Speaking Of Russia . . .

Putin has given a speech demonstrating his awareness that the West has become an immoral, faithless, deracinated, and self-destructive cesspool. What makes his awareness truly profound is that he ties this into the ongoing efforts to establish global, hegemonic government unhindered by national sovereignty or borders. Like Trump, he is a man whose flaws can be overlooked if he gets these fundamental issues right, since all others pale in comparison.

Another Hurdle Overcome

The electors have met and delivered the necessary votes for Trump, despite relentless and petulant efforts to sabotage the election with terrorist threats as well as media hysteria over how the Russians "hacked" the election. On that particular score, we are supposed to believe that the election is tainted because the Russians helped Trump by leaking embarrassing information about Hillary Clinton in October and November. There are so many problems with this diatribe that it's hard to know where to begin:

• If voters had more information about Hillary Clinton, by definition they made a more informed choice.

• If any of the information was "fake" -- which hasn't been analyzed or explained yet -- this is no different from any other election season, when disinformation, lies, and propaganda are always part of the equation.

• There is no proof -- and no way to prove -- that any voters made their choice based on the leaked material. 

• There is no proof -- and no way to prove -- that the leaked material would encourage voters to choose Trump versus Hillary. Plenty of people voted for Hillary despite the leaks, and a good portion of them might have done so specifically because of outrage over those leaks.

• If the Russians were involved, this should be considered a good thing in the eyes of Hillary supporters, who hate Trump's nationalism and advocate a "borderless" world where we all participate to determine each other's destiny. If you're a globalist, you have NO basis to seek the sanctuary of nationhood now, so just shut up.

• Last but not least, anything the Russians did to hurt Hillary pales in comparison to what the establishment has done for the entire past year to tar, feather, and excoriate Trump every step of the way. 

The establishment is desperate -- not only to destroy Trump, but to salvage its own self-image as enlightened, legitimate, and in charge.

As an aside, it's getting rather tiresome hearing about how Trump hurts the self-esteem of women and girls. If anyone is truly concerned about this, where is the outrage over how females are routinely portrayed as sex objects in movies, music, and television? The angst over Trump is especially offensive when coming from the mouths of female entertainers; before you complain about the mote in his eye, remove the beam from your own.

I Will Not Assist Effort To Sabotage Election

Today an attorney colleague of mine out in California asked me how I felt about Trump's election. My response was mild but honest:

Good to hear from you again. I’ve never been much of a Trump fan, but at the same time I’m even less of a fan of the status quo. If I had my druthers a person of principle would be assuming office, but given the choices we had, I preferred Trump to Hillary because at least with Trump there is a chance of redressing existential dangers (e.g., open borders, needless belligerence toward Russia, a bubble economy addicted to low interest rates, etc.). The fact that the establishment so virulently opposed Trump actually made me think a little better of him, to tell you the truth. 

I’m sure we have different views on these matters, but I’ve never let political differences interfere with my friendships. Happy Holidays! 

In a second email she thanked me for my candor, but proceeded to ask if I would help a brewing legal challenge to prevent the electors from installing Trump as president, given the belief of many people that he is "unfit" for office. My immediate thought was "hell no," but as a professional and civil person, here is what I wrote back:

I’m afraid I don’t agree with you on this one.

People went to the polls on the expectation and understanding that the system works in a given manner, i.e., that the electors will act as instructed by the people of their respective states. To argue that the system will no longer work in this manner because those who are frustrated with the outcome have labeled the winner as “unfit” will do nothing to preserve the legitimacy of government, which is already under considerable strain. Indeed, such an effort will convince large numbers of people who voted for Trump that they were right; that the system is rigged against them; and most ominous of all, that no relief can be found at the ballot box. If the safety valve of elections is closed off, the growing steam of discontent will seek another outlet, and it might be explosive.

As I said before, though, I hold no ill will toward you for your differing viewpoint. Good luck on whatever argument you honestly believe in and want to pursue. 

I post this to serve notice to everyone out there that this isn't necessarily over yet. As I posted once before, there's many a slip 'twixt a cup and the lip, and the establishment hasn't even begun to fight.

Castro's Much Delayed Demise

At long last, a spoiled rich kid who fulfilled every dimwitted college student's fantasy of waging a socialist revolution has kicked the bucket after almost sixty years of enriching himself off an impoverished and oppressed banana republic, which still adores and admires him. People ultimately get the government they deserve, and most people prefer slavery to personal freedom and its dreaded corollary, personal responsibility.

Witness how so many Americans also admire Castro while excoriating Donald Trump, a far less obnoxious man who hasn't even taken office and who promises only modest adjustments to public policy. Open borders haven't transformed immigrants into Americans; it has transformed many Americans into immigrants, diluting the rare qualities that once made America exceptional.

As Predicted, Talk Of Secession Is In The Air

Here is one prediction I got absolutely right: the real action in this election is taking place on the losing side, which rejects the legitimacy of the winner and is laying the groundwork for California's secession. This is a good thing.

I've been an advocate of secession for a long time, as it represents the natural right of one people to sever its political ties to another. Secession is how the United States was born out of Great Britain, and it's even how the Constitution was born out of the Articles of Confederation. Yes, Abraham Lincoln unleashed an illegal and terrible genocide to prevent secession, but denying the exercise of a right does nothing to disprove the right's existence. I might as well wrap duct tape around someone's mouth and proclaim that it disproves his right of free speech.

Secession also serves another important purpose: it increases the number of states on the world stage, which decreases any single state's power and enhances human liberty through international competition. Tyrants call this a "race to the bottom," which means that they can no longer tax, spend, regulate, and murder so easily.

So, if Californians want out, let them have it. Since they want to be governed like Cuba, there's no reason to prevent them from slitting their own throats. Just be sure to build an impregnable wall to stop them from seeking refuge in our country to escape their own mess, which is already a problem as refugees from failed states (within and without the United States) always carry their regressive mindsets with them and latch onto a new host to repeat their destructive, parasitic behavior.

On the other hand, if California lacks the chutzpah to leave the Union, then by all means let's fix it by expelling all illegals and finally terminating birthright citizenship, which is already unconstitutional anyway and doesn't require a new amendment.

Color Me Surprised

I was completely wrong. I didn't think Trump ever had a snowball's chance of winning the presidency, but he appears to have done so against all odds. On the one hand, this disappoints me because many American patriots will renew their faith in the obscene entity calling itself the federal government as an engine of salvation. On the other hand, how can I stay disappointed when the establishment has taken a swift kick to its nether regions?

I welcome whatever happens next. This is too much fun to feel otherwise.  

Grab Popcorn And Ammunition. This Will Get Interesting.

As I've said on here before, it makes no real difference whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump wins the election tomorrow, since the losing side will be fighting mad and ready to assert a God-given right that's been ignored for too long: disobedience.

I personally think Hillary will win, since the establishment is highly unlikely to allow a pesky formality such as voting to disrupt their power along with their aspirations to destroy American sovereignty and establish global governance. But that's just fine with me. The latest revelations about spirit cooking and pedophilia will steel many Americans' resolve not to honor anything this corrupt crone says. A Trump victory would lull too many patriotic Americans into proclaiming victory and going back to watching football, while the collection of dependents and deviants who would rebel against Trump could be put down with relative ease.

If I'm completely wrong and Trump wins, at least I'll get a tremendous laugh out of watching my Facebook newsfeed explode into hysteria. Either way, this is going to be fun.    

Atlas Is Shrugging

More and more people are fretting about the increasing numbers of men dropping out of the economy and living on their own terms. Yahoo News has a story estimating that about 9 million men have become workless, are disengaged from daily life, and "don't do civil society." Establishment cuckservative George Will also recently wrung his hands about this "quiet catastrophe," pausing to note that many of these men are retreating from marriage, which he predictably labels as "infantilization."

It's funny how a society that never tires of mocking men goes into a fainting spell when men politely turn their backs on it. If you're all so superior and capable, men's growing lack of participation shouldn't be a problem at all. The fact that it is belies your delusional self-image and shows that the ground is trembling beneath your feet. Atlas indeed is shrugging, and the only infantilism here is in those who refuse to acknowledge why.

A man who plays by the rules, works hard, and is honest and sincere has a rude awakening in store for him. Once he wakes up, though, he never can go back to sleep. In school and university he is told that he is a predator who must actively be instructed not to rape women. In the workplace he must constantly check his most innocent speech and conduct for fear that some harpy will deem it "unwelcome" and tag him as a harasser. At any point in his interactions with women generally, all it takes is one vengeful accusation to destroy his reputation and liberty. If he achieves financial success, he has to surrender greater percentages of his income to finance other people's profligacy, promiscuity, and bastardy. If he scrimps and saves to live within his means and plan for the future, he is punished with a real interest rate that is negative in order to provide cheap credit to people who are far less responsible. And if he marries and has children, God help him if his wife unilaterally decides to eject him from his home and his children's lives while still demanding that he continue supporting them, on pain of imprisonment.

What self-respecting, or even sane, man wants to invest his energy in this miasma? The men who do are accurately described as "blue pill," for they live in a fantasy world that is waiting to be shattered. For those who have taken the red pill, there is no reason to work themselves to death for a society that disrespects and pillages them. The bottom line is that society cannot survive without the active efforts and contributions of good men. Either learn this lesson and change your ways, or grab your ankles and kiss your ass goodbye.

Bundy Acquittal A Diamond In The Rough

My last post described how the system today is garbage and unworthy of participation. One exception shines out, and that is participation in a jury, where your vote counts for something and can make a meaningful difference. The power of a jury to defy the government's wishes is perhaps one of the last bulwarks of liberty within the system itself, though the government has worked hard to chisel away at it (e.g., misinforming jurors about their powers and duties, probing the jurors' deliberations, churning out ignorant and historically illiterate people from schools and universities, etc.).

In a refreshing twist, a jury has raised its middle finger to the federal government by acquitting the Bundy family of criminal charges that were brought in a fit of spite over the Bundys' civil disobedience against federal land policies, which had provoked the feds to overreact and look like the collection of goons they are. What is truly inspiring here is that the Bundys were disobeying while carrying arms, yet the jury still refused to convict, which vindicates the jury system as a stark reminder of how the people are the master while the government is the servant.

All it takes to make a difference in the world is a devoted minority. Indeed, the American Revolution was fought and won by a devoted minority, while the indolent and tepid majority obeyed the crown and eventually fled to Canada (whose socialistic governance reflects this lack of character). So, cherish the opportunity to sit on a jury; if you can't, consider engaging in some civil disobedience, which is not the sole province of racial agitation.

The Final Debate And The Glory Of Exposing The Ugly Truth

I paused to watch some of last night's debate, which was not nearly as remarkable as the ongoing hue and cry about how ugly the campaign is and how terrible both candidates are. As more information comes out about the depravity of these people, the more I take heart because I realize that it has become impossible for Americans to pretend that things are just hunky dory.

For a long time I've understood and written about how America is in serious trouble. The Constitution is dead, as the government and its judges claim sole authority to "interpret" (i.e., remake) it so as to grant themselves unbridled power to tax, spend, regulate, wage war, and thrust foreign invaders into our midst. Having grown too lazy and irresponsible to care about any of this, most Americans went about their hedonistic lives and smugly told themselves they were good citizens by trudging to the polls every couple of years, even shaming those few of us who are conscious and conscientious enough to know the system is garbage and not worthy of our participation.

That charade is over. If the system is garbage, it needs to be publicly recognized as garbage rather than dressed up as something noble. I can think of no better way of achieving this than having a chief executive who himself/herself is garbage. My entire life I've dealt with people who are in deep denial and hate me for speaking truth that they wish to avoid; now the truth is unavoidable. Let the stench reach the heavens and motivate as many people as possible to stop relying on the system to coddle them and, instead, reclaim their rights and responsibilities.

The Second Debate

Although I didn't watch it, I'm well aware that Donald Trump stepped on the gas by calling out the Clintons for the disgusting people they are. For them and the establishment to express outrage over a lewd conversation Trump had a decade ago inspires little more than laughter, when comparing this to the establishment's standard operating procedure of criminal activity at home and abroad.

By the way, what Trump said in his off-color banter is true (the very definition of a gaffe in politics). A male celebrity can get away with all kinds of nasty behavior toward women that other men can't. This is a fact of life that many women and their eunuch enablers are loath to admit, yet it is the very apotheosis of feminism -- a woman has the power to allow or annihilate male conduct based solely on whether she deems it "unwelcome." Feminism does not oppose or even challenge male power; it consecrates powerful males while eviscerating the rest.

From the safety of my perch well outside the political-corporate matrix, I'll continue to enjoy watching the Boomers' sacred cows get slaughtered, through this election season and beyond.

The Tolerant Cohort Threatens Violence Against Milo Yiannopoulos

I'm a big fan of Milo, who has become a one-man wrecking crew against the social justice warriors infesting "universities" across the land. He has shone a light on trigger warnings, safe spaces, cultural appropriation, and many other hallmarks of generation snowflake, who describes itself as tolerant but cannot bear to hear contrary viewpoints, even in a place ostensibly devoted to exploring them.

I've watched several of Milo's lectures online and, almost without fail, a latter-day Neanderthal leaps up and shrieks in order to prevent Milo from questioning fanciful notions such as the wage gap or white male privilege. This is what tolerance and education consist of today: mindless dogmatism.

Milo has grown better prepared and sports enough manpower to bounce uncivilized curs from his events. In what appears to be an act of escalation, someone threatened to bring firearms or explosives to his next speech, which now has been canceled. Some suggest that the threat was made by white supremacists, but the sound money is on the tolerant cohort, who are far more numerous and have a proven determination to stop debate from springing up in the halls of higher learning.

If there's a lesson from this, it's that all major American institutions -- family, government, news, entertainment, schools, and even big business -- have been converged by the cancer of leftism. There's no need to fight it, for leftism is so divorced from reality that it always collapses after burning through the wealth and prosperity built by the superior men who preceded it.

I wish Milo the best in his crusade, but a better way to achieve his goal of defeating lunacy is simply to get out of its way, go your own way, and let it burn to the ground.  

The First Debate

I stopped watching presidential debates some time ago because they are a painful spectacle of middlebrow sock-puppets who exchange platitudes rather than engage in anything resembling intelligent discourse.

Against my better judgment, I sat down this evening to watch Donald Trump debate Hillary Clinton because this election is unique for a couple of reasons. For one, Donald Trump is a renegade rather than a sock-puppet, so I enjoy the fear he strikes in the hearts of the corrupt establishment and its mindless worshippers. For another, and as I've said before, I want to know which side is going to lose because that's where the action really is; it makes little difference who takes the helm of the bloated, lawless monstrosity calling itself the federal government, but the losing side will be so enraged that it will finally call for disobedience. The disobedience will come from either a host of nationless quislings (Hillary supporters) or from a host of hardcore, nationalist patriots (Trump supporters).

It took me only about ten minutes to turn it off. Listening to Hillary recite her tired talking points while Donald intermittently yelled at the top of his lungs wasn't telling me anything I don't already know, so it wasn't worth the effort.

The only thing that never ceases to amaze me is how thoroughly Hillary conceives of society and government as one and the same. She believes that any pleasant-sounding societal objective is worth pursuing through federal force, all questions of law and morality be damned. There is a name for this, and it is totalitarianism. If America still had an educated populace, my Facebook newsfeed would be filled with denunciations of her toxic worldview rather than littered with attacks on Donald Trump, whose substantive views are much more in line with the American experience.

At this point, I honestly hope Donald loses. "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." A Donald loss will make that observation clearer to patriots than ever.

The Ongoing Civil War Heats Up

Impatient with hijacking the national anthem, a large number of twisted souls have hijacked the city of Charlotte in further "protest" of how America oppresses minorities. The supposed justification for laying waste to property and assaulting random people is a recent, fatal shooting by police of an unarmed black civilian.

We are supposed to ignore that the officer is being charged with manslaughter. We are supposed to ignore that police kill twice as many whites as blacks, even though whites are less violent and commit far fewer crimes. We are supposed to ignore that blacks are more likely to kill a police officer than be killed by one. And we are supposed to ignore the insanity and immorality of attacking innocent people for the wrongdoing of others (which mirrors the insanity and immorality of demanding reparations for the wrongdoing of prior generations).

These things are getting too big to ignore. So is the following: a minority of the American population feels entitled to use violence -- whether personal or political -- against the majority to get what it wants. The majority has the right and the ability to squash this like a bug; if things keep going as they are, the majority will, and it won't be pretty.

The Kaepernick Phenomenon Grows

More and more football players are hijacking the national anthem to draw attention to themselves and complain that America is oppressive to minorities. This is a good thing that will focus Americans' attention -- not on the imaginary oppression, but on the reality of a fifth column of ingrates who hate the society that has bent over backwards and done more for them than any other society ever has. It's an unfortunate but undeniable fact that when you shower people with beneficence, most of them will resent you rather than respect you for it. 

Too many Americans opt to ignore the weighty questions of life and pursue shallow entertainment, often by watching overpaid men play a children's game. Well, you no longer can seek refuge in sports from the insanity engulfing this country, so it's time for you to grow up as well and put away childish things. There already is a civil war, and you have to pick sides.   

No Reparations For Slavery

Like a bad case of recurring indigestion, the "Black Lives Matter" movement has generated new murmurs and groans of reparations for slavery. Enough already.

Slavery has existed since the dawn of recorded history. It was (and still is) part of African culture as well. To assert that America carries unique guilt for the peculiar institution is offensive. Americans and other white Westerners hardly had to chase slaves down to capture them, as Africans eagerly booked each other's tickets onto the middle passage.

What makes America unique is not the evil of slavery and certainly not the evil of racism, which also is universal. Instead, what makes America unique are the blessings of limited government, the rule of law, and economic prosperity. Those Africans whose ancestors came here have received something that their left-behind brethren can only dream of. When asked what he thought of Africa upon visiting it, Muhammad Ali exclaimed, "Thank God my granddaddy got on that boat," perhaps the most profound thing he ever said. Such insight is lost on the loathsome Colin Kaepernick and other NFL players who refuse to stand for the national anthem; the irony of hearing men who are showered with money and women complain about how America oppresses them is so thick you can choke on it. If America is oppressive, go live in a typical African country for a year and find out just how tough the police and the living conditions are over there. 

It's also nonsensical to blame slavery for blacks' current difficulties with rampant fatherless homes and illegitimacy. By the 1880s -- a mere blip after slavery was abolished in America -- three quarters of black families were two-parent, and this share increased to 85% in the 1920s. The black illegitimacy rate was a mere 14% in 1940. It was only after the federal government got into the unconstitutional business of distributing welfare that these numbers took a staggering turn for the worse. Who would have thought that subsidizing illegitimate children and single mothers creates more of them? Crime is an outgrowth of these problems, and blacks commit crime at a rate vastly disproportionate to their small share of the population. To argue that slavery made them do it doesn't deserve a response.

Even if I'm completely wrong on these points, the fact remains that no living American ever has been a chattel slave or bought, sold, or owned one. To demand that the living pay for the sins of the dead is to work a corruption of blood, a barbaric concept that the Constitution explicitly rejects.

America already has gone far beyond the call of duty by outlawing the slave trade, fighting a bloody war to end chattel slavery, guaranteeing blacks civil rights in a prosperous nation, and spending the last two generations funneling trillions of dollars into the black community. This last endeavor was not required or even allowed by the (supposed) supreme law of the land, yet the demands for reparations grow only more shrill with each passing season.

The final irony is this: most blacks as well as whites today don't even want to be free. No, they want government to use its blunt tools of fear and violence to take care of them from cradle to grave. They want to be slaves. Why demand reparation for the very evil you embrace?

This Is What Passes For Higher Learning Today

Princeton University, the most prestigious undergraduate institution in the land, has declared that its employees and students should use neologisms in lieu of the word "man" whenever possible. In a brave new world where the mere utterance of a contrary opinion triggers people into epileptic fits, Princeton has chosen to swim with the tide rather than against it.

Anyone contemplating the education of his children should steer them far away from the modern university, which is a socialist, misandrist, anti-Western, schizophrenic cesspool. It's bad enough that these asylums are unconstitutionally subsidized with federal taxes, but to add insult to injury, students and parents must pay a king's ransom for the privilege of turning a mind into mush.

In America, of course, nobody really cares about education or intellect. Credentials are all that matter, since we are a nation of shallow consumers who judge a product by slick advertising and labels rather than actual content, which requires effort to discern. Garbage in, garbage out.

The good news is that there's no need to tear this system of "higher learning" apart -- it will fall apart by virtue of its own internal rot. Larger numbers of young men are forgoing this miasma to do something worthwhile with their lives and keep their sanity and finances intact.

Clinton Commercial Reveals America's Faustian Bargain

I recently saw a television commercial for Hillary Clinton, but it never bothered to explain why she should be president. Instead, it explained why Donald Trump should not be, which I suppose is a wise strategy for her ("no matter how loathsome I am, he's worse"). I was prepared to switch the channel when a parade of establishment empty suits declared that Donald Trump cannot be trusted with America's nuclear arsenal. Now, this intrigued me. Apparently, the president cannot be someone as volatile and uninformed as Trump because the president has his finger on "the button" and can unleash Armageddon.

These eminent personages are completely ignorant of America's founding philosophy, which is this -- NOBODY can be trusted with too much power. The founders operated on the assumption that any power that can be abused will be abused, which is precisely why they split the functions of the federal government and kept the vast majority of power with the several states.

The fact that Hillary Clinton claims Trump is too dangerous for the presidency is an admission that the presidency is too dangerous for anyone, including Hillary herself. Americans are not supposed to resign themselves to hoping that government power will not be abused; rather, Americans have a right to feel comfortable knowing that government power cannot be abused, certainly not to the Biblical extent now possible. Those days are long gone, though, as most Americans have entrusted government with the unconstitutional power to do virtually everything under the sun.

No sane person would conclude that it's safe to trust one person versus another with the power to annihilate humanity. At the end of the day, Hillary's commercial proves that just about everyone is unhinged, not merely Trump.

The Clash Of Civilizations Is Here

Yet another Islamic terror attack in France, this one even more offensive because it occurred within the sacred confines of a church and saw a vicious attack on an elderly priest. By now it should be clear that multi-culturalists are fifth-columnists. The "tolerance" they preach is seen by Islam as abject weakness, and Islam is right.

All the fruits of Western civilization are wasted on its heirs, who are degenerate, spoiled, smug, and utterly incapable of the virtues and sacrifices that went into building it. Much like Spain in the 700s, a large amount of chaff will be blown away before the core of wheat is left to fight back and restore civilization.

A Trip To Church

It's rare that I attend church these days, but I had the opportunity recently to attend a local Lutheran service and witness a baptism. The sermon was better than I expected -- among other things, it challenged everyone to confront his inability to treat others equally, asking whether he would just as readily punish a thief who steals from the rich as he would a thief who steals from the poor (since the former is now entrenched public policy, I'm sure this example made some people squirm, which is good).

What turned my stomach was the attendees' attire. T-shirts. Jeans. Shorts. Even flip-flops. The reason for going to church is to demonstrate your devotion to something higher than yourself; if you insist on dressing for your own comfort, you're defeating the whole purpose and advertising that you are slovenly, both inside and out.

This reminded me of why I don't attend church or participate in any number of other rituals that have degraded. It's not that I don't care. It's that I care too damn much.

Prospect Of Trump Presidency Finally Motivates People To Think Outside The Box -- Including Me

A journalist -- in other words, a middlebrow socialist scold -- has penned a column in the Los Angeles Times recommending a military coup against Donald Trump should he ascend to the presidency.

At first this annoyed me because after everything that government already has done to harm America, only now does this person and many others like him call for defiance, and simply because the government might start enforcing the border, clamping down on illegal aliens, and putting America's economic and military interests first (i.e., things the government should be doing anyway).

But I thought about it a little further and realized something: regardless of who wins this election -- whether it's reptilian Hillary Clinton or bombastic Donald Trump -- large numbers of people will be so upset that they will seriously consider disobedience to what they view as illegitimate power. This is the drum I've been beating practically alone for ten years, so I'm happy that a chorus will soon be joining me no matter what! I'm even considering voting this time, not because I want either of these candidates possessing the obscene, illicit power concentrated in Washington DC, but to do my part to encourage people to turn their backs on it.

Funny. "Thinking outside the box" for most people means not voting; for me, it means voting.

Sobering Statistics On Marriage

Upon reviewing these numbers on modern "marriage," anyone choosing to participate in this travesty should have his head examined.

Another Terror Attack

France has been hit hard by Islamic terrorism yet again. As with the recent massacre in Orlando, the West is confronted with a simple question: is the will to survive stronger than the neurosis of political correctness? I'm not sure what's more stunning, a terrorist who commits suicide to achieve tangible results, or an entire civilization that commits suicide for no apparent reason at all.

Nations have the right to shut the border and expel everyone of an incompatible creed. A nation is not a welcoming mat for the itinerants of the world, but a common people with a shared experience, a shared outlook on life, and a shared purpose. The very word "nation" is derived from the Latin root meaning to be born, which is to say that a nation has a shared origin. Muslims are not part of the French or American nations. This should be no more controversial than stating that Christians are not part of the Saudi Arabian nation, but for some reason political correctness runs in only one direction: against the West.

Enough guilt. Enough "tolerance." Enough national suicide. Let Muslims have their nations, and let Christians have our nations. Every brain-dead hipster with a "Coexist" sticker on his car can fellate himself.

UPDATE:

The open-borders apologists are vigorously pushing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, painting the terrorist as not a true Muslim. If you shut the border to all Muslims, you protect yourself from devout and lapsed Muslims alike. It remains to be seen whether France has enough of a soul to preserve itself; Charles Martel may very well be proved to have lost, but at least he gave the West over a thousand years of civilization to enjoy.

Government Lawlessness Produces Street Lawlessness

I declined to comment on the recent news that Hillary Clinton has been allowed to get away with crimes that would land anyone else in jail, since it's merely a small sample of the rampant lawlessness in American government that I've been discussing for years.

The recent explosion of what appears to be a private war against police officers, though, demonstrates that the other shoe is now dropping. As I've quipped on several prior occasions, if government doesn't obey the law, why should people obey the government? I emphasize that I do not celebrate the violence unfolding in the streets; instead, I view it as a natural and foreseeable consequence of discarding the rule of law, which is meant to restrain both the government and the governed alike.

You cannot let the genie of lawlessness halfway out of the bottle. The moment American government decided it would make its own rules and unleash violence on the people at its own discretion, was the moment that a private campaign of violence against government became inevitable. There are of course many other issues in play here, such as the degeneration of race relations, the militarization of police, and unremedied incidents of police brutality, but they all boil down to the same thing -- America is now a Third World Country where power is for the taking and might makes right.

This dovetails with the problem of unrestricted immigration, namely that importing the rest of the world into America has made America become like the rest of the world, but that's for another post.

What Would They Think Of America Today?

The fourth of July commemorates one of the most stunning achievements in human history, when a people declared themselves free and independent from the world's mightiest empire on the basis of God-given rights that no earthly power may revoke. As announced in the Declaration of Independence, "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. . . ."

The brave members of the founding generation grabbed their muskets because they knew it is better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees, and any red-blooded American is proud of the sacrifices they made and what they ultimately accomplished.

I wonder, though, how the founding generation would feel about the country that now exists? A country where federal, state, and local governments consume almost 50% of a productive citizen's income through taxation, and even more through the cost of complying with Byzantine rules and regulations? Where bureaucracies have the power to enact those rules and regulations without any legislative process? Where government employees enjoy a lavish lifestyle at public expense rather than engage in anything resembling public service? Where government re-distributes wealth among private citizens based on political favors and ideological fads? Where we have large standing armies that patrol American spaces as well as the rest of the world? Where government regularly spies on citizens? Where federal courts dictate how states and localities may govern themselves by granting a veto to every misfit and malcontent? Where we have a "living Constitution" that can be amended by cabals of elitists rather than by the people through the amendment process? Where schoolchildren may learn about witchcraft or wear a swasitka, but may not learn about the Bible or wear a cross? Where a man's family and life may be destroyed on a whim with government assistance? Where citizens are forced to subsidize foreigners who come here uninvited? Where the federal government refuses to enforce the national border and actively prevents states from doing so, even though it proclaims we are in the midst of a desperate "war on terror"? Where women have a unilateral "right" to preserve or end human life for their own convenience, yet also have the power to compel others to bear responsibility for her choice? Where government controls the education of children? Where such "education" often consists of maligning the nation's founders? Where states are forced not only to refrain from discouraging deviant behavior, but are compelled to endorse it? And where any criticism of this putrid state of affairs is considered "extremist" or treasonous?

I could go on, but it's making me ill. My guess is that the founding generation would feel much the same way, so much so that they might very well have opted to enjoy their own lives rather than lay them down for the sake of ours.

Yes, I still celebrate the fourth of July. Not for the country that is, but for the country that was and, God willing, could be again.

EU To Push For Superstate, Confirming The Need For Secession

It appears that Britain chose to flee the EU at just the right time, as the EU is now pushing ahead to become a superstate that will dissolve its members' sovereignty and establish a continental empire of massive taxing, spending, regulation, and wealth-redistribution (i.e., a Fourth Reich). People such as I have been warning about this for years, only to be labeled "conspiracy theorists." Well, the conspiracy is not a theory, it's an undeniable reality. What began as an experiment in international relations is now a Frankenstein's monster of supranational abuse. Even worse than its predecessors, this iteration of the continental empire will either be deracinated or, given enough time, Islamic.

All governments become as powerful as they possibly can. It's an iron law of human nature, more certain even than the law of supply and demand. No government can be "limited," at least not for long. America's own Constitution set forth clear rules for a limited federal government exercising a paltry few functions, yet less than eighty years later that government brutally destroyed the sovereignty of the member states, and now we have an unrestrained national government that does whatever it pleases. You don't have to take my word for it -- a celebrated federal appeals judge, Richard Posner, recently remarked that it's a waste of time for judges to study the Constitution because it has no relevance to modern American life, thereby admitting that he's disavowing his oath of office, that there is no rule of law to restrain government, and that our fates are at the mercy of curs like him.

The lesson is to keep governments small and numerous because no internal restraints will last; only external restraints do. Wherever an oversized government exists, it should be chopped down to size through secession. The Brexit struck a blow for liberty by frustrating the EU's designs and by sparking the secessionist impulse, not only in Europe but also here in the United States. The treasonous sentiments of Posner and his ilk are laid bare and  contain the seeds of their own destruction -- if the Constitution is truly outdated, then so is the government that it loosed upon us.

Here's to seeing a Texit, a Califexit, any many more such exits as soon as possible.

Congratulations On The Brexit

The United Kingdom has stricken a blow against the forces of global hegemony, taking its leave of the Fourth Reich European Union rather than continue subsidizing other peoples and letting its own be trampled by parasitic migrants.

If the EU had a "strong" leader in the mold of Abraham Lincoln, he would call for the invasion and conquest of the UK. After slaughtering a large percentage of the UK's population (military as well as civilian), a century later he would be hailed as a wise and beneficent liberator. We're fortunate that this portion of history will not repeat, but we can only hope that the secessionist spirit will continue reasserting itself.

In the meantime, Scotland is hinting that it will secede from the UK only to join the EU. While I think this proves beyond doubt that Scotland is a pathetic welfare queen whose best and brightest citizens emigrated away long ago, this is nonetheless worthwhile because it is an exercise of sovereignty, right or wrong.

The bottom line is that a world of multiple, competing sovereignties is preferable to a world with a single, unrivaled hegemon. The EU was a push towards the latter. If diversity is so wonderful as we are constantly told, then let us apply it to geo-politics and keep nations plentiful and diverse.

Next Book Is Almost Finished

As I always say, I'm slow but sure. My next book, some of which I've already shared here, is just about finished. Ever since becoming my own boss I've enjoyed my idle time so much that I've procrastinated with my writing. I am now firmly convinced that man was not put on this Earth to slave at work all day, and I thank my maker for giving me the opportunity to experience life as it should be led. By the same token, we have a duty to put our talents to good use. One of mine is speaking truth.

In that vein, here is a rough draft of the table of contents. The last chapter will have to wait for the presidential election in November, assuming that the "lone nut" scenario doesn't unfold as I once ventured (and today there was a close shave on that score). I might throw in some additional material as the election approaches, by which time I will have chosen a title. No matter what I call the book, its essence is pretty clear: America is terminally ill. Can it be saved? That's a chapter Americans -- at least the remnant among us -- will have to write together.

INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1 - The United States Constitution: Once Functional But Now Historical

Chapter 2 - The Scourge Of Political Correctness

Chapter 3 - The Proper Role Of Government In A Free Society

Chapter 4 - The Great Stereopticon, Amplified

Chapter 5 - The Breakdown Of The Family

Chapter 6 - From Christianity Back To Paganism

Chapter 7 - Re-Thinking The Civil War

Chapter 8 - Lawsuit Nation

Chapter 9 - The Death Of Education

Chapter 10 - The Immigrant Mythology

Chapter 11 - Economics And The Loss Of The Right To Pursue Happiness

Chapter 12 - The Trumpening: An Initial Rebellion Against The Status Quo

CONCLUSION

The Orlando Massacre

I'm sad to hear what happened in Orlando, a city I visit every year and have fond memories of from having lived most of my life in Florida. Details are still being investigated, but what we know so far is that 1) there was at least one shooter (likely more, based on eyewitness accounts and the death toll), 2) his parents immigrated here from a Muslim nation, and 3) he was a Muslim fanatic.

The question here is fairly straightforward: has America become so terminal that political correctness is now stronger than the will to survive? As always, the difficulty is not figuring out what to do, but doing it.

UPDATE: 

Predictably, a large number of people are calling for unconstitutional federal restrictions on the rights of Americans (to bear arms) and rejecting calls for perfectly constitutional restrictions on the privileges of foreigners (immigration). Many, if not most, Americans are unworthy of the name.

The Jurors Are Revolting

A group of citizens is abdicating its civic duty to sit on a jury for trials before Judge Aaron Persky, who handed down the apparently light sentence referenced in my previous post. Let's assume for a moment that the citizens' outrage is justified rather than grossly misplaced. What good comes from refusing to sit on a jury? If your goal is to thwart Persky, it would be far better to sit on a jury in his court and do your level best to work justice as you see it. Also, if you perceive yourself as high-minded and principled, you are contradicting yourself by now harming people caught up in the criminal justice system who could benefit from your supposed virtues. By leaving them in the lurch and gumming up the works, you prove only that you are selfish, self-centered, and more harmful than Persky. 

The opportunity to sit on a jury is precious. By wasting it to make a personal (and ineffectual) protest, these potential jurors are revolting indeed.

Misplaced Outrage Over Judge Who Coddled Alleged Rapist

Popular outrage has exploded over a light sentence that a judge imposed on a young man who was convicted of sexual assault against an unconscious woman, causing even a U.S. Senator to denounce the judge.

What strikes me as bizarre here has nothing to do with the decision itself; after all, the judge exercised his lawful discretion to impose a sentence that he found justified on all the facts (and let it be noted that the assailant gave testimony that there had been prior consent). No, what floors me is that we hear NO popular outrage when a federal court or the U.S. Supreme Court roams far beyond its lawful power and disenfranchises everyone by amending the Constitution, a right that belongs to  us. Whenever this usurpation happens with regard to abortion, sodomy, "gay marriage," separation of church and state, or any number of other areas that are none the court's damn business, everyone meekly falls in line and parrots the treasonous sentiment that the court's decision is "the law of the land," which it is not.

Once again, we are through the looking glass. Down is up. Left is right. What is normal is outrageous. And what is outrageous is normal.

Muhammad Ali Is Gone

And the adulation surrounding him dwarfs what we witnessed almost five years ago with the departure of his nemesis, Joe Frazier, who was an honorable and humble man. Ali was loud, obnoxious, vain, entertaining, and cruel, especially to Joe, whom he labeled an Uncle Tom. He also was a spoiled brat; it was Joe who endured poverty when growing up, while Ali enjoyed a middle-class upbringing that paradoxically led him to denounce the society that had given him so much.

The fact that Ali has obtained such purchase on the modern mind illustrates several things about our condition. For one, it shows that wealth is a far greater threat to one's character than poverty. It shows the unfortunate shift from a culture of character to the cult of personality. Though it might seem a stretch, it also shows the shift from Christianity to neo-paganism -- a man's external badges of success now count for more than his internal virtues, and immortality is achieved here on Earth through notoriety.

For a shallow age addicted to flash over substance, Ali is a fitting hero.

A Dose Of Irony

A measles outbreak has been traced to illegal aliens, whom the federal government welcomes into the country as cheap illicit labor, and whose children are unconstitutionally treated as citizens if born on our soil. Meanwhile, more and more draconian laws are being passed to strip actual Americans of their rights by subjecting their children to a battery of vaccines whose medical value remains debatable, but whose profitability for the medical-industrial complex is tremendous.

In short, government that was designed to serve the American people now serves the discrete interests of foreigners and elites.

Happy belated Memorial Day.

Johnny Depp Divorce Highlights Some Perils Of Modern "Marriage"

Johnny Depp, one of the most desirable men on the planet, has been hit with a divorce after a very short marriage. He did not bother having a prenuptial agreement, so he will likely part with a significant chunk of his wealth for the privilege of spending a few months with Amber Heard. This sad spectacle offers some valuable lessons:

• You are not immune to divorce, no matter how rich, famous, or "alpha" you are.

• What passes for "marriage" today has less legal and moral force than a pinky swear. You can be divorced for any reason or no reason.

• No matter how wonderful you feel on your wedding day, people can change right before your eyes in no time flat. 

• Despite the hollow nature of "marriage" today, a divorce still carries dire consequences, not least of which is imprisonment if you don't cough up whatever amount of money the judge demands (and regardless of whether you even have it). Depp and Heard did not have children, so at least he doesn't have to suffer the indignity of being removed from their lives while still being forced to finance them, but this is a real danger for many others.

• Don't indulge in modern "marriage." It's an invitation for the government to gain even more power over you than it already has, and it offers no real benefits that you can't obtain otherwise. If you are religious, it's understandable that you would want your union to be consecrated in the eyes of God. Just be sure to leave the state out of it. After all, isn't separation of church and state the modern mantra?

• If you do decide to play Russian roulette -- the literal version of which has better odds than "marriage" and at least ends painlessly if you lose -- get a prenup. There is nothing unromantic or mercenary about this. You already have a prenup, namely your state's statutes governing what happens in the event of divorce. Your choice is not whether you want a prenup, but whether you want to have a say in it. Only a fool would forgo this opportunity and allow the state to have total discretion here, just as only a fool would fail to procure insurance when engaging in any life-threatening activity. But remember that your children still will never truly be yours, for no marriage avoidance or prenup can stop the state from taking them away.

UPDATE:

Right on cue, Amber Heard is flinging dubious accusations of abuse. This comes right out of the divorce playbook, a transparent attempt to make herself the victim and appear justified in her actions. Take heed here. The moment you realize that divorce is imminent, do not be baited into a confrontation, and try to avoid any interaction not witnessed by others. You will be presumed guilty, and you will have to prove your innocence.

Brief Observation Concerning Marijuana

Several states take their marijuana very seriously, expanding its allowable usage or even legalizing all usage. The problem, as usual, is the federal government, which presumes the ability to regulate this substance and to prosecute anyone who cultivates, transacts, or possesses it.

While I'm not a fan of burners or of anyone else who uses narcotics in a recreational manner, the federal government's behavior flies in the face of the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This simple language means that anything the states may do, the federal government may not, and vice versa. There can be no overlap in state or federal power, which are mirror images of each other (completely opposite). The very fact that states can and do regulate marijuana means that the federal government cannot, absent a constitutional amendment.

Does anyone care about this? They used to, which is why they approved the 18th Amendment before allowing the federal government to attack alcohol. But not anymore, which is why the modern entity calling itself the federal government attacks all manner of substances without waiting for any amendments. I would wager that, if pushed, most people would oppose enforcing the Tenth Amendment because this would wipe out a tremendous number of federal programs that are near and dear to their wallets hearts. Matters of property, contracts, employment, education, health care, research and development, and family are all within the sovereignty of the states rather than the federal government, and all federal programs dealing with such matters are unconstitutional. Are you prepared to let those programs die? I didn't think so. You sold your freedom and the rule of law for thirty pieces of silver, so don't expect to toke up (or do much of anything else) so easily anymore.

Deflategate Shows What A Shambles Justice Has Become

"Deflategate," a trivial matter concerning adults who play a children's game for a living, should have ended long ago. To recap, in 2015 the NFL suspended Patriots quarterback Tom Brady for a paltry few games because evidence showed it was more likely than not that he had participated in under-inflating the footballs he was throwing, which gave him an unfair advantage over other teams. Like any red-blooded American with an over-inflated ego, however, Brady refused to take the hit and get on with his good life, opting instead to make a federal case that has been dragging on for a year now. The NFL's penalty was overturned by a federal judge, but that decision itself was overturned by a panel from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Most recently, Brady announced his intention to appeal to the entire Second Circuit and, if necessary, to the US Supreme Court.

This is a joke.

For one thing, the NFL is a private organization and should have the right to dish out any penalties provided for under its agreements with teams and players, without any second-guessing by meddlesome federal judges (who already interfere far too much in daily life).

For another, the purpose of having a court system is to provide two critical things with regard to disputes: 1) certainty, and 2) finality. Courts no longer provide either one, but rather constantly flip-flop and leave everyone in the dark as to what the rules are. The Supreme Court's decisions from the past year alone demonstrate that "law" now means whatever a judge feels like, without regard to codified rules or precedents, which is to say there is no law. Not only does this make it impossible to conduct one's affairs with any peace of mind, but it also constitutes a major drag on the economy.

What this farce demonstrates is that government can involve itself in any private matter, and that the outcome is anyone's guess. Feel safe and sound?

John Kerry Confirms Globalist Designs Of The Political Elite

John Kerry gave up the ghost recently when proclaiming -- in a tacit criticism of Trump -- that we inhabit a "borderless world." His attitude mirrors Nancy Pelosi's and confirms that most American "leaders" are traitors who have abandoned their mission to serve the American people. Their mission now is to destroy the nation-state and create a prison planet, with themselves as the wardens.

I've written before about the urgent need to preserve national sovereignty. For those of you with the stamina, take a look below:

The Gathering Threat Of Global Hegemony

The federal government has made itself the master of the law rather than the servant. Consistent with its self-appointed role as absolute lawgiver, today’s federal government casts a shadow over virtually every aspect of American society, leaving nothing of circumstance beyond the taxing, spending, and commandeering reach of politics. As a consequence, the once-rich tapestry of American life has faded into a spiritual and cultural wasteland characterized by stifling political correctness; larcenous wealth redistribution; a vanishing middle class; the mainstreaming of obscenity and profanity; the subsidizing of illegal-alien invaders; and the militarizing of civil authority. Our ability to elect the persons who perpetrate these outrages does nothing to make us free, but rather invites us to partake in our own ruin. Such is the result championed by the self-styled idealists occupying both major political parties, who fly opposing banners and sing competing slogans, but who all march to the same tune. Their ascendancy has heralded America’s decline.

What makes this state of affairs somewhat tolerable is that the American government counts as only one among many, and that no single government dictates terms for the entire human race. Competition among sovereignties, a noble pursuit once enshrined in our domestic Constitution among the States, now survives only by the grace of foreigners. So even though our American experiment had been hijacked, we could find some measure of comfort in that we now inhabit a global economy where we can move our money and ourselves with greater ease than ever. Americans can outsource, offshore, and expatriate away from the government’s machinations, a refreshing reality that thumbs its nose at the political class and its delusions of grandeur. Recent data indicate that approximately ten percent of households in the United States have already committed to moving abroad or are seriously considering doing so, while another eleven percent express a desire to reside abroad part-time – astonishingly high numbers that run the gamut across all professions and age groups. Better yet, the sheer number of countries is exploding, as bloated centers of political power such as the old Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia fracture and crumble. In today’s world of nearly two hundred competing sovereignties we find unprecedented variety and freedom from central control. And deep down we feel a sense of adventure, envisioning faraway lands and exotic peoples; knowing that some corner of creation remains free from the strangling grip of officialdom; and daring to hope that the errors of history can eventually be righted.

However, our cause for celebration strikes terror in our rulers, who see their influence on the wane as we grow more nimble-footed in an ungoverned world. Faced with this quickening flight from their tightening grip, the members of the political class have refused to admit the error of their ways or to accept their well-deserved irrelevance; instead, they have chosen to swim against the tide of history and strive for a universal control from which no one may escape. To advance this quest for global hegemony, they employ a spectrum of tactics ranging from transnational regulations to economic sanctions to outright military violence. But most important of all, they swaddle these tactics in idealistic verbiage such as “democracy,” “human rights,” and “free trade” in order to de-fuse popular suspicion or criticism, thus re-enacting the domestic saga of the United States whereby the federal government flattened all competing sources of power in the lofty names of “equality” and “civil rights.” Now, instead of murdering the sovereignty of mere component States, the political class aims to murder the sovereignty of nation-states so as to erect a uniform, global authority in which political power is preserved against all external challenge. By accomplishing this, the political class will at last have a free hand to carry out massive wealth redistribution and its corresponding evils, ensuring that the remaining pockets of civilization yield to a worldwide ghetto presided over by oligarchs.

The only way that the political class can successfully destroy national sovereignty is to destroy international law, whose very name bespeaks an arrangement of affairs between independent actors. Similar to our Constitution and its deference to the several States, international law leaves each nation-state the master of its own destiny and with presumptive power to govern its own citizens in its own way. National sovereignty’s essential role in the international legal order is reflected by the fact that the very sources of international law have their roots in national consent, as follows:

Sources of International Law 

• Treaties: Agreements binding only those nations that sign and ratify them. 

• Customary Law: A widespread practice among nations based on the belief (opinio juris) that such practice is legally required.

• General Principles of Law: Principles appearing in the domestic legal systems of the vast majority of nations in the world community. 

These benchmarks illustrate – contrary to prevailing opinion – that international law constitutes a purer form of law than what most modern governments offer their own people, since true law stems from the customs and wishes of the participants. For example, under the common law that America inherited from England, judges did not presume to create law, but rather to observe it and uphold it as manifest in the people’s way of life. Likewise, international law follows the practices of the family of nation-states, seldom daring to divorce itself from the very community whence it springs.

This legal system – with its foundations in national consent and international consensus – poses a direct threat to the political class, which conceives of “law” as simply whatever those with the greatest power might decree on a given day. Resenting the persistence of a global arrangement whose rules are not arbitrarily handed down by a sovereign, the political class has made disturbing progress towards radically transforming international law from a limited system addressing national rights and responsibilities to an all-encompassing system addressing individual rights and responsibilities. By muscling aside the nation-state as the primary subject of international law, the political class hopes to melt down each nation’s independence into a homogenized political system that directly regulates us as individuals, crushing the very rights and freedoms that the political class claims to be protecting.

We constantly hear that the world is chaotic and needs the guiding hand of government to steer it; that international law is toothless against evil regimes; and that the better angels of our nature demand that we take steps to rein in the abuses of the nation-state system. It is undeniable that nation-states often behave in a callous and brutal fashion, but for all the abuses that nation-states commit – and which the political class incessantly invokes as justification for global governance – a world with a single and unrivaled sovereign represents a cure far worse than the disease. National sovereignty and international competition are essential to the survival of human civilization, for they limit the reach and strength of any single government, and they compel governments to face external enemies in a creative struggle whereby good ideas have a chance to outlast and defeat bad ones. If Weimar Germany of the 1920s and ’30s had been a global democracy rather than a merely national one, Hitler’s election to high office and subsequent seizure of absolute power would have spelled a worldwide Third Reich rather than a localized dictatorship that, fortunately, could be resisted with outside military force. In a uniformly governed world, any opponent of such tyranny would be merely internal; he would be labeled as an outlaw; and he would be imprisoned or executed. One can run this “thought experiment” to envision any number of nightmarish outcomes, such as a global Mao Tse-tung, a global Pol Pot, or a global Stalin.

We know for a fact that governments kill far more of their own people than each other's: during the twentieth century alone, governments murdered roughly 160 million of their own citizens in bloody orgies of “democide,” while killing only a fraction of that number through international warfare. So if the nation-state system seems lawless and vicious, it surely cannot match the potential brutality of a world under a single government. In light of this knowledge, it is folly to exchange a world of divided sovereignties, however imperfect, for a single worldwide sovereignty, however promising. One would be just as foolish to consolidate all of the world’s criminal organizations into a single unrivaled syndicate on the belief that this would reduce thievery and violence.

Yet the political class wishes to wrap us in the chains of global government on the slender inference that we can make such a government “good,” and on the even more slender inference that such a government will remain “good.” This assertion falls to pieces merely upon considering what these same people believe constitutes good government: the Leviathan state unbounded by the rule of law, whose power to legislate, regulate, tax, spend, and destroy continues to swell with no end in sight. A glimpse at history likewise disproves the political class’s rhetoric, for the precious few governments we can honestly rank as admirable did not remain so for very long. Mankind is far from perfect and will remain as such, and any government he constructs will eventually regress to the mean and indulge in the affronts to life, liberty, and property that typify the story of civilization. We would be much wiser to evolve by allowing for the birth and death of diverse governments, just as nature evolves by allowing for the birth and death of diverse individuals. In short, better to have several hundred bites at the apple than just one.

Sadly, the “mainstream” debate concerning international affairs ignores asking whether a global centralization of power should occur and concerns itself solely with how it should occur, much the same way that political discourse degenerated within the United States. “Conservatives” call for global rule under American influence, pursuing their vision of “democracy” by way of mass murder and violations of bedrock norms governing the initiation of military force. On the other side of the coin, “liberals” pursue a softer, more systemized version of hegemony by promoting international bureaucracies that will impose “human rights” and “environmentalist” principles that, when viewed up close, amount to little more than warmed-over Marxist schemes for micromanaging our lives and depriving us of any choices or dignity. Both the “conservative” and “liberal” sides of this loaded debate discard the wisdom that all governments are a menace unless offset by other competing governments. Forgotten is the lesson that the best way to curtail abuses of power is to disperse power far and wide, depositing it into so many hands that large-scale transgressions lack the raw material to take shape. As shown by the tragic experience of the United States – a nation conceived in liberty but increasingly bereft of it now – internal legal restraints do not prevent the accumulation and abuse of political power, no matter how ingeniously those restraints may be devised. Only external restraints suffice, and only in a world of multiple sovereignties do we have any hope of continuing the march of human progress.

One may wonder how to avert global hegemony, especially since the awesome forces of modern government constantly portray it as necessary and pursue it with unrelenting vigor. A good start is to take care of matters close to home, especially by reclaiming the disproportionate and unconstitutional power concentrated in Washington, D.C. Achieving that objective alone would spark an explosion of competition and creativity worldwide, as the current network of bribery, corruption, and coercion emanating from the federal government would dissipate. Apart from that, the truth of the matter is we don’t really have to stop the process at all, for it contains the seeds of its own destruction. Societies thrive on a unique sense of shared history, as well as on a sense of differentiation from one another; “global society,” however, has no cultural ethos with which to define itself, and no alien culture from which to differentiate itself. The absence of known, hostile societies beyond the sphere of our world frustrates the cohesive spirit that might otherwise give birth to a worldwide identity or corresponding political order. For example, certain members of the swelling European Union have refused to surrender their political sovereignty to the growing mega-bureaucracy in Brussels, Belgium, thereby rejecting one of the most notable attempts in recent history to ratchet political power upwards beyond the nation-state. Even the voices pushing for a more centralized European Union have stressed the need to counterbalance the United States, demonstrating that a perceived external threat is the best way persuade people to submit themselves to the indignities of modern governmental rule.

Modern nations consolidated from the sixteenth through the early twentieth century, but now the opposite trend prevails: communities are increasingly asserting their independence from large centers of power. Pan-governmental schemes run contrary to this trend and will collapse under their own weight, as technology continues to push power over the dams built by the few and into the hands of the many. Political globalization and the dream of global government lack any shared sense of purpose to support them; instead, the gathering threat of global hegemony rests on the modern quicksand of narcissism, anti-culture, and power-worship – the effluvia of a dying civilization rather than a prospering one. But the political class can inflict incredible harm on us by stubbornly refusing to diminish or relinquish its outdated influence, so at the very least we should become acquainted with their designs lest we offer them unwitting support.

Pelosi Collaborates With Fox

A member of Congress, Nancy Pelosi, is collaborating with a former head of state of Mexico, Vicente Fox, to influence the outcome of an American presidential election, specifically to ensure that America's borders continue leaking like a sieve. Though I don't really care about elections beyond their entertainment value, many Americans still do, and they should pause to note that Pelosi is committing treason. After all:

• Mexico is invading our land with the full support of the Mexican government;

• Mexicans openly claim that the land they are invading belongs to them and that they intend to reconquer it (although, in truth, they are invading it precisely because it is not Mexico, which they wish to escape from);

• Illegal migration of Mexicans has inflicted incalculable harm in the form of violent crime, property damage, and wasted public resources; and

• Employers are taking advantage of this slave-wage labor force to cut costs and deprive Americans of gainful employment.

For Pelosi to give aid and comfort to foreign invaders who have hostile intentions is treasonous. But then again, her despicable conduct is now part of the fabric of American public policy, what with (unconstitutional) "birthright" citizenship along with federal precedents and mandates forcing us to subsidize these invaders.

Some people think Trump will take care of all this. I'm dubious, and I have much greater faith in reclaiming our own right and responsibility to handle such matters, such as these folks are doing.

Trump The Republican Nominee?

With Ted Cruz's departure from the race, the powers-that-be might roll out any number of tactics -- including the "lone nut" scenario -- to prevent a nationalist from occupying the White House. There's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip. I will say that watching the establishment tremble is worth the price of admission.

Happy Belated Earth Day

I had more stimulating things to do last Friday than take part in the self-flagellating ritual known as Earth Day. Though I've written at length on environmentalism and anthropogenic global warming, here's a rapid breakdown of why they inspire a mixture of amusement and disdain in me:

• Nobody knows what the "right" temperature is for the Earth. Earth has been far warmer and far cooler over the course of millions and billions of years, so it is nonsensical to claim that Earth is too hot or cold right now.

• Nobody knows what the "right" amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide is. The entire amount currently in the atmosphere is a micro-fraction of the amount during the Mesozoic Era (i.e., the dinosaurs). 

• Of all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans contribute only 4%. So even if environmentalists got their way and set civilization back a few hundred years, this would barely make a dent and would cost us dearly in terms of liberty and prosperity.

• Carbon dioxide makes up only about .0385% of the atmosphere. A far more prevalent greenhouse gas is water vapor, which constitutes up to 4% of the atmosphere, but it's not man-made and therefore offers no pretext for expanding government power.

• There is no scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warning.

• Even if there were a scientific consensus, use your brain rather than let a group of self-interested careerists do your thinking for you. Science the tool is one thing; science the profession is quite another and is heavily influenced by government (i.e., political) money. The lid already has been blown off the rampant manipulation of the temperature data.

• Even if all of the foregoing points are completely wrong, government is not capable of managing the global thermostat. Government can barely operate a VA hospital.

• Even if government is capable of managing the global thermostat, a life of servitude is not worth living.

• The Earth is mortal and will eventually burn to a crisp as the Sun continues to age. It's best to allow free markets and science to proceed unhindered so that we can escape this rock, rather than hinder progress to keep everything pristine just so it can eventually vanish without a trace. Indeed, if nature has a plan at all, it is likely this -- for humans to carry life to new worlds, like bees carrying pollen.

With All Flags (Not) Flying

So the Capitol has decided to take down state flags bearing the Confederate emblem? Good. Now those states whose flags were taken down should respond in kind by lowering the Union flag and acting accordingly.

The Union began as voluntary but was made compulsory in the name of ending slavery; while the irony is rich, we should straighten that out once and for all. My guess is that one or more states offering a haven from the increasingly belligerent and lunatic Union would be swarmed with refugees -- and not from Mexico.

Thank You, Republicans

For illustrating flawlessly what I've argued for years, namely that elections are a farce and a waste of any intelligent person's time. Cutting the people of Colorado out of the primary process and selecting a candidate other than the one they would have chosen for themselves was a masterful stroke. You have exploded the myth of democracy in America more completely than a scholar could hope to achieve in two lifetimes. Anyone who continues to vote at this stage is more than just a "useful idiot" in Lenin's parlance, but a full-blown schizophrenic.

The Donald is proving his worth just as I had hoped, confirming that there will be no revolution within the form -- only without.

Trump's Abortion Gaffe Illuminates A Great Deal . . . About Pro-Lifers

Trump made a critical mistake when asserting that if abortion is made illegal, women who obtain abortions should be punished. The mistake was to assume that people who favor outlawing abortion (i.e., pro-lifers) are consistent and rigorous in their beliefs. In this juvenile day and age, though, feelings "trump" all things, so pro-lifers paradoxically insist that only the doctor who performs an abortion at the mother's behest be punished. How rich.

If one asserts that a fetus is a human life, it follows that intentionally terminating such life is murder, making the only possible conclusion that the murderer and any accomplices be punished. A pro-choicer is at least consistent by rejecting the entire train of thought. A pro-lifer, however, who gets on the train must ride it to its conclusion or be a hypocritical, quivering mass of jelly.

As with so many other aspects of modern life, people want the benefits of their choices without facing the costs. This holds especially true with regard to the feminine imperative, i.e., that women never be held accountable for their actions. Yet this attitude was typical of the dreaded patriarchy, which viewed women as irrational beings who lacked responsibility and therefore could not possess rights. So which is it? Do women have both rights and responsibilities, or neither? There is no middle ground.

The Purging Effect Of Election-Year Violence

I'm seeing more and more timid souls on Facebook express shock about the incidents of violence, both for and against Trump, that are springing up this election cycle. Such people yearn to go back to the status quo, when violence was administered in a clinical, organized fashion by party elites and government officials with badges.

Sorry, but you all have chosen to live by the sword, so you're going to have to die by it. A long time ago you made a bargain to jettison the rule of law and live according to the arbitrary whims of men in power, be they executives, legislators, or judges. In exchange for this, you relieved yourselves of the responsibility of knowing your country's history, understanding and upholding the Constitution, and defending your own life, liberty, and property.

Trump is not the cause, but rather merely an effect of years of lawless violence. The establishment could not expect to do whatever it pleased and get away with it forever. Once you unchain violence from the law, it is only a matter of time before violence spills into the streets.

At least now we can stop lying to ourselves and come face-to-face with the violent and chaotic system we have allowed to emerge, as Republican insiders threaten to ignore the will of the people on the one hand, while the people threaten mayhem on the other. Let's have it out and stop this insulting charade of liberty and justice. As Abraham Lincoln once noted in the years leading up to the War for Southern Independence: "I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy." Luckily, we don't have to emigrate, because the pretense is now falling apart.

I believe in the rule of law. However, since that was sold out many moons ago, we might as well enjoy the ride we're on now.
 

They're Getting Scared

In its increasingly frantic opposition to Trump, the Republican establishment has shown that its long-running mantra of "winning elections" is false. Here they have a candidate who is wildly popular and possesses the clout to win a general election, yet they are pulling out all the stops to destroy him. They are channeling massive resources to the marionette Marco Rubio. They are dusting off Mitt Romney. They are attempting guilt by association through a transparent endorsement by David Duke. And they are poised to sabotage the convention.

Why? Because the real agenda is, and always has been, for the overall establishment -- Republican and Democrat -- to enhance its own power and continue gutting America's ethnic core so as to usher in a transnationalist utopia with no borders and no obstacles to universal government. Trump has declared war on that agenda, so they must declare war on him.

The present election asks not what sort of nation will America be, rather will it be a nation at all. From the perspective of Trump supporters, it is enough that he promises to preserve the nation even if they disagree with anything and everything else he says. This makes sense because all other questions pale in comparison to the primary one of national survival.

For my part, I will not join the Trump train because America was never meant to be a nation, but rather a federation, and an American Otto von Bismarck is not something I can support (and that's even assuming Trump is being 100% honest). The best guarantor of liberty is to have a multitude of competing sovereignties, for all governments grow as evil and rapacious as possible. Internal limitations never last -- as shown by the disconnect between the Constitution and the mendacious, grotesque body of precedent "interpreting" it out of existence -- so external limitations are the only option. A new cluster of American republics with their own priorities would remove a giant weight from our lives and from the rest of the world, creating a new birth of freedom. No IRS chasing us around the globe. No Federal Reserve dictating interest rates and penalizing the frugal to reward the profligate. No judicial vetoes of every assertion of local sovereignty under the guise of the 14th Amendment. No piercing of bank secrecy. No global military-industrial complex. The list goes on and on.

Oddly enough, perhaps the best thing that can happen is for Trump to be sabotaged in spectacular fashion. After having garnered so much fanatical support, his railroading might be the only thing to convince middle America that, indeed, a revolution "within the form" is impossible.

Go To Hell, Pope

Already having established himself as a man of the world rather than of God, the current Pope apparently is no longer content to tear down longstanding church doctrine, champion socialism, preach environmentalism, or parade himself in front of slobbering admirers whose vices he only encourages. Now he is attacking national sovereignty, labeling a presidential candidate (Trump) as "unchristian" for wanting to enforce his nation's borders. Let us just say that if this pontiff had been in charge during the Middle Ages, Europe would have been overrun by Muslims a long time ago, and he would have no lofty perch from which to scorn the very virtues that created it. As it stands, Europe is being overrun by criminals and rapists because of suicidal thinking such as his, and America has no Christian duty to follow suit.

Though I have no intention of voting for Trump (or anyone else), I will say this: he's a Presbyterian who has told the Pope to go to hell, and that warms my Presbyterian heart.

It's times like these I appreciate why Martin Luther ruptured from Rome in the first place. It was not because Rome's version of Christianity was too strict or demanding, but quite the opposite -- Rome's Christianity was worldly and corrupt. America was founded as a Protestant nation, Pope, so stay out of our business.

On Scalia's Departure

I have a soft spot for now-deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. He spoke at my college graduation before I was very familiar with his jurisprudence, which I came to admire as refreshingly contrary to the demand that the Constitution accommodate every sentimental impulse that grips the modern and juvenile mind, yet without regard to the amendment process. His death reveals just as much about what is wrong with modern thought as did his life and work.

For example, the legal intelligentsia characterize Scalia as a proponent of "originalism," which is portrayed as merely one interpretive tool in a judge's kit when dealing with the Constitution. Yet originalism is the only legitimate approach for a judge to take, i.e., reading the Constitution as it was drafted and allowing the people (rather than judges) to change it through their sole power of amendment. Even ordinary statutes are interpreted according to their plain language and, if ambiguity creeps in, contemporary sources are consulted rather than the whims of the judge. The moment a judge takes it upon himself to impute his own beliefs into a codified law such as the Constitution or a statute, he usurps the power of the people and elevates himself above the law. That the majority of legal scholars today regard Scalia's approach as negative or regressive reveals just where we are -- at their mercy, and in a great deal of trouble.

By the same token, I disagree with those who lament the unlikelihood that Scalia will be replaced with someone of equal intellectual rigor and constitutional fidelity, and for two key reasons:

• For one, we should not be entrusting the Constitution to judges in the first place. To pine for a "good judge" to rescue the Constitution and us commits the same fallacy as Scalia's worst detractors. The judiciary is simply a co-equal branch of government and inferior to the Constitution, which belongs to us. A judge's proper role is very meager -- to resolve cases and controversies among specific parties, not to amend the Constitution for the entire country. As a (once) Protestant nation, we are not supposed to rely on high priests to reveal truth; we are to assume the responsibility of reading scripture and ascertaining the truth for ourselves.

• Second, from a more practical perspective, I say let the Supreme Court (and all courts) be staffed with more idiots and halfwits. Let's have more asinine rulings that declare polygamy and bestiality to be constitutional rights; that the First Amendment doesn't protect "hate" speech; and that the federal government really can do anything "for the common good" and is unbounded by the enumeration of its powers. This could be the only way to shake more people out of their stupor and get them to re-assume responsibility for their fates, just as the founders of this country did when they gathered at Lexington and Concord. If we cannot do this, we do not deserve to be free anyway.

Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)

A growing number of men identify themselves as MGTOW. In other words, they no longer feel bound by society's expectations of how they should live or what they should strive to achieve (marriage, family, career, etc.). This can mean different things for different men, but at a minimum it entails no marriage, no cohabitation, and no children. Apart from those benchmarks, the men feel at liberty to do whatever their hearts desire regardless of whether society frowns upon it. Some MGTOWs earn as little as they need to survive in order to enjoy life more. Some MGTOWs "ghost" and drop off the radar to live anonymously in foreign lands. Some MGTOWs minimize or cut off their relationships with women. And some MGTOWs do the opposite of all these things.

This has gathered more mainstream attention of late, but it also has caused a sort of civil war within the manosphere. An article at the popular "red pill" website Return Of Kings ignited a firestorm of controversy by scorning men who go MGTOW. The comments demonstrate that MGTOWs indeed are numerous and will not be shamed into re-assuming their traditional roles anytime soon.

Under ordinary circumstances, I would agree that going MGTOW is selfish and narcissistic, for society depends on people who live for more than just themselves. But here's the thing: modern "society" is depraved and not worth preserving.

Since women already have cast off the chains of their traditional roles -- something they are quite proud of, by the way -- it stands to reason that men will do so as well. For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction, and it is presumptuous in the extreme to expect men to stay on the plantation picking cotton when everyone else is having a party. For a man to persist in a traditional role today amounts to making himself into a mark. Plenty of men have walked the straight-and-narrow path only to have their lives destroyed in the the family-court gulag. A man's wife, house, and children are no longer his, since they all can be taken away by force of law for any reason or no reason. Even if the family remains intact, the man has no say in what his children are taught by his teachers or Hollywood -- who are both hostile to him -- meaning that he will leave no legacy (unless perhaps he goes Amish). To make the tremendous sacrifices of investing in these things makes as much sense as plowing the ocean. 

Apart from family matters, there is precious little that men can count on. The more he earns, the more the government steals from him to finance unconstitutional wealth transfers to hordes of parasites. The more he saves, the more the government depresses the interest rate to punish him and reward profligate spenders. The more honest, earnest, and sincere he is, the more he is lampooned in the popular culture.

Why should it come as any shock that some men politely decline this? And that's all they're doing -- politely walking away. You wouldn't know it from all the sound and fury directed at them, much of it from other men. There is no sound basis for attacking people who are not engaging in hostilities, UNLESS you admit that you can't do without such people. And that's why MGTOW has everyone scared. They should be.

Random Reflection On Tolerance

In our intellectually and morally lazy times, virtues such honesty, chastity, piety, frugality, modesty, industry, fidelity, and the like are passé. The only thing remaining as a purported virtue is "tolerance," which is the refusal to question or criticize what anyone else is doing so long as it causes no immediate or visible harm. Since tolerance is the only virtue, intolerance is the only vice, and anyone guilty of it is banned from receiving tolerance from others.

This vapid code of ethics -- which amounts to little more than "do what though wilt" -- suffers from at least two serious problems.

First is paradox. The "tolerant" cohort admits there indeed is something it will not tolerate, and it causes no immediate or visible harm: a mindset. A man who is perfectly peaceful nevertheless cannot be tolerated if his thinking isn't right. That's quite an exception, one that swallows the rule, and it puts us back at square one, i.e., arguing over what should or should not be tolerated even if it causes no immediate or visible harm.

Second is the myopic concept of harm. There are plenty of ways to tear society down other than murder and mayhem; those ways can often be slow and imperceptible yet deadly and insidious, like a leak of radon gas or an advance of creeping mold. A healthy society does not tolerate activity that allows for such things to gain entry, regardless of whether their effects are immediate or distant. But that sort of thinking counters the mantra of tolerance -- perhaps the most noxious invasion of them all.

Brief Reflection On Trump Versus Sanders

A great deal of scorn and outrage have been directed at Donald Trump for, among other things, proposing to clamp down on immigration. Yet there is no such vitriol directed at Bernie Sanders, a person who espouses an ideology (socialism) that is a proven disaster and murdered hundreds of millions of people during the past century. A candidate professing to be a socialist should be condemned just as readily as a candidate professing Nazism, which itself is a form of socialism. Yet in modern America, the socialist is praised while the candidate proposing ideas with a solid foundation in the American experience is attacked.

And people wonder why I've checked out of this system.

The Oregon Ordeal

The gathering in Oregon of a citizen militia to protest the imprisonment of some ranchers strikes me as rather interesting, and I say that regardless of the merits of the underlying dispute. For one, it demonstrates that there remain at least some Americans who are prepared to think and act against what they perceive as government injustice, which is encouraging. For another, though, it demonstrates that most Americans are mindless sheep -- the widespread scorn and ridicule directed at the protesters dwarfs any such criticism of government when it illegally invades sovereign nations, murders civilians, gropes and spies on us, pushes the country toward economic ruin, robs from Peter to pay Paul, or engages in any number of other outrages. When freedom is stolen, it can be recaptured. When it is voluntarily surrendered, it is gone for good.