israel doesn’t need this, biblically speaking. So, I have a proposition: every Zionist, Orthodox Jew, Dispensationalist, and Premillennialist who believes there must be a rebuilt Temple ought immediately to start a foundation and a movement to build a Temple anywhere in Jerusalem that Israel already controls. This will hasten the last days and the coming of Jesus Himself!
Of course, failure to do this will be a tacit admission that all of these parties are more interested in bashing Muslims than advancing their own religion. Thus, their motivation to capture the Temple Mount when they don’t really need it will be revealed as pure envy.
Such a motivation may be masked by arguments about the special significance of the actual rock beneath that Dome—being the rock on which Abraham meant to sacrifice Isaac, or David stood, etc.—but we have already seen how none of these arguments has merit. To insist on these positions is to declare oneself in the service of the traditions of men, or ancient superstitions. Ironically, to do this puts the Christian or Jew on no better grounds than the Muslims who occupy that rock now, clinging to the superstition that Mohammed ascended to heaven from than spot.
Why trade one superstition for another? Especially with the risk of bloodshed and war, which cost David the privilege of building a Temple to begin with?
There is no biblical reason that any Temple should ever stand (or ever should have stood) upon Mt. Moriah. If anything, it should be upon Mt. Zion, taken either as the particular peak named Zion—a half-mile West of Mt. Moriah—or as anywhere in the general area of Jerusalem. To insist on anything more specific is to trade the dictates of Scripture for superstition.
I say let the Dome-of-the-Rock stand. In fact, I will go so far as to say that it would be non-Christian and unbiblical to call for its replacement by a Jewish Temple. Rather, in due time, Christ reigning from his current throne will spread the Gospel and subdue all His enemies—even the Muslim and Jewish enemies. He will bring them into the Church—His body—the only True Temple and Dwelling Place of God. Even Zion has been “spiritualized,” if you will—revealed to be fulfilled in the person of the Ascended Christ: “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant” (Heb. 12:22–24). (Was the writer of Hebrews really guilty of “spiritualizing” the text?!Hint: yes, he was. And we must deal with it.)
What is Zion but the Spirit-Indwelt people of God? What is the Temple except these same Indwelt people of God? To trade this truth for any stack of concrete blocks on any hill is to trample the Son of God underfoot, slap God in the face, and blaspheme the Holy Spirit.
Someday, even Muslims and Jews will be converted and understand this truth. Some dispensationalists may see it, too. When that day comes, that beautiful golden-domed Mosque may just make a very pretty church.
Before then, I would hate to see it spoiled with the worthless blood of bulls and goats, and the idolatrous incantations of would-be Sadducees (Heb. 9).
[This essay and many more like it are available in the author’s commentary on Luke 9:51-20:26Jesus v. Jerusalem: Jesus’ Lawsuit Against Israel.]

The Time Has Come: Higher Ed-a-geddon - By Robert Oscar Lopez

Last summer, my essay for Dissident Prof prompted a challenge from Julie Ponzi, who suggested I write a brief essay with proposals of what to change about academia.  I waited several months, and now I have my proposals.  I mentioned most of these in Wackos Thugs & Perverts: Clintonian Decadence in Academia, which I published with MassResistance in February 2017.  They are also in earlier writings such as Colorful Conservative.
My plan involves a sixfold apocalypse.  Yes, apocalypse.
The best starting point is total depravity.  Higher education as we know it is indefensible.  It presumes a false model of human development.  People between the ages of eighteen and twenty-two cannot be trusted moving to a campus away from their parents, protected from any real consequences for stupid decisions, and taught random concepts by a professoriate anesthetized by the tenure system.
In reality, these four years of human development should be spent in conditions closer to basic combat training: they need physical regimentation.  Swift punishments must impress upon them the costs of behaving foolishly.  Their sexuality needs to be heavily circumscribed.  Between eighteen and twenty-two, women need to be closely protected from rape.  Men need guidance to transform themselves from impulsive sex maniacs into responsible providers and decent fathers.
The wasteful use of young adulthood for 40% of the American adult population is catastrophic.  Overpriced tuitions force a large chunk of family savings into an inefficient economic sector ("higher education"), meaning that their money cannot go into productive industries.  Youths are not being trained for citizenship.  Instead of courting, marrying, and starting families in their prime, they accustom themselves to promiscuity, irresponsible thrills, and single lives burdened with debt.  They have late – and few – children, whom they are ill equipped to raise.
In certain contexts, it is wise to burn the edges of a dry forest rather than let a wildfire rage at a time and in a manner out of our control.  I suggest the following concrete steps, via congressional action.
Cut all federal financial favors to colleges that do not adhere to a strict, revised standard for higher education and its obligation to the public good.  By "favors," we mean direct subsidies plus tax exemptions and deductions (such as on endowments, gifts, and waivers), as well as any backing of student loans at rates below market interest.  These remaining favors would all hinge upon their suitability to "the public good."  Accreditation for new programs must be streamlined.  They must favor all of society rather than one institution, one individual, or one class of people.  Here would be the conditions:
1. An associate's degree or certificate precedes a bachelor's degree.  In other words, nobody can enroll in a liberal arts program without first doing one to two years learning a practical trade.  By "trade" we mean plumbing, bookkeeping, culinary arts, sewing, computer repair, etc.  I count church ministries in this, which would cover seminaries.
2. No non-religious post-secondary institution should have any department or program that excludes a political perspective.  There should not be feminist studies, queer studies, ethnic studies, or sustainability studies.  Title IX went haywire because gender studies faculty acted as investigators and faculty simultaneously – an example of how an entire campus is damaged by the existence of these departments.  Such material should be taught within generally accepted disciplines like English, biology, political science, etc.
3. Congress needs to earmark funds for a unit under the Department of Justice devoted to an academic version of RICO (the Racketeering, Influencing & Corrupt Organizations Act).  An institution claiming to be for the public good should not strive to influence an election – especially with the potential to profit financially from the favors of the elected officials.  For instance, the dean who took many adverse actions against me was part of the Clinton Global Initiative.  This is a serious conflict of interest and should be investigated.
4. Congress needs to earmark funds for a unit under the Department of Labor to review schools that receive federal favors.  The peer review, publishing, retention, and promotion system within higher education is arguably the worst of any industry.  Schools that receive federal favors should not violate basic transparency and fairness standards.
5. No schools that receive federal funding should have tenure.  Tenure does not protect academic freedom.  Tenured faculty know they will be parked in the same institution for decades and are by far the people least willing to jeopardize collegial relationships in order to take a stand.  The tenure system can exist only on the backs of adjunct labor, whose conditions are atrocious.  Tenured faculty waste resources teaching few students and spending too much time on "research."  Their "service" refers to busywork on committees nobody needs.  Nobody should be a professor if he cannot carry out research and teach a normal load of four classes per semester.  So colleges choose: eliminate tenure or lose funds.
6. Colleges that charge expensive tuitions should be deprived of federal favors.  They should be taxed at the rates we apply to any rich corporation.  Many schools simultaneously charge high tuitions, have huge endowments, and then get large grants, all the while maintaining a tiny rank of tenured faculty and loading up their classrooms with adjuncts.  This has to stop.  It hurts learning and scholarship. There must be a massive trimming of school budgets.  Personally, I contend that there should be no dormitories, student associations, duplicative student services, investigative offices, compliance officers, cultural programs, or anything that adds to tuition or fees.  Colleges should be buildings where people come to take classes and study, then go back to their communities where they continue their emotional development with the help of their families, churches, jobs, and neighborhood friends.
Could these six ideas ever come to pass?  Yes!  They will come to pass, but in one of two ways.  Either we carry out the bloodletting under careful, clean conditions or else, when academia crashes, wow, will it crash.

Political Pizza | International Man - by Jeff Thomas

Over the years, I’ve often been asked to explain the political party system in a simple, easy-to-grasp way. Several years ago, I came up with the following explanation, and, for some people, it’s helped to remove the complexity and smoke and mirrors created by the political world. Let’s see if you agree.
Picture this: You live in a relatively small town. It’s a good place to live, with most townspeople being mutually supportive and often quite helpful. There are just a few local restaurants, each owned and operated by your fellow townsmen. You go out to eat often, to support your community.
Then, one day, in an old brick commercial building in the centre of town, with two vacant storefronts, you see signs announcing the opening of a new pizza shop in one of the vacant spaces. It will be called “Blue Pizza.”
When it opens, the manager advises customers that the owner is a staunch blue party supporter, and, each month, the owner plans to dedicate much of the profits from the shop to blue candidates. You vote blue in each election, so, you make a point of frequenting the shop and feel good that your meals are benefitting the blue party.

Soon, many of the other blue supporters in town flock to the shop, regularly buying pizza. Red supporters, however, are a bit disgruntled and rarely go in for a pizza.
Then, one day, signs appear in the other vacant storefront, announcing the opening of “Red Pizza.” It’s immediately popular with red party voters, as the manager advises customers that the owner intends to donate a major portion of the profits to red party candidates.
Although the owners never seem to be present, the two managers are quite vocal regarding the political support by their respective shops. Soon, business increases dramatically for both pizza shops. Half the town frequents Blue Pizza; the other half frequents Red Pizza. Townspeople go as often as possible, wanting to lend as much support as they can.
Over time, the pre-existing local restaurants are having a hard time making ends meet, as they’re seeing far fewer customers. One by one, they fold. Townspeople regret the closures, but, with each closure, they increase their commitment to their chosen pizza shop.
Each group of patrons insists that its shop’s pizza is better pizza, and rumours begin to circulate that the other shop serves pizza with substandard ingredients that are unhealthy. The other pizza is not only less desirable, but a danger to the community.
As each election time approaches, townspeople go all out, ordering pizza as often as they can, in order to help their chosen candidates to get elected. Altercations often break out between younger customers, on the street in front of the shops.
The townspeople become divided like never before. A resident, who once got on fairly well with his neighbour, now looks at him with resentment and even anger, when he sees him enter the opposing shop. The townspeople become highly polarized and begin to see each other as the enemy. Although actual violence is minimal, the former sense of community, in which neighbours looked after one another, deteriorates.
People in the workplace find that they’re taking up sides far more than they once did, and, in the same place of work, blue and red groupings often define whether co-workers can work together effectively.

One day, someone from out of town is visiting for a few days. He’s intrigued by the considerable business being done by the two pizza shops and the polarization that’s developed in the once-harmonious town.
Out of curiosity, he goes to each shop and orders a slice of pizza. He’s surprised to find that they look and taste exactly the same.
He then visits the real estate office that handles the building and asks the realtor if any other space has been rented in the building recently. The realtor mentions that the office space above the two shops was rented at about the same time as the shops themselves.
That night, at closing time for the two pizza shops, the visitor sits on a bench across the street from the shops, staring at the building. A local notices him and asks, “What are you looking at?”
The visitor says, “I’m waiting to see what happens. Have a seat.”
The local sits down and they both stare at the front of the brick building. Eventually, they see the manager of Blue Pizza shut off the lights, lock up the front door, and enter the door that leads to the upstairs office. Moments later, the manager of Red Pizza does the same.
The two people on the bench stare into the lighted office above the pizza shops, where a man, presumably the owner, sits at a desk. As the managers arrive upstairs, they place their proceeds from the day into one pile. The three men count out the money, and the owner makes a record of the total take for the day. They then sit back, have a beer, and joke together. The owner places the proceeds into his valise and the three men exit the building, driving away in separate directions.
And that’s essentially the system of democracy.
In bygone eras, kings ruled vast areas of countryside. They fed off the people and were understandably resented and even hated by them.
Then, along came democracy. It was often created from the bottom up, by a people who were fed up at having their lives ruled by usurpers who allowed them few choices and limited opportunity.
But, in virtually every country, the system was co-opted by those who sought power. Not surprisingly, they sought power for their own gain, not the benefit of the people. (’Twas ever thus.)
Ironically, the democratic system has been far more effective for the rulers than the monarchic system. By creating the illusion that the people have a choice, the rulers and their flunkies can extract far more from the people, without inciting revolt, than was previously possible in the monarchic system.
Political leaders are therefore far more loyal to the system than they are to those who voted for them.
A thousand years ago, in the “dark” ages, a worker paid his tithe to the feudal lord. The standard tithe was “one day’s labour in ten,” or ten percent of his earnings. Today, although the average serf has modern distractions, such as smart phones and flat-screen TVs, he pays a far higher percentage of the fruits of his labour in an endless plethora of federal, state, and local taxes and government departmental fees.
For both Blue Pizza and Red Pizza, revenue has never been better, and the cost of a slice is certain to rise further.
Hopefully the lesson to be learned is to avoid being distracted by the colour of the pizza shop, but to focus instead on the fellow in the office above.
Editor’s Note: Democracy might not offer you many choices, but you still have options—especially is you’re serious about protecting yourself from greedy government overlords. Find out more in Doug Casey’s special report, Getting Out of DodgeClick here to download your free PDF copy now.

Sunday, December 10, 2017

Vox Popoli: Why the Left hates Christmas

Mr. John C. Wright ponders the question in his new column for Dangerous:

Why must a Leftist hate Christmas, then?  Let us look at it as a multiple choice question.

(1) A Leftist is rude.
(2) A Leftist is a killjoy.
(3) A Leftist is divisive.
(4) A Leftist hates America.
(5) A Leftist hates Christ.
(6) All of the above.
Let us ponder each possible answer:

First, the War on Christmas is waged to be rude.

It is rude, but this is not why Uncle Screwtape encourages his useful idiots to be idiots about it. Rudeness is merely a means to an end.

This war is not just a matter of public buildings replacing baby Jesus from nativity scenes with Kami the AIDS-awareness muppet, or a public schools holding A CHARLIE BROWN CHRISTMAS as a school play but deleting one scene where Linus quotes the Gospel of Luke. These are just steps.

It is not just a matter of trotting out tired old chestnuts about Christmas trees being pagan in origin or Christ’s birth being a retelling of the birth of Horus, or Mithra, or Krishna.

Let us digress a moment to remember that all those old chestnuts are bogus. All fake news.

The practice of decorating Christmas trees dates from Eighteenth Century Germany, which had not been pagan for over a thousand years.

Horus’s birth was traditionally celebrated in August, not December, and he was born to avenge his father’s death, not to cure mankind of sin. Mithra was not born, he was carved out of a rock.

As for Krishna, he was not the firstborn of a virgin, but the eighthborn of a married matron. An evil king seeks his life, but not for the reason Herod sought Christ’s. At Krishna’s birth, Vishnu appears from heaven, and whisks the mother away, brushing evil serpents and raging floods from her path. Not a long donkey ride to Egypt here.

She gives Krishna to a kindly cowherd to raise, and takes the cowherd’s daughter in swap. Upon returning, when the tyrant enters the dungeon seeking the child’s life, the cowherd’s daughter is transfigured into the goddess Yogamaya and ascends to heaven. Later, Krishna grows up to seduce rural maidens. No getting lost in a temple arguing points of law with old graybeards for this boy.

Besides, even if each jot and tittle of Christmas tradition was taken from pagan forebears unchanged except for the name “HORUS” crossed out in bright red crayon, and the name “CHRIST” crudely thrust in, so what?

The pagan forebears of the Christians were themselves the very people who converted and became Christian. Their culture also was baptized. Words, dress, architecture, calendar, was unchanged. The names of months, weekdays, planets, constellations, were kept.

Everything they kept was a pagan survival into Christianity. It all became Christian.

What was left behind was sodomy, polygamy, pederasty,  divorce  (yes, the Romans had that), contraceptive pharmaceuticals (yes, the Romans had that, too) and the belief that Caesar was sacred, but not human life.

The pagan things that did not survive are the very things the modern world wants to return to us: sodomy, polygamy, pederasty, divorce, contraception. A despot worshipped as a god. Life held cheaply. Some returned came in the 1930’s, some in the 1960’s. Some are coming.

So, to make it clear: putting pretty lights on a tree, or weaving a wreath of evergreens, is not a pagan survival. These things did not spring out of Christianity. The only thing that honestly can be said to have sprang out of paganism, and which survives to the modern day, is Christianity.

But these silly, trifling slurs and insults against nativity scenes and Charlie Brown plays, and these silly, trifling arguments about the alleged pagan roots of Christmas are not being done to change d├ęcor nor change minds. They are done to affront, not to persuade.

Win or lose, the bickering destroys something of the Christmas spirit. The rudeness is an instrument to kill the joy and pleasure of the season, to make a shared solemnity into a bone of contention.

It is done to ruin the fun.

So the War on Christmas is waged to kill the fun of Christmas, to end the joy.

Don't let them do it. Feel the joy. Feed the joy. Fuel the joy.
Il Verbo si fece carne e venne ad abitare tra noi.

Vox Popoli: Alpha Game lives - Keep your kids, pictures of your kids, and stories of your kids OFF THE INTERNET

Longtime reader Lee Jackson has agreed to keep Alpha Game running. He'll be focusing more on Game as it relates to society and he put up his first post there today. It's a good one, and highly relevant this Christmas season.

Birthday parties and cake-smeared faces. Bath time. Halloween candy pig-outs.

On social media you'll see any number of posts featuring friends showing off their cute (and often not-so-cute) children. We've seen YouTubers with massive vlogs where their children's daily lives are exposed for the entirety of the world to see.

Vox has of course warned against doing this, though many still fall prey to the temptation to show off our families. It's natural to take pride in our kids, but frankly, it's stupid to put their lives on the internet.

And not just because of predators and perverts.

I could not agree more. Keep your kids, pictures of your kids, and stories of your kids OFF THE INTERNET. One of the greatest gifts you can give your children in today's world is a clean slate as an adult.

Allow them to publicly define themselves as something other than an adjunctory decoration to your life.

Pentagon To Undergo First Ever Audit After Decades Of Sloppy Accounting And Missing Trillions | Zero Hedge

After decades of waste, overpayments, trillions of missing or improperly accounted for dollars, and most recently losing track of 44,000 US soldiersthe Pentagon is about to undergo its first audit in history conducted by 2,400 auditors from independent public accounting firms to conduct reviews across the Army, Navy, Air Force and more - followed by annual audits going forward. 

The announcement follows a May commitment by Pentagon comptroller David Norquist, who previously served as the CFO at the Department of Homeland Security when the agency performed its audit. "Starting an audit is a matter of driving change inside a bureaucracy that may resist it," Norquist told members of the Armed Services Committee at the time when pressed over whether or not he could get the job done at the DHS. 
According to the DoD release
The audit is massive. It will examine every aspect of the department from personnel to real property to weapons to supplies to bases. Some 2,400 auditors will fan out across the department to conduct it, Pentagon officials said.

"It is important that the Congress and the American people have confidence in DoD's management of every taxpayer dollar," Norquist said.
The Pentagon is no stranger to criticism over serious waste and purposefully sloppy accounting.  A DoD Inspector General's report from 2016 - which appears to be unavailable on the DoD website (but fortunately WAS archived)- found that in 2015 alone a staggering $6.5 trillion in funds was unaccounted for out of the Army's budget, with $2.8 trillion in "wrongful adjustments" occurring in just one quarter.
In 2015, the Pentagon denied trying to shelve a study detailing $125 billion in waste created by a bloated employee counts for noncombat related work such as human resources, finance, health care management and property management. The report concluded that $125 billion could be saved by making those operations more efficient. 
On September 10th, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced that "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," after a Pentagon whistleblower set off a probe. A day later, the September 11th attacks happened and the accounting scandal was quickly forgotten.
And twenty years before that, DoD analyst Franklin C. Spinney exposed what he called "accounting games," saying "Those numbers are pie in the sky. The books are cooked routinely year after year." In a 2002 testimony before the House Committee on Government Reform, Spinney laid out the DoD's accounting quagmire of un-auditable books and budget projections which don't match reality. 

Finally, those of us old enough to remember the 80's, let's not forget the bombshell report on overpayments the Pentagon made for simple items, such as $37 screws, $7,622 coffee makers, and $640 toilet seats which Sen. William Roth Jr (R-DE) was able to whittle down to $200
The announcement of the audit comes amid a looming government shutdown battle which was given a two-week extension last week until December 22. If this occurs, military personnel would report to work as usual, but the DoD would not pay them until the shutdown ends. 
 "I cannot emphasize too much how destructive a shutdown is," Norquist said. "We've talked before about the importance of maintenance on weapons systems and others, but if it's not an excepted activity, there'll be work stoppage on many of those maintenance functions."
With both parties standing to lose more than gain from a shutdown, that is unlikely to happen. Meanwhile, with decades of lost confidence in the Pentagon's accounting practices, we eagerly await the results of this "massive" audit to see exactly how much dirt - and where - previous administrations have swept under the rug.

Six Ways US Stocks Are The Most Overvalued In History | by Mike Shedlock

US large cap stocks are the most overvalued in history. Let's investigate six ways.
Crescat Capital claims US large cap stocks are the most overvalued in history, higher than prior speculative mania market peaks in 1929 and 2000.
Their 25-page presentation makes a compelling case, with numerous charts. It's worth your time to download and investigate the report.
Six Ways Socks Most Overvalued in History
  1. Price to Sales
  2. Price to Book
  3. Enterprise Value to Sales
  4. Enterprise Value to EBITDA
  5. Price to Earnings
  6. Enterprise Value to Free Cash Flow
Here are a few snips from the report.
Bear Market Catalysts
There are many catalysts that are likely to send stocks into bear market in the near term. A likely bursting of the China credit bubble is first and foremost among them. Our data and analysis show that China today is the biggest credit bubble of any country in history. We believe its bursting will be globally contagious for equities, real estate, and credit markets. The US and China bubbles are part of a larger, global debt-to-GDP bubble, which is also historic in scale, and the product of excessive, lingering central bank easy monetary policies in the wake of the now long-passed 2008 Global Financial Crisis. These policies failed to resolve the debt-to-GDP imbalances that preceded the last crisis. Now, easy money policies have created even bigger debt-to-GDP imbalances and asset bubbles that will precipitate the next one.We are in the very late stages of a global economic and business expansion cycle with investor sentiment reflecting record optimism typical at market peaks, a sign of capitulation at the end of a bull market. Crescat is positioned to profit from the coming broad, global cyclical market and economic downturn that we foresee. We strongly believe that our global equity net short positioning in our hedge funds will be validated soon.
Cyclical PE Smoothing
It is critical to use cyclical smoothing to accurately gauge market valuations in their current and historical context when using P/E.Yale economics professor, Robert Shiller, received a Nobel Prize in 2013 for proving this fact so we hope you will believe it. The problem with just looking at trailing 12-month P/E ratios to determine valuation is that it produces sometimes-false readings due to large cyclical swings in earnings at peaks and valleys of the business cycle. For example, in the middle of the recession in 2001, P/Es looked artificially high due to a broad earnings plunge. P/Es can also look artificially low at the peak of a short-term business cycle, which can produce what is known as a “value trap”, such as in 2007 during the US housing bubble and such as we believe is the case today in China, Australia, and Canada.Shiller showed a method for cyclically-adjusting P/Es using a 10-year moving average of real earnings in the denominator of the P/E. Shiller’s Cyclically-Adjusted P/E, called CAPE multiples have been better predictors of future full-business-cycle stock market returns than raw 12-month trailing P/Es. Shiller showed that markets with historically high CAPEs lead to low long-term returns for long-only index investors. Shiller CAPEs are fantastic, but they can be improved by including an adjustment for corporate profit margins which makes them even better predictors of future stock price performance and therefore even better measures of cyclically-adjusted P/E for valuation purposes. .Shiller’s CAPEs simply need an adjustment for profit margins because margins are a key element of earnings cyclicality. We can understand this by looking at median S&P 500 profit margins in the chart below. For example, even though profit margins were cyclically and historically high during the tech bubble, they are even higher today. In the same spirit of Shiller’s attempt to cyclically adjust earnings to determine a useful P/E, CAPEs need to be adjusted for cyclical swings in profit margins.
When we multiply Shiller CAPEs by a cyclical adjustment factor for profit margins (10-year trailing profit margins divided by long term profit margin), we get a margin-adjusted CAPE that is not only theoretically valid but empirically valid as it proves to be an even better predictor of future returns than Shiller’s CAPE! Credit goes to John P. Hussman, Ph.D. for the idea and method to adjust Shiller CAPEs for swings in profit margins.As we can see in the Hussman chart below, margin-adjusted CAPE, shows that today’s P/E ratio for comparative historical purposes is 43, the highest ever! The 1999 peak P/E was 41 and the 1929 P/E was 40. Once again, we can see that today we have the highest valuation multiples ever for US stocks, higher than 1929 and higher than 1999 and 2000!
Margin-Adjusted CAPE
(See the charts at link below)
Mish Comments
It's easy to discard such talk, just as it was in 2000 and 2006. People readily dispute CAPE, concocting all sorts or reasons why it's different this time.
The most common reason is interest rates are low. We also hear "stocks are cheap to bonds" which is like saying moon rocks are cheap compared to oranges.
I do not know when this all matters. And no one else knows either. What I am sure if is that it will matter.
I don't know when, nor am I sure how it happens.
It could play out as a crash or stocks can decline over a period of 6-10 years with nothing worse than a 15% decline in any given year, accompanied with several sucker rallies leading people to believe the bottom is in.
History Lesson
Some might ask: If you don't know when or how, of what use is such analysis.
The answer is that history shows this is a very poor time to invest in stocks. That does not mean that they cannot go higher (and they have).
History also suggests that people who invest in bubbles start believing in them. People believe in bubbles because they have to in order to rationalize their investments.
Others know full well it's a bubble, but they think they can get out in time. Historically, only a few do, because most are conditioned to "buy-the-dip", and keep doing so even after it no longer works.
So if you are looking for a reason to stay heavily invested in this market, you have one. But don't fool yourself, this is the most expensive market in history.

These 8 Places Around The World Are Actively Preparing For Nuclear War | - Daisy Luther

Everywhere, it seems like officials are actively preparing for the possibility of nuclear war.
Tensions are high in practically every corner of the world but somehow, despite the proliferation of imminent threats, many people are still blithely unaware of the hell that could be unleashed.
Due to tensions between the US and North Korea, the world is frantically preparing for the possibility of a nuclear attack. The US, China, Russia, North Korea, and South Korea have all shown force with bombers and destroyers, and it seems that it will only be a matter of time before one incident sparks a cascading explosion.
The governments of these 8 places are making preparations, but they’ll be to little avail if people don’t participate and just expect to be rescued.
1) South Korea
In South Korea, their government has urged citizens to get prepared for war, and prepping is becoming mainstream for North Korea’s nearest neighbor and sworn enemy.
The government of South Korea is making every effort to turn its citizens into a country of survivalists. With the ever-increasing threats from the North, South Korean preppers are becoming mainstream, instead of a quirky fringe element…
The South Korean President isn’t taking this lying down. In case North Korea undertakes provocations against us or our ally, we have the power to destroy (the North) beyond recovery.” This threat most likely will not please the Dear Leader of North Korea, so it’s probably safe to predict even greater hostilities on the horizon.
The South Korean Ministry of Public Administration and Security has issued guidelines for a variety of attacks to their citizens due to the ever-increasing risk of an attack by North Korea…
…An article published in the South Korean Times states, “The number of doomsday pessimists is rapidly growing here, as is shown from the number of relevant YouTube videos and their views.”
The article goes on to describe a video by a popular female comedian that teaches watchers how to create a bug-out bag. But that’s not all. South Korean preppers are becoming mainstream. (source)
2) China
A Chinese newspaper from an area that shares a border with North Korea published a series of articles advising people how to prepare for a strike.

Bloomberg summarized the advice:
The Jilin Daily — the government newspaper of Jilin province on North Korea’s northeastern border — published articles on page 5 explaining how nuclear weapons work and the damage they cause. The paper used cartoons to offer advice on what residents can do about radiation exposure and provided instructions on how to respond during an attack.
One article listed essential items for emergency kits, including fire extinguishers and breathing masks. Another warned that air raids could mean nuclear, chemical and biological attacks, and used the 1945 atomic bombing of Hiroshima as an example.
The cartoon images illustrated how residents should clean their bodies, boots, and coats after being exposed to radiation. They suggested taking iodine tablets if there is radiation nearby. (source)
3) Japan
Millions of people in Japan have taken part in (or soon will) nuclear attack evacuation drills, and the Prime Minister is urging local authorities to designate the best sturdy, underground sites to be used as potential shelters.
…Tokyo isn’t the first city to conduct these types of large-scale drills: Towns facing the Korean Peninsula have conducted similar drills in recent months. 
The national and city governments are to carry out a series of exercises between January and March to prepare for a potential attack on Tokyo, the Sankei Shimbun newspaper reported, the first time that a major Japanese city will have carried out responses to a simulated attack.
Towns facing the Korean Peninsula have in recent months conducted similar drills, with residents instructed to seek shelter in response to sirens warning of an imminent missile strike.
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has called on local governments throughout the country to identify underground facilities or buildings that are sufficiently sturdy to withstand a missile attack and to designate those facilities as shelters. source()
But it isn’t just Asia that is preparing for the possibility of a nuclear strike.
4) Australia
Australia recently received a warning from North Korea, calling the country a “vassal” of the United States.
A spokesman for the North Korean Foreign Ministry told the country’s state-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) [said] that Australia’s support for the United States in opposing North Korea was a “suicidal act.”
“Australia will be unable to avoid a disaster if it keeps toeing the US line of military, economic and diplomatic pressure upon the DPRK despite its repeated warnings,” the Foreign Ministry spokesman was quoted as saying.
“It should be prudent in speech and conduct with its own principle, instead of blindly following the US’ policy of aggression, and realize that working to develop friendly relations with other countries is the best way to its security.” (source)
The minister for defense personnel, Dan Tehan, said that they “will not be cowed” by North Korea’s threats.
5) Hawaii
Hawaii recently tested their nuclear sirens that have not been used since the 1980s. The island is the closest American state to Hawaii, which makes it geographically vulnerable.
But here’s the bummer about the siren test. They were going for 20 whole minutes and hardly anyone even noticed them.
It’s hoped that the 385 sirens dotted around Hawaii will give residents and tourists a 20-minute warning if North Korean nuclear missiles are inbound.
But the sirens, which have been silent since the Cold War, were barely heard in the busy tourist areas of Waikiki, where most people obliviously went about their day.
…Disturbed by the underwhelming results of the tests, officials are now investigating whether the sirens were operating as they are supposed to. (source)
One of my dearest friends lives in Hawaii and has attended the nuclear preparedness meetings that have been held on Maui. According to her, hardly anyone shows up. No one is interested.
With that in mind, one must wonder if the issue with the lack of response to the nuke siren is one of decibels or one of cognitive dissonance.
6) Guam
As a US territory and the closest to North Korea, Guam could find itself in the crosshairs. Officials have issued guidelines to all its residents to prepare them for the possibility of a nuclear strike. (Here’s a link to the fact sheet.)
There’s some excellent advice, such as:
·         “Make a list of potential concrete shelters near your home, workplace or school.”
·         “Do not look at the flash or fireball — It can blind you.”
·         “Lie flat on the ground and cover your head. If the explosion is some distance away, it could take 30 seconds or more for the blast wave to hit.”
·         “When possible, take a shower with lots of soap and water…do not scrub or scratch the skin.”
·         “Do not use conditioner in your hair because it will bind radioactive material to your hair.”
7) The US Mainland
Here on the mainland, California is making preparations, but one notable factor is that residents should not expect help from the government any time soon should such a catastrophe occur. (This, of course, is something that preppers have known for a long time and is clearly evidenced in the slow response to Puerto Rico.)
It also warns of the difficulties government authorities would likely encounter in dealing with the aftermath of a blast. The public will need to evacuate, the report says, but with “limited understanding of radiation risks, they will experience high anxiety and may be non-compliant…”
“…The consequences of a nuclear attack in Southern California would be catastrophic,” the report says. “Nonetheless, government entities and first responders are expected to remain operational to preserve human life, maintain order, and aid in the recovery process.”
The report, which is largely directed at local, state, and federal agencies and first responders located in the Los Angeles region, notes that the federal government will likely be of limited help immediately after a nuclear blast.
“[T]here will be no significant federal assistance at the scene for 24-72 hours following the attack,” the bulletin says. (source)
The Pentagon is planning missile defense bases along the coast.
Congressman Mike Rogers, who sits on the House Armed Services Committee and chairs the Strategic Forces Subcommittee which oversees missile defence, said the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) was aiming to install extra defences at West Coast sites.
“It’s just a matter of the location, and the MDA making a recommendation as to which site meets their criteria,” the Alabama Congressman and Republican said.
When asked about the plan, MDA Deputy Director Rear Admiral Jon Hill said in a statement: “The Missile Defense Agency has received no tasking to site the Terminal High Altitude Air Defense System on the West Coast.”
The MDA is a unit of the US Defense Department. Congressman Rogers did not reveal the exact locations the agency is considering but said several sites are “competing” for the missile defense installations. source()
The goal, of course, is to shoot down the missiles before they can land in the United States and cause untold damage and death tolls. It may not be that easy though. Alarmingly, several experts have raised concerns about our ability to shoot down nukes before they hit.
8) Russia
Russia has been preparing for nuclear possibilities for quite a while now. Last year, it was reported that Russia was building fallout shelters all over the country and that 40 million citizens participated in a defense drill shortly before the US election, when tensions were running high over Syria.
But it didn’t end with the election because now Russia is up to its eyeballs trying to defuse the US/North Korea situation. Russian president Vladimir Putin recently received a letter from Kim Jong Un that stated they could launch an attack on the US “at any day” and could reach the mainland.
As well, Russia has voiced concerns about the animosity with NATO and recently drilled for the possibilities of nuclear or biological attacks. Russia has alleged that the US and Europe are developing nuclear weapons use procedures at their borders.
Preparing for a scenario in which Russia was attacked by “weapons of mass destruction by a hypothetical enemy,” soldiers were deployed in hazmat suits and gas masks.
Units specializing in chemical weapons were deployed in the Krasnodar and Stavropol regions, while at least 100 personnel in the neighboring Rostov region launched a parallel decontamination drill on Monday. It followed similar exercises held by Russian overseas troops in nearby Armenia over the weekend.
Also deployed were mobile laboratories and radioactive- and chemical-tracing reconnaissance vehicles capable of quarantining, assessing and potentially eliminating a chemical or nuclear threat. 
In recent weeks, Russia’s nuclear-capable forces practiced missile launches and flyovers in apparent offensive measures for a conflict scenario. (source)
Here is what would happen if a 10 kiloton nuclear strike occurred.
As I have written numerous times, if you aren’t at Ground Zero, a nuclear strike is very survivable. It isn’t one of those situations like The Road, where the whole world is a nuclear wasteland and people start eating each other to survive.
(This is an excerpt from my article, How to Prepare for a Nuclear Attack.)
Contrary to popular belief, a nuke won’t kill everyone within hundreds of miles. If you aren’t in the immediate blast radius, a nuclear strike is absolutely survivable.
The one-mile radius around the blast will be virtually unsurvivable. Within two miles, people will suffer 3rd-degree burns from the intense wave of heat.
If you are within two miles of the blast, the winds will be coming at about 600 miles per hour. This will take down buildings and cause a tremendous amount of pressure. Some experts recommend that you keep your mouth open to try and reduce the pressure on your eardrums. Looking at the blast could cause permanent blindness.
According to the DHS (source), 10 kilotons is the approximate size of nuclear weapon we could expect.
·         Nearly everyone within a half-mile radius of the point of impact would die and most of the buildings would be demolished. This would be considered Ground Zero.
·         The area within the next half mile would suffer extensive damage, fires, and serious injuries.
·         Areas within three miles could see minor injuries to people and slight damage to their homes.
·         The fallout would kill even more people. According to the DHS:
·         Within 10 to 20 miles of the explosion, radioactive exposure would cause nausea and vomiting within hours and death without medical treatment.
·         But for those near enough to the blast, experiencing more than 800R of radiation, not seeking shelter immediately would cause deaths with or without medical treatment, the study found.
·         People would not be able to evacuate this area as fallout would arrive within just 10 minutes.
People upwind of the strike and outside the 20-mile radius would be unlikely to suffer any effects. People downwind would need to take shelter. Deaths from cancer that is related to the fallout could occur for many years after.
With all of these governments spending oodles of money trying to prepare their citizens for the unthinkable, it would be extremely wise to get ready, just in case.
You’ll need to plan to hunker down for 14-21 days. That means you’ll need fooda way to cook itwatersanitation supplies, and other essentials to last for that amount of time. You should invest in a potassium iodide supplement to stave off the possibility of thyroid cancer. (Learn how to use them in this article with a printable version.)
In times like this, it’s more essential than ever to keep well-informed. (Sign up here for my daily emails and follow my website, Preppers Daily News.)
Most importantly, go to this article to learn in-depth what you should do to prepare for the possibility of a nuclear attack. If the missiles are in the air, it’s far too late.