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.
Monday, February 29, 2016
Thursday, February 18, 2016
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.
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.
Monday, February 15, 2016
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 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.
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)