Perspective

I enjoy the holiday season, not just because of gift-giving and general merriment, but because I return to where I grew up and visit old friends. This year was a little different, though, as a classmate of mine from elementary school all the way through high school recently died. It wasn't until I arrived in town and spoke to some people that I learned the details of what had happened. It left me in disbelief, but with renewed perspective.

My friend had become a homeless drug addict. He would break into vacant houses and do whatever else he needed to survive, wandering the neighborhoods where he and many others of us had grown up. He eventually lost his will to live and overdosed in a store parking lot.

When I consider my occasional fits of nostalgia and sentimentalism when visiting my hometown, I find it nearly impossible to imagine the despair he must have felt every day. To see the same places over and over again where he once was young and full of promise; to think about how his childhood friends had gone on to live prosperous lives; and perhaps to occasionally bump into someone he once knew from those days, are all more than even a healthy person could tolerate.  

Today I took a drive to the area where he spent his last few days and walked around, almost as if to let him know that he wasn't alone out there. What I came away with was to cherish friends and family as much as possible while they're still here, and to remember that everyday problems don't amount to a hill of beans.

On Banning Muslim Immigrants

The Donald is pulling his punches on this one. What America needs is a moratorium on all immigration, not just of Muslims. There is nothing radical about this, as it was the (wise) policy from 1924 through 1965 to shut down all immigration in order to preserve America's cultural core and assimilate the tidal wave of newcomers who had arrived during the prior generation. American ideals such as truth, justice, individual freedom, limited government, and the rule of law are hardly universal; quite the opposite, they are quite rare and the byproduct of a unique culture. While everyone surely loves to gorge on the prosperity generated by that culture, they know little and care less about the culture itself. Chances are it's too late to revive what little remains of that culture, at least on a national scale, but from an intellectual standpoint there is nothing wrong with going into a lockdown.

As to the supposed "racism" of banning only Muslims, three things: 1) Muslims aren't a race; 2) there is ample historical precedent for restricting immigration of specific types of people as being incompatible with America; and 3) since America has a sovereign right to ban all foreigners, it necessarily follows that America has a sovereign right to ban only some of them -- any privilege that may be completely denied may also be partially granted.

A Modest Proposal Regarding Women In The Military

The federal government has announced that all combat roles in the military are now open to women. This is wonderful news and marks only the beginning of righting a historical wrong. To make up for the many years during which women have been denied access to the military generally and these roles specifically, it strikes me that women should take men's place in the Selective Service for drafting. After all, it's extremely unfair that men rather than women register for a draft. The rationale of affirmative action, when applied here, requires nothing less than for men to be replaced as draftees for at least the next 150 years (since the draft first started during the War Between The States and was cruelly limited to men). Who says I'm not forward thinking?

Brief Observation On The Popular Portrayal Of Love

This is somewhat embarrassing, but I get a kick out of watching the glut of Christmas romantic movies on the Hallmark Channel and/or Lifetime Network. It's not because I'm sentimental, but rather because the predictable plots and treacly dialogue amuse me. Lovely woman gets divorced/dumped/widowed and starts to re-build her life when she bumps into a hunky guy who rubs her the wrong way at first, but who wins her over in the end. Along the way she must also run a gauntlet of "losers" who are vying for her attention.

But what's really interesting about these shows and similar films is how they portray love. If someone isn't "feeling it" any more, the undisputed conclusion is that the relationship is wrong and that love must be found somewhere else. This is the selfish conception of love, which tracks the Greek notion of eros and centers on a person's internal feelings. Yet the selfless decision to stay and give love -- even after the spark has faded -- is much more profound and fulfilling. Because modern society rejects such notions of agape, which entails the dreaded concept of self-denial, everyone is running around like drug addicts looking for the next fix. At least this keeps lawyers and shrinks prospering, though.

Giving Thanks

That is, after all, the purpose of the holiday. Here are some of the things I'm most thankful for:

• My family, who has always been there for me.

• My ancestors, who had the courage to rebel against and abandon a corrupt society in order to build a new one truly based on Christian principles.

• All the people today, however few, who still have that kind of courage.

• For my strong mind and body.

• For my independence from debt, from the mediocrity of the modern workplace, and from the enslavement of employment.

• For a thriving business that is now making real money.

• And for the presence of a good woman in my life. I don't know how she tolerates me, but I'm thankful just the same.

Veterans Day

I don't have a problem with honoring veterans. What disturbs me is the overblown rhetoric and pageantry that often accompany it, such as hearing that "freedom isn't free" and witnessing martial displays in everything ranging from a football game to a church service. A permanent and universal military presence in civilian life is hostile to freedom, as the founders understood when warning against "large standing armies" and "foreign entanglements."

Let's be blunt. The only times the American military has been deployed to defend America from attack are 1) the Revolutionary War, and 2) the War Between The States (and I'm referring to the southern states). Every other military effort was aggressive, unnecessary, and/or deliberately provoked to advance the interests of the ruling class.

And America most certainly is not a "free" country. The ability to trudge to the polls every few years to choose who -- from a slate of pre-selected candidates -- will join the totalitarian political apparatus does not make you free. When productive citizens have large chunks of their income stolen; when you are forced to subsidize the indolent and shiftless on the one end, and the well-to-do and connected on the other; when savers are attacked with zero or (soon enough) negative interest rates in order to help the profligate; when it's impossible to hire, fire, buy, sell, or generally interact as you wish; when you cannot get through the day without violating some pettifogging statute, rule, or regulation; when your children are not your own, are indoctrinated at public expense to hate you, and can be whisked away on a moment's notice; when "law" is merely whatever a government official decides on a given day depending on his mood; and when you can be dragooned into military service to go kill peasants on the other side of the globe, you are not free.

I respect veterans, but I also understand that their sacrifices have been mostly unnecessary and  tragic. Most veterans hearing this would likely react with outrage, since it's human nature to believe that your terrible loss must have been necessary or justified. But your outrage is misplaced. You should be angry at the plutocrats and politicians who profited from your blood, sweat, and tears. They have cynically used you for their own gain, motivating you into their service with the language of patriotism. As I've stressed many times before, THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE NATION. In times like these, you cannot serve them both. You must choose between them.

Children Today

I suppose this can be filed in the "get off my lawn" folder, but I swear that most children today are weak, depraved, and retarded. This isn't their fault. Children are natural barbarians and will be just as pathetic as adults allow, so the adults are ultimately to blame for this. Having acknowledged that, though, it's shocking to contrast my childhood memories to what I now see.

Modern children are weak in that they have no sense of independence or adventure. They cling to their parents and to structured activities, whereas my childhood friends and I were always trying to get away from parents to do our own thing. I've noticed young boys in particular shy away from competition, petrified of losing rather than yearning to win. I've also noticed them dutifully mouthing the platitudes of political correctness, afraid of giving offense and eager to condemn any haphazard remark as "racist" or "sexist." They've been gelded before even having a chance to reach puberty.

Modern children are depraved in that they have no respect for adults and no self-control. They say (or often shout) whatever random thought flashes through their primitive brains, no matter who is present. I had a healthy fear of my elders when growing up and would never dream talking to them as if I were their equal or pal.

Modern children are retarded. They are constantly affixed to some electronic device that engages their senses, leaving their minds nothing but mush. Easily bored, they have the attention span of a gnat and can't use their minds for anything imaginative or constructive. They also continue to speak and act as toddlers even after reaching double digits in age.

I know, the standard response is that everyone makes these complaints upon growing older. But the fact remains that societies decay and eventually die; the wussification and stupefaction of modern children are a part of this process.

Random Reflection: What Is Civilization?

Most people strutting around the Western world today fancy themselves and their society as the pinnacles of human civilization thus far. They wear nice clothes; inhabit large houses with air-conditioned comfort; eat a variety of plentiful foods; drive sleek automobiles that conveniently transport them from place to place; fly in airplanes around the world; work in tall spires of steel and glass; make ample use of vaccines, drugs, and other life-preserving medical care; redistribute wealth to the needy or to worthwhile causes; send their children to publicly-funded schools to be instructed by licensed teachers; obtain impressive-sounding degrees from massive universities; flex their military might near and far; communicate with each other instantaneously on portable devices; have central banks who regulate interest rates; have courts that issue endless pronouncements; prohibit virtually any form of discrimination or other words and deeds that hurt people's feelings; and enjoy guilt- and consequence-free sex with a smorgasbord of rotating partners.

Yet none of these things a civilization make. These are mere trappings, or fruits, of civilization. When a tree is cut down, you do not judge it healthy by the lingering glow of its fruits. Yet that is what Westerners do when smugly appraising themselves. They gorge on the fruits of a tree they already felled. But the fruit is slowly turning rotten in their mouths, which spurs them to demand moving heaven and earth to make the fruit sweet again. Not by restoring the tree or planting a new one, which would be too sobering and require too much patience, but by artifice. The government churns out ever more rules and regulations to resist the reality of our decay, and as that decay accelerates, so will the intensity and lunacy of these efforts (think negative interests rates, "bail-ins," price controls, and martial law).

When I look around, I see no civilization. I see barbarians inhabiting and pilfering the civilization my ancestors built. What sort of "civilization" is it where no one actually owns his house rather than being owned by it? Where there are almost no educated people in the true sense of the word? Where parents are forced to inject their children with cocktails of drugs? Where people communicate endlessly about nothing substantial, using a devolving dialect reminiscent of cavemen? Where martial values and culture are absent (or prohibited) from supporting the military? Where plunder is considered a virtue if done by popular vote? Where a sense of the divine and eternal is scorned or even punished? Where people cannot use or transact their own property as they wish? Where people cannot associate or not associate as they wish? Where there is no clear and concise rule of law, rather the arbitrary and fickle rule of judges and other government officials? Where love is merely another appetite to be sated from moment to moment and partner to partner? Where women have full license to root out and extinguish a life growing within them, without the father's input, but on the other hand can force the father to support the child if she alone decides to bear it? Where people with healthy habits such as diligence, saving, and thrift are punished by government policy to reward the slothful and prodigal?

This is why I call our society a joke. I can't take it seriously, nor can anyone else with a mind or a soul.

Kentucky Clerk Of Court Shames You All

Kim Davis, the clerk of court for Rowan County, Kentucky, has been imprisoned by a federal judge for refusing to issue marriage licenses in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision decreeing national, public endorsement of gay marriage. So, here's the country we now inhabit -- nobody was ever suing, penalizing, or imprisoning gays for getting married, yet people are now being sued, penalized, and imprisoned merely for declining to endorse gay marriage. Actual civil rights such as life, liberty, and property are being sacrificed so that a small percentage of the population can feel good about itself. Anyone proud of this turn of events is a sick son of a bitch.

Gays are not persecuted in this country. People such as Kim Davis are, and she is the only one who has a right to feel proud here. She has the strength to bear the consequences of obeying her conscience. She knows full well that the Supreme Court does NOT have the final word on the supreme law, either America's or God's, and she is willing to act accordingly. America was liberated from Great Britain and founded by people such as this; it's an indictment of the quality of men America now produces that a woman shows them what courage looks like.

EDIT: 

I keep hearing people chastise Kim Davis for not upholding the law. It is the Supreme Court that has not upheld the law, and the members of the Court are the ones who should be in leg irons. That kind of realization, though, requires active reflection and responsibility rather than slothful obedience. If the "law" is whatever the Supreme Court says it is, then there is no law. People worthy of calling themselves Americans can think for themselves and identify when the government has gone rogue. But these people are the remnant; the meek majority prefer slavery because it removes the terrible burden of responsibility.

Comeuppance For Ashley Madison

A large number of people are mortified that they have been outed as adulterers, what with the well-publicized hack attack on the procuring service known as Ashley Madison. This is another prime example of the guerrilla, asymmetric tactics that defenders of society can and should resort to, given that today's government has no interest in protecting the values that keep society healthy. Modern, runaway government does not want responsible or independent moral agents for citizens; it much prefers irresponsible and dependent scum, who require constant government oversight.

Adulterers are the worst form of scum. Anyone who invites numerous guests, takes a public vow of fidelity in front of them, celebrates the occasion as something wonderful and momentous, yet breaks that vow is unfit for society. Adultery defecates on the spouse, the families of both spouses, the children (if any), everyone who attended and celebrated the wedding, and society at large. It strikes at the very heart of what keeps society together.

In a saner era, Ashley Madison and its patrons would be subject to prosecution for soliciting and engaging in criminal activity. While that's not available anymore, exposing, shaming, and shunning certainly are. To the plaintive cry that these are private matters for the spouses to work out, consider for a moment why all those witnesses were invited to the wedding; why states license marriages and officiate divorces; and why the Supreme Court felt a need (however misplaced) to intervene in the issue of gay marriage. These are public matters that affect the public's well-being. If your behavior mocks or injures the public well-being, the public has a right to protect itself from the likes of you.

Reality Comes Crashing Down

On stocks, which (like everything else in modern America) are built on lies and manipulation. The NASDAQ, Dow, and the S&P 500 futures all have been halted to prevent people from selling even more than they already have. The market was never allowed to correct itself in the aftermath of 2008; instead, government and bankers came rushing in to preserve failed businesses, punish savers with zero interest rate policy (ZIRP), encourage even more debt creation, and generally double down on the Keynesian lunacy that created the problems in the first place. While credit is necessary for an economy to function, it is not sufficient. Real prosperity is built on free-market saving and investing, not government-goosed borrowing and spending. Prosperity is the fruit that grows from the tree of freedom; one cannot uproot that tree and expect it to continue bearing fruit.

You can run from reality, but you can't hide. The question remains whether enough people will come to grips with the reality of the situation or, like addicts, demand even more of the same poison in a spiral leading to death. Based on history, it's most likely the latter.

UPDATE:

Stocks are re-bounding right now, so I'm sure everything is okay and that you can rest easy knowing that the experts are in control of your life.

Keen Insights Into The Tattoo Craze

This article accurately describes the pathetic popularity of tattooing:

As the more defensive members of the over-inked community will recite with Pavlovian inevitability: ‘Tattoos have been here since before Jesus Christ.’ Indeed they have. Well before Jesus Christ, actually. And so have drought, war and pestilence. Your point is? ‘It’s about self-expression.’ No it isn’t, it’s specifically about your personal inability to express yourself married to a pathetic and fundamental predilection for inaction masked as a dramatic statement of intent or personality.

The half-educated amongst the dermatologically-afflicted usually go on to cite a long list of eminent people who you might not have expected to embrace ‘body art’: Winston Churchill, King George V, Franklin D. Roosevelt, George Orwell and Thomas Edison among them – Edison, in fact, after his patent of the ‘electric pen’ in 1876, can be considered to be at least partly responsible for the whole modern pandemic of skin vandalism.

The difference, however, between these men and an idiot from Burnley or Billericay with a Maori warrior tattoo on his shoulder (to match the one on the rear window of his pimped-up Vauxhall Astra) is that the former group are not defined by the ink under their skin but, rather, by their achievements. You defeat Hitler, invent the light-bulb or write ‘1984’ and the design you have on your body is going to pale, or rather smudge, into insignificance.

Well said. Tattooing is for shallow people who are desperate to prove to the world that they are unique, but cannot find any genuine way of accomplishing it. 

The Donald

I've never been much of a Donald Trump fan because he epitomizes some of the worst tendencies of modern America, among them shallowness, narcissism, vulgarity, and irresponsible/crony capitalism. Yet it was still very much a pleasure to watch him crash the first Republican presidential candidates' debate, an affair stuffed to the gills with people more loathsome than he is. He gave straight talk in a room full of unctuous liars, eunuchs, sycophants, and white knights who regard his blunt rhetoric as a greater threat than the actual policies that are tearing this country apart (and which all "right thinking" people regard as sober and prudent).

When Fox News mannequin Megyn Kelly attempted to shame him for his occasional barbs at women, his response was excellent: we have far more important things to worry about than political correctness (i.e., your feelings). Trump casts aspersions far and wide, on men and women alike. If women are truly men's equals and worthy of participating in politics, Trump's remarks at the debate and afterwards shouldn't faze them any more than they would a man. The fact that they do for many women doesn't advance their avowed cause.

The real threat posed by Trump isn't hurting the feelings of shrinking violets; rather, it is speaking truth to power and piercing the bubble of psychotic fantasy that most politicians and their stupefied constituents inhabit. Republicans express worry that Trump is hurting their "brand," a term revealing just how perverted our situation is: the important duties of citizens to consider issues of national survival have been relegated to the banal choices of consumers who wish to shop for a candidate as they would for soap, cereal, or tampons.  

None of this means that I would vote for Trump if he won the Republican nomination or ran as an independent. It is beneath me to vote in a federal election, just as it would be beneath me to vote for the next head of the Mafia, a drug cartel, or any other criminal enterprise. I merely find it interesting to watch how far a country can slide into the pit of lawlessness and self-destruction until some effort in "mainstream" politics is made to stop it. Given the "mainstream" attack on Trump, I'm learning that a country can slide very far indeed before that point is reached, if ever.

Dose Of Truth: Abortion Is Killing

A great deal of debate swirls around exactly when a fetus may be considered a human life, but it is impossible to deny that a fetus is alive. It follows that aborting a fetus is an act of killing. People who call themselves "pro-choice" might respond with indifference, yet they are the same ones who scream bloody murder whenever someone merely mistreats an animal, let alone kills one. Once again, this has to do with feelings rather than facts. Taking responsibility for sexual conduct and its consequences is hard; posturing in favor of animals is easy.

On a hypothetical note, if a woman may abort a fetus she is carrying without committing a killing (or a murder of an arguable human), then there is also no killing or murder if someone else terminates the fetus against the woman's wishes. The fetus is either alive or not, and terminating it is either killing/murder or not. Feelings once again do not change facts. To argue that they do is to play God and presume the ability to determine what is life worth preserving versus what is an inconvenience to be eliminated.  

Dose Of Truth: Being A Leftist Does Not Make You Intelligent

Leftists often crow that they are more intelligent or "educated" than the unwashed masses who cling to God and guns. Leaving aside for the moment that virtually no one in America can accurately be described as educated anymore, leftism is a mark of conformity and/or emotion-based thinking that is nothing to brag about. The desire to forcibly re-distribute wealth, make everyone "equal," and generally enhance government power has a name: Third-Worldism. It is a juvenile set of impulses that produces poverty and misery wherever it's tried. Despite the irrefutable historical record showing that robust governments make for anemic societies, leftists continue migrating from country to country (and from state to state) to escape the consequences of their idiotic beliefs, whereupon they leech off a new population and repeat the cycle. Moreover, leftists are unwilling and unable to debate their pathetic ideology, preferring instead to attack and silence anyone who questions them. This is not a mark of intelligence. Grow up, put away childish things, and learn to think rather than simply feel.

Dose Of Truth: Bruce Jenner

"Caitlyn" Jenner is not a woman nor a hero. He is a self-mutilated man pretending to be a woman. A healthy society would feel a mixture of pity and disgust for him, not admiration.

Small Doses Of Truth, Starting With Slavery

My posts make sense to a small percentage of people -- i.e., the remnant -- but frighten or confuse the rest. This is because most people today have been force-fed lies practically since birth, the unfortunate side effect of a culture so prosperous as to become decadent and divorced from reality. Reality is ugly, unpleasant, and demands tough choices. Prosperity fosters (at least for a while) delusions such as that the purpose of life is sheer enjoyment; that feelings are more important than facts; and that pain, suffering, and want are terrible anomalies to be avoided or eliminated.

Because of this fundamental disconnect between my perspective (grounded in knowledge and reality) and that of most of my lurkers (grounded in ignorance and fantasy), I will begin offering some shorter posts that deliver small "doses" of truth rather than longer posts that take all such truths as a given. A mind saturated with lies is naturally repulsed by exposure to too much truth, like an addict confronted with the dread prospect of going cold turkey.

Today's small dose of truth concerns slavery. Slavery has existed since the dawn of recorded history. Blacks enslaved blacks; blacks enslaved whites; whites enslaved blacks; whites enslaved whites . . . and insert all other colors of the rainbow. Whites do not have any reason to bear unique blame or feel unique guilt for enslaving blacks. Blacks unsentimentally enslaved each other and sold each other to whites. The only thing that makes whites unique is that they eventually perceived a moral problem with slavery and fought to end it. This warrants praise, not criticism. As for whites living in America today, none of them ever have bought, sold, or owned a slave, and they have no possible duty to make atonement for slavery. As for blacks living in America today, they are far better off than if the trans-Atlantic slave trade never had happened.     

A Short Musing On The Fourteenth Amendment

Isn't it curious how federal courts find no violation of the Fourteenth Amendment when a state actively persecutes families and businesses for exercising their rights (such as the bakers in my previous post), yet federal courts leap at the opportunity to find a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment when a state merely refrains from endorsing homosexual relationships and leaves homosexuals free to do as they wish?  

War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.

Time To Separate The Wheat From The Chaff

Christianity was born in struggle against the powers of this world, which always have reacted with extreme hostility to the mildest expression of a belief in absolute truth. The very notion of truth shakes the artifice of lies upon which worldly power is built, so much so that a shoeless beggar riding a donkey presented a mortal threat to a vast empire. His struggle set an example for countless others to follow over centuries of persecution, until they ultimately won the heart of the West and built the most prosperous and just civilization the world has ever seen. Government was limited due to a recognition of the absolute truth that humans have inherent, God-given rights that no worldly power may encroach upon, and the mind of man was liberated to work wonders.

The heirs of that civilization have taken its blessings for granted and now seek to root out any expression of the beliefs that fathered it. Lest there be any doubt about this, consider that a Christian family is being persecuted by governmental authorities for exercising the right not to provide labor to others, in this instance baking a cake for a lesbian "wedding." It makes no difference that the customers were deprived of no rights; it makes no difference that the customers went on to find a better deal; it makes no difference that the family harmed their own material interests in passing up the extra business; it makes no difference that the family politely explained their reasons despite having no obligation to do so; and it makes no difference that the forced provision of labor amounts to slavery outlawed by the Thirteenth Amendment. The mere expression of a belief in an absolute truth that requires the family's obedience has provoked the powers of this world to lash out in response. Thoughts and deeds of this sort -- now matter how meek -- cannot be allowed to proliferate because they threaten the modern artifice of totalitarian control over our lives.

But this challenge is a good thing that will force Christians back to their roots. Christians ruled the roost for so long that they forgot what their faith is about. They dressed ostentatiously, attended church, and snoozed through sermons on the belief this would save their souls, yet the early Christians understood that such open and shallow displays of piety accomplish nothing toward salvation. With government at their throats again, they will have to choose whether to obey God or the world, since their civilization now has been lost. Many, probably most, will fail this test and blow away from the wheat like chaff. However, the wheat that remains will be strong, pure, and ready to feed civilization again.

Christianity is about obeying God's authority as taught by Jesus Christ. When the powers of this world declare war on that authority, every true Christian has a duty to stand firm and refuse to cooperate. No matter what the world might do in retaliation, it cannot prevail because a Christian's kingdom is not of this world. For a powerful expression of this sort of belief -- by a man who was Christian in spirit if not in name -- take a look at Ben Kingsley's portrayal of Gandhi:

 

That Didn't Take Long

As I predicted, a legal challenge is already brewing to legitimize polygamy in the wake of the Supreme Court's lunatic decision, and it's happening in my own state. From the article:

Nathan Collier said he was inspired by the recent Supreme Court decision that made marriage equal. He said he was particularly struck by the words of dissenting Chief Justice John Roberts who claimed giving gay couples the right to marry, might inspire polygamy.

And so this week, Mr Collier and his two wives, Victoria and Christine, entered a courthouse in Billings, Montana, and sought an application to legalise the trio’s polygamous union.

“Right now we're waiting for an answer," Mr Collier told The Independent. “I have two wives because I love two women and I want my second wife to have the same legal rights and protection as my first.”

He added: "Most people are not us. I am not trying to define what marriage means for anybody else - I am trying to define what marriage means for us."

Note how he makes the same self-contradicting argument as the proponents of gay marriage: we just want society to leave us alone, but we will file a lawsuit to compel society to endorse our lifestyle. There is no indication that society is interfering in what he is doing; under the old common law, he could be charged with the crimes of fornication and adultery (he's officially married to one person already), but those are extinct along with any other prohibitions on sexual conduct that "doesn't harm anyone."

The problem is that modern, neo-pagan minds cannot conceive of "harm" as being anything other than immediate, visible, or tangible. The people in this news story may not be physically harming or restraining anyone, but they are indeed attacking what little remains of the fabric of civilization, and they are encouraging others to do so as well. One must consider the consequences of multiplying a given activity many times over, not merely focus on the isolated instance, and it is a mortal threat to civilization to treat marriage as a product to be tailor-made for voracious, shallow consumers like these. If people are not required to live up to marriage, but rather may pull it down into the pit of lust and avarice where they naturally prefer to remain, civilization cannot endure.

When America was strong, robust, and had its shit together, it would lock away these narcissists for being a clear and present danger to society. Now, with everyone being his own god, and with courts poised to ignore the Constitution and compel society to indulge every anti-social activity, our time grows very short.

But perhaps the only solution is to accelerate what's happening and plunge over the cliff. This would allow for the destruction of what is to make room for what will be, just as with old trees that have become infested with vermin and sickness and must burn to the ground so that saplings may grow unhindered. And few things will accelerate societal collapse more than leaving the majority of young men unable to find a wife. Let's push on with polygamy and feed the flames of male aimlessness and discontent, by all means. 

What To Do When Confronted With An Illicit Supreme Court Decision

I'd like to expand on my previous post, where I exhorted real Americans to honor their Constitution and conscience in defiance of the Supreme Court's latest attack on society. Many of you might be wondering what this means, especially considering that you are being told from all other quarters that the ruling is now "the law of the land" and obligates you to meekly fall in line. Not so.

First, even if you accept the offensive premise that the Court may place itself over the Constitution and unilaterally determine the law of the land, the decision has no effect whatsoever on private choices or conduct. The decision stems from the Fourteenth Amendment, whose prohibitions reach only STATE ACTION. If you as a private citizen do not wish to officiate a homosexual wedding, bake a cake for one, photograph one, or attend one, the decision doesn't constrain you one bit, and you have no need to try to carve out religious or other cramped "exceptions" to a rule that doesn't even exist here. So, all private citizens may do or say as they please on this subject without fear that their assailants have a new legal arrow in their quiver.

Second, no real American can accept the offensive premise that the Court's decisions are themselves the law of the land. The Court is merely a co-equal branch of the federal government, along with the executive and the legislature, all of which are inferior to the law of the land and lack the power to change it. The only thing the Court can do under the Constitution is adjudicate specific controversies between specific parties -- anyone not a party to this lawsuit is not bound by the decision in any way, shape, or form. The decision is merely precedent to guide lower courts in the event of future controversies among other parties. As such, anyone in a position of public authority who was not a party to this lawsuit may refuse to issue licenses for homosexual weddings, if that is what the law of his jurisdiction allows or requires. When the predictable lawsuit is filed to force his hand, he can defend his actions by citing the plain language of the Constitution, the rich history underlying it, its clear reservation of all non-delegated power to the several states, and a reminder that the Constitution is superior to the U.S. Supreme Court. Whatever judge is presiding over the case should honor and uphold the Constitution rather than the Supreme Court's dereliction from it. If he abdicates his duty, then the matter can be appealed until either the Constitution or the Court ultimately prevails, at which time other parties and other controversies may emerge.

Surely some readers with a legal bent are shrieking right about now that public officials and judges who flout Supreme Court precedent are unfit for office. But I ask you what is worse: a public official who disregards a Supreme Court decision, or a Supreme Court that disregards the Constitution? Only the latter amounts to outlaw behavior worthy of removal from office.

If you need a refresher on the Constitution and how the Supreme Court has bludgeoned the Fourteenth Amendment beyond recognition, read the following articles that I previously posted here: I, II, III, IV, V. You can find a lot more of them by clicking on the "14th Amendment" tag beneath this post. 

By the way, there are some calls from "conservatives" to amend the Constitution to reverse what the Supreme Court has done here. This is perverse and illustrates once again the impotence of mainstream activism. It is the burden of the proponents of gay marriage to amend the Constitution and federalize an issue that is reserved to the states under the existing one. We are not confronted with a Constitution that needs changing on this issue; rather, we are confronted with outlaw activity by people who care nothing for rules and refuse to be bound by them. When your opponent takes off his gloves and wields a knife, keeping on your gloves in obeisance to the rules is an act of suicide.

Despicable

There is no other way to describe what the Supreme Court has done with regard to gay marriage, however predictable this latest outrage might have been. The issue never was about whether gays could marry, no more than in other cases where the issue was not about abortion, flag burning, prayer in school, sodomy, or anything else the Court made sanctimonious pronouncements about. Instead, the issue was WHO DECIDES, and there is nothing in the Constitution that strips the states of their discretion over these matters. The Supreme Court has steadily, and once again, committed treason by stealing the awesome power of amendment away from the people and claiming that power for the central government. And make no mistake, this is amendment rather than "interpretation," for there is no possible way to read the Constitution as compelling us all to endorse gay marriage. The people who fought and died to establish this country -- or who fought and died to preserve it, as is the official narrative of Lincoln's war -- would have puked their guts out if they knew their sacrifices had been to enable this.

At the end of the day, the Supreme Court does not have the power to amend the Constitution, so this decision is as worthless as the paper it's written on. The decision does not resolve the issue, no more than Dred Scott resolved the issue of chattel slavery. Since the Constitution is supreme -- over and above the noxious individuals sitting on the Court -- it is the prerogative of every true American to disregard what the Court has perpetrated and go on living life as the law and our conscience dictate. Salvation comes from within, not from without, especially in times like these.

God speed.

EDIT:

I fully expect that we will soon witness lawsuits claiming a fundamental right to polygamy and incest, regardless of the Constitution and the destructive impact of these practices. The mere desire to do it is justification enough, in this feral time we inhabit. 

SECOND EDIT:

Justice Thomas is the only one of the bunch who notices perhaps the largest defect with the legal challenge: nobody has restricted homosexuals from doing anything. There is no government force against homosexuals that the Court is stepping in to prevent; quite to the contrary, the Court is unleashing government force against the rest of us to compel us all to celebrate and endorse homosexual relationships. The vast majority of the citizenry are under attack, not homosexuals, who at worst were denied a benefit rather than a right. It is the majority that is being denied its rights. I've made this point numerous times, and it's shocking that only one of the supposedly nine greatest legal minds in the country has mentioned it.

The Stars And Bars Under Attack? I'll Fly Them

It appears there is a renewed witch hunt against all things Confederate, including the battle flag, in the wake of lunatic Dylann Roof's recent shooting of several black churchgoers. The young murderer wore several such insignias and claims to have acted with the intent of sparking a race war.

Before I comment on how ridiculous and offensive it is to stamp out this symbol of the Confederacy, I should pause to mention that another lunatic named John Brown murdered several innocent people in the mid-1800s with the same intention of sparking a race war. He was hanged before he could find out that he had succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, for the war he helped to launch caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. And yet, John Brown was and is hailed as a hero for his cowardly, murderous actions. I see only two choices here: both John Brown and Dylann Roof are lunatics worthy of scorn, or they both are heroes worthy of praise by the people they claimed to represent. I choose the former, but everyone else should ponder that one for a little while.

As for the flag, it was flown by men with more character, courage, and righteousness in their fingernails than any modern politician has in his entire family. The vast majority of Confederates owned no slaves and had no aspirations of doing so; while they tolerated chattel slavery (as did the United States under the Constitution), what they fought for was to preserve their lives and homes from an invasion by a murderous, lawless, and rapacious regime that would, and did, impose a form of slavery that was universal and perpetual. The Confederacy was freer with chattel slavery than we are today without it, hands down. The cause of the Confederate soldier was noble -- he was willing to fight to prevent the tyranny that we now endure, in the face of overwhelming odds and almost certain death or disfigurement.

I pray for that kind of courage, as should all men, and I will continue to honor my ancestors who showed it. The shriveled souls who demonize them, or those of us who honor them, can go straight to hell.

This Pope Is Not A Man Of God, But A Man Of The World

It appears that the nominal Pope's latest encyclical will have nothing to do with the mission of the Church or its founder, which is to preserve man's soul from a fallen world and to speak truth to power. No, this "Pope" is issuing a clarion call to enslave and degrade man with global government so as to preserve the world, linking arms with the powerful to enforce the philosophical and empirical lies of modern environmentalism.

Is it any wonder that the Church's membership (and that of all Christian denominations) is shrinking? People go to church as a refuge from the world, to return "home" for a moment to remember what is eternal and unshakeable in the face of the world's lies and injustice. Yet modern Christian churches offer no refuge from the world, rather an echo chamber for it -- political correctness, equal opportunity priesthood and ministry, military pageantry, celebration of unrepentant sin, and now paganism.There is no reason to go to church when all you find within is what already bedevils you without.

But the good news is that this insane era we live in forces everyone to choose. You can no longer coast on the efforts of your ancestors or the institutions they built. Both church and state are putrid now, so you must either identify with them and make yourself putrid, or stand apart and build something new, virtuous, and enduring for your descendants.

Relish Jury Duty

The other day I was getting ready to lift weights when I overheard someone in the locker room complain about having to report for jury duty. This is an attitude shared by the vast majority of Americans, the same ones who insist that voting in elections is a civic duty even though a jury vote is far more meaningful.

Let's review. Voting for a pre-selected slate of sycophants, mediocrities, and liars to assume control of the bloated political apparatus will do nothing to improve your life or anyone else's, even if by some miracle your vote tips the scales in favor of Tweedledum over Tweedledee. By contrast, your vote on a jury can easily tip the scales; it will make an immediate difference in people's lives; and it can foil the government's machinations. On this last score, you as a juror have the right to "nullify" a law you disagree with, a glorious power dating back to the colonial era and that not even the president possesses (at least theoretically). It makes no difference that the facts show a clear legal violation; if you as a citizen find the law unjust, it is your right and duty to refuse to enforce it. This power frightens the establishment, so much so that it actively lies to jurors by telling them that they must enforce the law when triggered by the facts. Consider that a military tribunal tried and convicted the plotters behind the Lincoln assassination, and for the specific reason that the establishment feared jury nullification should the matter be tried in a civilian court.

Unfortunately, today the establishment doesn't have to work very hard to keep jurors in line. The ignorance, apathy, and sloth of most Americans today take care of all that. What supreme irony that they attack someone like me for not participating in the electoral Kabuki theater, when I am the one eager to cast a vote that truly counts.

Scientists Fiddle With Global-Warming Data

This should come as a surprise to no one:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists have found a solution to the 15-year “pause” in global warming: They “adjusted” the hiatus in warming out of the temperature record. New climate data by NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and inflating temperatures in more recent years.

Science is only as good as the people practicing it. It is one thing to say "I fucking love science" (which often graces my Facebook feed), but quite another to engage in the spirit of critical thought and independent inquiry that science truly entails.

Most of the people who bleat that they love science have no intention of thinking for themselves, but rather parrot the latest opinions of scientists who are just as prone to error, self-interest, politics, and sin as anyone else. If you love science, you cannot simply facepalm people who express unorthodox views on issues such as anthropogenic global warming, vaccines, gender distinctions, racial distinctions, or any number of others. You have to analyze those views and come up with your own coherent basis for opposing them. If you refuse to do so, you don't love science -- you hate it.

What Is A Rebel?

There is a great deal of confusion over what characteristics make someone a "rebel." The popular image is a person who defies social convention as to dress, language, and/or behavior to do whatever he wishes, usually in a loud and obnoxious manner. But giving vent to the id is not an act of rebellion; it is an act of surrender. It also plays right into the hands of government, which seeks to degrade society and thereby sow chaos, which always enhances government power. Huxley's Brave New World hits the mark much closer than Orwell's 1984, since people addicted to gratification are quite easy to manipulate and control.

A true rebel is not a thoughtless animal at the mercy of his impulses, nor is he a useful idiot for tyrants. He asserts control over himself and becomes capable of identifying and resisting injustice. This is the sort of person those in power fear, not the human debris making war on a bourgeois society that no longer even really exists.

Hugo Awards Meltdown A Case Study In Cultural Guerrilla Warfare

People who want to make real, meaningful change for society can no longer do so through mainstream institutions or practices, which are hopelessly compromised. The barbarians are inside the gates and have commandeered the towers and battlements constructed by their betters, leaving guerrilla and "asymmetric" strategies as the only real method of resistance.

A good example of this was provided recently by Theodore Beale (a.k.a. Vox Day), who threw a monkey wrench into the Hugo Awards that are designed to recognize excellent works of science fiction. Vox is often referred to as "the most hated man in science fiction," mainly because he has declared war on the leftist social justice warriors (SJWs) who have infiltrated and corrupted that genre. The SJWs have fallen into the habit of awarding Hugos not on the basis of literary merit, but rather politics, demographics, or simple favoritism. Enduring works of science fiction by the likes of Asimov, Heinlein, and Bradbury have given way to subliterate space porn. After witnessing trashy romances and politically-correct screeds get nominated year after year, and after having been illegally purged from the Science Fiction Writers Association for committing thoughtcrime, Vox did something about it. He launched his "Rabid Puppies" campaign to encourage anyone and everyone to become a member of the World Science Fiction Convention (WorldCon) and vote for his own recommended slate of novelists. Vox's effort mirrored those of other authors who supported the parallel "Sad Puppies" campaign, which likewise sought to prevent the SJWs from handpicking the Hugo winners.

It worked and has caused some measure of consternation. I find this uplifting even though I'm not much of a science fiction fan. Science fiction often strikes me as banal escapism for people with low self-esteem, but the ideal of great science fiction -- which hews closely to scientific principles and applies them in new and imaginative ways -- is worth preserving from the grubby hands of the barbarians who already have torn down so many idols in their wake.

The lesson here is that those of us who adhere to principles and ideals must sometimes hold our noses and adopt less-than-ideal methods to protect them. This is because the enemy has no principles whatsoever and is fighting with the gloves off. So should we. Principles and ideals are the currency between civilized people, not between the civilized and savages.

A Study In Contrasts

The Colorado Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police (F.O.P.) has posted a profanity-laced rant by an officer who proclaims that "all lives don't matter" and that we proles should be thankful that he exists to protect us.

So, this is what passes for respectable, mainstream discourse today. At the same time, the sentiments that I cogently and civilly express on this blog are surely regarded as crazy, radical, oppressive, or even dangerous. The world is an open-air asylum after all. 

Hurray For Ireland

Ireland has exercised its sovereign right to endorse gay marriage. If that's what the citizens of the Emerald Isle truly want, then bully for them. To deny Ireland this sovereign right would be every bit as unjust as denying, for example, California of its sovereign right NOT to endorse gay marriage. Yet this is precisely what has happened by virtue of a federal kritarchy that has done violence to the Constitution and decreed that citizens must endorse gay marriage against their will. In short order the Supreme Court will likely complete this betrayal and decree that sovereignty and democracy are permitted only so far as they comport with elite opinion (meaning that there is no sovereignty or democracy).

Once again, I fail to see how any moral, rational, or sane person can believe that it's better to force the public to endorse gay marriage than merely to allow gays to do whatever they want with no participation or interference by the public. Somehow, the latter scenario is deemed oppressive while the former is hailed as tolerant and liberating. I'm embarrassed by my contemporaries. 

Soldiering Isn't What It Used To Be

Fred Reed skewers the Army for making men wear high heels in a sensitivity-training session worthy of a Stalinist HR department in corporate America. In an open letter to the Chief of Staff, Fred makes some humorous points:

I do not question your qualifications for command. You doubtless have a firm handshake, a steely gaze, an imposing presence, and a perfect grasp of PowerPoint. But a general who is so afraid of feminists that he forces his troops to play dress-up, well, I mean, what if there is a real war?

I applaud your forthrightness in bringing the doughboys out of the closet in those cute red heels. They are so precious! (By the way, have you considered foot-binding?) As a former Marine in Vietnamese days, I have always suspected the Army of being cross-dressers. How candid of you to confirm my suspicions.

True, traditionalists, and warriors, and cranky old Marines will say that you are just another sorry two-bit, peace-time, careerist politician of a pseudo-soldier who doesn’t have the balls to stand up to feminists and protect the service from becoming a display ad for Victoria’s Secret. I am shocked. How could they think such a thing?

Yes, Generral, yes. I understand. Putting GIs in those darling heels is supposed to provide some kind of uplift (though I believe brassieres are better for that). But I know perfectly well, and you may suspect—check with your dominatrix—that feminists get a hoot out of watching those macho men (ugh!) tottering around before the whole world in heels, like teen-age girls preparing for their first prom. "Heeeeeeeeeeeee-ha-ha." Likely every diesel-dyke in a Women’s Studies department is rolling on the floor. Tippy-toe. Tippy-tippy-toe. "Hey, Sheila, look what we made them do!"

Where I disagree with Fred is his obvious outrage over the program and the broader dysfunction infecting the military. I say amplify the decades-long trend of lowering standards, accepting anyone who can fog a mirror, making everyone more sensitive to each other's feelings, and altering the military's focus from warfare to careerism. Such a military will be far less capable of invading distant countries that have not attacked us, let alone of turning its weapons on American citizens who increasingly resent being governed by a band of outlaws.

2015 Kentucky Derby A Monument To Illiteracy

Sloppy language is a reflection of sloppy thought, and the caliber of language today confirms that Idiocracy already has arrived. It's becoming impossible to read the news, watch advertisements, or share correspondence without having to cross a minefield of misspellings, run-on sentences, needless apostrophes, subject-verb disagreements, pronoun-antecedent mismatches, and just utter incoherence. Recently, though, this illiteracy reached new depths.

I was reading a news story about a talented horse competing in this year's Kentucky Derby, and the story named the horse as "American Pharoah." My first reaction was to consider the publication a rag in need of a new copy editor. After all, the proper spelling for the rulers of ancient Egypt is "Pharaoh," a word made all the more famous by its association with the story of Exodus. Upon checking other publications, though, I learned that the misspelling truly is the horse's name because all of the adults who contributed to coming up with the name were too ignorant to know it was wrong.

This display of illiteracy matches Honey, I Shrunk The Kids for its sheer prominence and brazenness. I wish someone would make a "time masheen" and take me back about 100 to 150 years.

Mad Max Controversy Showcases The Awesome Power of WHAMs

Not long ago I posted on how WHAMs (white heterosexual able-bodied males) have the superhuman ability to strike fear in everyone else's hearts with a mere utterance. On that occasion it was a song on a bus that petrified the nation. Now there is a fresh WHAM controversy riling the nation, and it concerns criticism of a film.

The film in question is the re-boot of the Mad Max series from the late '70s and early '80s, which is near and dear to any red-blooded male who grew up in that area. It seems the reboot (Mad Max: Fury Road) is a feminist Trojan horse that portrays the lithe Charlize Theron barking orders and kicking males' behinds. This doesn't surprise me one bit; practically every film these days is drenched with feminism and various other perversions characteristic of spoiled, decadent societies. What has surprised me, at least a little bit, is the hysterical reaction to the blog (Return of Kings) for criticizing the film and calling for men to boycott it. Apparently, the mainstream media targeted the blog post for censure and thereby caught the attention of the masses. I found out about the whole affair when a mangina condemned the blog post on my Facebook news feed. Even the mainstream temple of Time magazine identified the film as feminist, yet the blog post is hated merely for complaining about this fact. 

This is fascinating for a couple of reasons. For one, the mainstream media have decided that they cannot simply ignore the manosphere/androsphere, but rather must attack it (which is the third step toward victory). For another, it reveals new depths to the hypersensitivity and insecurity of non-WHAMs, for not even having the megaton star power and money of Hollywood on their side makes them feel safe from WHAM criticism, even from an otherwise obscure blog. Once again, this calls out for explanation, and the only one I can come up with is this: they know in their deepest recesses that WHAMs are the ones who built this society and are necessary to maintain it. Atlas is not supposed to shrug; he is supposed to keep holding up the vault of the heavens while everyone else keeps nipping at his heels. But he is starting shrug, just a little bit, and they are scared to death.

I Am Not A "Conspiracy Theorist"

Certain phrases are uttered, like incantations, to ward off persons and ideas that threaten to roust the majority from its unreflective slumber. One such phrase is "conspiracy theorist," which refers to a person who believes that major events such as the JFK assassination, the moon landings, the Oklahoma City bombing, and 9/11 were inside jobs or hoaxes that contradict the official narrative. As someone with an open mind, I'm willing to listen to anyone's arguments on these or other subjects rather than reject them out of hand. Debate doesn't frighten me, as I'm confident in my ability to reason and to separate fact from fiction. Most people, however, are deathly insecure and have long since abandoned the habit of thinking, preferring to have "experts," bosses, bureaucrats, and politicians do it for them.

Theorizing about "what really happened" has never been the purpose of my blog or any other writing I've done. I read the same news everyone else does and have no pipeline to esoteric information beyond the reach of the general public. All I do is apply critical thought and historical frames of reference to what is right in front of everyone's eyes. For example, and as any regular reader of this blog knows, I submit there are several astonishing and disturbing things about modern life that are in plain view and require no conspiracy theories to observe:

• The federal government operates outside the Constitution with regard to taxing, spending, immigration, domestic regulation, criminal law, foreign affairs, war, spying, and a host of other issues. This is acknowledged by even the most elite judges and law professors, who view it as a good thing.  

• The United States was founded as an independent republic but now operates as an invasive, belligerent, radical, global empire determined to re-make the world in its own image, with no regard for national sovereignty or (foreign) human life.

• The nuclear family of husband, wife, and children is a fundamental building block of Western society that has been seriously compromised.

• The notion that the only prerequisite for sex is that the parties consent to it -- all other considerations be damned -- is a radical one that no civilized society has long endured after adopting.

• Faith in God and Jesus Christ is another fundamental building block of Western society that has been seriously compromised.

• Most Americans today lack basic shared notions of good and evil, right and wrong, or historical memory, signaling the destruction of society in any meaningful sense.

All the facts you need to consider these sorts of contentions are at the local library in government-approved books. If you prefer to shoot the messenger and label me a "conspiracy theorist," the only thing you have revealed is about yourself -- and it's not good.

My Generation Is Contemptible (But So Is Yours)

I'm a member of Generation X, the cohort of latchkey kids who arrived on the scene in the mid-1960s through the late 1970s. While I do share certain traits with my generational peers -- dysfunctional childhood, cynicism, and an independent streak -- I couldn't stand most of these people when growing up and can barely tolerate them now. After all, their overriding trait is not to take anything seriously, a slacker outlook that they deem the essence of cool. This mindset reeks of smugness, presuming that all the great mysteries of life have been solved and that the noblest objective is to chill out and have a good time. People who give off any sort of piety or sincerity are viewed with suspicion, to be mocked at best and shunned at worst. Basically, Gen-Xers are a bunch of spoiled brats who look down their noses on a society that made boredom and disillusionment their greatest challenges.

Generation Y and/or the Millennials -- those born from the start of the 1980s through the late 1990s -- are contemptible in their own right. They are too shallow to be independent or cynical; quite the contrary, they are corporate America's wet dream because they are Pollyannish "team players" through and through. It's refreshing that they don't retreat into smug slackerdom as my generation has done, but they too have no convictions about anything. Apart from that, they have the attention span of a gnat and are functionally illiterate, having grown up on a diet of technological distractions that renders any abstraction or reflection impossible.

What about the Baby Boomers? Please. This is the generation that bankrupted America in every way imaginable, be it financially, culturally, or spiritually. We can thank Baby Boomers for open borders, affirmative action, the EPA, decadent music, rampant abortions, the sexual revolution, no-fault divorce, skyrocketing crime, expelling God from education, and many other ills that are too depressing to tabulate. Even worse, the Boomers view themselves as heroic for having perpetrated these outrages.

As for their parents, the Greatest Generation, I admit they paid their dues with interest by having to deal with the Great Depression and World War II. What makes them contemptible is that, despite having helped defeat fascism abroad, they gleefully embraced it here at home with FDR's New Deal, a fascistic power grab that was cloaked (as always) in the language of idealism. The Four Freedoms were offensive on their face and should have been rejected; there is no such thing as freedom from want or freedom from fear, and that generation disgraced its ancestors by asking Leviathan to bestow such "freedoms."  America never has been the same, as the welfare state became a permanent cancer that has grown only larger and deadlier ever since. It's impossible now even to question the slew of unconstitutional restraints and wealth transfers stemming from that era; both major political parties take these offenses as a given, and I'll wager that most surviving members of the Greatest Generation would express pride in this dismal fact.

So what generation do I respect? None living, that much is certain. If Calvin Coolidge was the last president who strikes me as halfway decent, there is little chance I'm going to find much to praise in the people who have elected every president ever since.

In Honor Of Earth Day

It's fitting to share the insights of George Carlin, who deftly mocked the insanity of environmentalism before an audience of New York middlebrows who attempted to shout him down. Ever notice how those who consider themselves intellectually superior flee from debate and choose instead to attack and censor? A true intellectual thinks for himself and comes to his own conclusions, and is capable of defending them; this is not the case with self-styled urban sophisticates, who are desperate for social status and rush to the front of whatever popular notion is marching by. And it's certainly not the case with people who reject the very notion of truth and consider all "truths" to be socially engineered, which is almost everyone today.

You've Come A Long Way, Baby

The epidemic of female teachers (many of them married) who fornicate with their underage students has become so widespread that prosecutors are reconsidering the time-honored double standard, whereby women get a slap on the wrist for conduct that would destroy a man's life forever.

Does anyone seriously still believe that it is men who are brutes and it is women who civilize us? Women can be every bit as depraved as men, the main differences being (until recently) that it was harder to prove and even harder to punish. The standard retort is that men still commit far more violent crimes than women do. Really? For one thing, women initiate domestic violence in most instances. Consider also the millions of abortions procured by women for mere convenience over the past forty years, or the untold numbers of already-born children tormented or killed by their own narcissistic mothers. And consider why violent men act as they do. If you honestly believe it has nothing to do with women and their prehistoric preferences, then pass whatever it is you're smoking. Women may domesticate men, but it is men who build and maintain civilization with abstract and universal principles that apply to everyone high or low, seen or unseen, loved or hated.

By shedding all those "evil" patriarchal institutions and narratives, we have dropped the scales from our eyes and found that many women are hairless apes, just like many men. This spells doom for civilization; without being able to sucker entice men into a life of servitude, men are leaving the plantation and living for ourselves in larger and larger numbers. Action/reaction. If this is what women wanted, great, but that proposition looks dubious.

Admiration

I'm active on the competitive chess circuit and have improved a lot over the past few years, becoming one of the top two or three players in my state. This is enjoyable because of the cerebral challenge, seeing new places, meeting new people, and defying stereotypes (I do not look like a chess player).

In a pair of recent tournaments I met a man roughly my age who was competing along with two of his sons. They were friendly, well-mannered, hardworking people who probably have never ventured outside this state. Though they were not very good players, they didn't let this dim their enthusiasm one bit, and they watched many of the advanced games with a level of excitement more frequently reserved for contact sports. After I had a wild game on the top board that ended in a draw, the father introduced himself and asked if I would send him a copy of the game, which I gladly did. Just this past weekend I saw him and even more of his sons at the state Open -- again, all of them were incredibly well-mannered and having a blast. In the final round I was playing on the top table, which included boards 1 and 2; just before play started, the father asked all four of us to sign the back of his tournament chessboard, and I shook his hand.

I was flattered by his admiration. I wonder, though, if he knows how much I admire him. He's done something I never managed to do, and he's done it well.

Neo-Paganism On Display

A media goddess attacks a lowly mortal for daring to tow her car.

Of all the people to be wary of getting caught on camera doing something incredulous, you would think a TV news reporter would know better. But Britt McHenry, a Washington D.C.-based sports reporter for ESPN, has been suspended from her position after an ugly and offensive rant she unleashed on a hapless tow truck company employee surfaced online this week. The 28-year-old, who hails from New Jersey, had her car towed from the parking lot of a Chinese restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, and the verbal attack was captured on a security camera as she paid to pick the vehicle up at the tow lot office. "I’m in the news, sweetheart, I will f-----g sue this place," McHenry can he heard saying in the video. . . .

The parking attendant can be heard in the video warning McHenry she is being filmed and threatens to "play your video". "That’s why I have a degree and you don't - I wouldn't work in a scumbag place like this," McHenry responds. "Makes my skin crawl even being here." The parking attendant patiently replies: "Well lets get you out of here quickly." McHenry then fires back: "Yep, that's all you care about - taking people's money . . . with no education, no skill set. Just wanted to clarify that."

Who does this mortal think she is? After all, the goddess appears on television; is viewed by millions of people; explains the intricate workings of adults who play games; has a degree and is therefore "educated"; and gets paid obscene amounts of money to wear makeup and read a teleprompter. So much material success, and yet this goddess lacks something that makes the mortal infinitely superior -- a soul.

BTW, notice how the news story mocks the reporterette for getting caught, not for acting like a pre-Christian.

Indiana Controversy A Sick Sign Of The Times

I've often felt I was born in the wrong era, but when I consider the public outcry over Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"), I'm almost convinced I was born on the wrong planet. The law in question allows, among other things, for vendors to refuse service to homosexuals on the basis of religious belief. Any society mouthing the virtues of private property, freedom of contract, and freedom of association would have only one criticism of such a law: that it doesn't go far enough. A free person can choose to do business with whomever he chooses and for whatever reason, regardless of whether that reason is religious or outright bigoted. For large portions of the American public to condemn this law as giving too much freedom or power to the vendors is sickening, and it displays a clear rejection of freedom in favor of slavery.

Consider the following two scenarios, and decide which one portrays an injustice:

1.  A person chooses of his own free will not to expend his time and labor to provide a good or service to someone else.

2. A person demands that someone else, against his will, expend his time and labor to provide a good or service.

There is no way that a moral, rational, or sane person can conclude that 1 is worse than 2. Yet this is what the prevailing mindset in America concludes while condemning anyone who even entertains the possibility of 1. As such, the prevailing mindset of modern America is immoral, irrational, and insane, QED.

The prevailing mindset is also unconstitutional, since the Thirteenth Amendment abolishes involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime. But moral, logical, and legal qualms have no purchase on a popular mind that is spoiled and impious. America is a victim of its own success. Like the dissolute children of wealthy parents, most Americans perceive every inconvenience or displeasure as an outrage. Our patrimony is dwindling because of this despicable mindset, which will vanish out of sheer necessity when the money is gone and there is no other choice.

WHAMs Are So Powerful That Even Their Singing Might Snatch Your Rights Away

There has been much gnashing of teeth and beating of breasts over a racially insensitive song sung by the University of Oklahoma chapter of Sigma Alpha Epsilon. It was understandable and fully within the national organization's rights to take action to remedy this embarrassing episode. But that wasn't enough, oh no. White heterosexual able-bodied males (WHAMs) are never allowed any slip-ups or moments of insensitivity, especially when they belong to an organization with roots in the War for Southern Independence. The university has banned the fraternity, and the matter has sparked another dialogue monologue on how we are all supposed to feel about race.

As a WHAM, I am amazed at how much power I have, especially considering that I've never sought it. I concur with Ayn Rand that people who seek power are "second-handers"; aware of their deep deficiencies, they crave power as the only method for feeling good about themselves. Yet I and other WHAMs can supposedly oppress women and minorities with a mere utterance. An incredible amount of fear and resentment must lurk beneath this hypersensitivity. It's not enough that a minority occupies the Oval Office or that the entire weight of modern government is poised to crash down on any WHAM who looks sideways at a woman or a minority. The mere fact that WHAMs can speak or (decreasingly) congregate in private poses a threat to the entire house of cards.

Good. The house of cards needs to fall because it is immoral and unconstitutional. If my words or the words of any WHAM have some special ability to accomplish this, let us make the most of it. And for the record, the goal is not to oppress anyone. Quite the opposite, the goal is to restore liberty, responsibility, and the rule of law. You have no "right" to commandeer government machinery to force people to act as you wish. If the prospect of losing such "rights" frightens or vexes you, that reflects poorly on you rather than me.

The Evil Of Employment Law

I recently attended a conference discussing the miasma of state and federal laws dictating how businesses may hire, employ, and fire people. The conclusion I drew was that I will never hire anyone, not only because doing so creates massive headaches and potentially ruinous liability, but also because of principle (that quaint concept).

In a "free" society the employment relationship is a private matter between consenting adults and can be smoothly governed by time-tested legal doctrines of contracts, torts, and property. There is no justification for government to become involved in this private relationship unless and until a dispute emerges that requires the application of these legal doctrines. Absent such a dispute, free people may set whatever terms of employment they wish; they may hire and fire for any reason they wish; and they may refuse service to third parties for any reason they wish.

But here's the rub: to be capable of individual freedom, people must also be capable of individual responsibility, and this is where Americans today are cowardly and deficient. Because they abhor responsibility, Americans prefer government at all levels to monitor and regulate the employment relationship rather than negotiate its terms for themselves. This preference is strong enough to have obliterated the clear limitations on federal power in the Constitution. As a result, Americans now have the intrusive government they deserve and are saddled with abominations such as the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Affordable Care Act, a host of regulations never voted on by Congress, and endless lawsuits that destroy businesses and drag down the economy.

There always have been weak souls who prefer external control to freedom and responsibility. In fact, most of humanity may be characterized this way. But America was founded by exceptional people with a serious sense of purpose and self-restraint, and the disappearance of their mettle from the national stock is directly proportional to modern government's obscene and pervasive controls over the nation's life.

The Simpsons

Sam Simon, a creator of the hit show The Simpsons, has died at the early age of 59. While it's unfortunate that he departed sooner than he should have, it's also unfortunate that a show of this nature has gained such purchase in the American psyche.

It is an attack on the very bourgeoisie who have lapped it up for an entire generation, often on the belief that watching it makes them intellectually superior or perhaps more in tune with social issues (after all, many of the scriptwriters attended Harvard, so basking in the glow of their smug worldview must be enriching). Issues are always addressed with a high level of crudity, sarcasm, and snark that now typifies many people's approach to everyday dialogue. As with so many other television shows and movies, there is also the unrelenting subversion of anything resembling moral or familial hierarchy: those appearing upright are found to be corrupt, whereas animals are smarter than humans, infants are smarter than children, children are smarter than adults, and everyone is smarter than father, who is a perpetually unshaven moron.

But The Simpsons was only a pioneer, much like Playboy. What has come to dominate entertainment in both spheres makes them look prudish by comparison.

Witchcraft Growing In Popularity? No Big Surprise

It appears that growing numbers of young (Western) women are flocking to witchcraft to give meaning and purpose to their lives. Of course they are. The neo-pagan mindset of most everyone in today's Western society brings with it a recrudescence of those who drop all pretense and self-identify as pagan -- this is a difference of degree rather than of kind, a flash of spume atop the wave. The practice of witchcraft or other "dark arts" is tailor-made for a people who lack introspection and self-control, but rather yearn to bend reality to their sundry impulses.

But there's something different and degraded about the modern variant of paganism. It springs not from a genuine sense of life as developed through shared culture, but rather from the decay of a culture that unleashes everyone to declare himself his own god in a fit of narcissism and hubris. I stumbled on an insightful quote from C.S. Lewis hinting that a neo-pagan is of necessity worse than his forebears:

A post-Christian man is not a Pagan; you might as well think that a married woman recovers her virginity by divorce. The post-Christian is cut off from the Christian past and therefore doubly from the Pagan past . . . .

The Porn Double Standard

This is something I discussed previously with regard to the condemnation of porn for men yet the simultaneous celebration of porn for women vis-à-vis 50 Shades. Dalrock explores the double standard a little deeper and nails it.

Better Late Than Never, Ron Paul

After spending decades in Congress to accomplish little more than to legitimize its rampant unlawful activity, Ron Paul finally has seen the light and observed that states can and will take matters into their own hands to reclaim their sovereignty.

I'm glad Ron realizes that an unconstitutional law is void and should be treated as such by the states, regardless of whatever the self-interested federals say about it. I just wish he'd been beating this war drum for the past forty years rather than lending his support to the very institution the states must now rebel against (and participating in Congress is supporting it, even if one opposes every piece of legislation it produces).

As an aside, it's likely that the stewards of official discourse will chastise Ron Paul in part by citing the Constitution's Supremacy Clause in Article VI, which supposedly gives the federal government absolute power over the states to do as it wishes. Wrong. The Clause reads as follows:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So only a law made pursuant to the Constitution or under the United States' lawful authority is entitled to supremacy. On this basis it is easy to ascertain that most of the federal laws straddling us are unlawful and unworthy of obedience, for they have no basis in the sparse enumerated powers listed in Article I, Section 8, and they also usurp police-power functions reserved to the states via the Tenth Amendment.

Additionally, if someone is going to rely on the Constitution as the supreme law, he must admit that any action by the federal government contradicting the Constitution is void. To argue that the federal government -- through its judges or otherwise -- may unilaterally decide what the Constitution means and force states to obey that determination is an act of treason, for it elevates the federal government over the supreme law that birthed it.

My Lament

What disturbs me most about my contemporaries is their lack of depth. Not of intellect (the absence of which is perennial), but of sentiment and conviction. No one takes anything seriously. Not their promises. Not their marriages. Not the truth. Not righteousness. Not the law. Not their ancestors. Not their descendants. Not the words coming out of their mouths. Not their dress. Not their work. And certainly not their God.

Most of the people I come into random contact with are disgusting. They are vulgar in speech and appearance. They lie, cheat, and steal. Their highest goal in life is to maximize their own enjoyment, no matter the cost to others. They live entirely in the present, without reverence for the past or concern for the future. They mock what is good and celebrate what is evil. Worst of all, they eviscerate anyone who walks a virtuous path.

The material wealth built by our ancestors has liberated humanity but also revealed it for what it is: an animal.

No God, No America

Vox Day has a good post up concerning an astonishing statement by CNN anchor Chris Cuomo during a debate with former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore concerning homosexual marriage. I've mentioned Roy Moore on this blog in the past, specifically to praise him for refusing to kowtow to an illegal edict from a federal court regarding the fabricated "wall of separation" between church and state. Alabama is again showing resistance to the latest invasion of its constitutional sovereignty by a federal judge, as well Alabama should. The Constitution is supreme, not the federal courts or their tyrannical judges, and Alabama has every right to maintain control over how it and its citizens define "marriage." The federal government was created by and is the servant of the states; it is not the master, and it's long past time to put it in its place.

But as to Vox's post, Chris Cuomo actually said the following: "Our rights do not come from God, your honor, and you know that. They come from man... That’s your faith, that’s my faith, but that’s not our country. Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise." This statement spits on the plain language of the Declaration of Independence and the core of what it means to be an American. This country was founded on the express notion that rights are gifts from our Creator and as such may not be denied by mere men. A lot of men far better than Chris Cuomo bled to make America devoted to such a noble principle. To reject it and assert that rights come from men constitutes both treason and tyranny. It is the spirit of the Old World come back to pronounce victory over its wayward and idealistic child.

I would submit that one cannot be an atheist and a true American. By definition, an atheist rejects all supreme notions of truth, right, and wrong over and above the desires of men. Such an outlook is a threat to public order and security, and for this reason atheists were long prohibited from giving testimony or assuming other important roles that depend on a firm understanding that truth and righteousness are identifiable and non-negotiable.

Alabamians have shown that the Remnant still exists and is beginning to stir. There are only so many insults, indignities, intrusions, and transgressions that will be tolerated by the otherwise quiet souls who form the backbone of this country. When sufficiently provoked, they will not fall on the mercy of a federal court for salvation; they will take matters into their own hands and live as they have the God-given right to, men in power be damned.

Weightlifting Annoyances

After eight years of avoiding lifting for fear of re-injuring my back, I'm at it again, and I do love it so. This time I'm focusing on the number of repetitions rather than the amount of weight; there's no need for me to max out at 375 lbs. on the flat bench anymore, as I already climbed that mountaintop and have nothing more to prove. But my muscles have good memory from all the lifting I did before the injury (twelve years' worth), so much so that it's been incredibly easy to get back into this. Better yet, it's a lot more fun than swimming.

There is a downside, of course, and it has to do with the annoying habits of other people in the weight room. In no particular order, I can do without the following:

• People who walk in front of me when I'm obviously using the mirror for a routine.

• People who lift far more weight than they are capable of, relying on the constant assistance of spotters (who are supposed to be there only just in case).

• On a related note, people who cheat at their exercises, such as by jerking up their knees for pull-ups or severely arching their backs for the bench. You're not doing yourself any favors, and you look silly.

• People who monopolize multiple pieces of equipment rather than simply use one at a time.

• Shouters, unless they are practicing for an Olympic snatch or clean-and-jerk.

• People who don't wipe down equipment after using it and leave it dappled with sweat or mysterious grease stains.

• People who smell as if they haven't showered for a month.

• People who act as though they're in a singles bar.

• People who monopolize the water fountain to fill their gallon-sized jugs.

• People who use lockers without using a lock. It's deceptive because I can't tell where an uncrowded spot is, and it creates an incentive for theft (which I'm sure these same people will complain of whenever it happens).

And Another Thing About The Measles

They really aren't that big of a deal, much smaller a health risk than any number of other activities we engage in every day. The extent to which Americans have become neurotic and wussified about such things is captured in this collection of measles references from television back in the day:



But of course, I've forgotten that the mantra of modern society is that any indignity or transgression is justified "if it saves just one life." Apropos, the California legislature is taking steps toward forcing parents to inject their children with the chemical cocktails prepared by the medical-pharmaceutical complex, verifying the neo-pagan outlook that we are animals and must be kept physically healthy and vigorous (no matter how degraded).

Berkeley Measles Ultimatum A Blessing In Disguise

The recent outbreak of measles in California has everyone in a tizzy, as it threatens their antiseptic lives with risks and dangers that they expect their political masters to shield them from. Demonstrating that people ultimately get the government they deserve, the city of Berkeley has announced a 21-day quarantine of all schoolchildren whose parents haven't mindlessly injected them with chemicals decreed as safe and necessary by the "experts." 

Now, some parents might feel outraged by this, but I say take a lesson from it. Any family capable of thinking critically and forming its own opinions should NOT be sending its children to a government school, whose avowed purpose is to destroy the individual, instill obedience, and churn out reliable workers and voters. There are far greater dangers than measles or mumps lurking in a government school, dangers to the mind and soul. Heather Has Two Mommies. Environmentalism. Globalism. Anti-theism. How to engage in "safe" fornication. Politically-correct redactions of the great achievements of Western civilization. The list goes on and on.

Celebrate the quarantine, not for the children locked away in these slaughterhouses, but for the ones able to get out for a time (and with luck, permanently).

Jeb Bush The GOP Frontrunner? I Rest My Case

Anyone who still believes that voting Republican (or at all) will help rein in the federal government or restore a modicum of constitutional compliance needs to have his head examined. Jeb Bush is yet another elitist, government-approved, open-borders, spineless stooge of the status quo. How anyone other than a die-hard member of the Chamber of Commerce can feel excited at the prospect of this oleaginous insider's candidacy baffles me.

There's a quote attributed to Jeb floating around the Internet, as follows:   

The truth is useless. You have to understand this right now. You can't deposit the truth in a bank. You can't pay rent with the truth. You can't buy groceries with the truth. The truth is a useless commodity that will hang around your neck like an albatross, all the way to the homeless shelter. And if you think that the million or so people in this country that are really interested in the truth about their government can support people who would tell them the truth, you got another think coming. Because the million or so people in this country that are truly interested in the truth don't have money.

Now, it's possible Jeb never said that. Even if he didn't, there is little doubt that it captures both his and the entire political firmament's corrupt belief system, "left" or "right." It is pagan worship of utility over truth, and it infuses every unconstitutional welfare program, corporate bailout, regulation not voted on by Congress, executive order, undeclared war, unguarded border, and every Supreme Court decision rubber-stamping same.

Let us contrast Jeb's sentiments with those of John Adams:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

I will give Jeb credit, though. He is a fitting representative for a majority of the people inhabiting America today.

So The Supreme Court Is Going To Decide The Constitutional Question Of Gay Marriage?

No, it won't. The Supreme Court can say whatever it likes, but it lacks the power to alter or "update" a Constitution that leaves marriage (and most other matters) to the citizens of the several states to deal with however they wish. It's shameful that so many Americans clamor for these nine federal employees to tell them what to do; it's ridiculous that this matter reached the Supreme Court in the first place; and it will be an absolute joke if the Court concludes that the same Constitution that once allowed states to penalize a certain behavior now requires them to sanctify it.

Such a decision will be just another announcement by the federal government that it feels no obligation to follow the amendment process spelled out in Article V of the Constitution. No amount of flowery language about "tolerance" or "love" can make such a decision anything other than what it is: an attack on the rule of law. To the extent any citizen celebrates such an outcome, he is admitting that he is unworthy to live under the rule of law and that he prefers for black-robed functionaries to make the rules rather than follow them.

A mature, responsible person worthy of the Constitution and the rule of law appreciates that some states may choose to recognize gay marriage while other states may not. An immature, irresponsible person who is unfit for the rule of law cannot tolerate interstate diversity and cries out for federal intervention to force everyone into compliance with his wishes.

I wholeheartedly support state governors, legislators, and judges who refuse to toe the line when the Supreme Court plays God in this manner, such as with abortion, separation of church and state, flag burning, and a host of other issues that are none of the Court's damn business. If a joke of a decision comes down the pike, by all means go ahead and do whatever your conscience and the Constitution allow for. Either you follow the Constitution, or you follow the federal government. The former option represents the country as the Founders intended; the latter option is the country as Lincoln and his worshipers re-imagined it.

Victory, And Gratitude

The past few years of my life have not been easy.

Eight years ago I ruptured a lumbar disc and endured agonizing pain day and night, which was nothing compared to learning that I couldn't risk playing soccer or volleyball again (and I was damn good at both). Shortly after that, my then-wife and I decided that we had had enough of where we lived and wished to start a family on the opposite side of the country, settling on Montana. As an attorney, however, I would have to prepare for and take the bar exam again, since Montana lacks reciprocity with other jurisdictions. Despite working a full-time job, I studied every chance I got during mornings, lunch, evenings, and weekends. At last I took the exam and passed it, also securing a job on the same trip and feeling alive with hope for the future. Even though I was taking a massive pay cut, I told myself it was worth it.

Just a few months after shipping all of my possessions to this new place and hunkering down to do my work, my wife ripped my soul from my body. With cold-blooded ease she lied to me and about me in order to engineer a separation and run off into a depraved subculture she had discovered online. The fact that I saw through her lies and exposed her is something for which she will always hate me. At this point she has thoroughly polluted and destroyed herself in mind, body, and soul; as I've mentioned before, I don't consider the creature she has become to be the woman I married, who is long dead. At the time, though, I lacked such perspective and proceeded, zombie-like, to confront my first Montana winter by myself. Each day I would wake up in the early darkness to don a ski-suit and shovel snow out of my driveway so I could go to work (where I had committed to remain), and I often had to shovel again upon returning home. I was in a frigid place where I had no family, no friends, a job that paid peanuts, and no direction.

During all of this time -- both before and after the move -- I had to work with some of the most petty, insecure, egotistical, envious, conniving, and passive-aggressive people on the planet. I could write a book on the outrageous behavior I have witnessed in the practice of law, and I would wager that much the same could be said for any "professional" setting. Stealing credit for my work. Attacking me for decisions that were not mine to make. Saying one thing to me in person, but then sending (and circulating) an email saying the opposite. A general cult-like atmosphere that targets people who desire simply to do their work and live life outside the office. Smothering good, winning motions -- thus ignoring the ethical duty to the client -- because victory might end the file along with the billing gravy train. And of course, the hatred of excellence. This last one has bubbled to the surface on numerous occasions. One time early in my career I was having what I thought was a friendly conversation with a partner and shared my belief that there is no single "right" way to make an argument, since each person has a unique style or voice. I soon was drummed out of her division; when I prodded, I learned that she had told everyone that I didn't care what partners think. Not only had I never said this, but I had won numerous cases for the division on motion practice alone (which is likely what did me in). On another occasion I inquired why my bonus was several orders of magnitude smaller than in previous years, especially considering the excellent quality of my work and my results. The answer was a rare moment of candor: "Quality doesn't matter." I wanted to leave the firm immediately rather than spend another day in such a sickening atmosphere, but I didn't have a path charted yet.

Now I do. I decided to take the plunge and start my own business devoted to legal research and writing, knowing full well that it could fail because life isn't fair and nobody owes me a damn thing. Armed with that knowledge, I dipped into savings accumulated over thirteen years of thankless toil, and I fought every day either to find work or to do it. I wrote legal articles; created my own continuing legal education course; handed out business cards to countless people who weren't interested, in the hopes of finding someone who was; under-billed when necessary; and generally swallowed my pride to do what I had to. It has worked. New business is coming in all the time from around the country, most often from other attorneys, and I have growing numbers of clients who depend on me on a regular basis. They know that quality does matter, and they also know it's hard to find in a modern world where "just good enough" is the reigning ideology.

This has been the greatest challenge and triumph of my life. If I die tomorrow, I will die a happy man who is independent and free. No treacherous wife. No children. No debts. No Stalinist HR department. No cult of mediocrity. No psychotic, scorned paralegals. And no boundaries. I can rise and sleep whenever I like, or work from anyplace on the planet that has an Internet connection. The world is my oyster, just as I felt it was when I graduated college -- only this time it's for real.

I will be the first to admit that I did not do this on my own. Many friends and family helped me even though it was not their duty, and I feel immense gratitude toward them all. I feel equal gratitude toward every person who has sought to hurt or destroy me; if you weren't the twisted, bitter souls that you are, I never would have gotten here, so my thanks go out to you as well.